Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[o_mlly]

And I'm not disagreeing with you. But... the "Do not murder" command is from the *Old* Testement. That one that comes before the preaching of Jesus. That's my point. The source is OT stuff, not Jesus stuff. (The quote in Matthew is just Jesus saying: "nope, the old law *still* applies.)

? Perhaps I'm missing your point. If I affirm what another says is true then I give my authority to the same claim.

Your father tells your children that they should not kill their brothers. You tell your children that not only what their grandfather says is true, but further, that the children should not even hate their brothers. See Mat 5:21-22.

 

[Hans Blaster]

? Perhaps I'm missing your point. If I affirm what another says is true then I give my authority to the same claim.

Your father tells your children that they should not kill their brothers. You tell your children that not only what their grandfather says is true, but further, that the children should not even hate their brothers. See Mat 5:21-22.

Then it make it my father's rule, and not mine. I just agree. Thanks for making my point for me.

 

[o_mlly]

Then it make it my father's rule, and not mine. I just agree. Thanks for making my point for me.

?? Exactly what is your point as you appear to agree with me: moral rules must be based on values that transcend human reason. If not then kindly post your argument from reason that concludes one ought never intentionally kill an innocent human being.

 

[Ken-1122]

moral rules must be based on values that transcend human reason. If not then kindly post your argument from reason that concludes one ought never intentionally kill an innocent human being.

As a moral agent, I have determined/reasoned it is not good to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Humm...... that was easy!

 

[o_mlly]

As a moral agent, I have determined/reasoned it is not good to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Humm...... that was easy!

It's always easy to merely throw out one's subjective opinion. Now, do you care to share your reasoning? Do you have a convincing objective argument that no one ought to intentionally kill an innocent human being? I think not.

 

[Hans Blaster]

?? Exactly what is your point as you appear to agree with me: moral rules must be based on values that transcend human reason. If not then kindly post your argument from reason that concludes one ought never intentionally kill an innocent human being.

I thought I'd stated it clearly several times:

"Christian morality" is not primarily based on specific teachings of Jesus as quoted in the Gospels, but rather other religious sources (OT, church doctrine and tradition) and the broader society are more central to the Christian moral system.

It all started because someone wrote something like "Jesus-centered morality" that struck me as odd in away that "Christian-centered morality" would not have. That is all. It is not a debate or discussion on the morality of who can be killed or when, just a comment on the foundations of Christian morality as they struck me.

 

[Ken-1122]

It's always easy to merely throw out one's subjective opinion. Now, do you care to share your reasoning? Do you have a convincing objective argument that no one ought to intentionally kill an innocent human being? I think not.

Actually I do! As a moral agent who is also capable of empathy, I can imagine such a thing happening to me, and such a thing would be soooo horrible, I would not want that to happen to anybody else. (this is too easy)

 

[Bradskii]

Actually I do! As a moral agent who is also capable of empathy, I can imagine such a thing happening to me, and such a thing would be soooo horrible, I would not want that to happen to anybody else. (this is too easy)

I just finished a sci fi book valled Blindsight. Kinda first contact type of story. And the first contact was with what our our heroes thought were drones. Manufactured units that were used for building and maintaining ships. But they were biological. And there was some angst when a couple were killed. We're sorry! It was an accident! But it gradually become apparent that these weren't alien drones. They were the aliens themselves. But..they weren't sentient. And there was some relief. Because surely it's ok to kill something that isn't sentient. With the obvious and unstated corollary that it's wrong to kill something that is.

If your car breaks down, then you can vent your frustration on it and beat it with whatever comes to hand (thinking John Cleese here). That's no problem. But beating your horse because it can't go any further? We'd think it wrong. And it's an entirely natural and human reaction (plus it's observable in some animals).

Now some can say this is a God given conscience if they like. And some (me) would say that it's a naturally endowed characteristic put there by the process of evolution. But there is absolutely no doubt we have it. Well, all except those that cannot experience empathy. Psycopaths lack emotional empathy, so they understand people's pain. They just don't care about them suffering.

'...psychopaths have a problem with emotional regulation and its integration with the cold cognitive “thinking” part of the upper half of the frontal lobe. That area of the brain—the orbital cortex—controls impulsivity, but it also controls the sense of ethics and morality. It’s a part of the brain that keeps you from doing things considered morally wrong—that helps stop inappropriate behavior, that is outside of acceptable social context for a particular society.' Can a Psychopath Learn to Feel Your Pain?

