Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I highly doubt that. Back to slavery:Thanks, @Bradskii. You've responded better than I could have.
If slavery is wrong because it fails to make society livable, workable, and stable, then why isn't mass euthanasia wrong? You have a principle, but are you willing to apply it impartially?I think [slavery] is wrong. I think history shows us that that practice fails to make society livable, workable, and stable.
Because euthanasia (voluntary) does make society livable, workable, and stable. And, no, I am not going to argue the merits of euthanasia with you.I highly doubt that. Back to slavery:
If slavery is wrong because it fails to make society livable, workable, and stable, then why isn't mass euthanasia wrong? You have a principle, but are you willing to apply it impartially?
There's a limit to total medical care andBecause euthanasia (voluntary) does make society livable, workable, and stable. And, no, I am not going to argue the merits of euthanasia with you.
What is 'mass euthanasia'? And I'm not having a dig. I really don't understand what that means. Lots of people deciding to commit suicide?If slavery is wrong because it fails to make society livable, workable, and stable, then why isn't mass euthanasia wrong? You have a principle, but are you willing to apply it impartially?
From the above, I summarize that the self-centered secular or atheist moral compass as follows: An action or inaction I contemplate as good for me directly (proximately) or indirectly (remotely) is permissible with the condition that what I contemplate as good for me indirectly is not directly bad for me.I run from a burning building because I want to survive. I do NOT do it for the species. It happens that if I live long enough to procreate then I've contributed to the species surviving. If enough people get out of burning buildings, the species does survive.
From the above, I summarize that the self-centered secular or atheist moral compass as follows: An action or inaction I contemplate as good for me directly (proximately) or indirectly (remotely) is permissible with the condition that what I contemplate as good for me indirectly is not directly bad for me.
Tinker Grey said:
I run from a burning building because I want to survive. I do NOT do it for the species. It happens that if I live long enough to procreate then I've contributed to the species surviving. If enough people get out of burning buildings, the species does survive.
...
This quote is *specifically* about survival and motivation to survive. ... it doesn't directly say *ANYTHING* about morality.
Tinker uses the first person pronoun "I". You and Tinker agree that morality is subjective so, if you agree with Tinker, kindly correct my interpretation as to the guiding principles in your morality.Yes but if I was to use this as a moral absolute then all suicide would be considered immoral on the basis that survival in order to propagate genetic material is the arbiter of right and wrong. So the value here ... assumes that there's some inherent value in survival ...
I am aware of the title. I didn't not fully appreciate that you were responding partially to 7 week old post.? The title of this thread is "Establishing Secular Morality" and Tinker is responding to the OP's post:
Because he personalizes an example about motivation and self preservation. The text you quoted was just about self-preservation. The motivation of the individual to save themselves from imminent danger is only focused on the self, not the group. That instinct has collective group advantages (the group does better if everyone doesn't fail to save themselves), but the decision making is individual in nature.Tinker uses the first person pronoun "I".
I'm not sure that I said so in this thread, but it is true the I don't think there is an objective morality. Certainly not in the way any Christian uses that term. There may be an objective human basis for moral opinions, but those are the bits of the foundation that come on top of the non-moral motivation questions. The idea of the OP is a good one. We do need a solid secular moral system because the Christian one is an abject failure. Fortunately many of the needed pieces have been built over the centuries.You and Tinker agree that morality is subjective so, if you agree with Tinker, kindly correct my interpretation as to the guiding principles in your morality.
According to the Oxford dictionary, not "may be" but rather morality must be a set of principles:There may be an objective human basis for moral opinions ...
According to the Oxford dictionary, not "may be" but rather morality must be a set of principles:
morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
... that is there may be intrinsic properties of humans that provide for a basis to build moral opinions. ...Again, you fail to read my sentence correctly or choose to ignore it.
I said "There may be an objective human basis for moral opinions"
that is there may be intrinsic properties of humans that provide for a basis to build moral opinions. To build a set of principles based on top of those after the subjective choice of goals. Your "oxford defniition" doesn't say anything about mrality being objective, just a set of principles. I didn't even get to the choices about goals for morality. You're jumping way ahead of anything I've discussed and making demands.
Those things that are intrinsic to humans and how we live. Empathy for others, our need to cooperate to thrive and work in groups. This is the nature of humans (and most of the other apes).... that is there may be intrinsic properties of humans that provide for a basis to build moral opinions. ...
