Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[zippy2006]

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.

True, but I misunderstood your view and gave you too much 'benefit of the doubt'. As the thread progressed it became obvious that Orel's interpretation was the correct one. I listed those threads in chronological order on purpose.

 

[zippy2006]

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

I don't understand the basis of your assumptions. I have given my general position in other threads, some of which I have started myself. What have I said in this thread or in the past that leads you to believe that I posit morality apart from moral agents?

Edit: Here is the final post of our last interaction on the topic. Feel free to follow those links back.

 

[YahuahSaves]

What on earth is the problem!

I think the problem is you misinterpreted the OP. Perhaps you need to clarify their definition with @Tranquil Bondservant

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.

I read "arbitrary preference" to mean a personal moral judgement as opposed to a societal one. Perhaps you assumed differently.

But either way, the OP's point is clear. People have differing views of what constitutes morality, so if morality is truly personal and without an authority, then no one would be able to discern what is truly right from wrong, because in the event of disagreement between 2 people, both would believe they're right. So what is the foundation of our understanding of what is defined morally right or morally wrong, from a societal point-of-view?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

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.'

Within Naturalism & Materialism as has been repeatedly stated throughout this thread, in the OP and even within the title.

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

Not just this but if what is morally correct is different to each person (subjective morality) then everything is arbitrary and societal agreements upon behaviour =/= why I should follow them, to assume this in your position as you have done is to assume a logical non-sequitur. In order to say certain behaviours are right and should be mandated, or even to ascribe any value to specific behaviours at all, is to require a basis on which these actions and their causes can be evaluated. Which obviously under subjective morality is impossible to construct and in order to do so you would need to assume a moral standard (something not relative).

You've made the mistake of saying that because morality has a cause therefore it necessitates certain actions be committed based upon that cause, to re-iterate the OP again "agreements upon behaviour =/= why I should follow them" especially if I'm the ultimate and only arbiter of moral truths (not really truth but belief, subjective truth is a misnomer see: the comment you yourself responded to). To add to this, just because there is subjective interpretation about morals it does not mean that morality is subjective. Disagreement on belief about what the truth (or correct morality) is =/= that truth (or morality) is subjective, if it was the case there's no point in discussing any disagreements at all as we're both "true/correct".

Specifically you're also incredibly blind here and highlight the issue and why I'm saying nobody is engaging the OP because it refutes this exact thing:

I know you've read a bunch of the posts where I was speaking with Brad and showing him this very error, you responded to some. In order to call these things good or bad you have assumed a moral stance and in order to justify it as a moral stance you will assume other moral stances, a perpetual circle. Within your worldview your very foundations here for saying "it's good morality has evolved to embrace justice" don't exist. That's the point. You're determining things to be good and bad without any justification. Even if that justification is survival, in order to call survival good you need to unfoundedly ascribe (assume) value to human life (hence why Materialism & Naturalism is mentioned). "You're assuming an inherent value to survival that's unable to be substantiated.". I'll re-iterate here because I know what's coming as a response and I'll remind you "because morality has a cause it does not therefore necessitate certain actions be committed based upon that cause". The explanation of morality's cause (Edit: morality's cause within your worldview/paradigm) does nothing to condemn murder hence why in the thread title there is the word authoritative. In order for something to be right, like every other single truth, it needs to be universal and exist independent of belief (e.g rocks will continue to exist after I die even if I don't believe in them). Which as you know if a moral stance is universal then it's not relative/subjective.


To ascribe value to survival is to assume an unsubstantiated thing that within Naturalism & Materialism is unable to be substantiated.

You're in error to say that empathy is axiomatic, the thing that is axiomatic are the assumed truths which establishes empathy as something that exists (as apposed to being merely stimulus or matter). Your naturalistic or materialistic worldview is the axiom on which the whole thing turns. If somebody wanted to invalidate empathy and cause suffering by sacking a city for loot, why would they be wrong within this worldview? Regarding this situation of the invalidation of empathy, which competing person's/society's empathy or dispensing of it is authoritative, or if possible, correct? And why?
[Edit: With the above explanation I hope it explains why I kept quoting from the OP "in ANY *secular* worldview agreements upon behaviour =/= why I should follow them" before.]

The answer will assume more morals to be true in order to establish any conclusion whatsoever and you're faced with a perpetual circle of assuming the truth of moral stances to justify the previous moral stance. This was the cause for my unwarranted frustration before.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Perhaps you need to clarify their definition

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

Everything I have said is my opinion on how I think a morally correct position should be taken. I've deferred to no authority. I follow no fixed structure. I obey no set rules, other than those I set myself that I personally believe will make the world a better place. I see what works and what doesn't and I choose which path I take.

I'm finished with this thread. I hope you all have a great constructive discussion. God bless.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

The same applies with Divine command. I mean; just because a command is labeled "divine" why shoud I allow it authority over me?