So as you say, it's all relatively simple.

 

[Neutral Observer]

Well, all except those that cannot experience empathy. Psycopaths lack emotional empathy, so they understand people's pain. They just don't care about them suffering.

I need to chime in here, because I personally lack emotional empathy, I have cognitive empathy, but emotional empathy just isn't there. But that doesn't make me a psychopath, or cause me to fly off into fits of rage. In fact I would argue that it makes me much less aggressive than someone with a normal level of emotional empathy. (Whatever that is) Because I'm just as apathetic about things that happen to me as I am about things that happen to someone else. Whether you punch me or you punch Joe Blow doesn't make any difference, except in my case I might have to clean up the blood, but as far as getting mad at you, it probably isn't going to happen. Because I'm just not going to respond to it emotionally like 'normal" people would.

I just wanted to point out that I'm not convinced that a lack of emotional empathy is necessarily a bad thing. In fact I might argue the exact opposite.

 

[Bradskii]

I need to chime in here, because I personally lack emotional empathy, I have cognitive empathy, but emotional empathy just isn't there. But that doesn't make me a psychopath, or cause me to fly off into fits of rage. In fact I would argue that it makes me much less aggressive than someone with a normal level of emotional empathy. (Whatever that is) Because I'm just as apathetic about things that happen to me as I am about things that happen to someone else. Whether you punch me or you punch Joe Blow doesn't make any difference, except in my case I might have to clean up the blood, but as far as getting mad at you, it probably isn't going to happen. Because I'm just not going to respond to it emotionally like 'normal" people would.

I just wanted to point out that I'm not convinced that a lack of emotional empathy is necessarily a bad thing. In fact I might argue the exact opposite.

The guy that was being interviewed in that link I gave had the same problem as you. He said:

'Now, if we’re talking about impulsive killers (not psychopaths), those people don’t have a problem in the amygdala; they have problems in the orbital cortex, so that they just can’t control a rage when it‘s started, and they feel a lot of remorse. That’s different than someone who’s a predator. A psychopath doesn’t feel the remorse.'

And if your orbital cortex is working ok but...you have an amygdala that isn't working optimally (it controls our more 'basic' instincts) then you have a problem. Then you might enjoy someone's liver and some fava beans with a nice glass of Chianti.

 

[Neutral Observer]

And if your orbital cortex is working ok but...you have an amygdala that isn't working optimally (it controls our more 'basic' instincts) then you have a problem. Then you might enjoy someone's liver and some fava beans with a nice glass of Chianti.

To say the least, my basic instincts aren't the same as your basic instincts. To me, your basic instincts are irrational. So if you ask me what keeps me from doing "X", or what keeps me from doing "Y", the answer is simple... it's because unlike some people, I have absolutely no desire to do "X" or "Y". I don't need a moral code telling me not to do them, because I simply have no desire to do them.

For example, you might ask what would I do if I saw a wallet with $1000 dollars in it, and no one around to see me take it. What would stop me from taking it? The answer is that I have no need or desire for a wallet with $1000 dollars in it. So why in the heck would I take it?

The only logical reason that I can think of for taking it is so that I can give it back to the person who lost it. Remember, I do have cognitive empathy. I know that people don't like losing their wallet.

 

[Bradskii]

To say the least, my basic instincts aren't the same as your basic instincts. To me, your basic instincts are irrational. So if you ask me what keeps me from doing "X", or what keeps me from doing "Y", the answer is simple... it's because unlike some people, I have absolutely no desire to do "X" or "Y". I don't need a moral code telling me not to do them, because I simply have no desire to do them.

When I say basic instincts I mean animal instincts such as aggressions, sexuality, predatory behaviour. The amygdala is the 'primal brain'. Not having those instincts back when we were chasing our food with pointy sticks would be a distinct disadvantage. I guess that not having them now could be considered an advantage.

But does that mean that you have less emotional range than other people? That you don't get wildly excited about things or tragedies don't affect you as much as others?

 

[Neutral Observer]

But does that mean that you have less emotional range than other people?

Yes

That you don't get wildly excited about things or tragedies don't affect you as much as others?

