Establishing Secular Morality

[stevevw]

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.

That seems unreal when the idea of divorce is to end a marriage. What are the couple being divorced from.

Legislatures consider any possible harm by either allowing people to divorce or preventing them from doing so.

Theres the harm aspect again which you said is associated with morality. Yet you just said divorce has nothing to do with morality. If divorce considers as you said any possible harm then it follows its a moral issue.

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?

That is already available. Upholding marriage doesn't negate people being able to seek ways to maintain marriage. The facts are that since easy divorce came in divorce and family breakdowns including harm to kids and society as a whole have increased dramatically. If you want to consider the harm down then we need to consider all harm and it seems that more harm is done by easy divorce than keeping any families together.

Is Making Divorce Easier Bad for Children?
Children who grew up in the "easier-divorce" states are in fact worse off in a number of ways.

Is Making Divorce Easier Bad for Children?

www.nber.org

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

And those particular reasons you have decided for practical reasons include harms done as you acknowledge and harms done is a moral issue. Remember no harm no moral issue. Harm = moral issue. Theres no two ways around this. What possible practical reasons make easy divorce ok that are not associated with morality.

The idea that we can seperate morals from these situations is part of the problem.

 

[stevevw]

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.

Thats silly, modern day society can cause all sorts of issues for being married and cause a good marriage to go bad. Life stressors especially financial is a big one. That can lead to people being unhappy and sometimes they become volnurable and have an affair which is another reason. But none of those mean the end of marriage and the marriage can be repaired.

But just like our throw away society we don't bother. The focus on self satisfaction and fullfillment trumps any greater value of persisting and sorting things out. Too many disatractions.

High divorce rates is a sign of an unhealthy society. Whether you say people should not marry then thats the fault of society for creating unreal expectations. Its still a sign of an unhealthy society.

No fault divorces do force people to get divorced because its often one partner forcing the issue on the other partner and the kids for a variety of reason. If someone feels unsatified or unhappy for that time then its easy to cite reasons for ending the marriage. But then the rate of second time marriages is even higher. So something is going wrong.

If you want to use harm as the moral measure then I think it can be shown that easy divorce has caused far more damage then any denial of individual rights. If thats the case then secular society is not serious about doing the right thing but rather appeasing individual rights over all else.

 

[Bradskii]

That seems unreal when the idea of divorce is to end a marriage. What are the couple being divorced from.

Umm...each other.

Theres the harm aspect again which you said is associated with morality. Yet you just said divorce has nothing to do with morality. If divorce considers as you said any possible harm then it follows its a moral issue.

If a dog is an animal with 4 legs then an animal with 4 legs isn't necessarily a dog.

That is already available. Upholding marriage doesn't negate people being able to seek ways to maintain marriage. The facts are that since easy divorce came in divorce and family breakdowns including harm to kids and society as a whole have increased dramatically.

Looks like there were lots of people who really shouldn't have married. A lifetime committment is just that. A commitment for life. Enter into it too easily and you will leave it easily.

And those particular reasons you have decided for practical reasons include harms done as you acknowledge and harms done is a moral issue. Remember no harm no moral issue. Harm = moral issue.

No. Harm doesn't equal an immoral act. But there can't be an immoral act if no harm is done. If I fall over and break my leg, it's nothing to do with morality. If you hit me with a cricket bat and I break my leg, then it is.

 

[Bradskii]

Thats silly, modern day society can cause all sorts of issues for being married and cause a good marriage to go bad. Life stressors especially financial is a big one. That can lead to people being unhappy and sometimes they become volnurable and have an affair which is another reason. But none of those mean the end of marriage and the marriage can be repaired.

Luckily it's not your call which should be saved and which can't.

 

[stevevw]

Umm...each other.

Yes but the point was you said it had nothing to do with marriage. So divorcing from each other is bringing the marriage to an end between them.

If a dog is an animal with 4 legs then an animal with 4 legs isn't necessarily a dog.

I am not sure what you mean. If someone kicks or shoots a 4 legged animal until its no more it doesn't matter whether its a dog or not.

