Establishing Secular Morality

[Larniavc]

Nope.

That's it? This is your evidence supporting your claim that, "people (as in all of the people) are not rational"?

128 medical students as a sample are hardly representative of "all the people".
44% of the 128 got all three trick questions correct. Hardly "all".
The 3 questions are the age-old trick math questions that lead one to "rationally" jump to an erroneous answer. (I recall having them in high school. ("A frog in the bottom of a 50 foot well jumps up 3 feet in the day and falls back 2 at night ...")
Which evidences only that one can be rational and wrong.

You understand what a sample is, correct?

That's it? This is your evidence supporting your claim that, "people (as in all of the people) are not rational"?W

What is your evidence that people ARE rational?

 

[o_mlly]

So if we have a natural tendency towards something then it is a moral right? Well, that can't be right for all sorts of obvious reasons. So maybe if something is a real good then it is morally correct.

In this thread, you have had some difficulty differentiating between the moral sense of natural and unnatural tendencies. So, let's use other words to describe a real good. A real good is something that all human beings need in order to live as human beings.

Real good are identified by our natural desires, desires with which we are innately endowed. Because they are inherent in human nature, they are present in all human beings. On the other hand, there are the desires that each individual acquires in the course of his or her life, each as the result of his or her own individual experience. Consequently, unlike natural desires, which are the same in all human beings, acquired desires differ from individual to individual.

The validity of this distinction between natural and acquired desires can be seen by employing two words: "needs" for our natural desires, and the word "wants" for the desires we acquire.

In that sense, evolution determines that which we term 'good'.

Nope. Your faith in evolution theory does not further this argument any more than my Christian faith.

 

[o_mlly]

You understand what a sample is, correct?

Of course.

What is your evidence that people ARE rational?

I think that an odd question from one who claims to be a clinical psychologist. So, I reply with the name of an article from your profession:

Don't Try to Reason With Unreasonable People​

Don't Try to Reason With Unreasonable People

Tired of being belittled, misunderstood, or having your words twisted by a bully? Don't try to reason with them; use strategies for dealing with these types once and for all.

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[Larniavc]

I think that an odd question from one who claims to be a clinical psychologist.

I have never made that claim.

 

[Larniavc]

Of course.

I think that an odd question from one who claims to be a clinical psychologist. So, I reply with the name of an article from your profession:

Don't Try to Reason With Unreasonable People​

Don't Try to Reason With Unreasonable People

Tired of being belittled, misunderstood, or having your words twisted by a bully? Don't try to reason with them; use strategies for dealing with these types once and for all.

www.psychologytoday.com

What does that have to do with irrational system one thinking? Did you read the article? In your own words what do you think it is saying?

And the writer of the article is a medical doctor. Not a psychologist so I really don't get what point you are trying to make?

 

[o_mlly]

I have never made that claim.

... In all of my graduate, post graduate and two decades of experience as a psychotherapist (CBT) I've never heard of autonomous revulsion in a clinical context (or any context for that matter). ...​

 

[Larniavc]

I don't get it. You've not shown where I'm claimed that I'm a clinical psychologist. You've shown where I've claimed that I was a psychotherapist.

You know they are different right?

 

[o_mlly]

I don't get it. You've not shown where I'm claimed that I'm a clinical psychologist. You've shown where I've claimed that I was a psychotherapist.

You know they are different right?

For the purpose of this thread there is no significant difference. Or do you think that one in their practice is more unreasonable than the other?

 

[Bradskii]

Real good are identified by our natural desires, desires with which we are innately endowed.

Do you really want to go down this path? That our natural desires are all good? Something tells me that you'll qualify that comment so that what you believe to be good is natural and what you believe to be bad isn't. And our 'natural desires' will be subject to personal interpretation.

Nope. Your faith in evolution theory does not further this argument any more than my Christian faith.

