Establishing Secular Morality

[AlexB23]

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:

1. Why is your conception of what's right and wrong authoritative over another person's?
2. How do you impart value to behaviour without question begging and assuming that human life or its continuance is of inherent value?
3. How do you impart value without assuming that it's true that certain stimulus is good and certain stimulus is bad?
4. 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)?
5. 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

Morality can be classified as Christian/religious and secular, and sometimes, both Christian and secular morals line up (such as banning incest).

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

 

[stevevw]

Seemed to work for what ?
The Vikings were ancient history compared to wwII, and wwII had more than enough raping and pillaging in many countries/ cities/ even in isolated areas... by soldiers from different governments, and non-soldiers who had the chance... to do what is not good.

I used Vikings as it was an obvious example. They were a people who based their philosophy on force, on unprovoked attacks on others and taking all their treasures especially the Church.

But yes a lot of raping and pillaging happened during wars. Pillaging happens today when businesses are looted during protests and rebellions or how youth gangs today go on stealing sprees taking peoples cars and breaking into homes to take stuff.

Speaking of different ideologies relating to morality some progressive legal systems see youth crime as a right in that they avoid harsh penalties because they believe they are victims. Therefore the youth rarely go to jail and are given multiple chances which they end up repeat offending.

 

[stevevw]

'These things' are legislated because of perceived harm. Period. I can't really help you if you won't accept this. But I don't have to keep pointing this out. So I won't from now on.

I accept that using harm is part of establishing moral wrong. We all agree on that. What we all don't agree on is 'What is harm'. Noticed how you said "perceived harm". Thats very telling because it suggests seeing harm from a certain perspective or position which implies there are other perspectives and none can be objectively determined.

You can say its obvious that its harm and everyone should see the same thing. But you are not appealing to anything solid, factual. Its only an appeal to feeling, what you feel is harm. Under a subjective moral system you can't say to other people who have a different perspective that they are wrong because all perspectives are deemed right because theres no way to independently determine this.

Subjective morality would be like people looking at a red car from different positions or perspectives. They each see a different shade of red. No one can say the other is wrong. So when you say "these things are legislated because of percieved harm. emphasising "Period" thats just a passion claim not a factual claim no matter how much you believe it and even if everyone agrees.

It doesn't actually determine the truth about whether harm has actually been done, whether its justified, or whether there are other harms being denied by those with different perspectives. Like with easy divorce one perspective is it allows women more independence thus reducing harm to their rights. Another perspective is it makes it easier to end marriages and undermine families thus cause harm to kids and society.

The State has taken one perspective over another and enforced it on everyone. Its not a neutral position. That's forcing a moral on others. Thus the State is the new church in determining whats moral when it comes to private issues like marriage, family and child rearing..

Point 2. Even if we say that 'These things' are legislated because of perceived harm' this only supports what I said that we do force morals onto other people just like the Church use to do. Except now its the State. Its become the church, the arbitor, jury and judge or morals. It shows the overreach where the State now legislates behaviour into our homes and bedrooms.

 

[stevevw]

The authority that people have in legislating rules under which we live is NOT a moral authority.

So legislation associated with abortion, freedom of religion and speech, marriage, family, child rearing, sex, gender also race have nothing to do with morality. Is that what you are saying.

What else can marriage and divorce be but a moral issue. Its a personal thing between two people, their commitment. It has nothing to do with economics, science, math. Its a social issue and by nature social issues involve morality. Thats why they are social issues. If there was no morality they would not be social issues.

If anything a wise State would do everything in their power to save marriages, make them real and prepared because strong marriages make strong families and strong families make strong societies. Thus they would save a bucket loiad of money and have a much more happier society if they upheld marriage.

But they chose to make it easy to end marriage. Thats the States position on marriage even though its probably the most harmful position to take. Which shows its not about harm but about belief, belief in spite of the reality that easy divorce creates more harm than good.

Belief in progressive ideologies about Rights based and identity politics. Belief that there is no such thing as a sacred or monogamous and long term marriage. Belief that a family can be anything as we can reconstruct human nature and reality.

 

[Bradskii]

So legislation associated with abortion, freedom of religion and speech, marriage, family, child rearing, sex, gender also race have nothing to do with morality. Is that what you are saying.

Yes. Laws don't legislate in regard to morality. That you have a moral view on any of those is quite irrelevant.