Looks like there were lots of people who really shouldn't have married. A lifetime committment is just that. A commitment for life. Enter into it too easily and you will leave it easily.

And the reason why those unreal expectations are there is because of secular societies beliefs about what marriage represents.

Another point I meant to make was when you mentioned that people should not be forced to stay married when they are unhappy. Part of why theres an unreal expectation is because marriage has lost its sacredness such as (for better or worse and in sickness and health).

Modern day conceptions make the most important thing self fullfillment based on feelings. It it doesn't feel right then its no good and a person must seek some new self realization and fullfillment to make them happy.

Whereas in times gone by people stuck it out through times when they didn't feel like it. Marriage involves sacrifice and duty and is not always about feelings. But mordern day ideas about what is morally right are based on feelings. So if it doesn't feel good its bad and if it feels good is morally good.

No. Harm doesn't equal an immoral act. But there can't be an immoral act if no harm is done. If I fall over and break my leg, it's nothing to do with morality. If you hit me with a cricket bat and I break my leg, then it is.

You said to determine morality
What else is there? If you cause harm then it's immoral.
One: Has there been harm? Yes? Go to two.
Two: Was the harm justified?
We can agree that something is wrong if it causes harm.

The point is harm equals a moral consideration regadless of whether we have established that the harm was justified or not. Any harm causes us to make moral evaluations. So any harm claimed needs a moral determination. Its about morality full stop.

You also said
Being upset equates to being harmed.

So if at least one partner is upset, maybe both are, certainly the kids will be and so will most of the relatives and friends. Everyone may be upset. So everyone is harmed. Out of that carnage we will find some of that harm immoral or is it all ok.

A price we have to pay for modern ideology that even though everyone is harmed including the greater society its all justified harm because, well one of the people is unhappy and happiness is the ultimate moral good.

 

[stevevw]

Luckily it's not your call which should be saved and which can't.

Is it really. Not mine or yours or anyones concern that we can't save marriages, save kids from harm. I would have thought just like the State gets concerned about destroying marriage by making it easy we should be concerned for marriage in trying to make it so theres more chance more marriages can be saved or for people to understand what getting married means.

I think this type of attitude that we must just let it happen because its none of our business is what is causing the problems. People are too disinterested in what is happening to others in society and how that effects us all. We must stay out of other peoples lives because no one can tell them or show them what to do, what is best.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes but the point was you said it had nothing to do with marriage. So divorcing from each other is bring the marriage to an end.

What you else is a it?

I am not sure what you mean.

I guess not.

And the reason why those unreal expectations are there is because of secular societies beliefs about what marriage represents.

I have no input on how people conceive marriage

You said to determine morality
What else is there? If you cause harm then it's immoral.
One: Has there been harm? Yes? Go to two.
Two: Was the harm justified?
We can agree that something is wrong if it causes harm.

The point is harm equals a moral consideration regadless of whether we have established that the harm was justified or not. Any harm causes us to make moral evaluations.

No. Any harm that has been caused. Not just any harm.

You also said
Being upset equates to being harmed.

So if at least one partner is upset, maybe both are, certainly the kids will be and so will most of the relatives and friends. Everyone may be upset. So everyone is harmed. Out of that carnage we will find some of that harm immoral or is it all ok.

To be decided on a case by case basis.

A price we have to pay for modern ideology that even though everyone is harmed including the greater society its all justified harm because, well one of the people is unhappy and happiness is the ultimate moral good.

Did someone tell you that?

 

[stevil]

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.

Yes, probably. It would be great if they had it there, it is necessary. Discrimination needs to be fought on all levels, race, culture, class, caste, religion, age, wealth, sexual orientation. All people ought to have the right to form a loving family. Many people try very hard to stop gays from marrying, even people in first world democratic nations. It should be mentioned in that clause.

 

[AlexB23]

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 agree with you.

 

[stevevw]

According to the same logic of Rights based politics other forms of marriage should be allowed. Why not Throuples, polygamous marriage.

Over the years we have seen families change as a result of devaluing marriage. Some families have had 2 or 3 marriages where theres three fathers and mothers. Some can have two fathers and a surrogate mother, others can have a sperm donor father. Some can have three fathers if the male couple are infertile. Then we have adopted and Foster parents.

