Challenge for secularists

[fated]

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

Moses does this for us:
1)Submit to your neighbor.
2)Don't take more than you need.

Of course, this works the best when paired with:
There is an all powerful God (who can reward or destroy you - eternally).
You neighbor is in His image.


It's still the best.

 

[The Nihilist]

Moses does this for us:
1)Submit to your neighbor.
2)Don't take more than you need.

Of course, this works the best when paired with:
There is an all powerful God (who can reward or destroy you - eternally).
You neighbor is in His image.


It's still the best.

Maybe you didn't understand the OP...

Also, why on earth should I submit to my neighbor?

 

[Isambard]

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?

I was using an extreme example to illustrate my point. To use a more realist example, should I subjugate an equal (in terms of human being) to a lower standard to compete with others who it?

Basically economics. If I do, I violate humanistic principles but if I dont, I risk my community, nation w/e falling behind and being consumed.

So the same realization exists. Setting a standard for the 'overall good' of mankind while not harming anyone is silly as the two conflict.

 

[fated]

Maybe you didn't understand the OP...

Also, why on earth should I submit to my neighbor?

Which of the first two has a baseless assumption?

It assumes that they also submit; An functional ethics system.

Why? To produce peaceful relations and working together.

You should be able to take whatever you need if it's available.

 

[Skaloop]

Which of the first two has a baseless assumption?

It assumes that they also submit;

Can you see the problem? "Which has an assumption? It assumes..."

I mean, come on!

 

[fated]

Can you see the problem? "Which has an assumption? It assumes..."

I mean, come on!

This is how life works.

Do you submit to your employer?
Your spouse?

If a problem arises you take what you need.

 

[Isambard]

This is how life works.

Do you submit to your employer?
Your spouse?

If a problem arises you take what you need.

SHHH@!

Dont spoil the ending!

 

[Skaloop]

Do you submit to your employer?

No.

Your spouse?

Yes. With pleasure.

 

[Ohioprof]

One of the great ethical challenges that now faces both religious and secular people comes from environmentalism. It is a challenge to anthropocentrism, the placing of humans at the center of our concerns. Humanists are not necessarily the ones who place humans at the center; Christians and other religious believers do it as well, though they may claim to put God at the center. Our economic systems and our social systems all seem to put human comfort, human materialism, human control of the earth ahead of all other values. This appears to be a nearly universal phenomenon with globalization and the spread of technology, capitalism, and industrialization around the world.

Can we sustain life on earth if we continue to put economic growth and material comfort and material acquisition by humans as our highest value? Do we need somehow to let go of anthropocentrism if we are to sustain the panet? Can we stop making ourselves the center of our focus, or is anthropocentrism part of human nature?

Can we develop an ethical system that puts the sustenance of the whole planet ahead of human materialism? I don't know that we can. I'm not sure that such an ethic is possible for large groups of people.

 

[fated]

No.



Yes. With pleasure.

You can't just take the language so simplistically. You do work for your employer.

Show me where it breaks down.

 

[fated]

One of the great ethical challenges that now faces both religious and secular people comes from environmentalism. It is a challenge to anthropocentrism, the placing of humans at the center of our concerns. Humanists are not necessarily the ones who place humans at the center; Christians and other religious believers do it as well, though they may claim to put God at the center. Our economic systems and our social systems all seem to put human comfort, human materialism, human control of the earth ahead of all other values. This appears to be a nearly universal phenomenon with globalization and the spread of technology, capitalism, and industrialization around the world.

Can we sustain life on earth if we continue to put economic growth and material comfort and material acquisition by humans as our highest value? Do we need somehow to let go of anthropocentrism if we are to sustain the panet? Can we stop making ourselves the center of our focus, or is anthropocentrism part of human nature?

Can we develop an ethical system that puts the sustenance of the whole planet ahead of human materialism? I don't know that we can. I'm not sure that such an ethic is possible for large groups of people.

That is far from universal. It is what you could call western or European. And even then, people have been living in seclusion and accusing people of this for centuries. And yes, eventually it causes more than minor confrontations.

 

[The Nihilist]

Which of the first two has a baseless assumption?

It assumes that they also submit; An functional ethics system.

Why? To produce peaceful relations and working together.

You should be able to take whatever you need if it's available.

The baseless assumption is that this system is better than mine, which is whatever you can get away with is permissible. More technically, 2 people cannot submit to each other; if one submits, another must rule. What should I not take more of than I need? How are we going to assess need? As a matter of survival? As a matter of happiness? As a matter of human flourishing? This system has raised more questions than it has answered.

 

[fated]

The baseless assumption is that this system is better than mine, which is whatever you can get away with is permissible.

You should be free, right?

More technically, 2 people cannot submit to each other; if one submits, another must rule.

I don't think so, people are capable of communication.

What should I not take more of than I need?

How much do you need?

How are we going to assess need?

What do you need to survive?

As a matter of survival?

What do you need to be happy? Do you need to take a life?

As a matter of happiness?

Please be reasonable.

As a matter of human flourishing? This system has raised more questions than it has answered.

Or someone will kill you and/or take your stuff.

And it isn't about you. It's an ethics system.

 

[JGG]

You should be free, right?

I don't think so, people are capable of communication.

How much do you need?

What do you need to survive?

What do you need to be happy? Do you need to take a life?

Please be reasonable.

Or someone will kill you and/or take your stuff.

And it isn't about you. It's an ethics system.

So, your system of ethics is actually communism?

 

[fated]

So, your system of ethics is actually communism?

What do you need to be happy?

 

[Skaloop]

You can't just take the language so simplistically. You do work for your employer.

Show me where it breaks down.

Work for, yes. But you said submit. I do not submit to my employer. Many times my employer has asked something of me, and for various reasons I have refused. Not to say I don't do as I am asked on a regular basis, but in some situations, I do not submit to my employer.

 

[JGG]

What do you need to be happy?

I don't really know. If you take stuff away, I'll tell you when I'm not happy.

 

[fated]

Work for, yes. But you said submit. I do not submit to my employer. Many times my employer has asked something of me, and for various reasons I have refused. Not to say I don't do as I am asked on a regular basis, but in some situations, I do not submit to my employer.

If that's what you need to take, that's what you need to take. Just be wary that you employer may need to take you job.

 

[fated]

I don't really know. If you take stuff away, I'll tell you when I'm not happy.

Then maybe I'll give something back.

 

[Skaloop]

If that's what you need to take, that's what you need to take. Just be wary that you employer may need to take you job.

You mean the job I've had since I finished university eight years ago? The job that gave me a promotion in the spring? The job for which I just last week received a glowing performance review? He's not taking that away from me; he needs me too much. He did fire a guy yesterday. Because that guy didn't perform. I perform. But I do it on my terms.

Keep in mind, I do as I am asked when I can. But if my boss comes to me at the end of the day asking me to stay late, but I've got plans with my wife, then I do not stay late. He knows this. He actually likes this.

So, on the off chance that my employer needs to take my job, it will not be because of my unwillingness to submit.