Establishing Secular Morality

[stevil]

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.

Well, no, actually.
Most governments are reducing laws, they are getting out of the idea of policing someone's idea of morality.

For example, not too long ago many countries had it as being illegal for people to be in gay relationships. This was all religious based morality being forced onto the population via law.
But as countries learn to be inclusive, and learn that their populations are made up of people from a variety of religious and non religious peoples, then they realise they can't force a particular religion onto people. So, since gay relationships don't cause danger to society, the governing bodies who exist to make sure society can function realise that it is not their business to stop consenting adults from being gay.
Then they moved on to legalising gay marriage. In many countries they are decriminalising prostitution, decriminalising euthanasia, decriminalising marijuana. It seems that countries are becoming much more socially liberal, giving people much more freedom and choice.

 

[stevil]

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

Well, since I haven't been in conversation with you. I haven't been reading all your posts. I'll go back and see if I can find the one or two which might somehow be relevant to the remark you made on my post. You know, that remark that I said I didn't understand and to which you didn't bother replying with any kind of clarification, just stated the same thing again. I'll go back and trying and find something, but it seems like a needle and haystack thing. I might just give up.

 

[Bradskii]

Well, since I haven't been in conversation with you. I haven't been reading all your posts. I'll go back and see if I can find the one or two which might somehow be relevant to the remark you made on my post. You know, that remark that I said I didn't understand and to which you didn't bother replying with any kind of clarification, just stated the same thing again. I'll go back and trying and find something, but it seems like a needle and haystack thing. I might just give up.

My apologies, Steve. I was replying to another Steve. But nevertheless, it's a discussion that's been going on for the whole thread. I'm not inclined to explain something yet again because you haven't been following it.

 

[Larniavc]

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.

How does that in any way stop life life from having intrinsic value?

 

[stevil]

How does that in any way stop life life from having intrinsic value?

If you want to eat something that is living, and you'd rather it dead so you can eat it, then you see no value in its life.

 

[stevil]

My apologies, Steve. I was replying to another Steve. But nevertheless, it's a discussion that's been going on for the whole thread. I'm not inclined to explain something yet again because you haven't been following it.

Fair enough, but you made and obscure and vague comment as a response to my post. Any I have gone back somewhat, but haven't quite found the post, but I could be wrong, but I think your position about morality is two things:
That it is objectively immoral to harm in an unjustified way
That if there is no harm then objectively there can be no immoral act

I disagree with both these positions, But I'm not 100% sure if these are your positions as you have refused to write two simple sentences for clarity.

 

[stevevw]

Well, no, actually.
Most governments are reducing laws, they are getting out of the idea of policing someone's idea of morality.

For example, not too long ago many countries had it as being illegal for people to be in gay relationships. This was all religious based morality being forced onto the population via law.
But as countries learn to be inclusive, and learn that their populations are made up of people from a variety of religious and non religious peoples, then they realise they can't force a particular religion onto people. So, since gay relationships don't cause danger to society, the governing bodies who exist to make sure society can function realise that it is not their business to stop consenting adults from being gay.
Then they moved on to legalising gay marriage. In many countries they are decriminalising prostitution, decriminalising euthanasia, decriminalising marijuana. It seems that countries are becoming much more socially liberal, giving people much more freedom and choice.

I think by implementing all these so called freedoms does not happen without increased laws and reglations. They actually add more control by the State in regulations.

These also bring with them other problems. Like say with Canadas legalised drug laws there has been a massive spike in addiction, overdoses, deaths and homeless ness. Easy divorce laws have led to a massive increase in divorce, fragmented families, fatherless children, increased single parents including women who often live in poverty, poor child development and destablisation of society.

When then brings a bunch of additional policies and regulations to deal with these issues.

But I was speaking more on the division and conflicts that have ben created by this identity political approach. We use to be more united as a people. But now society is divided into identity groups which are often pitted against each other. Finding fault and trying to undermine each other as to who is the most worthy or unworthy morally. Its now about what colour skin you have, what sex, what gender, what body, what identity you have rather than anything united as humans.

This is evidenced by the increased hatred and violence experienced today on social media but also in practice with violence and attacks on peoples integrity and doing whatever to undermine those who they see as holding counter views as though they are not tolerated. Even now to the point that there are conflicts withing the LGBTIQ+ community even undermining hard fought rights for women and gays.

We certainly are not more tolerant. That is just a myth when we actually look at what is happening.

 

[Larniavc]

If you want to eat something that is living, and you'd rather it dead so you can eat it, then you see no value in its life.

Incorrect. It has value while it is alive and it have value when it is dead. Life is so amazing: how can it not have intrinsic value.

Anyhoo, I think it has intrinsic value. If you don't I don't really care. It takes all sorts.

 

[stevil]

Incorrect. It has value while it is alive and it have value when it is dead. Life is so amazing: how can it not have intrinsic value.

Anyhoo, I think it has intrinsic value. If you don't I don't really care. It takes all sorts.