I think theres a stark difference in beliefs about what constitutes marriage and family between progressive and traditional. THose beliefs are based on morals and values about what is marriage and a family. Those two moral positions and belief have different outcomes of harm.

But I think if we are to check what does the most harm then its the progressive ideology that undermines the value of marriage. Yet this progressive idea dominates law and policy. How is it that such a destructive idea and belief can be promoted when the evidence is obviously clear.

If morality is about unjustified harm and the truth and reality of the issue then in the case of secular ideas and beliefs about mariage, family and a range of other issues with similar outcomes its obviously clear that a certain moral ideology is being engineered by secular society. Its not neutral and its not about the facts or truth. Its a belief like a religious belief being promoted over other beliefs about marriage.

 

[Bradskii]

But I think if we are to check what does the most harm then its the progressive ideology that undermines the value of marriage. Yet this progressive idea dominates law and policy. How is it that such a destructive idea and belief can be promoted when the evidence is obviously clear.

The 'progressive ideology' says you can get married if you want to. And if things don't work out then you can get divorced.

The horror!

 

[stevevw]

The 'progressive ideology' says you can get married if you want to. And if things don't work out then you can get divorced.

The horror!

Actually the progressive ideology says you can get marriage under a variety of situations and all are just as good as each other. There is no difference between having a mother or father, two fathers or two mothers, single mothers, step parents, three or four parents or have a test tube parent or surrogate mother. It doesn't matter.

The definition is completely reworked to suit modern ideas of marriage. I think this devaluing of marriage is partly contributing to divorce.

Along with other progressive ideas like having a career before kids, not needing a man to have kids or to get married in the first place, devaluing the roles of fathers and mothers, devaluing relationships by making making sex the measure and making feelings (self fullfillment) the most important thing rather than duty and commitment.

Progressive ideology has been gradually chipping away at the institution of marriage for decades and what we have today is the end result.

 

[Bradskii]

Actually the progressive ideology says you can get marriage under a variety of situations and all are just as good as each other. There is no difference between having a mother or father, two fathers or two mothers, single mothers, step parents, three or four parents or have a test tube parent or surrogate mother. It doesn't matter.

The definition is completely reworked to suit modern ideas of marriage. I think this devaluing of marriage is partly contributing to divorce.

Along with other progressive ideas like having a career before kids, not needing a man to have kids or to get married in the first place, devaluing the roles of fathers and mothers, devaluing relationships by making making sex the measure and making feelings (self fullfillment) the most important thing rather than duty and commitment.

Progressive ideology has been gradually chipping away at the institution of marriage for decades and what we have today is the end result.

Just make sure you have your views known and then people can make up their own minds. Which is what this is all about. People being allowed to choose. Rather than others dictating what they can and cannot do.

 

[stevevw]

Just make sure you have your views known and then people can make up their own minds. Which is what this is all about. People being allowed to choose. Rather than others dictating what they can and cannot do.

Yes I agree and I think in part of making views known is allowing those discussions to happen without being shut down even if other people may not like hearing those views and disagreeing. That way all the cards can be laid upon the table and people will be able to know all views and all the facts and arguements so they can be informed to make up their minds.

This is the hardest part as people find it hard to put aside their beliefs and biases. BUt I think if we do we will find we have more in common than we realize.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Actually the progressive ideology says you can get marriage under a variety of situations and all are just as good as each other. There is no difference between having a mother or father, two fathers or two mothers, single mothers, step parents, three or four parents or have a test tube parent or surrogate mother. It doesn't matter.

The definition is completely reworked to suit modern ideas of marriage. I think this devaluing of marriage is partly contributing to divorce.

Without a religious rule all those things are no longer "sinful". That is something no on e can agree on anyway. While divorce is unfortunate and painful, it no longer has the stigma of sinful as well.

 

[o_mlly]

The 'progressive ideology' says you can get married if you want to. And if things don't work out then you can get divorced.

Do progressives' vows substitute "Till death do us part" with "Until something better comes along"?

