Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[Larniavc]

God is the only authority on morality,

You claim, without evidence.

 

[YahuahSaves]

You claim, without evidence.

Plenty of evidence, you just choose not to see it perhaps? ...anyway, that's a topic for another thread. 》bye

 

[GenemZ]

If you read the entire verse about loving your enemies, Jesus quotes the "golden rule" again. He refers to Leviticus where it says to "love your neighbor", neighbors in ancient times included not only people but neighboring countries. Hence, another reason why Jesus spoke of loving our enemies. It's not just about "treating others as you'd like to be treated", it's about being consistently righteous, and behaving in a way that is inherently good, regardless of what's being said and done in any given moment. To react from our ego's is a human thing to do, to react from our conscience is a righteous (Godly) thing to do. You gave an example of morality based on buying a friend a couple of beers, and if he sponged off you (without eventually reciprocating) you would "avoid him". Jesus set the bar really high when he said this:

John 15:12-13

12 This is my commandment: Love each other in the same way I have loved you. 13 There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

But this is why we need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to achieve the kind of righteousness God requires.

Many think Jesus was preaching Christianity. Yet, Jesus was a rabbi, and was shaming the failed religious leaders by teaching true Judaism as it should have been lived. The "golden rule" was pure Judaism. Its designed for all to live by, both believer and unbeliever alike.

Many do not realize that Jesus taught perfect Judaism. Judaism is often misunderstood because the Pharisees and legalism were giving Judaism a bad name. We now have such corruption of legalism to be found in the church today, too.

Later..After He was seated in Heaven, the Lord raised up the Apostle Paul with some others to reveal the mystery of the spiritual way of life that was to be lived by faith (knowledge of God's Word with understanding) in the filling of the Spirit, not by being under the Law. Then Christianity was born.

grace and peace ........

 

[Chriliman]

Yes! Laws, thoughts, imagination; happiness, and countless other things of the mind exist only in the context of things that are real, but they do not exist by themselves.

Isn’t this like saying “the data produced by a computer only exists in the context of the computer components”?

Well sure, but that doesn’t mean the data doesn’t objectively exist as a result of what the computer is doing, right?

Same with our moral reasoning. Our moral reasoning can be objectively right, if it accurately reflects reality by having a sound mind that’s capable of such. Same as a computer can correctly calculate 1+1=2 if it’s setup up correctly. I’m actually not sure why this reasoning isn’t compatible with materialism?

 

[GenemZ]

You claim, without evidence.

God's dictates for civil morality are still permeating many people on earth.

Murder had to be taught at one point to be bad. We now assume it to be a given.
Still, some people do murder without a caring.

Evil is what attempts to suck God's reality away concerning God being the source for all TRUE morality.
Claiming abortion as we know it is not murder is one example.
Evil confounds the good.
Good infuriates the evil.

....................

 

[YahuahSaves]

Its designed for all to live by, both believer and unbeliever alike.

Yes, I know that. Jesus wasn't preaching religion at all actually, he was preaching about himself (God) and how he intended life to be lived in communion with him. (Adam and Eve didn't have a religion).

to reveal the mystery of the spiritual way of life that was to be lived by faith (knowledge of God's Word with understanding) in the filling of the Spirit, not by being under the Law.

I totally agree.

 

[Larniavc]

God is the only authority on morality,

You claim, without evidence.

...anyway, that's a topic for another thread.

Then you should not use it to support your position.

 

[Larniavc]

Murder had to be taught at one point to be bad

That's the silliest thing I've heard all day,

 

[durangodawood]

All worldviews are circular as they either a) rely on reason to comprehend God or b) rely on reason for the truth of reason. The presupposition of God allows you to justify your use of reason or failing that, at the very least allows your use of reason & logic to be authoritative. Whereas a secular worldview posits that reason is true is because reason is true, it's unable to provide any reason for reason and therefore solely assumes itself as true in a perpetual circle unable to say why reason is or logic is authoriative apart from "it's all we have".

We argue based on an authoritative reason, a reason that has a reason for reason & logic, they don't.

Edit: Brother, also see from the OP "under naturalism or materialism, a philosophical perspective that denies the transcendent it’s impossible"

The backstop isnt an "ultimate reason". That doesnt even make sense, as you note.