It's not a faith position. It's an explanation. You're not going to agree with any of it because you don't think that evolution is how we came to be here. Maybe it's worth stating that upfront so it adds some clarity to your position. But it's still incumbent on me to explain it. You're not the only person reading the thread.

 

[Larniavc]

For the purpose of this thread there is no significant difference.

That statement is asinine

 

[stevevw]

I disagree with you and I partly disagree with @Larnievc. The first priority is: Has harm been caused? That's the first cab off the rank because if it can be determined that no harm has indeed been caused, then there's literally nothing regarding morality to be discussed. It doesn't even get off the ground.

If harm has been caused then we can debate whether the reasons for it are justified or not. Which is where, as I have pointed out, the problems arise. In some cases it's easy and all of us will be in agreement. So cutting of an arm to save a life because the arm is terribly injured and it's a matter of the arm or his life then we can all agree that it is indeed justified. But if the arm is removed because it's traditional in this particular culture to do so to the first born etc etc, then no. It's not justified.

So if you kill a person then he was obviously harmed. So let's have the debate about the morality of the situation.

Was he or would he be a danger to you or others? No.
Was it punishment for something? No.
Did he want you to kill him? No.
Was it an accident? No

Well, we're starting to run out of justifications for this. So why was he killed? Because he was...Jewish. Ah, fair enough. Then that's an immoral act. Plain and simple.

Want a harder one? Well, swap the Jewish guy for a Japanese one and debate whether dropping the bomb was justified. Pretty hard to do. But it's all based on harm.

I agree with these obvious examples. The basis for this measure is how we sense other peoples suffering (Golden Rule). But then the question is why do some do what we consider horrible acts and still believe that they are doing the right thing. Obviously they have been self decieved by their beliefs. We would say any moral and rational person would see that this is wrong.

But most of morality I think is about everyday smaller matters that are not so clear. Its at this point where there is disagreement. Not just morally but factually. Look at abortion. On one side pro abortion supporters say its not immoral to abort up to full term. Others say up to a certain point and still others say its immoral even from conception.

Both sides claim the science is on their side. One says the fetus is just a bunch of tissue according to the science or that a fetus is not a sentient being until a certain stage. Others say the science shows human life is created at conception and there is no way to detach any stages from a potential life.

It seems to me that this is a philsophical issue and not a science one. So this would come down to belief. Yet one side gets their wishes and abortion is legalized. But it may be that this is harming society in the long run as opposed to making it better according to individual rights. Maybe its individual rights over community is the problem.

Many issues are like this that involve whats best for families, marriage, sex, relationships. I think society will push for a certain set of morals that best reflects what they believe ideologically and not what is actually morally right and will lead to the best outcomes in reducing harm.

 

[o_mlly]

Do you really want to go down this path? That our natural desires are all good? Something tells me that you'll qualify that comment so that what you believe to be good is natural and what you believe to be bad isn't. And our 'natural desires' will be subject to personal interpretation.

Real good are identified by our natural desires, desires with which we are innately endowed. Because they are inherent in human nature, they are present in all human beings.

This should be easy to understand but bias usually blocks one's objectivity.

Simple enough to remedy the dispute. Cite just one of our "natural desires, desires with which we are innately endowed. Because they are inherent in human nature, they are present in all human beings" that is bad?

It's not a faith position. It's an explanation.

So is God. I have never observed God and you have never observed a speciation event. That makes the issue a matter of faith. Can we move on now?

 

[o_mlly]

That statement is asinine

If you say so, Larn. Looks like we're done.

 

[Bradskii]

Simple enough to remedy the dispute. Cite just one of our "natural desires, desires with which we are innately endowed. Because they are inherent in human nature, they are present in all human beings" that is bad?

Whether any one of our natural desires is bad is a personal matter. What I was disputing was whether it is a moral right. So let's not confuse what I questioned with what you asked. This is what I asked:

'So if we have a natural tendency towards something then it is a moral right?'

