Establishing Secular Morality

[stevevw]

Exactly that. You’ll note that these ‘morality’ threads are typically started by people demanding an objective moral framework without which people are psychopaths.

Morality is subjective. You don’t get to dictate what other people see as ethical behaviour but you do get to try to shape the ethical framework of the culture one lives in.

As far as I can see it is only Christians on this website attempting to label one as ‘the Right’ one.

Never mind this website it is those in society that claim morality is subjective who are now the dictators of what is moral or not under Woke ideology. We have actually become more judgemental now that God is out of the picture. People are condemned, shamed and even destroyed for simply saying the wrong words now let alone actually acting badly.

Its all based on feelings. I feel hurt, I feel its wrong, I feel uncomfortable because of other peoples words and behaviour. As we know feelings are not a good basis for morality as thats all about self rather than anything real or truthful beyond the person.

 

[Bradskii]

Fair enough. But that makes the thread pretty short and doesn't really address morality because it will only apply to those who agree on what is harm and whether its justified and that may not apply to many situations therefore leaving out a large part of determining morality.

It is directly associated with how we determine morality. What we do when people disagree is also part of the same process.

 

[Bradskii]

Never mind this website it is those in society that claim morality is subjective who are now the dictators of what is moral or not under Woke ideology. We have actually become more judgemental now that God is out of the picture. People are condemned, shamed and even destroyed for simply saying the wrong words now let alone actually acting badly.

Its all based on feelings. I feel hurt, I feel its wrong, I feel uncomfortable because of other peoples words and behaviour. As we know feelings are not a good basis for morality as thats all about self rather than anything real or truthful beyond the person.

Ye gods...if you want to talk about transgenderism, then please take it elsewhere.

But if you want to talk about the self, then fair enough. I then get to ask who makes your decisions on morality? You or someone else?

 

[stevil]

1. Why is your conception of what's right and wrong authoritative over another person's?

My ideas about how I ought to conduct myself, don't apply to others.
I don't project my values and my notions of how I ought to behave in order to achieve the best outcomes for me.

1. How do you impart value to behaviour without question begging and assuming that human life or its continuance is of inherent value?

I don't assume that human life is of inherent value. Value to who? I am in support of abortion.

2. How do you impart value without assuming that it's true that certain stimulus is good and certain stimulus is bad?

Depends on your definition of good and bad. In what context? Can you be more specific?

3. What's your standard that allows you to evaluate and impart value (i.e. it's true compassion is good & it's true torturing innocent people is bad)?

My standard is multifaceted and complex and personal. But ultimately I think about the consequences.
If I murder people, or attempt to murder then likely I am painting a target on myself. Others would see me as extremely dangerous and would seek to stop me, by forceful and violent means. In order to keep my life reasonably safe and free I typically avoid trying to harm others.

If I steal from people, I am also painting a target on myself. People will seek to stop me, and/or keep me away from their businesses and property. This would be very limiting for me.

I typically don't lie or defraud people because I want to build up a reputation as a person that others can trust. This reputation might come in useful to me and might create many opportunities for me.

4. Why is this standard authoritative over another person's?

It's not.

But if we consider that fact that people live in a society and tend to want or need some laws to control others behaviour in that society.
I would say that I don't necessarily want a moral society, but instead I want a safe, stable and thriving society.
So in order to avoid violence and personal danger, I want a society where murder, violence and theft are outlawed.

 

[stevevw]

Ye gods...if you want to talk about transgenderism, then please take it elsewhere.

But if you want to talk about the self, then fair enough. I then get to ask who makes your decisions on morality? You or someone else?

Actually I was speaking generally. It is the age of self and feelings play a big role. You could say its hedonism in some ways. If it feels good its moral if it doesn't its immoral.

All morality starts with the person but then it is reasoned against some basis beyond the person. Someone may feel angry and justified about some wrong being done but may be influenced by their personal experiences relating to that wrong which distorts their thinking.

