Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[Larniavc]

You can't even argue about a single thing without assuming the truth of something or that something is true.

That is true but I go with it because without some axioms we can’t really function.

And for you it is axiomatic that the claims of the Bible are accurate. And if we are excluding all assumptions from both sides the accuracy of the Bible cannot be assumed.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

That is true but I go with it because without some axioms we can’t really function.

And for you it is axiomatic that the claims of the Bible are accurate. And if we are excluding all assumptions from both sides the accuracy of the Bible cannot be assumed.

In essence your axioms/presuppositions require Judaeo-Christian Theistic presuppositions in order to function.

All worldviews are circular as they either a) rely on reason to comprehend God or b) rely on reason for the truth of reason. The presupposition of God allows you to justify your use of reason or failing that, at the very least allows your use of reason & logic to be authoritative. Whereas a secular worldview posits that reason is true is because reason is true, it's unable to provide any reason for reason and therefore solely assumes itself as true in a perpetual circle unable to say why reason is or logic is authoritative apart from "it's all we have".

We argue based on an authoritative reason, a reason that has a reason for reason & logic, they don't.

Edit: Brother, also see from the OP "under naturalism or materialism, a philosophical perspective that denies the transcendent it’s impossible"

How under Atheism can you make reason & logic authoritative?

As an aside, modern Atheism relies upon materialism or naturalism in order to establish truth. I would disagree and say that they're not similar with Theism in any respect because their premise excludes God and instead relies upon the material world (without any justification for doing so) in order to discern reality.

There is NO reasoning that is authoritative without God. Nothing works without borrowing from the Christian worldview. It's impossible to establish any kind of truth as you can't even use inductive reasoning, let alone REASON (due to it being not authoritative) without Him. We could trade comments back and forth about possibilities but it does nothing but leave us in the same position from whence we started. In order to have conclusions for ANYTHING, we need a reason as to why our reason & logic is authoritative. That doesn't exist within the modern dogmas that people are leaving Christ for.

If you're genuinely interested in a discussion about axioms then you might enjoy this debate. Imo it highlights the incoherence of Atheism & Agnosticism and plainly lays out it's inability to function without Christian presuppositions.

Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein - The Great Debate: Does God Exist?

 

[Strivax]

I wouldn't say modern secular morality has no ability to be authoratative, at all. What about the various human rights acts, for example? In fact, in most developed nations, most of our laws have some moral component, or they would be merely about 'who gets what?' and 'Says who?'. In other words, about nothing more than the distribution of power and wealth. Politics, in this case, would be a pretty vacuous business, and the business of administering justice a complete misnomer.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Chriliman]

Please explain

That MORAL truth is subjective; Yes! There are plenty of truths that are objective, morality just isn't one of them.

Yes we do, we argue the subjective truth of something or that something is subjectively true.

If it’s objectively true that moral truth is subjective, how then is it not morally good to promote that truth?

If it is morally good to promote that truth, then it’s self-refuting.

 

[Ken-1122]

If it’s objectively true that moral truth is subjective, how then is it not morally good to promote that truth?

If it is morally good to promote that truth, then it’s self-refuting.

You seem to be making the mistake other people are making in assuming if something is given the subjective label, it is somehow less legitimate than something given the objective label. This is not true. Whether something is objective or subjective, is irrelevant to the person making the claim; objective only means to be based on facts, whereas subjective means based on beliefs. If your brain is telling you something is true, it doesn’t matter which label it carries, you gonna believe it’s true.
However to answer your question; generally speaking, truth (even moral truth) is good to promote regardless of the objective/subjective label it might carry. If you find this “self refuting” please explain why because I don’t see it

 

[Chriliman]

You seem to be making the mistake other people are making in assuming if something is given the subjective label, it is somehow less legitimate than something given the objective label. This is not true. Whether something is objective or subjective, is irrelevant to the person making the claim; objective only means to be based on facts, whereas subjective means based on beliefs. If your brain is telling you something is true, it doesn’t matter which label it carries, you gonna believe it’s true.
However to answer your question; generally speaking, truth (even moral truth) is good to promote regardless of the objective/subjective label it might carry. If you find this “self refuting” please explain why because I don’t see it

It’s more that the legitimacy can’t be determined without reference to an objective source.

For example; your response to me suggests I’m wrong or am making a mistake, but what I’m trying to say is that from your view I can’t actually be wrong or make a mistake under purely subjective view, it’s all arbitrary.

