Establishing Secular Morality

[zippy2006]

Do you really think that someone who has decided, literally, to end their own life will stop and think 'Hang on, it's against the law now. Gee, I don't want to get into trouble'.

A law against suicide is about as nonsensical a law as one could imagine. Although I have no problem in having laws about helping people commit suicide.

Such a well-reasoned view must have a great deal of difficulty dealing with the fact that the rate of suicide in Canada shot up substantially after it was legalized, and that, in general, suicide laws have a dramatic effect on the suicide rate in a society. Please think a bit harder before you attempt to respond to my posts. If I don't respond to your next post it is because I have put you on ignore.

 

[Bradskii]

Such a well-reasoned view must have a great deal of difficulty dealing with the fact that the rate of suicide in Canada shot up substantially after it was legalized, and that, in general, suicide laws have a dramatic effect on the suicide rate in a society. Please think a bit harder before you attempt to respond to my posts. If I don't respond to your next post it is because I have put you on ignore.

Maybe you have some figures I can see to back up your opinion? Because it's directly opposed to what I found.

Suicide rates in Canada had been gradually rising up until '71. It was decriminalized in '72 and there was no significant increase in the numbers after that. Suicide in Canada - Wikipedia. In fact the rate 5 years ago is the same as it was in '70.

Maybe you are talking about euthanasia, which you'd think would increase if it was made legal. But when it was legalised in 2015 the rates actually fell. Suicide in Canada

What impact covid had on those rates is not something I have access to. I'd imagine the rates would increase. But that obviously had nothing at all to do with it being legalised.

It's a shame if you now have me on ignore because you now have no opportunity to back up your opinion - which by all accounts is wrong.

 

[zippy2006]

Maybe you are talking about euthanasia

Yes, sorry, I am thinking of euthanasia, which has been rising drastically in recent years, and which is a natural extension of legalization.

The current evidence points to the thesis that euthanasia does not decrease the unassisted or total suicide rate, and that in fact it increases both:

1. Investigating the relationship between euthanasia and/or assisted suicide and rates of non-assisted suicide: systematic review
2. Is assisted suicide a substitute for unassisted suicide?
3. Assisted suicide laws increase suicide rates, especially among women
4. Study: Nations with euthanasia, assisted suicide have higher suicide rates
5. Studies Confirm: Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide Does Not Save Lives - Lozier Institute

The question for @Tinker Grey remains: how high must a suicide rate rise before intervention occurs? Before, say, euthanasia is made illegal?

Maybe you are talking about euthanasia, which you'd think would increase if it was made legal. But when it was legalised in 2015 the rates actually fell. Suicide in Canada

This is basically the Canadian government lying. It isn't reporting assisted suicides as suicides. For example, in 2020 there were <3,839 suicides> and <7,630 assisted suicides>. There seems to be an attempt to hide the impact that euthanasia is having in Canada by pretending that physician-assisted suicide is not suicide.

It's a shame if you now have me on ignore...

"If I don't respond..." Ergo, if your next post merits it.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, sorry, I am thinking of euthanasia, which has been rising drastically in recent years, and which is a natural extension of legalization.

The current evidence points to the thesis that euthanasia does not decrease the unassisted or total suicide rate, and that in fact it increases both:

1. Investigating the relationship between euthanasia and/or assisted suicide and rates of non-assisted suicide: systematic review
2. Is assisted suicide a substitute for unassisted suicide?
3. Assisted suicide laws increase suicide rates, especially among women.

I still see no recent figures, but I'd have no problem in assuming that suicide rates regarding euthanasia would increase once it was made legal. As one of your links says:

'There is very strong evidence that the legalisation of assisted suicide is associated with a significant increase in total suicides. Further, the increase is observed most strongly for the over-64s and for women.'

That makes sense. And I have no objection to it. When my time comes, if I have the opportunity to choose the place and specific time of my leaving, then I might well take it. I'd certainly want the opportunity to make that decision myself. Your mileage may vary as it's obviously a moral position and you might base your opinion on your religious views. Mine are based on the practical issues. Never the twain I suspect.

 

[zippy2006]

@Bradskii - I edited that post to add a few things.

The point here is that if someone's morality is based on the survival of a species or society, and euthanasia (or anything else) causes significant rises in the rate of suicide, then such a person would logically consider prohibiting those things that cause increases in the rate of suicide. Contrariwise, if someone is unwilling to consider such measures, then surely their morality is not what they say it is.

 

[Bradskii]

I edited that post to add a few things.

I was wondering where the extra links came from in my reply...