You consider its life as having value but you prefer its nutrience and then you kill it or have someone else kill it, because you really value its body for its nutrience and think that its life has no value to you, not any more, so you are willing to discard it's life.

 

[stevil]

I think by implementing all these so called freedoms does not happen without increased laws and reglations. They actually add more control by the State in regulations.

Regulations are a way of making things safe.
Like when abortion is legal, govt need to regulate it. Make sure proper doctors are performing it, properly.
When they regulate prostitution, they make sure prostitution outfits don't have people that are under age, and makes sure they get tested for aids and such.
When they make gay marriage legal, then they also need to include gays in their already existing anti discrimination laws because there are a lot of horrible biggots out there.

Easy divorce laws have led to a massive increase in divorce, fragmented families, fatherless children, increased single parents including women who often live in poverty, poor child development and destablisation of society.

Consenting adults should always have the choice of who they live with, who they are in a family with.

But I was speaking more on the division and conflicts that have ben created by this identity political approach. We use to be more united as a people. But now society is divided into identity groups which are often pitted against each other. Finding fault and trying to undermine each other as to who is the most worthy or unworthy morally. Its now about what colour skin you have, what sex, what gender, what body, what identity you have rather than anything united as humans.

I think there are people who are all supportive of freedoms and liberties and a society of diverse people.
And then on the other side there are many people who want everybody to be the same, have the same religious beliefs, all be straight, all eat the same foods, all have the same skin colour. These people attack people that look or behave different to them, and get upset with anti discrimination laws. They get so insane that they get upset if the little mermaid doesn't have white skin. They don't mind white Canadians coming in from the northern border but detest brown skinned Mexicans coming in from the southern border. These people create a lot of conflict in society.

This is evidenced by the increased hatred and violence experienced today on social media but also in practice with violence and attacks on peoples integrity and doing whatever to undermine those who they see as holding counter views as though they are not tolerated.

Yes, lots of social media platforms and people in general don't tolerate discrimination and hatred towards groups of people.
What is the world coming to when people aren't free to discriminate and hate demographics of people <end of sarcasm>

 

[Bradskii]

Fair enough, but you made and obscure and vague comment as a response to my post. Any I have gone back somewhat, but haven't quite found the post, but I could be wrong, but I think your position about morality is two things:
That it is objectively immoral to harm in an unjustified way
That if there is no harm then objectively there can be no immoral act

I disagree with both these positions, But I'm not 100% sure if these are your positions as you have refused to write two simple sentences for clarity.

First determine harm. And as you say, if there is no harm then there's nothing to discuss. Then you determine if the harm is justified. Which is a lot more difficult than the first part.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I value my own life, but as much as I would like others too as well, I certainlyt 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.

When it comes to values perhaps intrinsic an inherent don't fit.

 

[stevil]

When it comes to values perhaps intrinsic an inherent don't fit.

That's correct. It's used by people who want to claim that moral beliefs are discoverable facts rather than merely beliefs or opinions.

On the flip side though even if moral beliefs are just beliefs and opinions, it doesn't mean it is easy for people to change their opinions on already held moral positions. It's not just on a whim, changed willy nilly to fit the desires of the holder at a time convenient to them.

Many people come up with some sort of standard:
following direction from a scripture believed to be bestowed by a higher and wiser power
following some philosophers ideas e.g. Kant's Categorical Imperitive.
Sam Harris promotes the idea of human and animal well-being
Or perhaps standards such as the Golden rule or the Platnum rule.

Ultimately there is no commonly agreed upon standard.
People can come up with whatever reasoning that they agree with for how they determine actions and choices to be morally good or immoral or neutral. It is a personal choice. Some people put great thought into it. Some people have come about a standard because of the influences around them e.g. parents, friends, school, books, tv...
Some people agonise over such things, some people are very relaxed, some people see this moral beliefs as being a pattern to a successful and fulfilling life while others see moral conditioning as being an obstacle to a successful life.

Some people use their moral standard and try to force that on others, shaming them, persecuting them, shunning them, and some people in power use it to control others, or to justify using force on others to get them to comply (the road to hell is paved with good intentions).

But ultimately it is a fruitless exercise to assume others should believe as you do and to try and force your own standard onto others. It just leads to conflict, anger, disappointment...

I don't have a problem with people who use morality as a personal guide, if they find it useful for them, then that is their own personal choice, but I do have problems with people who look to force their own morality onto others.

 

[stevevw]

Regulations are a way of making things safe.

That depends on who is in control of making regulations. One persons regulations to make it more safe can be anothers denial of rights. The point is those stipulating the regulations have no basis that those regulations are correct or true. They are just beliefs according to some ideology of what makes for a safe and ordered society. Its really no different to when the church was in control except now its the State and its agents.

Like when abortion is legal, govt need to regulate it. Make sure proper doctors are performing it, properly.

But the idea of making abortion legal is not based on anything objective but rather an ideological belief. The regulations for doing medical procedures has nothing to do with whether abortion is morally right or wrong. It could be just making sure an immoral practice is safe thus supporting something that may not be best for society.

When they regulate prostitution, they make sure prostitution outfits don't have people that are under age, and makes sure they get tested for aids and such.