In my view, there must be an objective source to reference my subjectivity against and determine I’m actually wrong or have made a mistake.

 

[Ken-1122]

For example; your response to me suggests I’m wrong or am making a mistake, but what I’m trying to say is that from your view I can’t actually be wrong or make a mistake under purely subjective view, it’s all arbitrary.

If it were random and arbitrary, I wouldn’t be able to give a compelling argument as to why you are wrong! No; it is not arbitrary, this is something that has to be well thought out

In my view, there must be an objective source to reference my subjectivity against and determine I’m actually wrong or have made a mistake.

Though there must be a source to reference your subjectivity against, that reference does not have to be objective. For example; suppose I were trying to tell you that lying (willfully giving false information) is wrong? What objective source could I possibly point to proving lying is wrong?

 

[Chriliman]

That's the point of the post, your morality is not authoritative because the truths you assume to be true (the avoidance of harm or etc) and use to determine what morals are correct have no basis which makes them authoritative to others, no basis for their truth and no reason as to why others should follow them. If and when you provide one I guarantee you'll just assume the truth of human flourishing, that for some reason humans getting along is preferred or is what morality is based on. But guess what, you're in that perpetual cycle of assuming moral truths in order to establish moral truths forever searching for ground that doesn't exist to build this moral house on

If it were random and arbitrary, I wouldn’t be able to give a compelling argument as to why you are wrong! No; it is not arbitrary, this is something that has to be well thought out

Though there must be a source to reference your subjectivity against, that reference does not have to be objective.

If you don’t base your moral reasoning on something objective, then it’s purely arbitrary(subjective), this is an objective fact.

For example; suppose I were trying to tell you that lying (willfully giving false information) is wrong? What objective source could I possibly point to proving lying is wrong?

If you knew all the circumstances around the lie you could determine whether it’s objectively right or wrong to lie in that specific (objective)circumstance.

Give me a specific circumstance where all motives are known and we can determine the correct moral action, together.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I agree on all counts. Which prompts the question: Has God got it wrong as far as those moral precepts are concerned?

You should know my answer to that from what I posted earlier.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Hence the problem with depending on somebody else’s words to be your moral guide.

With the Constitution we have officers in place (Supreme Court) whose job is to interpret the Constitution. The founding fathers obviously knew of this problem. Once the Supreme court rules, it is settled.

Ditto with the Bible. Each denomination has clerical officers in place who are supposed to be experts and who rule just as authoritatively and as temporarily as any Supreme Court decision considering the matter to be settled.

 

[Ken-1122]

If you don’t base your moral reasoning on something objective, then it’s purely arbitrary(subjective), this is an objective fact.

Arbitrary is not the same as subjective; as a matter of fact, they are pretty much opposites. Subjective means it is based on personal feelings, opinions, and beliefs.

subjective

1. influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Arbitrary is pretty much the opposite, meaning random, compulsive, or unpredictable. IOW not thought out.

Definition of ARBITRARY

existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will; based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

IOW a subjective claim is thought out, an arbitrary claim is not thought out.

If you knew all the circumstances around the lie you could determine whether it’s objectively right or wrong to lie in that specific (objective)circumstance.

Give me a specific circumstance where all motives are known and we can determine the correct moral action, together.

"Subjective" vs. "Objective": What's The Difference?

Don't subject yourself to more confusion—learn the difference between "subjective" and "objective" right now and always use them correctly.

www.dictionary.com

As you can see from the the above definition, if you have to incorporate extenuating circumstances in order to determine if it is a lie or not, those extenuating circumstances are based on your personal perspective, opinions, and beliefs; making the behavior subjective.
For example; if I told you eating a 500 mg cyanide tablet will kill you, this is an objective claim. It doesn’t matter if you’ve eaten it by accident, or if you did it to save the life of another person, consuming 500 mg of cyanide will kill you regardless of extenuating circumstances. That is an objective claim
If you have to look at all the circumstances around a behavior (in this case the lie) in order to determine if it is good or bad, by definition that behavior cannot be objective; it has to carry the subjective label.

 

[Ken-1122]

Ditto with the Bible. Each denomination has clerical officers in place who are supposed to be experts and who rule just as authoritatively and as temporarily as any Supreme Court decision considering the matter to be settled.

