Challenge for secularists

[Isambard]

Hello.

I am searching for an ethical system that is universal and that does not fail after certain conditions are met.

I always hear about how theistic morality is based upon baseless assumptions, or delusions and thus invalid. My challenge then is to present a moral system that is free of either.

Keep it friendly and goodluck

 

[PassionFruit]

Why don't you explain how theistic morality is based on delusions and invalid assumptions? Then we can have a discussion.

 

[Isambard]

Why don't you explain how theistic morality is based on delusions and invalid assumptions? Then we can have a discussion.

The typical argument is that it relies on a god(s) who's existence is ambigious at best.

My challenge is for the secular camp to present a system free of fundamental assumptions.

 

[The Nihilist]

I have one: everyone is allowed to do what they can get away with. Utterly foolproof.

 

[Skaloop]

I am searching for an ethical system that is universal and that does not fail after certain conditions are met.

Yeah, good luck with that. I don't think such a system exists.

 

[PassionFruit]

Hello.

I am searching for an ethical system that is universal and that does not fail after certain conditions are met.

I always hear about how theistic morality is based upon baseless assumptions, or delusions and thus invalid. My challenge then is to present a moral system that is free of either.

Keep it friendly and goodluck

Yeah, I would have to agree with Skaloop.

*shrugs*

 

[Spherical Time]

Ditto. I'm a ethical intersubjectivist. There is no truly universal morality, only systems that work between certain people at certain times.

 

[Skaloop]

Yeah, I would have to agree with Skaloop.

*shrugs*

Thanks! But on further thought, an ethical system where everyone does whatever they want to do seems, so far, to fit the parameters. I guess it's technically a system of ethics, just not one that most people would consider "ethical."

 

[Tiberius]

As an atheist, I get my morality from two simple rules:

1. If it hurts someone or disadvantages someone, then it is immoral (unless it is to save a person from greater harm, such as breaking someone's arm to get them out of a crashed car that's about to explode).
2. if it involves someone without their permission, then it is immoral (again, unless it is for the greater good, like giving an unconscious person a drug that can save their life).

So far I have not encountered a situation that I haven't been able to handle according to these rules.

 

[Norseman]

I can pick any system I want. You will judge it by finding loopholes that either allow things you consider bad, or punish things that you consider good. So, let's simplify things: people should always do what they consider to be best. Is there a problem with this? Perhaps everyone should always do what you consider to be best?

 

[quatona]

I always hear about how theistic morality is based upon baseless assumptions, or delusions and thus invalid. My challenge then is to present a moral system that is free of either.

I think you may have misunderstood that criticism.

 

[levi501]

humanism.

next question?

 

[MarcusHill]

There is no universal morality. There is a generally accepted core of things which are taken as "moral" or "immoral" by most, but all you'll really get is shades of grey.

 

[jayem]

Hello.


I always hear about how theistic morality is based upon baseless assumptions, or delusions and thus invalid. My challenge then is to present a moral system that is free of either.

As I see it, the main issue with theistic morality is supernaturalism. Secularists would maintain that equally good ethics can be based on reason, observation, and a scientific understanding of human psychology.

Specifics would be hard to describe in a brief post. But humanism was mentioned, and the Affirmations of Humanism would cover the main points:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=affirmations

 

[Isambard]

As I see it, the main issue with theistic morality is supernaturalism. Secularists would maintain that equally good ethics can be based on reason, observation, and a scientific understanding of human psychology.

Specifics would be hard to describe in a brief post. But humanism was mentioned, and the Affirmations of Humanism would cover the main points:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=affirmations

I find it bizarre Humanism is even considered. In my opinion, Humanism is the most fallious of all ethical models. I could write a book on its flaws, but Ill limit myself to a few.

Humanism holds human life as the number one priority. W/e increases the number of lives saved from death is ethical. Aside from the obvious, who made human life's the ultimate standard, there is the problem of how many and to what degree.

To illustrate my point, you have the Malthosian problem. The humanist effort to save life's has been so great that we now have the problem of overpopulation. So instead of leaving small groups to die off, humanists opted instead to go beyond the resources and have the death of the whole. Weather you think of it in terms of a small ecosystem or globally, human life still falls under the theory of marginal utility and is *not* all important.