It would seem so, but I sometimes wonder if people feel things as deeply as they claim to, or if they merely profess to, because social convention says that they should. But then I see a mother cry over a child lost to the senseless act of a madman. And I know... yes, both extremes are true.

I want you to understand though, that not having those strong emotions doesn't keep me from knowing and understanding that other people do have them. Cognitive empathy may not be as powerful as emotional empathy, but it is empathy. I can care how you feel.

Psychopathy doesn't have to mean that you don't care.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes

It would seem so, but I sometimes wonder if people feel things as deeply as they claim to, or if they merely profess to, because social convention says that they should. But then I see a mother cry over a child lost to the senseless act of a madman. And I know... yes, both extremes are true.

I want you to understand though, that not having those strong emotions doesn't keep me from knowing and understanding that other people do have them. Cognitive empathy may not be as powerful as emotional empathy, but it is empathy. I can care how you feel.

Psychopathy isn't the only possible outcome.

I've read about extreme cases when someone with that lack of emotional empathy recognises circumstances when they think 'Ah, I'm supposed to be sad on hearing that news' and will consciously respond accordingly.

 

[Neutral Observer]

I've read about extreme cases when someone with that lack of emotional empathy recognises circumstances when they think 'Ah, I'm supposed to be sad on hearing that news' and will consciously respond accordingly.

I know exactly what you mean. I've had my mother die, father die, sister die, brother die... and nothing, I felt absolutely nothing.

Oddly enough though, my dog died, and that got me. It still gets me. I miss my dog. And so I think, is that really what people feel when someone dies, because even after having my dog die I find it hard to imagine that people actually feel that way about a person. Which makes no sense at all. Of course they feel that way. But I can't feel that way, because to me they're just people.

But that doesn't mean that I don't realize that I'm supposed to care, or that someone else really does care. It's maybe not the normal kind of empathy, but it's what I've got.

But you have to realize that I don't get angry either. Stuff that happens, is just stuff that happens. The doctor could be like... sorry, you've got cancer, and I'd be like... okay, no big deal. What's for lunch?

 

[Bradskii]

I know exactly what you mean. I've had my mother die, father die, sister die, brother die... and nothing, I felt absolutely nothing.

Oddly enough though, my dog died, and that got me. It still gets me. I miss my dog.

Darn it, I was going to use the exact same example. I was 16 when my dad died and I kept thinking I should have been feeling more. But when my dog died a few years ago I wept like a baby. I think that both my wife and myself are similar in that regard. We have to remind each other when we know someone who has lost a loved one: 'Don't forget to say you're sorry'.

 

[o_mlly]

I thought I'd stated it clearly several times:

"Christian morality" is not primarily based on specific teachings of Jesus as quoted in the Gospels, but rather other religious sources (OT, church doctrine and tradition) and the broader society are more central to the Christian moral system.

It all started because someone wrote something like "Jesus-centered morality" that struck me as odd in away that "Christian-centered morality" would not have. That is all. It is not a debate or discussion on the morality of who can be killed or when, just a comment on the foundations of Christian morality as they struck me.

OK. Applying the same logic to science then we ought to drop from theories the name recognition of Heisenberg, Einstein, Archimedes, Newton, Kepler, Hubble, etc. as their contribution stands on the work of those who came before them.

 

[o_mlly]

Actually I do! As a moral agent who is also capable of empathy, I can imagine such a thing happening to me, and such a thing would be soooo horrible, I would not want that to happen to anybody else. (this is too easy)

Still voicing your subjective opinion. Moral rules are universal or they are not moral laws. Moral laws require a lawgiver.

 

[Ken-1122]

Still voicing your subjective opinion.

That's because all moral views are subjective opinions

Moral rules are universal or they are not moral laws.

Really? I challenge you to list a single moral law that applies to every single person on Earth.

Moral laws require a lawgiver.

Moral agent, moral lawgiver, call it what you want; we are all capable of this.

 

[o_mlly]

That's because all moral views are subjective opinions

Really? I challenge you to list a single moral law that applies to every single person on Earth.

Moral agent, moral lawgiver, call it what you want; we are all capable of this.

So you agree with the OP. If every secular humanist (aka, atheist) is an authority then no secular humanist is an authority.