Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[Bradskii]

I don’t know what you're trying to achieve mentioning one of the definitions of "arbitrary"...

Because, yet again, it was the one relevant to my position.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

And was classed as good (obviously).

Again, within Naturalism & Materialism there is no basis to class anything as good. If the basis is survival then what's determined to be good is drawn from individual human preference/subjective thought and if that's the case one person who thinks murder is really terrific is just in the right as someone who thinks murder is abhorrent.

It's the same claim that our Catholic brothers lob at protestants that when then reformation happened we all became our own little Popes. It makes the individual's interpretation of events authoritative when there's solely the individual as the basis for what is determined to be good which is without justification within the paradigm your views rest on, hence the post.

 

[zippy2006]

If you want to revisit old threads then start them up again. If you have a question about anything stated then that is relevant now to this thread, then ask it. Otherwise 'hey, I didn't understand your position on something last year' isn't really worth your effort posting it or mine reading it.

I have given all of the readers overwhelming evidence that your long-held position regarding the authoritative-ness of morality is wildly incoherent, and has been shown to be wildly incoherent by theists and non-theists alike. Of course it was worth my effort to do so.

 

[durangodawood]

None of the arguments that you have offered in this thread arrive at or even mention rules, much less any sort of normative strictures. Here is the current state of your argument:

1. Over the long term, most people prefer X​

2. Long term observation teaches us that Y leads to X​

3. Therefore, we will make Y happen​

Are you proposing that we enforce (3) via societal rules (laws or mores)?

3 is the long ongoing process of making of all those rules and reinforcing myths, stories, teachings, shame and guilt mechanisms, and even laws.

...That if people like things then we need to make rules to force them to do those things...? (Because apparently people aren't capable of doing the things they prefer to do without rules...!?)

Ugh. Its like I said nothing at all about how many of these rules for a successful society are only revealed to wisdom, and are often contrary to less mature impulses.

 

[Bradskii]

Again, within Naturalism & Materialism there is no basis to class anything as good. If the basis is survival then what's determined to be good is drawn from individual human preference/subjective thought and if that's the case one person who thinks murder is really terrific is just in the right as someone who thinks murder is abhorrent.

Why does this position keep comimg up? That if someone thinks that murder or rape or theft is a good idea then that's as equally valid as someone who thinks they are not. That's complete lunacy. Because it assumes that without some divine commandment saying 'thou shalt not...' then there are no reasonable arguments to be had against it. Seriously?

I dunno about you but I could put forward a good case against murder or rape. Are you saying that you can't without reference to a divine command? That's quite chilling as far as I'm concerned. It would mean that if you had a bang on the head that meant you forgot all about your faith and someone said 'Hey Tranquil, shall we go out and rape some girls' then you wouldn't be able to mount an argument against it.

 

[Bradskii]

I have given all of the readers overwhelming evidence that your long-held position regarding the authoritative-ness of morality is wildly incoherent, and has been shown to be wildly incoherent by theists and non-theists alike. Of course it was worth my effort to do so.

I'm sure all your 'readers' are suitably impressed...Well done.

 

[zippy2006]

Ugh. Its like I said nothing at all about how many of these rules for a successful society are only revealed to wisdom, and are often contrary to less mature impulses.

Well okay, but it's rather confusing to omit the crucial premise that <most people dislike Y>, for without this premise there is no rationale for imposing rules or control mechanisms.

3 is the long ongoing process of making of all those rules and reinforcing myths, stories, teachings, shame and guilt mechanisms, and even laws.

If you are willing to offer an agent, such as "the leaders of a society," then I would agree that the account passes muster as a moral theory. This is something like the paternalism of the wise.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Because, yet again, it was the one relevant to my position.

So to be clear, what is your position? are you trying to now say, something you haven't previously said? are you saying you base your personal preferences on random chance?

Any response I give (to hypothetical situations or specific, real world situations) are going to be my personal opinions.

How on earth earth is that advancing any discussion. I've already told you that any matter where I make a moral decision is my call.

Do you speak for secular morality per your below quote?

...despite being constantly told that it is most definitely not a whim, categorically not random but most certainly based on reason. This whole thread has been nothing except an op that has misrepresented secular morality

You are contradicting yourself. Perhaps I'll agree, your morality is based on a whim and not reason.

But guess why I referenced the first one...because it's the one that's applicable as secular morality 'is most definitely not a whim, categorically not random but most certainly based on reason.'

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Why does this position keep comimg up? That if someone thinks that murder or rape or theft is a good idea then that's as equally valid as someone who thinks they are not. That's complete lunacy. Because it assumes that without some divine commandment saying 'thou shalt not...' then there are no reasonable arguments to be had against it. Seriously?

I dunno about you but I could put forward a good case against murder or rape. Are you saying that you can't without reference to a divine command? That's quite chilling as far as I'm concerned. It would mean that if you had a bang on the head that meant you forgot all about your faith and someone said 'Hey Tranquil, shall we go out and rape some girls' then you wouldn't be able to mount an argument against it.

The inclination against certain actions =/= those certain actions should be avoided. The justification for moral actions is still required if you lose all of your memory, it's one you lack.

If I had a blow to the head and forgot I was a Christian I would still need a reason as to why my morals are correct without assuming the truth of them because of stimulus

It keeps coming up because you assume specific actions are bad without justification, what you deem a reasonable case is based entirely upon the assuming of certain truths within your paradigm. Without the Divine command there is no authoritative use of morality, no basis on which to say why certain moral actions are correct, just subjective disagreements. Go read the book of Judges.

Judges 17:6

God bless Brad, I hope one day you're able to comprehend the presuppositions of your worldview and their inability to make any moral truth claims.