We have a tendency for many things. This from wiki (Human male sexuality - Wikipedia) but originally from here: https://www.amazon.com.au/Evolutionary-Psychology-New-Science-Mind/dp/1138088617

'Many factors influence men's sexual behavior. These include evolved tendencies, such as a greater interest in casual sex...

Compared to women, men have a greater interest in casual sex. On average, men express a greater desire for a variety of sex partners, let less time elapse before seeking sex, lower their standards dramatically when pursuing short-term mating, have more sexual fantasies and more fantasies involving a variety of sex partners, report having a higher sex drive, find cues to sexual exploitability to be attractive for short-term mating, experience more sexual regret over missed sexual opportunities, have a larger number of extramarital affairs and are more likely to seek hookups and friends with benefits, and visit prostitutes more often.'

So is that tendency to have a greater interest in casual sex a moral right? A greater desire for variety of partners? I say not. What do you think?

So is God. I have never observed God and you have never observed a speciation event. That makes the issue a matter of faith. Can we move on now?

I know that you dismiss evolution. I'm not really interested. Except that you wont understand any answer that include the process of evolution. I can't help that.

 

[o_mlly]

'So if we have a natural tendency towards something then it is a moral right?'

You're still trying unsuccessfully to strawman my argument.

Once again, here's is my argument:
"natural desires, desires with which we are innately endowed. Because they are inherent in human nature, they are present in all human beings"

You claim that "These [tendencies] include evolved tendencies, such as a greater interest in casual sex ..."
Nope. Interest in casual sex is not an inherent need so as to be present in all human beings.

I know that you dismiss evolution. I'm not really interested. Except that you wont understand any answer that include the process of evolution. I can't help that.

Yes, you could. Simply give us, as I have, a principled argument that establishes a secular morality that does not appeal to God or evolution.

 

[Bradskii]

You're still trying unsuccessfully to strawman my argument.

Once again, here's is my argument:
"natural desires, desires with which we are innately endowed. Because they are inherent in human nature, they are present in all human beings"

You claim that "These [tendencies] include evolved tendencies, such as a greater interest in casual sex ..."
Nope. Interest in casual sex is not an inherent need so as to be present in all human beings.

I'm not strawmaning your argument. I'm saying that what you put in quotes didn't represent what I said. So I clarified what I said. If you want me to answer what you said...

"Cite just one of our "natural desires, desires with which we are innately endowed. Because they are inherent in human nature, they are present in all human beings" that is bad?"

...then I did that as well:

'Whether any one of our natural desires is bad is a personal matter.'

So you'll have to make your own mind up about any given example. Whether I agree with you or not will depend on the example.

Yes, you could. Simply give us, as I have, a principled argument that establishes a secular morality that does not appeal to God or evolution.

I'm afraid that's not possible. Evolution is too intertwined with what we determine to be good or bad. And hence moral or immoral. And why should I not reference evolution? This is a thread about secular morality.

 

[o_mlly]

"Cite just one of our "natural desires, desires with which we are innately endowed. Because they are inherent in human nature, they are present in all human beings" that is bad?"

...then I did that as well:

No, you did not.

I'm afraid that's not possible.

I tried to help you out by establishing a secular morality based on reason but if you cannot, or will not, offer an alternative w/o appealing to an unproven theory then it looks like we are done as well.

 

[o_mlly]

'Whether any one of our natural desires is bad is a personal matter.'

You do see that the above merely begs the question?

 

[WilliamK76]

"Evolution has determined what we think is moral"

So evolution has a mind that can determine things?

 

[Bradskii]

No, you did not.

I did. I said it was a personal matter. So what I think is bad and what you think is bad doesn't necessarily align. And I have given you some natural tendencies that men have. You have to decide if they are bad or not.

I tried to help you out by establishing a secular morality based on reason but if you cannot, or will not, offer an alternative w/o appealing to an unproven theory then it looks like we are done as well.

Unproven theory? Those are two words that can't be used together. I said you didn't understand it. And if you have nothing to add, then thanks for your input.