The ultimate backstop for moral reasoning is a set of natural facts about the world.

These facts take form: humans generally prefer X experiences in life to Y experiences.

 

[Bradskii]

First of all, way to edit what I said in order to twist what I actually said. Here it is again (and I note here, that I included the other "authorities" for your benefit because you are an atheist.) but in truth, God is the only authority on morality, in which case, it is objective...

You specifcally said that authorities such as law implied that morality was objective. I quoted you directly.

And I strongly object to your insinuation that I twisted what you said. Apart from being against forum rules, that's a direct assault on my character. I'll ask you not to repeat that false claim.

I can only deal with what you post. And it seems that you have reconsidered what you wrote and instead of correcting yourself, you have decided to attack me instead.

 

[YahuahSaves]

You specifcally said that authorities such as law implied that morality was objective. I quoted you directly.

And I strongly object to your insinuation that I twisted what you said. Apart from being against forum rules, that's a direct assault on my character. I'll ask you not to repeat that false claim.

I can only deal with what you post. And it seems that you have reconsidered what you wrote and instead of correcting yourself, you have decided to attack me instead.

Perhaps you should return to your own posts #216 "But since you're a non-believer, and reject God..." and #217 "selfless love of one person for another" (that is how you quoted me).

You started by saying:

You really want to get a grip on the concept of what constitutes an atheist. It's not possible to reject that which one does not believe in.

That^ (belief) is what I was referring to in my response. I was using the belief in a moral authority that determines objective reality (people/groups/society) agreeing that something is morally right or wrong (because we don't exist in a vacuum and subjective morality has constraints) We need a "moral authority" to base our subjective (personal) morality on. If you disagree, then your whole spiel about "reciprocal altruism" is a misnomer.

You went on to say:

And you think that having an authority ('Morality is not subjective like you may think, there is an authority, whether you believe that authority is law...') on what you might deem moral matters means that morality is objective? That's actually a new one for me. Never heard it before. So if there's a law allowing abortion then abortion must be objectively moral?

You quote a partial statement of mine in your own post above (out of context, and avoided the implication of what I actually said) and then proceeded with a response as though my suggestion that law could be a moral authority for some is foolish.

So, as you said: "I can only deal with what you post." That statement is a kudos from me.
Also, "And it seems that you have reconsidered what you wrote and instead of correcting yourself" that there is a false claim from you, because I never changed what I said, I elaborated on what I said (and re-quoted my own posts for context) for clarification because you partially quoted what I said and proceeded to respond to me out-of-context. So where exactly did I attack you? Properly quote my posts or you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[zippy2006]

The backstop isnt an "ultimate reason". That doesnt even make sense, as you note.

The ultimate backstop for moral reasoning is a set of natural facts about the world.

These facts take form: humans generally prefer X experiences in life to Y experiences.

A fact about preferences could never ground binding moral claims. See:

Things arent made moral in the human world by my personal preferences. Thats backwards.

 

[Bradskii]

Properly quote my posts or you don't have a leg to stand on

This was it:

"Morality is not subjective like you may think, there is an authority, whether you believe that authority is law and governance, social constructs and virtue signalling, or God."

The meaning could not be clearer. The authority is either law, social constructs OR God. That is precisely the meaning of what you posted. That morality is not subjective if there is an authority such as law OR God.

I fully accept that people will claim an objective morality if there is a God (a calim I reject). But to claim it if that authority is God OR law and governance is nonsensical.

Perhaps rather than claiming I quoted you incorrectly you might correct your statement to better reflect what you mean.

 

[durangodawood]

A fact about preferences could never ground binding moral claims. See:
"durangodawood said:
Things arent made moral in the human world by my personal preferences. Thats backwards."

Thats right. Its not my personal preferences. Its the preferences that are typical to humans generally that are the basis for morality. Mine probably will align with those. After all, I'm genetically disposed to want to live, to eat, to be warm, to have companionship, etc, etc.

Preferences that are particular to me dont factor into the making of human morality.

 

[zippy2006]

Thats right. Its not my personal preferences. Its the preferences that are typical to humans generally that are the basis for morality. Mine probably will align with those. After all, I'm genetically disposed to want to live, to eat, to be warm, to have companionship, etc, etc.