The point here is that if someone's morality is based on the survival of a species or society

It isn't. You are taking a quite reasonable proposition (in my opinion) that the evolutionary process has left us with instincts, or propensities if you like, that were conducive to ensuring societies formed and hence enabled the survival of the species and extrapolating that to an extreme where it could be suggested that anything that increased any given population (rape for example) is good and that anything that decreases it (suicide) is bad. That is a gross misrepresentation of the position. As you say here:

...euthanasia (or anything else) causes significant rises in the rate of suicide, then such a person would logically consider prohibiting those things that cause increases in the rate of suicide.

And I'm not blaming you in particular for having this view as it seems to be all too common. But even a brief contemplation of secular morality would show that that position is completely wrong, otherwise the secular position would be to ban all abortions, to legalise rape, to ban suicide (how that would work..?). But I'm sure that you are aware that most secularists or humanists (i.e. those without a religious view on the matter) have completely opposite views. So it's obviously not based on a purely 'survival of the fittest' mantra. And I would have thought my first post (#2) would have briefly explained that in any case.

If not, I can clarify whatever point I made or answer any question that you have.

 

[zippy2006]

It isn't.

It is. Do you have the faintest notion who my first post was responding to? I was responding to @Tinker Grey, who explicitly took up the position in question regarding species and societies. Before you respond to a post you should figure out what the post was responding to, lest you take it completely out of context.

 

[Bradskii]

It is. Do you have the faintest notion who my first post was responding to? I was responding to @Tinker Grey, who explicitly took up the position in question regarding species and societies.

Yeah, I know to whom you were responding. And as he explained, the evolution process works at the species level (and to somewhat less of a degree, at a societal level). Not the individual. You cannot take an individual act and consider it right or wrong at an evolutionary level. As he said, you don't consider the species when you run from a burning building. But avoiding pain is obviously an evolutionary characteristic.

So some things are evolutionary driven, such as a need for sex and sustenance. But does that mean we must have sex as often as possible with as many people as possible? Or that we should stuff ourselves with the most calorie loaded food as soon as it's available? Obviously not.

Some things like reciprocal altruism are evolutionary based. Does that mean we should share what we have all the time? Not if the situation requires a different approach at the individual level.

So my morality is not based on what I should do to help the species survive. It's generally based on what I should do to survive. And when you have very many people doing that, if what we generally do helps the society and hence the species survive then it's selected for. Obviously, as the ones who are making the 'good' choices survive and those that don't are not. So reciprocal altruism works. It's been selected for. We didn't select it. It was just one of the choices for action that we had and we tended towards it and the majority of those that didn't were removed from the gene pool.

Let me put it this way. There is a natural tendency to avoid incest. It just doesn't feel right. All societies have taboos against it. And because those that thought it was ok...their lines of descent have terminated. It causes too many problems in successive generations. It's evolutionary beneficial to avoid it. But...what if the biological system happened to work so that it was a benefit to share your genes with a close family member? In that case, those that had sex outside the family would have their lines of descent terminated. And we'd have a society that considered sex with a stranger to be disgusting and sex with a close family member to be entirely natural.

 

[zippy2006]

So my morality is not based on what I should do to help the species survive.

I think Tinker's is, and that is who I addressed my post to. Not everything is about you. Here are a few things he has said:

Empathy, as @Bradskii noted, is a useful rubric for determining which actions are useful to the species.

Social agreement isn't arbitrary. It's what society sees as the mechanism that makes it function smoothly (one hopes).

I think [slavery] is wrong. I think history shows us that that practice fails to make society livable, workable, and stable.

 

[Bradskii]

I think Tinker's is, and that is who I addressed my post to. Not everything is about you. Here are a few things he has said:

Empathy, as @Bradskii noted, is a useful rubric for determining which actions are useful to the species.

Social agreement isn't arbitrary. It's what society sees as the mechanism that makes it function smoothly (one hopes).

I think [slavery] is wrong. I think history shows us that that practice fails to make society livable, workable, and stable.

I agree with all those points. What helps societies survive (or what happened to do that back in our distant past) is selected for by the evolutionary process. We didn't sit down with a group of fellow travellers around the camp fire a million or so years ago and try to think of what characteristics would be needed to help the species survive. It's just that some of the things worked and some didn't. So what did work has remained.

Now, a million years later, we can sit around the camp fire and look back to see, in retrospect, with hindsight, what actually worked. And define it and encourage it. So somebody can have a sermon on a hillside and remind those in attendance what works and encourage them not to forget it.

But let's not confuse that with anyone thinking that basic evolutionary instincts are always right all the time in all circumstances. It's like saying that you shouldn't lie at all in any circumstance. But do you have to tell the mob that your wife and daughter are hiding in the basement?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I agree with all those points. What helps societies survive (or what happened to do that back in our distant past) is selected for by the evolutionary process. We didn't sit down with a group of fellow travellers around the camp fire a million or so years ago and try to think of what characteristics would be needed to help the species survive. It's just that some of the things worked and some didn't. So what did work has remained.

