Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[zippy2006]

Secular morality is authoritative in a democracy. Governments, where citizens have a vote, will not be ruled by any particular religion.

This isn't at all true, but for some reason we tend to believe it. There simply is no intrinsic relation between democracy and secularism. The problem is that when we use the word "democracy" we tend to mean the sort of liberal democratic states that flowed out of the Enlightenment. That's a historical accident. Democracies can be perfectly religious, as ancient Athens was.

(The other problem is that, beyond there being no identifiable thing which is "secular morality," as the OP points out, secular moral systems are in no way authoritative, and often do not even claim to be.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How about 'we agree on the facts and make a decision based on them.'

No, because each Ethical system will prioritize those "facts" differently and, thereby, sometimes produce different evaluations, and/or vary in their consequences or administration of redressment. Additionally, "facts" as you know can sometimes--many times--be interpreted in more than one way. So, any of our talk about 'facts' as it relates to either crimes committed or outcomes for general human well-being aren't going to get us to a point where we all coalesce nicely and neatly with each other in the evaluations we process or in compelling us to agree or abide by what others claim are moral principles with "prescriptive force."

So, sure. We can try to agree on "the facts," but even if we do, we might still be at odds as to the decisions we have to make for ourselves in response to those facts or in how justice should be applied to them. It's not going to be a cake-walk.

The first and most critical question being 'has harm been done.'

Not necessarily.

If the answer to that is no, then we get another round in and talk about the game on Saturday. If it's yes, then we look at intent and the degree of culpability and give our personal opinions on the matter, discuss social expectations, reciprocal altruism, empathy, evolutionary psychology and absolute versus relative morality. Then get another round in and talk sport.

I see. I get it. You're just here for the halibut and the fancy wine.

That you've never read any Aristotle or Rawls or haven't heard of Bentham or Stuart Mill is irrelevant.

Au contraire!!!! Theory sometimes, but not always, makes on the difference in the world.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I already have a reasonable amount of literature that is, how shall I say, pro Christian already. Harrison, Trent Horn, Templeton and others already take up room on my bookshelf.

Which Harris and which Templeton? If it's the two that I'm thinking of, listing Trent Horn in the middle of that is kind of ornery, don't you think?

But again, I am not that interested in theology per se. I want to know what your day to day Christian thinks about contemporary matters. Which is why I am here.

Yeah, I'm not here for casual chit chat, and in the 13 years I've been on, that's the last thing I want to do. Consider a mere difference in Worldview between us.

So the only thing I DEMAND is a fair hearing for my views and a reasonable discussion about theirs. Which, as you are aware, are varied, despite their common claim that morality is grounded in their belief in a God that dictates what form it should take. The theology behind that is largely irrelevant - I want to know how it impacts each individual on a practical level.

Ok. I'm listening. And one more point: I've never claimed that morality is grounded in my belief in God. So, you might want to differentiate me from some of the other more "day to day" type thinking that you all too often encounter, Bradskii. Homey doesn't play the same game.

But if all you want to know is that I'm not going to chase down LGBTQ folks and give them a piece of my mind, but rather I'd give them a handshake and maybe even take "them" out to lunch just for some good ol' human to human chat, then I guess we're done here?

 

[Bradskii]

No, because each Ethical system with prioritize those "facts" differently and, thereby, sometimes produce different evaluations, and/or vary in their consequences or administration of redressment. Additionally, "facts" as you know can sometimes--many times--be interpreted in more than one way. So, any of our talk about 'facts' as it relates to either crimes committed or outcomes for general human well-being aren't going to get us to a point where we all coalesce nicely and neatly with each other in the evaluations we process or in compelling us to agree or abide by what others claim are moral principles with "prescriptive force."

So, sure. We can try to agree on "the facts," but even if we do, we might still be at odds as to the decisions we have to make for ourselves in response to those facts or in how justice should be applied to them. It's not going to be a cake-walk.

Agreed. We try to agree on the facts. We have to because they will form the basis for our decisions. We must start from that agreed point. Where we go from there is dependent on our personal views on morality. If one tends towards consquentialism and the other to deontology then never then never the twain will meet.

And if one of the facts agreed to is that no harm has been done, morality does not come into it. An act cannot be immoral if no harm is done.