 

[stevevw]

Without a religious rule all those things are no longer "sinful". That is something no on e can agree on anyway. While divorce is unfortunate and painful, it no longer has the stigma of sinful as well.

Its not just about sin but values and moral norms which are part of any society regardless of religious belief. Obviously marriage has a certain value attached to it even for secular society. This is supported by it being one of the big events in life and it has a big influence one someones life, their family and society.

The kind of value we place on mariage is important. What was once an act between a male and female for life and designed for procreation had a certain type of value to it regardless of religion. Part of that value relates to how we treat relationships and sex.

Now that has changed value with the redefining of marriage by removing the commitment and the associated standards relating to sex and relationships. For better or worse the value has changed.

Thats just a logical consequence. When you change something that was limited to a certain type and then allow many types its going to change its value. That value will be reflected in society, in relationships, family structure, attitudes to sex ect.

However we value something is how it will be embodied into society.

 

[Bradskii]

Do progressives' vows substitute "Till death do us part" with "Until something better comes along"?

I sincerely hope nobody does that. And I doubt if many go into a marriage thinking 'Well, if it doesn't work out then we can still get divorced.' Here's some interesting facts: What Americans Think About Marriage

'A U.S. Census Bureau study found that only 6 percent of married couples make it to their 50th wedding anniversary. However, more than 90 percent of Americans say it’s an inspiring accomplishment to stay the course together for more than half a century.'

So I think that less than 10% might think it might not work as they are signing the paperwork. My personal opinion is that an official marriage certificate is not required but the commitment is. I'm kinda old fashioned that way (me and my gal are 45 years and counting).

And another interesting fact from a book I was reading earlier today: Moral Animal by Robert Wright.

'A huge majority—980 of the 1,154 past or present societies for which anthropologists have data—have permitted a man to have more than one wife. These numbers come from a computerized database derived from G. P. Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas and were gathered courtesy of Steven J. C. Gaulin. Note that six of the 1, 154 societies—about one half of one percent—are polyandrous; that is, women have multiple spouses. But all these societies are polygynous as well, so either sex can have more than one spouse. And the polyandrous marriages often turn out to be not polyandry strictly speaking (more than one husband in a single household) but a kind of serial monogamy that presumably allows husbands some confidence of paternity.'

We're not designed for monogamy. It's quite a recent feature. The serial monogamy as noted, and which is currently par for the course, appears to be the worst of all worlds.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Its not just about sin but values and moral norms which are part of any society regardless of religious belief. Obviously marriage has a certain value attached to it even for secular society. This is supported by it being one of the big events in life and it has a big influence one someones life, their family and society.

The kind of value we place on mariage is important. What was once an act between a male and female for life and designed for procreation had a certain type of value to it regardless of religion. Part of that value relates to how we treat relationships and sex.

Now that has changed value with the redefining of marriage by removing the commitment and the associated standards relating to sex and relationships. For better or worse the value has changed.

Thats just a logical consequence. When you change something that was limited to a certain type and then allow many types its going to change its value. That value will be reflected in society, in relationships, family structure, attitudes to sex ect.

However we value something is how it will be embodied into society.

I agree. secular morality today seems be driven by movies and television shows.

 

[partinobodycular]

I agree. secular morality today seems be driven by movies and television shows.

You've got that backwards, people drive movies and television shows, not the other way around. Of course there's always a clique, a cabal of elites if you will that the more easily manipulated among us tend to follow, (hey, you're a Catholic you should know this better then any of us), but if you really want to know why society is going to hell in a hand basket just look around you... it's your neighbors. (In my case that includes you) It wasn't movies and television shows that got Donald Trump elected... it was your neighbors and it was a motivated majority of them that subsequently got him unelected as well, with all due respect to conspiracy theorists.

People are sheep. They like to follow the herd, and there's nothing particularly wrong with that even if every once in a while they run off a cliff... that's how evolution sorts them out. If you were thinking it was God or Satan doing the sorting then I'm sorry to disappoint you... it's just good old mother nature. (She hasn't got much of a sense of compassion, but she's awful darn good at her job)

So if you need someone to blame... blame people... they're crazy. Now I can understand why mother nature would make crazy people, but why would God make crazy people?