 

[Bradskii]

Like with easy divorce one perspective is it allows women more independence thus reducing harm to their rights. Another perspective is it makes it easier to end marriages and undermine families thus cause harm to kids and society.

And those two aspects are discussed and considered and a decision is made. Morality doesn't form part of the process.

What about this do you not understand?

 

[stevevw]

Yes. Laws don't legislate in regard to morality. That you have a moral view on any of those is quite irrelevant.

So why do they legislate these private matters. You even said they legislate because it causes harm. You also said harm is the measure of morality.

 

[stevevw]

And those two aspects are discussed and considered and a decision is made. Morality doesn't form part of the process.

What about this do you not understand?

The part where you said it causes harm and that harm is the basis of morality.

 

[Bradskii]

So why do they legislate these private matters. You even said they legislate because it causes harm. You also said harm is the measure of morality.

They don't legislate for most of them. The legislate so people are allowed to make their own decisions. They don't say that you must get divorced. They say you can if you want to. They don't say that you must stand on a street corner and berate the government. They say that you can if you want to. They don't say that you must marry someone of your own sex. They say...well, you get it.

You are allowed as much freedom as is conducive with a stable and safe society.

 

[Bradskii]

The part where you said it causes harm and that harm is the basis of morality.

I also said that agreeing what is harmful can be a difficult matter. Divorce can be harmful to the children. So we need to balance that against the harm caused by denying people to end a miserable marriage.

 

[ChurchBuilder]

The problem with the idea that anyone can put anything into their bodies like drugs is that I don't think in reality thats possible without it having some harmful effect on others be it from developing a black market for drugs, addiction which effects the family and society, and the health problems that cost society including financially thus denying people with greater need.

Alll actions even if its to ones self can have knock on effects because we don't live in isolation but in connected communities.

Even if drugs were made legal it still doesn't make it right. Canada has buckled to progressive ideaologies when it comes to dugs. Even the Scandinavian nations are re-thinking the idea that allowing drugs will solve the drug, health and crime problems. It just creates new ones.

Theres only one real way to deal with substance abuse and thats abstinence through rehab and therapy. We have known that for centuries but the new ideologies come along and change things and no one wants to put the time and effort into longer term solutions which don't appeal because they don't bring instant results and cost more.

But in the end not facing the truth, the reality of whats happening costs more and does more harm in the end.

As one who works with addicts every week I can tell you that the black market only exists because of the prohibition. And if you look back in history the alcohol prohibition of 1919 literally created organized crime and involved Rogue characters of governments as well. Most addicts are non-violent this is a fact. Our bodies and mind were created by God and we can choose what we want to put in our own bodies, but if we do that and cause harm to another than by all means the weight of the law should be applied to the punishment. God bless.

 

[stevil]

Let's look at a real secular moral, from The UN.

I have problems with Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

They need to add to it, without any limitation due to sexual orientation.

 

[Bradskii]

I have problems with Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

They need to add to it, without any limitation due to sexual orientation.

I think we've reached a point where it doesn't have to be specifically noted. The article, as it reads, doesn't limit it to heterosexual marriage.

 

[stevil]

I think we've reached a point where it doesn't have to be specifically noted. The article, as it reads, doesn't limit it to heterosexual marriage.

There are many countries that outlaw it.

 

[stevevw]

They don't legislate for most of them. The legislate so people are allowed to make their own decisions. They don't say that you must get divorced. They say you can if you want to. They don't say that you must stand on a street corner and berate the government. They say that you can if you want to. They don't say that you must marry someone of your own sex. They say...well, you get it.

You are allowed as much freedom as is conducive with a stable and safe society.

But if they legislate for some issues that involve morality then isn't that dictating what is moral. Lets be realistic here by making divorce easy this more or less takes the position that marriage is of little importance. If you make something easy to do then it causes people to take the easy option.

If while making it easy the same State makes it hard to stay married by not supporting married couples through relationship therapy or education in promoting long term monogamous marriage then they send the message that marriage is not that valuable and worth saving.

If at the same time the State and its agents berate people who express that traditional marriage is the best option then they are forcing a certain belief about marriage by saying "we don't think marriage is about traditional beliefs of monogamy and longterm commitment or between man and women.

Sins of ommission are just as bad as sins of commission.

 

[stevevw]

I also said that agreeing what is harmful can be a difficult matter. Divorce can be harmful to the children. So we need to balance that against the harm caused by denying people to end a miserable marriage.

