Establishing Secular Morality

[Bradskii]

In many countries they have a form of constitution or bill of rights which limits the authority of government.

It's a great idea, isn't it.

 

[stevevw]

We do. You and me. Everyone else. All of us. That's why it's called relative morality.

Gee, I spend an inordinate amount of time repeating myself. Please stop confusing authority with opinion. I'm not going to explain it again. I'll just ignore your post.

But how can a relative moral system then be forced on society likes its the moral truth. The system contradicts and undermines itself and therefore discredits the system itself.

 

[stevevw]

In many countries they have a form of constitution or bill of rights which limits the authority of government.

Tell that to all the Indigenous peoples, minorities that have been oppressed by Colonialism and Imperialism, the religions, individuals, parents, families being denied Rights. Its all a facade, pretending to be fair tolerant and neutral but its actually just as bad if not worse than a theocracy except with a different disguise. Some Rights just happen to be more worthy than others depending on what ideology you follow and which group is in power.

 

[stevil]

But how can a relative moral system then be forced on society likes its the moral truth. The system contradicts and undermines itself and therefore discredits the system itself.

The government isn't a church, politicians aren't ministers. It isn't their place to tell people what is moral and what isn't. Besides, if they took on this role, then that would make churches redundant. There should be a separation of church and state and this means government should get out of the business of defining and enforcing morality.

 

[stevevw]

The government isn't a church, politicians aren't ministers. It isn't their place to tell people what is moral and what isn't. Besides, if they took on this role, then that would make churches redundant. There should be a separation of church and state and this means government should get out of the business of defining and enforcing morality.

double post

 

[stevevw]

The government isn't a church, politicians aren't ministers. It isn't their place to tell people what is moral and what isn't. Besides, if they took on this role, then that would make churches redundant. There should be a separation of church and state and this means government should get out of the business of defining and enforcing morality.

You obviously are not in touch with modern society, with how politics and belief work. No State can be neutral when it comes to ideological belief. Everything they do has an ideological or philosophical basis. We are not robots. The fact is the State use to closely align itself with Christian values in the past. It may not have had all the trappings of the church or had priests and ceremonies like a church but it had all the hallmarks of one.

As the Chruches influence on politics and social norms was gradually deminished the State began to take many of the roles the church use to reside over especially welfare. Then the welfare state came in and this was how the state stepped into our private lives and had influence over more areas of life such as sex, family, child upbringing ect. Usually justified as economic management and Rights based politics.

Morality cannot be seperated from welfare issues and in fact it can't be seperated from just about all politics. This was ensured when academics and activists from the 60s revolutions made the political the personal. Gradually our institutions were taken over by the state and now the State controls just about every aspect of our lives including morality. In other words the State and its agents have become the new church and its political ideologies the new morality being enforced.

This is a well acknowledged and accepted fact of modern society.

It seems to me at the end of the day that secular society has not become more tolerant and more inclusive but more narcissistic. exclusive and intolerant of each other when it comes to morality. You only have to look the wrong way or speak the wrong words and its classed as bad behaviour.

So the relativist moral system is destroying itself. Its impossible to implement. You can't have many truths at the same time. Theres only one moral truth and when you get rid of moral truth moral chaos follows.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I don't have a problem with people who use morality as a personal guide, if they find it useful for them, then that is their own personal choice, but I do have problems with people who look to force their own morality onto others.

That's correct. It's used by people who want to claim that moral beliefs are discoverable facts rather than merely beliefs or opinions.

It gets trickier when "forcing" others is built into the morality.

But we do need to enforce some morality. Thus murder is a crime. Steeling is a crime, etc. But we do not elaborate on the rationale of why. We basically assume we all agree.

On most issues we do need to have a secular rationale since we will never agree on a religious one.

I do wish we would employ something like the scholastic "sic et non" method. Ask the question, list the + & - , the objections to those, the answers to those objections then a decision. these days the sic and non just dig their heels in deeper, double down without really addressing the objections.

 

[stevevw]

It gets trickier when "forcing" others is built into the morality.

But we do need to enforce some morality. Thus murder is a crime. Steeling is a crime, etc. But we do not elaborate on the rationale of why. We basically assume we all agree.

On most issues we do need to have a secular rationale since we will never agree on a religious one.

I do wish we would employ something like the scholastic "sic et non" method. Ask the question, list the + & - , the objections to those, the answers to those objections then a decision. these days the sic and non just dig their heels in deeper, double down without really addressing the objections.

But doesn't listing the + and - require some objective basis to work out what is a + and what is a -.

The very nature of morality is about 'should do' rather than 'its up to you'. Thats why they are called moral norms. There isn't an option for the subjective. Its either good or bad and no inbetween and people should or should not do it rather than preferring or feeling its the case.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

But doesn't listing the + and - require some objective basis to work out what is a + and what is a -.

I guess it enables us to drill down to common ground. But there will always be potential for disagreement. Thus, controversy and debate, we will always have with us.

 

[stevil]

It seems to me at the end of the day that secular society has not become more tolerant and more inclusive but more narcissistic. exclusive and intolerant of each other when it comes to morality. You only have to look the wrong way or speak the wrong words and its classed as bad behaviour.