What intrinsic properties might those be?
Yeah, exactly.... To build a set of principles based on top of those after the subjective choice of goals. ...
? If the basis of "principles" derive from subjective goals then those principles are themselves necessarily subjective.
Objective morality (the actual rules being objective, outside any person's opinion) and an objective basis (group cooperation, empathy, which can be detected in all human groups objectively) are not the same thing. Got it?... Your "oxford defniition" ...
Well, it's not mine, it's Oxford's definition of "morality".
... doesn't say anything about mrality being objective,
? You brought up the notion of objectivity in morality -- "There may be an objective human basis for moral opinions ..."
And I used "principle" synonymously with "moral rule" just as you had. They are not the same things as the intrinsic properties of humanity that can be objective.... just a set of principles. ...
Here's Oxford's definition of "principle":
noun, moral rule or a strong belief that influences your actions.Looks like "moral rules" and "principles" are synonymous. Do you have a point to make that I may be missing?
First we need to understand the basics. That's what the bit you quoted from Tinker was about. A simple question about motivation for self versus the group. There is a long way to go from there.... I didn't even get to the choices about goals for morality. ...
The thread is about "Establishing Secular Morality". Kindly disclose what goals you believe are necessary for a secular morality?
... You're jumping way ahead of anything I've discussed and making demands.
? I responded to Tinker's post. You responded to my post. I made no demands of you or Tinker.
______________________________________________________________________________---
It appears there is not only no secular (atheist) moral system, there's no serious effort to establish one. Those who claim all morality is subjective cannot appeal to a higher authority for moral rules of behavior and are necessarily doomed to cling only to legal positivism.
I agree that man is a social or gregarious animal. He naturally needs to live in association with other human beings in organized societies. Morally, this natural need translates into a natural right, the right to associate with others.Those things that are intrinsic to humans and how we live. Empathy for others, our need to cooperate to thrive and work in groups. This is the nature of humans (and most of the other apes).
I agree with all that except the last sentence. I think what's being discussed is whatever variation of the Golden Rule each of us has in mind. Call it 'do unto others...etc' or reciprocal altruism or Kant's Categorical Imperative...whatever suits. But it's not a natural right. It's a natural tendency. I say it's the result of the evolutionary process And you might say it's a God given instinct that we have. Or it's a combo of the two (evolution was the process He used). And it's not the only tendencies we have. So there's a lot to unpack when you examine a specific moral act. But as a starting point it covers a lot of bases.I agree that man is a social or gregarious animal. He naturally needs to live in association with other human beings in organized societies. Morally, this natural need translates into a natural right, the right to associate with others.
However, although passions are intrinsic to human beings, in themselves they are neither good nor bad but determined to be one or the other by the act they move one to take. Morality is about acts; not feelings. Feelings, or passions, are unwilled and derive from our affections. Disordered affections lead to disordered feelings. Feelings do not give moral license to acts they may move us to commit. One cannot appeal to one’s passions, neither empathy nor anger, to justify an act as morally permissible which is not.
So, the foundation of your secular morality is simply that man has a natural right to association with others and others have an obligation to respect that right. Not much to work on.
Seems reasonable so far.I agree that man is a social or gregarious animal. He naturally needs to live in association with other human beings in organized societies. Morally, this natural need translates into a natural right, the right to associate with others.
I suppose.However, although passions are intrinsic to human beings, in themselves they are neither good nor bad but determined to be one or the other by the act they move one to take. Morality is about acts; not feelings.
Not sure the point here.Feelings, or passions, are unwilled and derive from our affections.
No clue as to what this or what "affections" have to do with anything.Disordered affections lead to disordered feelings.
Again no sure the point of this.Feelings do not give moral license to acts they may move us to commit. One cannot appeal to one’s passions, neither empathy nor anger, to justify an act as morally permissible which is not.
So, the foundation of your secular morality is simply that man has a natural right to association with others and others have an obligation to respect that right. Not much to work on.
I agree that man is a social or gregarious animal. He naturally needs to live in association with other human beings in organized societies. Morally, this natural need translates into a natural right, the right to associate with others.
If you agree that morally man has the right to associate with others then morality is not entirely subjective. Correct?Seems reasonable so far.
Firstly: so what?Those who claim all morality is subjective cannot appeal to a higher authority for moral rules of behavior and are necessarily doomed to cling only to legal positivism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?