That wasn't the point. The point was that the State is getting involved in situations that involve morality and belief. They cannot be neutral as morality is not neutral. They are either for traditional marriage or against it. So they are dictating morality, what marriage means and is worth and the importance it has or doesn't have. They have made the choice traditional marriage is not a moral priority.

We had a moral truth about marriage for 100's of years which was a monogamous and long term (to death do us part) between a man and women. The State has undermined that by changing the definition of marriage and through laws and policies over the years.

We don't need to undermine marriage because some marriages don't work out. Making it easier to end marriage doesn't address why people end marriages. Its just an easy cop out option so not to have to deal with the underlying reasons why marriages fail. Its like other prgressive policies like legalize drugs because its an easy option and a cop out to doing the hard work of rehabilitation.

Part of why marriages fail is subjective and government beliefs about marriage. In getting rid of the long term truths (commitment, duty, monogamy) that made marriage sacred in the first place secular society has destroyed marriage for what it was worth.

In doing this they are enforcing a particular belief about marriage. You don't have to physically force people to conform. You can do it by manipulating the narrative and through polcies that lead to people to behaving a certain way. Your more of less indoctrinating people how to think about marriage.

The fact is divorce does as much damage if not more harm than individual rights. Rights based politics is biased towards individual freedoms over family, group and societal harms. If we were to weigh up the harms we would be making marriage the top priority. It doesn't mean we ignore individual rights. It means we change priority and do eveything to save marriages but still allow people their right to end a marriage.

 

[Bradskii]

There are many countries that outlaw it.

Indeed. But the article as it stands doesn't. I wonder if it's not specific to to prevent countries that do outlaw rejecting the whole thing.

 

[stevevw]

As one who works with addicts every week I can tell you that the black market only exists because of the prohibition. And if you look back in history the alcohol prohibition of 1919 literally created organized crime and involved Rogue characters of governments as well. Most addicts are non-violent this is a fact. Our bodies and mind were created by God and we can choose what we want to put in our own bodies, but if we do that and cause harm to another than by all means the weight of the law should be applied to the punishment. God bless.

Though I agree that people should be able to put whatever in their bodies I think it has limitations by the nature of what drugs and addiction can do. Some drugs like meth and heroin are addictive and people can develop habbits that mean they need money beyond their means, They may go to extreme lengths to get drugs.

I don't think legalising these drugs will be the answer as its actually aiding addiction (dependent and avoidance thinking) and not changing things. I don't think we can put this in the same category of alcohol. Though a case can be made even for the promotion of alcohol being no good. It costs billions in damage to society and lots of deaths, domestic violence, assaults and loss of production.

Canada is the case example where they have legalised such drugs and we can see the end results happening before our eyes. But its also happening in a number of countries where the overall use has massively increased compared to a generation ago. This has also increased disease, health problems and mental disorders especially among youth.

UNODC World Drug Report 2022 highlights trends on cannabis post-legalization, environmental impacts of illicit drugs, and drug use among women and youth

<p class="site-heading" style="text-align: left;">UNODC World Drug Report 2022 highlights trends on cannabis post-legalization, environmental impacts of illicit drugs, and drug use among women and youth</p>

www.unodc.org

Perhaps a combination of decriminalization and rehab would work but the problem is these progressives don't think that far ahead. They just throw in unrealistic ideas without any thought and then we have to clean up the mess later.

 

[Bradskii]

But if they legislate for some issues that involve morality then isn't that dictating what is moral.

No. Because the moral aspects aren't considered. Or shouldn't be, at least. So legislation on divorce for example doesn't consider being married or not, or ending a marriage or not a moral matter. Legislatures consider any possible harm by either allowing people to divorce or preventing them from doing so. Force people into staying in an unhappy marriage? Force kids to remain with parents who dislike each other? Give everyone the option of a fresh start?

You can decide from a moral perspective if you like. I'll decide based on practical reasons.

 

[Bradskii]

Making it easier to end marriage doesn't address why people end marriages. Its just an easy cop out option so not to have to deal with the underlying reasons why marriages fail.

It's not compulsory to get divorced. And you are free to give anyone who is thinking about it moral advice. But if anyone is thinking of getting a divorce simply because it's relatively easy then let's face it...they shouldn't have got married in the first place.