Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[Bradskii]

I'd be surprised if you actually could when push-comes-to-shove...

I couldn't be less interested in what you think I could and couldn't do in this regard. And this particular matter is now closed.

 

[YahuahSaves]

What? What do you mean 'without facts'? What moral discussion doesn't have some facts on which to base a decision?

You said "facts are objective, morality ain't."

So if morality ain't objective how do we determine facts about morality?

 

[Bradskii]

You said "facts are objective, morality ain't."

So if morality ain't objective how do we determine facts about morality?

I'm seriously considering pulling the plug on this thread. The questions are becoming more nonsensical the longer it goes on...

Jim has been smoking dope all day.
He steals a bottle of whisky.
He drinks half of it.
He steals a car.
He drives off the road into a shop front and kills a pedestrian.

We have to determine the morality of his actions. What facts do you think are available to make that determination. Spoiler alert: They are the 5 statements directly above this paragraph.

 

[YahuahSaves]

We have to determine the morality of his actions. What facts do you think are available to make that determination. Spoiler alert: They are the 5 statements directly above this paragraph.

So you're saying death resulting from an accident is wrong?

 

[Bradskii]

So you're saying death resulting from an accident is wrong?

I think we're done for a while. There's only so much nonsense I can take.

 

[YahuahSaves]

I think we're done for a while. There's only so much nonsense I can take.

And you prove the point on who puts the blinders up here. We're paving a way to common agreement based on your idea of subjective morality. We are 2 people who obviously disagree on a lot of issues. So how do we determine who's right? We have to defer to an accepted societal standard of right and wrong. You say personal morality is based on a case-by-case basis, how do we determine common ground without going through them? I personally think you just wanted the Christians to not challenge your presumption that every answer defers to their God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The only way moral views can be authoritative is if people join a group (like a religion,) and the people of the group all agree to allow whoever leads the group dictate their beliefs. The morality of the group leader will be authoritative over the people who joined the group.

No, not quite. That kind of thinking befits Communists, though.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think you might have wandered in from the "West is collapsing - ahhhhhhh" thread.

This "problem" you speak of. It sound like the problem of realizing that morality is *not* authoritative and figuring out how to deal with that reality. Or as I'd rather say: "The real issue in morality today is that we need think about how we construct a moral system given the non-existence of god." I don't expect many on this board to accept that position.

Well, the problem there is, it'll be a moral "system" that no one really HAS to agree with.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm seriously considering pulling the plug on this thread. The questions are becoming more nonsensical the longer it goes on...

Jim has been smoking dope all day.
He steals a bottle of whisky.
He drinks half of it.
He steals a car.
He drives off the road into a shop front and kills a pedestrian.

We have to determine the morality of his actions. What facts do you think are available to make that determination. Spoiler alert: They are the 5 statements directly above this paragraph.

Y'know, Bertrand Russell was an acquaintance of A.J. Ayer. And not by accident, mind you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Y'know, if I didn't know better--and I know I do-- it almost seems that many on this thread haven't ever taken the liberty to open even an introductory book on Ethics, yet opinions of unknown origin continue to flow out of people's brains and onto the forum.

What a strange phenonon to see. What a strange world we live it. It's almost like educa................................... Oh no. It couldn't be!!!!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You wouldn't go wrong in investigating what Cosmides and Tooby say about evolutionary psychology. This is their 'primer':

Evolutionary Psychology Primer by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby

It's relatively long. But a quick look at their take on reciprocal altruism (which has been mentioned a few times in this thread in relation to a basis for morality) would be worth a few minutes. It's near the end in a section headed Reasoning Instincts: An example, about ten 'pages' up from the bottom.

​

So, Bradskii, I'm still looking through your source. Since we're trading sources (of whatever academic age), and since we're both interested in Psychology and the sciences, both hard and soft, here's my little contribution you might be intrested in. Consider it my starting point from which then more expansive literary research will come IF and WHEN some one person "demands" better answers from Christians.

Jeeves, Malcolm A., and Robert James Berry. Science, life and Christian belief: a survey of contemporary issues. Baker, 1998.​

​

Brief book review:​

​

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2615&context=auss

​

More souces available upon request. ​

 

[Bradskii]

So, Bradskii, I'm still looking through your source. Since we're trading sources (of whatever academic age), and since we're both interested in Psychology and the sciences, both hard and soft, here's my little contribution you might be intrested in. Consider it my starting point from which then more expansive literary research will come IF and WHEN some one person "demands" better answers from Christians.

Jeeves, Malcolm A., and Robert James Berry. Science, life and Christian belief: a survey of contemporary issues. Baker, 1998.​

​

Brief book review:​

​

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2615&context=auss

​

More souces available upon request. ​

$49? I'll pass.

If you've read it (and I assume that you have) then feel free to raise any points that the book discusses that are relevant to the discussion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

$49? I'll pass.

If you've read it (and I assume that you have) then feel free to raise any points that the book discusses that are relevant to the discussion.

It's not [directly] relevant. But it is relevant [overall] for someone who claims they have "DEMANDS" of Christians to give an account for their rational thinking. Besides, I was offering this source to you gratis just as you did me with your source.