 

[Ken-1122]

People have differing views of what constitutes morality, so if morality is truly personal and without an authority, then no one would be able to discern what is truly right from wrong, because in the event of disagreement between 2 people, both would believe they're right. So what is the foundation of our understanding of what is defined morally right or morally wrong, from a societal point-of-view?

Mankind has never had a single foundation of understanding when defining what is morally right vs morally wrong; such a thing has never existed. If it did, then perhaps that would be an argument for objective morality

 

[YahuahSaves]

Mankind has never had a single foundation of understanding when defining what is morally right vs morally wrong; such a thing has never existed. If it did, then perhaps that would be an argument for objective morality

"There is a way that seems right to a man,
but its end is the ways of death" Proverbs 14:12

 

[Ken-1122]

"There is a way that seems right to a man,
but its end is the ways of death" Proverbs 14:12

That might be a little more effective if you found yourself a Choir to preach to.

 

[YahuahSaves]

That might be a little more effective if you found yourself a Choir to preach to.

What would be the point of that? Haven't you ever heard the expression "don't preach to the Chior"?

 

[Bradskii]

True, but I misunderstood your view and gave you too much 'benefit of the doubt'. As the thread progressed it became obvious that Orel's interpretation was the correct one. I listed those threads in chronological order on purpose.

The comments I quoted you making were from the whole thread and you said nothing to contradict any position I held in any meaningful way.

Either way, I'll thank you not to refer to me again regarding other threads. I don't appreciate it when you denigrate arguments I have made in other threads when nobody is likely to run through 500+ posts to check that claim. Which, as I've indicated by actually quoting you, was completely erroneous in any case. If you want to argue against anything I say then you'll please do it in the thread in which we are discussing it so everyone can judge our arguments on their merits rather than 'hey, this guy made some nonsensical arguments last year in some other thread.'

 

[YahuahSaves]

And apparently he, and anyone who agrees with him, are the only one's here capable of reason. It definitely seems as though that's what he thinks.

"He" ... are you talking about me, or God?

 

[Bradskii]

So what is the foundation of our understanding of what is defined morally right or morally wrong, from a societal point-of-view?

This also has been discussed. If you have a position that says 'X is morally wrong' then 'It is written' is no reason for holding to it whatsoever. We need to know why it is written. If it's wrong then I want to know why it's wrong.

If you have no good reason then your claim will be rejected.

 

[YahuahSaves]

and that their religion will have scripture of some sort that will tell them what that religion considers to be good and bad.

You mention examples specifically from scripture. Any other religions people follow you want to add? Or is it that you are against the Holy Bible specifically?

stone women to death for adultry.

Perhaps you don't understand Jesus protected the woman caught in adultery. In the below account, because Jesus claimed to be God, they wanted to trap him in how he handled the situation to counter-claim he wasn't God.

John 8:4-11

4 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”

6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

11 “No, Lord,” she said.

And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

any reasonable person would think about what it means, why it was written, when it was written, for whom it was written...

The whole of scripture points to Jesus and what he did on the cross for us (the whole world).

 

[Bradskii]

Within Naturalism & Materialism as has been repeatedly stated throughout this thread, in the OP and even within the title.

All you have done is reposted that you claim that secular morality has no basis. You've made zero attempt to answer the question. If you think it's impossible, that you cannot argue against rape without saying that God doesn't like it, then say so.

 

[YahuahSaves]

If you have no good reason then your claim will be rejected.

You ask for me to put forth an argument while you simultaneously avoid putting forth your own. No thanks. This thread is directed at the naturalists/materialists.

 

[Bradskii]

You mention examples specifically from scripture. Any other religions people follow you want to add? Or is it that you are against the Holy Bible specifically?

This is a Christian forum and the arguments being given by most Christians is that God is the basis for what might therefore be described as a Christian morality. So what other scripture do you think I might reference other than the Christian one? I mean, seriously...

 

[Bradskii]

You ask for me to put forth an argument while you simultaneously avoid putting forth your own. No thanks. This thread is directed at the naturalists/materialists.

Your argument is: 'God requires it.' Tell me if that's not correct. And I'll have a reason for any moral problem which won't require divine edict.

 

[YahuahSaves]

This is a Christian forum and the arguments being given by most Christians is that God is the basis for what might therefore be described as a Christian morality. So what other scripture do you think I might reference other than the Christian one? I mean, seriously...

Do you also hang out on other religious forums debating whether other gods that you don't believe in exist?

 

[YahuahSaves]

Your argument is: 'God requires it.' Tell me if that's not correct. And I'll have a reason for any moral problem which won't require divine edict.

The thread asked the atheists to disprove that an authority is needed for true morality...you never did that, and neither did the others here....so that's up to you to state your case for what defines moral truth.