The difference is there are things written in the Bible that Bible believers will claim are morally perfect, and without flaw. There is nothing in the Constitution that Constitutional followers will claim to be morally perfect and without flaw. So unless you are willing to admit to moral flaws and imperfections from the Bible, you cannot compare the two

 

[Bradskii]

Agreed, but the problem is, we have no actual justification or authority to tell someone, who doesnt want to respect others, that it’s actually wrong to violate someone else’s bodily autonomy.

You have to acknowledge the objective existence of others and their experiences in order to be justified in anything you do.

For theists, the “other” can be God, or anyone with a valid, sound argument. The appeal of God/Jesus is the claims to the eternal, no other human can make that unique claim in the same way God/Jesus did.

Empathy. We know how others feel. Or at least we can imagine it. Couple that with an unstated reciprocal agreement that if I go around stealing someone's property then they'll have no qualms about stealing mine.

Then there's shame, guilt, pride, honour etc. Run everything into the mix and one develops a feeling that hey, stealing things (for example) is wrong. There's never been a society where that hasn't happened. Now you can say that God instilled that empathy, reciprocal altruism, guilt, shame, pride etc and maybe you want to call it different aspects of a God given conscience.

Be my guest. I have no problem with that. But I have no doubt whatsoever that they are naturally evolved characterics. Either way, I have no need go refer to scripture to determine what I consider to be right and wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

Agreed, but the problem is, we have no actual justification or authority to tell someone, who doesnt want to respect others, that it’s actually wrong to violate someone else’s bodily autonomy.

You have to acknowledge the objective existence of others and their experiences in order to be justified in anything you do.

For theists, the “other” can be God, or anyone with a valid, sound argument. The appeal of God/Jesus is the claims to the eternal, no other human can make that unique claim in the same way God/Jesus did.

I'm not sure if you meant that bodily autonomy ought to be respected because Jesus and/or scripture tells us that or whether it is a God given concept that we all have. The former cannot be true because the majority of peopld on the planet don't believe in God and aren't interested in scrioture. Notwithstanding that societies that existed well before biblical times existed and worked on the same concept.

If the latter, then...OK. But I hold that it's entirely natural. A result of the evolutionary process. And that's about the end of the discussion really. Where could we go from here?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

It’s more that the legitimacy can’t be determined without reference to an objective source.

For example; your response to me suggests I’m wrong or am making a mistake, but what I’m trying to say is that from your view I can’t actually be wrong or make a mistake under purely subjective view, it’s all arbitrary.

In my view, there must be an objective source to reference my subjectivity against and determine I’m actually wrong or have made a mistake.

Brother it's the misnomer of belief as truth that you're struggling against. The person will always argue from the stance that belief about the truth or perceived inabilities to hold 100% truth = subjective truth, as apposed to the truth existing but us disagreeing on what it is. As long as the person you are talking to is stuck in this circle you're not going to make any head-way and it will do your own head in trying to continually bring their attention to it. You can always point out that they have to assume evidence for their position (or all evidence in general) is objective truth in order to establish the belief of subjective truth but I've found it's borderline impossible to argue against/discuss with somebody who believes that belief = truth or that objective truth doesn't exist.

Here's a comment I made that might help with some exposition of the problem if you run into it with another person in the future

This is a (non-ontological?) category error. You've confused failure of interpreting the truth or the perceived inability of interpreting the truth with the notion of subjective truth. When in reality it's the belief about the truth. Belief about truth =/= subjective truth, but belief. There can't be multiple incompatible truths regarding a single thing for example, it's logically impossible. However there can be disagreements about the truth of the single thing. Subjective belief about the truth =/= subjective truth, it's a misnomer of the word truth when in reality you're describing belief. This right here is half the problem of modern popular/lay discourse, the idea that subjective truth exists. What people are describing is belief.

God bless .

 

[Bradskii]

...the problem is that you're judging morals based on already assumed truths, it's not like you're picking them isolated out of a vacuum. That's the point of the post, your morality is not authoritative because the truths you assume to be true (the avoidance of harm or etc) and use to determine what morals are correct have no basis which makes them authoritative to others, no basis for their truth and no reason as to why others should follow them.

I'm afraid that we're back to the very basics and the avoidance of harm. That has to be agreed before we could even begin to discuss where that leads.