Preferences that are particular to me dont factor into the making of human morality.

Why are things "made moral" by common preferences, but not by personal preferences? Is this not an appeal to popularity?

 

[durangodawood]

Why are things "made moral" by common preferences, but not by personal preferences? Is this not an appeal to popularity?

Its not an appeal or an argument. Its just what we do. We declare those things to be "right" that the wise have identified as tried and true for enabling most us to have satisfying lives. "Most of us" wins out against the outlier psychopaths and whatnot. If youre in the latter minority, youre out of luck because the rest of us are against you.

There's other contingencies and arbitrariness that sneaks in. But thats the basic dynamic, I think.

 

[zippy2006]

Its not an appeal or an argument. Its just what we do.

If it's just "what we do" then it's descriptive, not normative, and merely descriptive statements are not moral in nature.

We declare those things to be "right" that the wise have identified as tried and true for enabling most us to have satisfying lives.

This is an entirely different claim than what you've said earlier in this thread. In this new claim you are saying that we identify someone as morally wise and then accept an argument from authority in order to decide what is moral or immoral. "The wise" and "the many" are two very different groups, usually mutually opposed.

 

[GenemZ]

Yes, I know that. Jesus wasn't preaching religion at all actually, he was preaching about himself (God) and how he intended life to be lived in communion with him. (Adam and Eve didn't have a religion).

Religion = knowledge of good and evil. Produces 'checked behavior.'

God's way = walking in the Spirit and truth = Produces 'walking in Life.'

 

[durangodawood]

If it's just "what we do" then it's descriptive, not normative, and merely descriptive statements are not moral in nature.


This is an entirely different claim than what you've said earlier in this thread. In this new claim you are saying that we identify someone as morally wise and then accept an argument from authority in order to decide what is moral or immoral. "The wise" and "the many" are two very different groups, usually mutually opposed.

We make these descriptive statements about human thriving into normative moral rules to give them emotional force. And we make stories about over-watchers and punishments etc. Rational appeals and arguments arent enough to keep people in line, at least not until they gain wisdom - which is not guaranteed.

Yes we do build an authority for the reasons I just noted. I didnt say morality is voted on by the many. I said its derived from whats been proven to be most satisfactory for the most people.

Thats the basics. Of course the moral authorities can bend the rules to favor themselves. If they deviate too far from whats good for people, or if they fail to adapt to changing real world conditions, they will be overthrown, from within or without, sooner or later. Its complex - and we havent even got to the weird contingencies that creep in. But the root level origin and rudder for human morality is what makes for satisfying human lives, generally.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Perhaps rather than claiming I quoted you incorrectly you might correct your statement to better reflect what you mean.

No need. (See below).

I fully accept that people will claim an objective morality if there is a God (a calim I reject). But to claim it if that authority is God OR law and governance is nonsensical.

Thanks for finally quoting me correctly and letting me know you understood what I was trying to say and reiterating that you think my suggestion is beyond your idea of logic. Now, we can re-hash the initial analogy, which gave rise to the discussion on whether morality is influenced by others (authorative).

I'm in a bar and a friend rolls up and discovers he has no money. I'll buy him a drink with no expectation of him needing to pay me back. A week later, it's his round and again he's out of cash. No worries, I'll help him out again. How many times do I do this? Not many. Eventually I stop buying his beers and I actively avoid him. But if he does buy me a beer at some point because I helped him out then we're all good.

That's reciprocal altruism

And the results are noted. Others see me as being helpful and I benefit. They see the guy who is sponging off others and someone to be avoided.

And there's no scripture that I follow. No rules I obey. Other than those I think make the world a better place in which to live.

So, reading again your quoted posts above^ (note I've highlighted what I've been responding to thus far in bold)
What moral authority is your subjective morality based upon? (since none of us live in a vacuum and have to live within societal parameters) I'll highlight the options for you, (and we'll omit God's authority since you're a professing atheist).

there is an authority, whether you believe that authority is law and governance, social constructs and virtue signalling, or God. You cannot deny personal morality has constraints.

If you say your morality is still subjective, then you will have to deny what you yourself have already said thus far.