Theory sometimes, but not always, makes on the difference in the world.

If we were talking about maths or chemistry then it would be necessary. You can't have a preference for how two chemical combine or two angles subtend. But morality is a matter of personal decisions.

 

[Bradskii]

Which Harris and which Templeton? If it's the two that I'm thinking of, listing Trent Horn in the middle of that is kind of ornery, don't you think?

Only reading what you think I should read kinda defeats the object.

Ok. I'm listening. And one more point: I've never claimed that morality is grounded in my belief in God.

I'll take your arguments as you present them. I try not to presume.

But if all you want to know is that I'm not going to chase down LGBTQ folks and give them a piece of my mind, but rather I'd give them a handshake...

Your relationship with any gay person is your own business.

 

[Neutral Observer]

This may seem to be extremely naive, but under objective morality how am I supposed to have any idea whatsoever about what's moral and what isn't?

There would seem to be absolutely no way to know.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Only reading what you think I should read kinda defeats the object.

Lol! I didn't ask you about whether or not you'll read anything I recommend. I kind of figure you won't.

But what I did ask you about was 'which Harris' and which 'Templeton' you were referring to in your brief author list, you thilly man!

Were you saying that you have a book by Sam Harris, or Kamala Harris? It makes a difference.

And were you saying that you also have a book by Charles Templeton or John Templeton? Again, it makes a difference.

I'll take your arguments as you present them. I try not to presume.

And I'll try to do the same for you.

Your relationship with any gay person is your own business.

Oh come on, Bradskii. You better hop onto the Bandwagon while it's still boarding ....... you don't want to get left behind. Caring about what others actually think, particularly on the political stage, is ---how do I say this?---- all the rage these days! At least, it is in this good ol' U.S. of A.

 

[Bradskii]

This may seem to be extremely naive, but under objective morality how am I supposed to have any idea whatsoever about what's moral and what isn't?

There would seem to be absolutely no way to know.

You leave your wallet on the bar. I...
A. Steal it.
B. Chase after you and return it.

One of those is immoral. I'm assuming you know which one. What's being discussed is whether it is objectively immoral or relatively so.

 

[Bradskii]

Oh come on, Bradskii. You better hop onto the Bandwagon while it's still boarding ....... you don't want to get left behind. Caring about what others actually think, particularly on the political stage, is ---how do I say this?---- all the rage these days!

I don't care what people think. Unless they argue that their personal opinion must be the one to which we must all adhere. That's not going to happen. If someone is against gay marrige...who cares? But if they actively argue that it shouldn't be allowed then there'll be an argument.

Otherwise I honestly could care less.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't care what people think. Unless they argue that their personal opinion must be the one to which we must all adhere. That's not going to happen. If someone is against gay marrige...who cares? But if they actively argue that it shouldn't be allowed then there'll be an argument.

Otherwise I honestly could care less.

Lol! Yeah. I get it. I can only imagine the eye rolling that folks in other countries do over some of the political in-fighting between Left and Right that goes on in the U.S.A. We must look like a bunch of upstarts to the rest of the world. Of course, we've always been that way.

I'm glad you could care less. That means there's hope for you yet. (If you'd said the converse of that, then I'd be worried... )

 

[Ken-1122]

If you don’t think you can use the facts(real facts) you believe to justify your moral conclusions then you don’t have any moral ground to stand on.

Of course I can use facts to justify my moral conclusions, but those facts do not make my moral conclusions objectively good/bad; only subjectively good/bad. It's different trying to demonstrate whether the act took place (objective) vs whether that act that took place is good or bad (subjective).

 

[Ken-1122]

Morality that can be shown to benefit others and anyone who subscribes to it. Can it exist, or is it impossible?

It can exist. But just because something benefits others doesn't make it morally good.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You leave your wallet on the bar. I...
A. Steal it.
B. Chase after you and return it.

One of those is immoral. I'm assuming you know which one. What's being discussed is whether it is objectively immoral or relatively so.

According to Jesus, it depends on how badly I need a drink. At least, I think that's what He said. Or was He talking about bread? I can't remember. All I know is that bread and beer have something in common, so it must be the same need either way. Right?

 

[Neutral Observer]

You leave your wallet on the bar. I...
A. Steal it.
B. Chase after you and return it.