Now, a million years later, we can sit around the camp fire and look back to see, in retrospect, with hindsight, what actually worked. And define it and encourage it. So somebody can have a sermon on a hillside and remind those in attendance what works and encourage them not to forget it.

But let's not confuse that with anyone thinking that basic evolutionary instincts are always right all the time in all circumstances. It's like saying that you shouldn't lie at all in any circumstance. But do you have to tell the mob that your wife and daughter are hiding in the basement?

Thanks, @Bradskii. You've responded better than I could have.

 

[Fantine]

I think every nation's code of law is based on moral assumptions. In times of turbulence, laws can change based on conflicting moral beliefs and one group gaining ascendancy over another (this is happening with abortion laws in different states.)

Theologian Hans Kung spent years working with others to develop a global ethic as his legacy to the world.

Küng anchored the global ethic in two foundational principles: the Golden Rule and the mandate to treat all human beings humanely. Based on these, Küng identified four moral commitments that he termed directives, describing them as irrevocable because they are unchanging and unconditional because they apply to everyone without exception. Still, their role was not to serve as “bonds and chains” but to provide moral orientation. The four directives are:

1. commitment to a culture of non-violence and respect for life
2. commitment to a culture of solidarity and a just economic order
3. commitment to a culture of tolerance and a life of truthfulness
4. commitment to a culture of equal rights and partnership between men and women

The Global Ethic: Hans Küng’s Lasting Gift to the World

Myriam Renaud explores the development and evolution of the global ethic, developed in large part by Hans Küng, and highlights areas where the global ethic can spur further interreligious action, including environmental issues and women's rights.

berkleycenter.georgetown.edu

The Golden Rule exists in some form in every culture and spiritual practice throughout history. Of course, reading Kung's directives, the potential for conflict still exists. People disagree on when life begins. On what economic justice means.

Now we are disagreeing on tolerance? LGBTQ call for acceptance and tolerance, but some call their orientation an abomination.

There are many different views on gender equality, with many saying that patriarchy is Biblical

 

[Astrid]

Love your neighbor and buy your slaves from the heathens that surround you are both in that same book. God's commandments in the Bible include dashing infants against rocks, treating women as property (alongside children and slaves), and stoning new brides who aren't virgins.

If God commands one group of people to commit rape and genocide, or to sacrifice animals in its name, or to take people as property, does that mean those things are universally applicable and "good conduct"?

I think that was referred to as transcendant.

As a vulnerable female, I'm very dubious of the
morality of armrd men breaking into the city.

Lets visulize the scene. The shouts and
screams, the clash of arms as the defense falls.
Fires here and there. Chaos

Bloody, terrible men breaking down every door
to find the terrified women and children huddled
inside- they still unaware of what's to happen.

The boys and older women first, chopped up
with swords.
Then-
The girls, ah, checked, for virginity.

That's where I die, having lost it early to a rapist.

The surviving girls are taken away to a fate we
won't speculate about.

All this done as directed by the source of Transendant
Morality.

I did read the book.

What am I to think of those who may propose
it as humankinds best hope, and may wish to
impose same as law of the land?

 

[Astrid]

I know why it was said. I'm familiar with the psalm (some of it even formed the lyrics of a pop song back in the late 70's). And it was outrageous to say it. But you spent a whole post suggesting that if God recomended it, it would have been just. That it would have been acceptable.

If you think that God is love, that God is just, if God is concerned for our well being, then He is not the type of God that would accept anyone dashing out the brains of a child. That is evil. And God cannot be evil. We have to use our God-given sense of what is right or wrong to determine that for ourselves. So just because men wrote in the bible that some evil happened does not mean that God would have approved. Even if they said He did.

It is painfully obvious to me that stories like this, and stories like the flood, are written by those who want to convince people that He is not to be taken lightly. That He will punish those that transgress His laws even to the point of killing their innocent children. It's quite a common trope in literature when we have characters who will threaten not just to kill anyone who crosses them, but their wives and children, their friends. Everyone they know. Meaning that they are not to be taken lightly (off the top of my head, using films - The Godfather, The Usual Suspects, Unforgiven etc).

It's up to you whether you think He would do that. The type of God in which you want to believe is entirely up to you. And it's certainly not my place to tell you. But it is encumbent on me to point out the consequences that can and do result when people think that anything is justified if they think God has given it a divine thumbs up.

Re that last I encountered a
"christian" , or one who believed he
was, who told me he daily prayed for
Word that it's time to kill all the atheists.