We all have empathy. That's a given. So I know as a fact that you wouldn't like to suffer pain for no reason, especially if it is inflicted on you by another person. This is whether you want to admit it or not. It is axiomatic. If I was beating you, you'd want me to stop. If I was beating someone else for no reason, because you have empathy, you'd want me to stop.

I shan't continue on from that point because if you don't somehow agree to that then it will be a waste of my time trying to explain to you my position. So what is there in what I have I just said with which you might disagree?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Empathy. We know how others feel. Or at least we can imagine it. Couple that with an unstated reciprocal agreement that if I go around stealing someone's property then they'll have no qualms about stealing mine.

Then there's shame, guilt, pride, honour etc. Run everything into the mix and one develops a feeling that hey, stealing things (for example) is wrong. There's never been a society where that hasn't happened. Now you can say that God instilled that empathy, reciprocal altruism, guilt, shame, pride etc and maybe you want to call it different aspects of a God given conscience.

Be my guest. I have no problem with that. But I have no doubt whatsoever that they are naturally evolved characterics. Either way, I have no need go refer to scripture to determine what I consider to be right and wrong.

My friend the existence of empathy does not inherently necessitate the use of it. This is the impasse we (more like I seeing as I was at fault) struck before that I was trying to get at.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I'm afraid that we're back to the very basics and the avoidance of harm. That has to be agreed before we could even begin to discuss where that leads.

We all have empathy. That's a given. So I know as a fact that you wouldn't like to suffer pain for no reason, especially if it is inflicted on you by another person. This is whether you want to admit it or not. It is axiomatic. If I was beating you, you'd want me to stop. If I was beating someone else for no reason, because you have empathy, you'd want me to stop.

I shan't continue on from that point because if you don't somehow agree to that then it will be a waste of my time trying to explain to you my position. So what is there in what I have I just said with which you might disagree?

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.

 

[Chriliman]

Arbitrary is not the same as subjective; as a matter of fact, they are pretty much opposites. Subjective means it is based on personal feelings, opinions, and beliefs.

subjective

1. influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather than based on…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Arbitrary is pretty much the opposite, meaning random, compulsive, or unpredictable. IOW not thought out.

Definition of ARBITRARY

existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will; based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

IOW a subjective claim is thought out, an arbitrary claim is not thought out.

"Subjective" vs. "Objective": What's The Difference?

Don't subject yourself to more confusion—learn the difference between "subjective" and "objective" right now and always use them correctly.

www.dictionary.com

As you can see from the the above definition, if you have to incorporate extenuating circumstances in order to determine if it is a lie or not, those extenuating circumstances are based on your personal perspective, opinions, and beliefs; making the behavior subjective.
For example; if I told you eating a 500 mg cyanide tablet will kill you, this is an objective claim. It doesn’t matter if you’ve eaten it by accident, or if you did it to save the life of another person, consuming 500 mg of cyanide will kill you regardless of extenuating circumstances. That is an objective claim
If you have to look at all the circumstances around a behavior (in this case the lie) in order to determine if it is good or bad, by definition that behavior cannot be objective; it has to carry the subjective label.

It seems like we agree on the importance of basing our moral reasoning on objective facts and consistent definitions, that’s all I’m looking for.

 

[Bradskii]

My friend the existence of empathy does not inherently necessitate the use of it. This is the impasse we (more like I seeing as I was at fault) struck before that I was trying to get at.

We all have empathy. And we don't choose to use it. No more than we'd choose to be use colour vision. So I know, actually know that because I don't like being beaten, then you don't either (under normal circumstances - you might be a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] for example). And how can I confirm this? Well, I see examples of it everywhere. I see no examples of people who enjoy it. So everyone else gives every indication that they are exactly like me in that regard.

Does that in itself make me a moral person? No, because it's not a moral position. It simply informs me.

Following on from that, I consider bodily autonomy to be vitally important as far as I am concerned. So everyone else must be the same. It's universal. So does that make me a moral person? No again.

But what if I choose to respect autonomy in someone else. Simply because I personally can see value in my own life And value in the lives of others. This isn't decreed somewhere. This isn't because 'it is written'. These are no divinely imposed laws as far as I am concerned. This is MY decision. Are you personally making the same decision? Are you personally determining that what God wants is therefore what you must do? Or are you simply following the rules.

Consider two people. One doesn't drink and drive because she knows it's dangerous to other road users. The other doesn't do it simply because it's illegal. He's been told not to. Are their positions equitable? Not in my world.