There is no truth to what you say here.
Unless perhaps you live in some Arab state that laterally has a branch of police called the Moral police

• Iran.
• Afghanistan.
• Indonesia.
• Nigeria.
• Saudi Arabia.

In modern western environments, governments have legalised things that could be deemed immoral but have been deemed not a threat to the safety of society. e.g. cheating on spouse, prostitution, divorce, same sex relationships, same sex marriage, abortion.

They continue to police bigotry, discriminatory business practices, hate crimes, violence etc as unfortunately there are many people who are passionate about their hate for others.

 

[stevil]

It gets trickier when "forcing" others is built into the morality.

But we do need to enforce some morality. Thus murder is a crime. Steeling is a crime, etc. But we do not elaborate on the rationale of why. We basically assume we all agree.

On most issues we do need to have a secular rationale since we will never agree on a religious one.

I do wish we would employ something like the scholastic "sic et non" method. Ask the question, list the + & - , the objections to those, the answers to those objections then a decision. these days the sic and non just dig their heels in deeper, double down without really addressing the objections.

We don't need moral beliefs codified in law, in fact we shouldn't do this.

But there is a much better standard that moral belief system to base law on.
The whole purpose of having a government is to support having a safe, stable and thriving society.
So what laws do we need to make society safe for its members.
Well, it seems we need laws against murder, and assault, and theft and discrimination
It doesn't matter that there is some cross over with some people's moral beliefs. We aren't making these things illegal because they are deemed immoral, we are making them illegal because they make society unsafe.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

We don't need moral beliefs codified in law, in fact we shouldn't do this.

But there is a much better standard that moral belief system to base law on.
The whole purpose of having a government is to support having a safe, stable and thriving society.
So what laws do we need to make society safe for its members.
Well, it seems we need laws against murder, and assault, and theft and discrimination
It doesn't matter that there is some cross over with some people's moral beliefs. We aren't making these things illegal because they are deemed immoral, we are making them illegal because they make society unsafe.

Obligation to provided safety is a moral belief.

 

[stevil]

Obligation to provided safety is a moral belief.

Perhaps in your moral belief system it is included. But that is coincidence only. This standard "Safe, stable and thriving society" is most likely much less than what is included in your moral belief system. It would put massive constraints on what government can enforce. It would give religious organisations much responsibility for those people that want a moral society. But it would also support more liberties and freedoms for a diverse society.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

This standard "Safe, stable and thriving society"

I think it is an shared value. We all want to be safe. Although there are risk takers.
But there are those who seek these goods only for themselves sometimes at the expense of other.

 

[stevil]

I think it is an shared value. We all want to be safe. Although there are risk takers.
But there are those who seek these goods only for themselves sometimes at the expense of other.

"goods"????? as in products?

I don't define Safe, Stable and thriving as being a "moral good". Just a practicality of a useful society.
A society in which I can be harmed, in which my loved ones can be harmed, is a society I would not want to belong to as it is too dangerous for me.

I'm not for anarchy, I'm not for a moral society. But there are some basic rules for which we need governance.
If people want to behave immorally, I'm fine with that, as long as it doesn't harm me, or my loved ones or make my society unsafe for me to live within.

 

[Bradskii]

But how can a relative moral system then be forced on society likes its the moral truth. The system contradicts and undermines itself and therefore discredits the system itself.

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

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

"goods"????? as in products?

I don't define Safe, Stable and thriving as being a "moral good". Just a practicality of a useful society.
A society in which I can be harmed, in which my loved ones can be harmed, is a society I would not want to belong to as it is too dangerous for me.

I'm not for anarchy, I'm not for a moral society. But there are some basic rules for which we need governance.
If people want to behave immorally, I'm fine with that, as long as it doesn't harm me, or my loved ones or make my society unsafe for me to live within.

It sounds like you see safety as "good".

 

[stevil]

It sounds like you see safety as "good".

I don't see the world that way. I don't have moral good or moral bad. Not a lens I use, not something I consider.
But if it helps you by tying to squish my position into a box you understand, then why not?

 

[stevevw]

I guess it enables us to drill down to common ground. But there will always be potential for disagreement. Thus, controversy and debate, we will always have with us.

I like the analogy of drilling down as it implies finding some truth or rational for morality. Debating moral issues also implies some basis for why something is wrong to reason against.

 

[stevil]

The very nature of morality is about 'should do' rather than 'its up to you'. Thats why they are called moral norms. There isn't an option for the subjective. Its either good or bad and no inbetween and people should or should not do it rather than preferring or feeling its the case.

Well actually, for a choice to be considered a moral one then a choice must be offered. "its up to you" is an essential ingredient.
If you take choice away, if you force people to behave one way or another, then those people have lost that opportunity to make a moral choice, they are just doing what they are forced to do.

You can if you want, if it spins your wheels, observe what choices people are making, you then can be the judge of people, if you want, judge them against your own moral standard. But then, what value is your judgement? Are people asking you for your judgement, or are you offering it from the kindness of your heart?