Science may have slapped faith based ethics arcross the face but Id say its kicked humanism in the crotch by coldy reminding us that humans despite their accomplishments still fall under the 'big mac' example.

 

[levi501]

lol, is your argument seriously humanism is bad because of overpopulation?

Humanism is like a shifty target you can never nail down. In it's most basic form it's advancing the interests of humans... ie. collective good. The result of our actions may be harmful but the intention behind them is what determines out morality. We act in a way we believe that does the least amount of harm. Seeing how none of us are omniscient how can you expect anything more?

 

[jayem]

To illustrate my point, you have the Malthosian problem. The humanist effort to save life's has been so great that we now have the problem of overpopulation. So instead of leaving small groups to die off, humanists opted instead to go beyond the resources and have the death of the whole. Weather you think of it in terms of a small ecosystem or globally, human life still falls under the theory of marginal utility and is *not* all important.

Science may have slapped faith based ethics arcross the face but Id say its kicked humanism in the crotch by coldy reminding us that humans despite their accomplishments still fall under the 'big mac' example.

As was noted, you misunderstand humanism. Thoughtful humanists recognize we must maintain a balance between human activity and the ability of the planet to support all life. There's a statement in the Affirmations that addresses this:

"We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species."

On the other hand, from where did the unqualified command "Be fruitful, and multiply," come? For years, who taught that voluntarily using scientific birth control was sinful? Where is it written that man has dominion over the entire earth? The reality is that Biblical doctrine exalts human proliferation over everything else on our planet.

 

[Skaloop]

I find it bizarre Humanism is even considered. In my opinion, Humanism is the most fallious of all ethical models. I could write a book on its flaws, but Ill limit myself to a few.

Humanism holds human life as the number one priority. W/e increases the number of lives saved from death is ethical. Aside from the obvious, who made human life's the ultimate standard, there is the problem of how many and to what degree.

To illustrate my point, you have the Malthosian problem. The humanist effort to save life's has been so great that we now have the problem of overpopulation. So instead of leaving small groups to die off, humanists opted instead to go beyond the resources and have the death of the whole. Weather you think of it in terms of a small ecosystem or globally, human life still falls under the theory of marginal utility and is *not* all important.

Science may have slapped faith based ethics arcross the face but Id say its kicked humanism in the crotch by coldy reminding us that humans despite their accomplishments still fall under the 'big mac' example.

Overpopulation's our fault? We're not the ones telling people to go forth and multiply. We're not the one's telling people that birth control is sinful. We're (generally) not the ones opposed to proper sex education, the morning after pill, abortion, or euthanasia. Christianity and other religions do far more to exacerbate the problem of overpopulation.

 

[PassionFruit]

I find it bizarre Humanism is even considered. In my opinion, Humanism is the most fallious of all ethical models. I could write a book on its flaws, but Ill limit myself to a few.

Humanism holds human life as the number one priority. W/e increases the number of lives saved from death is ethical. Aside from the obvious, who made human life's the ultimate standard, there is the problem of how many and to what degree.

To illustrate my point, you have the Malthosian problem. The humanist effort to save life's has been so great that we now have the problem of overpopulation. So instead of leaving small groups to die off, humanists opted instead to go beyond the resources and have the death of the whole. Weather you think of it in terms of a small ecosystem or globally, human life still falls under the theory of marginal utility and is *not* all important.

Science may have slapped faith based ethics arcross the face but Id say its kicked humanism in the crotch by coldy reminding us that humans despite their accomplishments still fall under the 'big mac' example.

Huh?!

I think you should rethink your argument. There are many aspects of Humanism, it's not just about holding human as a priority. There's a lot to learn. But most importantly, Humanism is the belief that human beings deserve dignity and worth of all people. I hope you don't disagree with that.

 

[Tiphereth]

Look up Platonic realist variants of ethical nonnaturalism. In any case, if one holds to a realist view of ethics, voluntarism (Divine Command Theory) or Thomistic variants (those that ground morality in God's nature) are arguably not realist views, since plainly, necessary facts are self-explanatory, and not explained by other facts: necessary or contingent. If you hold that there are necessary moral facts (which I think there are, being a Platonist) then plainly, then cannot be explained by other facts since necessary facts are self-explanatory.