This seems like the 'Harm Reduction approach' which is only concerned with harm reduction rather than the issue itself being right or wrong. Its actually a bandaid approach that can create more problems. Like harm reduction in drug use. Supply the syringes, testing, and aftercare to minimize disease and overdoses or supplying the drugs to minimize crime but not actually addressing the problem. Like in Canada it actually creates more problems.

When they make gay marriage legal, then they also need to include gays in their already existing anti discrimination laws because there are a lot of horrible biggots out there.
Consenting adults should always have the choice of who they live with, who they are in a family with.

I don't think people who disagree with Gay marriage are biggots just because they disagree and thats the problem that some turn disagreement into something being morally wrong when its a legitimate belief to hold. Afterall we had a legal vote on SSM and voting no was not illegal or morally wrong.

That is a good example about how these issues are not just about what is best but about a belief about what consitutes marriage and family and how society should be ordered.

I think there are people who are all supportive of freedoms and liberties and a society of diverse people.
And then on the other side there are many people who want everybody to be the same, have the same religious beliefs, all be straight, all eat the same foods, all have the same skin colour. These people attack people that look or behave different to them, and get upset with anti discrimination laws. They get so insane that they get upset if the little mermaid doesn't have white skin. They don't mind white Canadians coming in from the northern border but detest brown skinned Mexicans coming in from the southern border. These people create a lot of conflict in society.

I am not sure there are many people like that nowadays. We have become very multicultural as a world especially in the West. But I can also understand how some people get concerned about losing their identity. Basically our sense of identity comes from the group we align with. Undermining this can cause harm. Look at Indigenous peoples where the West had denied their cultural identity. Still even today they cannot freely live as to who they really are.

I don't think multiculturalism works. It goes against basic instincts of preserving culture. When cultures mix its impossible to preserve and uphold all cultures. The promotion of one culture is to the detriment of another. Look whats happening in Europe where there are culture wars. Its happening to some extent in all Western Nations including Canada which is suppose to be the bastian of multiculturalism.

In some ways the more pluralistic a society is the more intolerant it becomes of difference because identity groups begin to clash because the more you emphasize the identity groups through regulations the more you highlight the differences. The more you highlight the differences the more you divide society.

Yes, lots of social media platforms and people in general don't tolerate discrimination and hatred towards groups of people.
What is the world coming to when people aren't free to discriminate and hate demographics of people <end of sarcasm>

The problem is the people doing the hating are the ones claiming to be the tolerent and inclusive ones. Its like the hateful attacking the hateful. None are being tolerant and inclusive. All you hear is how bad and nasty others are which is not tolerant. They don't practice what the preach. BUt then thats what 'Wokism' is about. Its being seen to be moral rather than actually being moral.

 

[Bradskii]

That depends on who is in control of making regulations.

Now, you know who those people are are. You get the chance to vote for for the ones who are closest to your views every now and then.

Cool, eh?

 

[stevevw]

Now, you know who those people are are. You get the chance to vote for for the ones who are closest to your views every now and then.

Cool, eh?

You mean democracy. Hum a choice between bad and worse. They are not the true controllers and we all know that as well.

 

[Bradskii]

You mean democracy.

Yeah. We did a thread on that. It seemed to be the most popular choice. I think you thought so to. Anyway, our elected representatives are ones with the authority. Granted to them by we the people.

 

[stevevw]

Yeah. We did a thread on that. It seemed to be the most popular choice. I think you thought so to. Anyway, our elected representatives are ones with the authority. Granted to them by we the people.

Yeah democracy is probably the best of whats available though I think people are beginning to see its weaknesses and many are beginning to align with some form of socialism or Cultural Marxism.

THis relates to this thread in that it depends on what system you have as to who gets to determine morality. Of course socialist and especially communism its the party in power including rigging elections to stay in power.

But I think todays political system is not so democratic regardles of who gets in. Things have changed the the ability to have power to influence the narrative and ultimately laws and moral norms has become fragmented. Now small minorities can dictate things if they position themselves with certain dominant power brokers. Now money buys a lot of influence regardless of morality.

I think all this is the result of a more relativistic and pluralistic Post Modernist society and its no coincident that this has happened at the same time as society has been increasing rejecting God and Christianity.

When this happens a void is created and is open for whoever to come in and seize control of the moral narrative. It seems at present that control has been taken by the State and its agents or anyone who is cunning enough to utilise the States apparatus. Thats whats called secular morality.

 

[Bradskii]

THis relates to this thread in that it depends on what system you have as to who gets to determine morality.

We do. You and me. Everyone else. All of us. That's why it's called relative morality.

Gee, I spend an inordinate amount of time repeating myself. Please stop confusing authority with opinion. I'm not going to explain it again. I'll just ignore your post.

 

[stevil]

Yeah. We did a thread on that. It seemed to be the most popular choice. I think you thought so to. Anyway, our elected representatives are ones with the authority. Granted to them by we the people.

In many countries they have a form of constitution or bill of rights which limits the authority of government.