One of those is immoral. I'm assuming you know which one.

Well I know which one I think is immoral, but is that really the grounds for objective morality... which one I think is immoral? That hardly seems right.

So given that I can't rely upon my own personal feelings, just how am I to know which one is immoral? Objective morality seems to leave me with absolutely no way to answer that question.

 

[Ken-1122]

Well I know which one I think is immoral, but is that really the grounds for objective morality... which one I think is immoral? That hardly seems right.

So given that I can't rely upon my own personal feelings, just how am I to know which one is immoral? Objective morality seems to leave me with absolutely no way to answer that question.

That's the exact problem I have with objective morality claims. Most moral objective believers seem to claim the answer lies in the moral base that all morality is based on; which usually comes down to their deity of choice as their moral guide

 

[rturner76]

This isn't at all true, but for some reason we tend to believe it. There simply is no intrinsic relation between democracy and secularism. The problem is that when we use the word "democracy" we tend to mean the sort of liberal democratic states that flowed out of the Enlightenment. That's a historical accident. Democracies can be perfectly religious, as ancient Athens was.

(The other problem is that, beyond there being no identifiable thing which is "secular morality," as the OP points out, secular moral systems are in no way authoritative, and often do not even claim to be.)

It is true that a religious movement can control a democracy when it is in the majority. But the minority can't rule the majority.

 

[zippy2006]

It is true that a religious movement can control a democracy when it is in the majority. But the minority can't rule the majority.

That is true, and it is furthermore true that democracy is not an inherently secular form of government.

 

[Bradskii]

Well I know which one I think is immoral, but is that really the grounds for objective morality... which one I think is immoral? That hardly seems right.

So given that I can't rely upon my own personal feelings, just how am I to know which one is immoral? Objective morality seems to leave me with absolutely no way to answer that question.

Would you like your wallet stolen? No.You've worked hard for your money and it wouldn't be fair for someone to benefit from your hard work. If you're generous then you might give it away, but you don't want someone to take it. Because you have empathy you can understand how someone else would not like it to happen to them. So you don't steal from them. There is then, amongst most people, this social contract. And doing the right thing, as we have determined it to be, we class as being morally correct. And breaking this social contract, which we have determined to be wrong, we call acting immorally.

Because we have determined it to be wrong - it's our decision to do so, then that makes the immoral act relative to our decision. Some people say that it has nothing to do with what we think. That immoral acts are immoral whatever we think about them. That no decision on the act being right or wrong needs to be taken. That it is absolute.

Whether it actually is immoral or not is not the argument. We can all agree that stealing your wallet is immoral. I'm sure you would. What is in dispute is whether it is relative or absolute. Whether it depends on what we think. Or it doesn't.

 

[Bradskii]

That is true, and it is furthermore true that democracy is not an inherently secular form of government.

If it's not secular then it's theocratic.

Did we get an answer to what part of society was collapsing by the way?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Would you like your wallet stolen? No.You've worked hard for your money and it wouldn't be fair for someone to benefit from your hard work. If you're generous then you might give it away, but you don't want someone to take it. Because you have empathy you can understand how someone else would not like it to happen to them. So you don't steal from them. There is then, amongst most people, this social contract. And doing the right thing, as we have determined it to be, we class as being morally correct. And breaking this social contract, which we have determined to be wrong, we call acting immorally.

Because we have determined it to be wrong - it's our decision to do so, then that makes the immoral act relative to our decision. Some people say that it has nothing to do with what we think. That immoral acts are immoral whatever we think about them. That no decision on the act being right or wrong needs to be taken. That it is absolute.

Whether it actually is immoral or not is not the argument. We can all agree that stealing your wallet is immoral. I'm sure you would. What is in dispute is whether it is relative or absolute. Whether it depends on what we think. Or it doesn't.

That's all well and practical, but the context of THIS thread is whether or not these moral ideas and their attending decisions are AUTHORITATIVE, not whether there's a certain common cognitive practice or process that goes on in our minds. AUTHORITY is the locus of this thread, and by implication, we're wondering if any moral principle is absolute on a meta-level, thereby, with the prescriptive force to compell universal assent and/or obedience.

You're off on some other rabbit trail looking for carrots .................................. ................... .. ........... ............. ............... v"