- Aug 11, 2023
- 3,141
- 1,855
- 24
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Morality can be classified as Christian/religious and secular, and sometimes, both Christian and secular morals line up (such as banning incest).I'm not trying to re-hash my old thread so I thought I would try and do it more directly through questions and get your guys actual opinions & reasoning rather than writing a bunch of posts that amount to epistemological essays. Don't get me wrong, I'll still object and expect you guys to do the same for mine and other people's arguments; but this time I'll try and do it with more of a leaning towards discussion.
Try to keep mocking to a minimum, it serves nobody and only degrades your own arguments. Therein, it's ok to say "I don't know" or "good point" to one another; but in the same token it's ok to doggedly pursue your point or points if you think the other person is missing it or are mistaken. It's ok if the thread narrows down or veers off a bit into other topics like subjective morality, subjective truth (it doesn't exist ) and other areas but just try not to derail it entirely and keep it within the parameters of what the thread is about as much as you can. Now to the thread:
- Why is your conception of what's right and wrong authoritative over another person's?
- How do you impart value to behaviour without question begging and assuming that human life or its continuance is of inherent value?
- How do you impart value without assuming that it's true that certain stimulus is good and certain stimulus is bad?
- 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)?
- Why is this standard authoritative over another person's?
I'll just post a couple of examples to avoid some early arguments & mistakes:
"Evolution determines why anything we think is good, is good; therefore, that which propagates our genes the best, is that which is good"
This is to suffer the same problem of lacking a justification for an authoritative standard which confers values independent of a person's belief (i.e. #2 & #5). To simplify the previous statement; a society that succeeds through rape and considers rape good would have the same justification for the truthfulness of its morals as you would if you exist in a society that succeeds through compassion and sees rape as abhorrent. To make comparisons between the actions of rape and compassion is to ascribe value through the use of an authoritative standard that exists independent of the opposing societies beliefs about what is good (a standard that fails to be established in a secular paradigm).
"Evolution has determined what we think is moral"
The existence of the morals brought about by evolution is not a justification for why I (or anyone) need to follow them (i.e. #1, #5).
"Why not just treat each other how we ourselves want to be treated?"
All Christians agree with this in accordance with Christian Theistic Theology & Epistemology. Yahweh is why truth is considered the truth within our framework of belief; He alone is self-existent and is the unmoved mover that is the justification for the existence & sustained existence of any thing, including immaterial morals. Notwithstanding evil, which is characterised as that which is not of Yahweh and therein by nature/necessity was created and is sustained by His creatures through rebellion & disobedience. The problem is the secular framework; within it morals are not inherently true so please don't treat them as such. Within a secular paradigm specific morals and their reasons to follow them need to be established as real and true (i.e. #1, #2, #3, #4 & #5).
If you want to dig down into specific reasoning or see it extrapolated, here are a some good posts from the old thread that also include the opposing views. For consent reasons I'll link only my posts but they are in nature responses so they include the opponents response too:
The old thread
Subjective morality (Main)
Subjective morality (peripheral 1)
Subjective morality (peripheral 2)
Subjective morality (peripheral 3)
Subjective truth doesn't exist
It's ok to dust off your sandals and move on
Edit: For clarity's sake; any appeal to an authoritative use of morality either through disagreement (saying a certain moral stance is wrong) or agreement (affirming the truth of the presuppositions used to establish a moral stance) is to require a transcendent justification (i.e. one that is independent of either parties' beliefs) for the propositions' truthfulness. Either through an appeal to a standard by which to evaluate specific behaviours or to the truth of the presuppositions used to establish any kind of moral reasoning. Hence the thread title of "Establishing" and the use of the word 'transcendent'.
Please try your best to treat each other and the arguments with charity. God bless .
"Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another."-Proverbs 27:17
In sci-fi, one of the largest organizations of secular morality is Starfleet. They have a strict rule of non-interference with other cultures, to prevent any society from being messed up by human actions.
Here is one of their laws, the Prime Directive: The Prime Directive prohibits Starfleet personnel and spacecraft from interfering in the normal development of any society, and mandates that any Starfleet vessel or crew member is expendable to prevent violation of this rule. As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Starfleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes introducing superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Starfleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship, unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation (source 1).
Let's look at a real secular moral, from The UN. This is article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance (source 2).
Here is a Christian morality: Matt 22:39 "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Notice how UN Article 18 says we should respect others rights to religion, in other words, not judge them. The Starfleet Prime directive also says respect other civilizations and not interfere (kinda like the Bible says "love your neighbor" or "don't judge others speck without looking at the beam in your own eye").
Prime Directive (1): Prime Directive
UN Articles (2): https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Upvote
0