Perhaps it was my egregious status as a
awful alien asian atheist that he said I'd
be hanging from a lamp post.

 

[FireDragon76]

Love your neighbor and buy your slaves from the heathens that surround you are both in that same book. God's commandments in the Bible include dashing infants against rocks, treating women as property (alongside children and slaves), and stoning new brides who aren't virgins.

If God commands one group of people to commit rape and genocide, or to sacrifice animals in its name, or to take people as property, does that mean those things are universally applicable and "good conduct"?

That's not really true. The dashing children against a rock is from a psalm of lamentation, not a commandment. It's not prescriptive.

At any rate, interpreting the Bible is more complicated than simply lifting isolated verses to support our prejudices and preconceived notions. It's beyond the scope of this thread to fully discuss biblical hermeneutics. Needless to say, there's nothing in the Christian traditions I was raised with that countenances brutality or rape.

There is a Canadian theologian, Randal Rauser, that has written a book called Jesus loves Canaanites, that is approachable and I would recommend. Of course there are many Christians who have discussed how we are to understand Old Testament violence and war, but this one is perhaps the most contemporary and approachable.

 

[Astrid]

That's not really true. The dashing children against a rock is from a psalm of lamentation, not a commandment. It's not prescriptive.

At any rate, interpreting the Bible is more complicated than simply lifting isolated verses to support our prejudices and preconceived notions. It's beyond the scope of this thread to fully discuss biblical hermeneutics. Needless to say, there's nothing in the Christian traditions I was raised with that countenances brutality or rape.

There is a Canadian theologian, Randal Rauser, that has written a book called Jesus loves Canaanites, that is approachable and I would recommend. Of course there are many Christians who have discussed how we are to understand Old Testament violence and war, but this one is perhaps the most contemporary and approachable.

'Do as I say, not as I do" is not really a good
model for morality.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I think that was referred to as transcendant.

It's an epistemological term referring to the requirement of the justification needing to exist independent of human reasoning or belief. So for example, rocks continuing to exist after we die whether we believe they will or not.

This is because 'what works' would not be an absolute but instead it would be context dependent. So for a human example; if lopping off heads and hands like the Islamic state do 'works' for their society and if combined with their polygamy facilitates reproductive success, then there's nothing inherently wrong with lopping off heads and hands. If I was to disagree with their morality I would need to a) subscribe to the reality of morals being transcendent over our reasoning (i.e. they're absolutes) or b)have to just disagree based upon the morals of my society because our context for 'what works' is different.

I understand that not everybody can or will desire to read the responses, which is perfectly fine, but I just thought I'd highlight it here.

1 to 1.3 cover justified true belief. The requirement to justify propositions.

The Analysis of Knowledge (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

 

[Astrid]

Yes, sorry, I am thinking of euthanasia, which has been rising drastically in recent years, and which is a natural extension of legalization.

The current evidence points to the thesis that euthanasia does not decrease the unassisted or total suicide rate, and that in fact it increases both:

1. Investigating the relationship between euthanasia and/or assisted suicide and rates of non-assisted suicide: systematic review
2. Is assisted suicide a substitute for unassisted suicide?
3. Assisted suicide laws increase suicide rates, especially among women
4. Study: Nations with euthanasia, assisted suicide have higher suicide rates
5. Studies Confirm: Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide Does Not Save Lives - Lozier Institute

The question for @Tinker Grey remains: how high must a suicide rate rise before intervention occurs? Before, say, euthanasia is made illegal?


This is basically the Canadian government lying. It isn't reporting assisted suicides as suicides. For example, in 2020 there were <3,839 suicides> and <7,630 assisted suicides>. There seems to be an attempt to hide the impact that euthanasia is having in Canada by pretending that physician-assisted suicide is not

"If I don't respond..." Ergo, if your next post merits it.

Saying " the government is lying " (so I'm right)
Or ftm, that all the scientists are paid to
deny proof that evolution is a lie. Is from
the spectators pov. anutomatic lose.

 

[Astrid]

It's an epistemological term referring to the requirement of the justification needing to exist independent of human reasoning or belief. So for example, rocks continuing to exist after we die whether we believe they will or not.

I understand that not everybody can or will desire to read the responses, which is perfectly fine, but I just thought I'd highlight it here.

1 to 1.3 cover justified true belief. The requirement to justify propositions.

The Analysis of Knowledge (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

Sorryah, but I see nothing response to what I said.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Sorryah, but I see nothing response to what I said.

You were using the word "transcendent" implying that I was saying one set of values is higher or better than another rather than a clinical epistemological use. I was just trying to point out that you may be misunderstanding the use of the word and therefore misconstruing the argument.

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'.

God bless