Like feelings towards tastes or art is subjective, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Its more about the psychological state of the subject than anything objective beyond the person. Feelings are not morally right or wrong no more than feeling certain food tastes good or bad. Feelings about some native eating insects is bad doesn't mean its morally wrong.

 

[Larniavc]

I don't assume that human life is of inherent value.

Wow. I assume all life has inherent value.

 

[stevil]

Wow. I assume all life has inherent value.

Wow.

 

[Larniavc]

Wow.

I'm genuinely horrified that you don't think that all life has inherent value. Living things are the most amazing thing this universe has to offer.

 

[stevil]

I'm genuinely horrified that you don't think that all life has inherent value. Living things are the most amazing thing this universe has to offer.

What do you eat?

 

[Larniavc]

What do you eat?

All sorts of once living things.

 

[stevil]

All sorts of once living things.

They were killed because their life was deemed lower value than the nutrient within their bodies, and you gladly ate them, gladly paid for this process, letting the supplier know that you want them to keep killing and supplying the bodies to you, which you gladly keep paying for.
Nutrience has more value to you than their lives.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I don't assume that human life is of inherent value. Value to who?

How about your own?

 

[stevil]

How about your own?

I value my own life, but as much as I would like others too as well, I certainly don't expect them to.
But that doesn't fit the definition of "intrinsic", and at best it's just from a human perspective. I wouldn't expect a lion to think my life has value. I wouldn't expect ants to think my life has value. It's all relative.

 

[Bradskii]

I value my own life, but as much as I would like others too as well, I certainly don't expect them to.
But that doesn't fit the definition of "intrinsic", and at best it's just from a human perspective. I wouldn't expect a lion to think my life has value. I wouldn't expect ants to think my life has value. It's all relative.

I think you're both right. Value is relative but one shouldn't kill for no reason, as if life had no value. I can understand hunting as a means to supply food. But hunting simply as an exercise in killing? It makes no sense to me.

 

[stevil]

I think you're both right. Value is relative but one shouldn't kill for no reason, as if life had no value. I can understand hunting as a means to supply food. But hunting simply as an exercise in killing? It makes no sense to me.

I'm not a hunter, it isn't my thing.
But who are you to say people shouldn't do it for fun?

My cat sometimes kills animals that he doesn't then go on to eat, probably because they were moving and it is in his nature to go after moving things. He has no idea what he should or shouldn't do. I very much doubt other cats would turn their nose up at him and label him as immoral or evil. The universe doesn't care. There is no god watching and judging.

Sure some (many) people will be shocked, perhaps saddened, perhaps even angry if they see some people going around needlessly killing animals for giggles. That still doesn't mean that it is immoral nor does it mean that people shouldn't do that.
Each person has their own opinions, they can see someone doing something that they don't like, they can tell them that they consider it to be immoral, but it is still just that person's personal opinion and it is non binding, non authoritative onto the person they are trying to convince to not behave that way.
It would be better if people stop using moral language. Rather than saying "don't do that because it is immoral" maybe they could speak in truths and actuals and say "I would prefer you not do that because I find it greatly upsetting"

 

[Bradskii]

It would be better if people stop using moral language. Rather than saying "don't do that because it is immoral" maybe they could speak in truths and actuals and say "I would prefer you not do that because I find it greatly upsetting"

Being upset equates go being harmed. That's step one. Then you move on to step two: Justification.

 

[stevil]

Being upset equates go being harmed. That's step one. Then you move on to step two: Justification.

I don't get what you are saying there.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't get what you are saying there.

One: Has there been harm? Yes? Go to two.
Two: Was the harm justified?

What don't you get about that? I've been explaining it for most of this thread...

 

[stevil]

One: Has there been harm? Yes? Go to two.
Two: Was the harm justified?

What don't you get about that? I've been explaining it for most of this thread...

No, not sure what you mean. Justification for what? Justification in whose opinion? The legal system?

 

[Bradskii]

Mmm. All those posts wasted. But gotta look on the bright side...all that typing practice.