If you truly "DEMAND" that Christians give an account, then "DEMAND" implies that you have a vested and fair interest in understanding where the best arguments and/or the best outlooks among various Christians have been given. And then following through with integrity on your part with that interest and those demands requires that you actually do some of your own engagement of reading that might not be your favorite cup of tea.

As for what is relevant in this thread, I guess you missed that other little reference I gave to durangodawood. Of course, I know it wouldn't be fair of me to have expected you to have read each and every post in this thread. None of us likely has.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

$49? I'll pass.

If you've read it (and I assume that you have) then feel free to raise any points that the book discusses that are relevant to the discussion.

The whole book is relevant to the discussion. As are so many books (and/or journal articles) out there, like those on my shelves and all that I've read while at university.

So, you say you "DEMAND" answers. What would you say is, thus far, the most robust Christian source you've ever read and fully engaged in thought? Please don't tell me that it was something from Answers in Genesis or something like that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

$49? I'll pass.

If you've read it (and I assume that you have) then feel free to raise any points that the book discusses that are relevant to the discussion.

Y'know, I bet the following article would be interesting to read, if we both could acquire it:

Confer, Jaime C., Judith A. Easton, Diana S. Fleischman, Cari D. Goetz, David MG Lewis, Carin Perilloux, and David M. Buss. "Evolutionary psychology: Controversies, questions, prospects, and limitations." American Psychologist 65, no. 2 (2010): 110.​

 

[Ken-1122]

No, not quite. That kind of thinking befits Communists, though.

If you disagree, tell me where I've gone wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you disagree, tell me where I've gone wrong.

All you're asserting is a form of Instrumentalism, where laws are formed and arbitrated without any sense of the Rule of Law.

The point here is that someone like Marx (whom you're emulating in a way) attempts to duck out of any metaphysical necessities that Kant would have said we should seriously consider. So, we have people today who, affected by various forms of Marxist type thinking, who then proceed to just willy-nilly make up their own private list of "good deeds/bad deeds."

The problem with your viewpoint is that it offers nothing in the way of any prescriptive levels of moral and/or social order for society to commonly operate by. It's almost solipsistic and relativistic; detached from the commonly shared moral problems and experiences that we all live with together in a shared world. It has no metaphysical substance, and therefore no absolute authority that anyone else HAS to recognize.

Remember, "no man is an island."

 

[Ken-1122]

All you're asserting is a form of Instrumentalism, where laws are formed and arbitrated without any sense of the Rule of Law.

Don’t confuse morality with laws. What I’m saying applies strictly to morality; not laws.

The point here is that someone like Marx (whom you're emulating in a way) attempts to duck out of any metaphysical necessities that Kant would have said we should seriously consider. So, we have people today who, affected by various forms of Marxist type thinking, who then proceed to just willy-nilly make up their own private list of "good deeds/bad deeds."

The men you speak of worked with laws; not moral beliefs.

The problem with your viewpoint is that it offers nothing in the way of any prescriptive levels of moral and/or social order for society to commonly operate by.

That’s because society operates by laws; not moral beliefs.

Remember, "no man is an island."

No man is an island when it comes to laws; but when it comes to morality, every man can be his own island, unless you are a mental slave and not allowed to think for yourself

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Don’t confuse morality with laws. What I’m saying applies strictly to morality; not laws.

The problem today is that people do the same thing with morality..................since morality, like laws, required the reference and use of various, certain Ethical frameworks.

The men you speak of worked with laws; not moral beliefs.

Kant didn't refer to morals? Marx didn't critique the morals that he thought Capitalist had and thereby show that he, himself, was working from "some framework"? (A framework that had already dispensed with God ............................ )

No, my good man. It all overlaps to some degree. And with lots of variance that has to be sorted out, not in a willy-nilly fashion.

That’s because society operates by laws; not moral beliefs.

That's the silliest thing I've ever heard.

No man is an island when it comes to laws; but when it comes to morality, every man can be his own island, unless you are a mental slave and not allowed to think for yourself

No. No. No. Uh-uh. That's a very gross comparison. A mental slave? Really? Geez. Whether a person is a mental slave or not doesn't depend soley on whether or not you think for yourself because there's other mitigating factors that mediate that whole attempt to slog through and make sense of this social world we live in. So, no. Spare me the rhetoric, Ken, and go grab yourself a book on Ethics. A good one, preferably.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm seriously considering pulling the plug on this thread. The questions are becoming more nonsensical the longer it goes on...

Jim has been smoking dope all day.
He steals a bottle of whisky.
He drinks half of it.
He steals a car.
He drives off the road into a shop front and kills a pedestrian.

We have to determine the morality of his actions. What facts do you think are available to make that determination. Spoiler alert: They are the 5 statements directly above this paragraph.

It’s also an objective fact that anyone with a sound mind looking at those facts would determine that Jim’s behavior is wrong because of the objective harm it caused.

Help us understand how/why you don’t think that equates to objective morality or even absolute morality where it’s always true that anyone with a sound mind would draw the same conclusion about Jim’s actions? We all (hopefully) have sound minds here.