 

[Bradskii]

So to be clear, what is your position?

This is bizarre. You ask this and then quote me twice as saying that my position is that I personally determine morality. That it's my call. That I take personal responsibility for my decisions.

You are contradicting yourself. Perhaps I'll agree, your morality is based on a whim and not reason.

Why do you keep talking about it being on a whim? Where does this come from? Can you quote anything at all that would give you that impression? I have reasons for all my decisions. They are all based on available facts and reason is the process I use to determine the morality of any given action. And yes, it's my understanding of morality. It may align with someone elses but it's mine nevertheless.

 

[durangodawood]

Well okay, but it's rather confusing to omit the crucial premise that <most people dislike Y>, for without this premise there is no rationale for imposing rules or control mechanisms.


If you are willing to offer an agent, such as "the leaders of a society," then I would agree that the account passes muster as a moral theory. This is something like the paternalism of the wise.

I clearly erred by trying to follow your example of the syllogistic 3- part argument you presented. There's simply too much to explain. Not that I need to write a novel. 3 paragraphs would probably suffice. Sorry I dragged you through that.

Im curious about the contrary position I assume you take that moral rules are sort of real things, or out there in the world, or in any way exist apart from human culture and biology. If they do exist, what precisely should I be looking for to find them? What exactly will I find such that I can say: yes here's one!

 

[Bradskii]

Without the Divine command there is no authoritative use of morality, no basis on which to say why certain moral actions are correct, just subjective disagreements.

You said that one person's subjective view is equal to anyone else's view. So without divine authority, one person who says rape is ok is equally as correct as one who says it isn't. You are saying that there are no arguments that can be offered either way because their views are equally valid. That there is no basis to say 'you shuldn't do that.' As you literally said, there is 'no basis on which to say why certain moral actions are correct'.

Please confirm this. That you have no arguments against it except by divine command.

 

[zippy2006]

I clearly erred by trying to follow your example of the syllogistic 3- part argument you presented. There's simply too much to explain. Not that I need to write a novel. 3 paragraphs would probably suffice. Sorry I dragged you through that.

Thanks. Yes, we could've done that faster.

Im curious about the contrary position I assume you take that moral rules are sort of real things, or out there in the world, or in any way exist apart from human culture and biology. If they do exist, what precisely should I be looking for to find them? What exactly will I find such that I can say: yes here's one!

No, I don't think morality exists apart from moral agents. God didn't need to write his law before there were humans to receive it, so to speak. I don't think the rocks would've been very interested.

 

[Bradskii]

Also, Orel and myself have addressed your approach to morality many times in the past, and each time it has been found to be incoherent. I am guessing that it remains as it was then. I am not going to revisit the same issue with you again. Here are some of the threads:

• The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force
• Is there Objective Morality?
• Is there an absolute morality?

And in passing (lazy day at home), I took a browse through the first thread (ah, those discussions with o_mlly...) and these are a few of your comments. They are quite typical:

"I don't see anything inconsistent in @Bradskii's account."

"I would say that this is the reason why his view is instructive....Bradskii's view is important..."

"Yes, but Bradskii was not arguing for an objective morality or one based on human nature, but rather for one based on consent and consensus."

"I tend to agree with you that consequentialist morality isn't usually understood to be objective morality. That is, I think there is something objective about your appeal to negative outcomes, evolution, and survival..."

There was nothing whatsoever to indicate that you thought any position I took was 'incoherent'. In fact, you were batting on my team for most of the discussion.

 

[Chriliman]

.

 

[durangodawood]

No, I don't think morality exists apart from moral agents. God didn't need to write his law before there were humans to receive it, so to speak. I don't think the rocks would've been very interested.

This^ feel like a preamble to your answer...... which is...???

 

[Chriliman]

The cause, or how morality has come to be, was nothing to do with authority. It didn't start with anyone stating 'we must act this way because it is moral.' It was a naturally evolved process. A throw of the genetic dice dictated what some people did and what others didn't. And what worked was selected for. So it became the norm. And was classed as good (obviously).

So morality had a cause - certain acts turned out to be beneficial (or at least avoided negative outcomes) and then it became obvious that it was necessary to promote those acts to maintain the benefits.

So not murdering people at random helped maintain a stable society. Murdering at random caused a collapse. So murder was classed as an immoral act and became authoritative.

You might be interested in learning about White’s law if you haven’t already. Has to do with evolving morality.

White's law - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Bradskii]

You might be interested in learning about White’s law if you haven’t already. Has to do with evolving morality.

White's law - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I'm not sure that he was concerned with morality. It wasn't mentioned. More like social development. An expansion of that would be Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel. https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552

 

[YahuahSaves]

This is bizarre. You ask this and then quote me twice as saying that my position is that I personally determine morality. That it's my call. That I take personal responsibility for my decisions.

Yes it is bizarre. Why did you state an incorrect definition Here in response to me? When it had nothing to do with the definition used by the OP?

Why do you keep talking about it being on a whim? Where does this come from?

From you!

Because, yet again, it was the one relevant to my position.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes it is bizarre. Why did you state an incorrect definition Here in response to me? When it had nothing to do with the definition used by the OP?

How on earth can you not comprehend this, directly from that link:

Tranquill: "The only consistent stance within the *secular* worldview is that morality is arbitrary preference."

Definition: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

...despite being constantly told that it is most definitely not a whim, categorically not random but most certainly based on reason.

That literally cannot be clearer. If arbitrary is being used in the sense that I noted, which is easily the most common usage of the word, then a secular morality is anything but arbitrary.

And if the definition you chose is applicable...

'Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference'

...then that simply clarifies my position which I have explained umpteen times, that morality is indeed my personal judgement.

What on earth is the problem!