Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[Tranquil Bondservant]

First of all I use the term *secular* lightly here as it's the only way in my pea size brain to encompass all worldviews that deny a transcendent source for morality or moral truths. So if it doesn't comport 1:1 please forgive me. Now to the post .

If the acceptability of your moral actions is determined by the society around you then you can't say that other people's moral stances are wrong. Only that it is wrong for our current society, according to our arbitrary preferences. In order to believe certain morals are correct then you need to have a reason as to why that’s the case, under naturalism or materialism, a philosophical perspective that denies the transcendent it’s impossible. You have no reason to be empathetic, you have no reason to survive or live, you have no inherent value. It's all arbitrary now. According to the modern secular worldview the accusations laid against Christianity have no weight because in the worldview that slings them there's no ability to claim moral truth, only personal preferences (based on experience of stimulus).

On top of this is the idea that social dysfunction (blanket term for the basis & justification for evolutionary morality) = a specific thing is a matter of subjective interpretation. For example the Romans who created the longest lasting empire waged warfare continuously. Something that would be seen as obscene today. If your morality is based upon practicality and what works, then a society who's economic basis is built upon slavery (The Romans) would view slavery as good. In order to call the Romans wrong for building their empire on the backs of slaves you would need a reason as to why slavery is wrong both for them and us. In which case in order to do so you would assume a moral standard, something not relative.

Lastly, in ANY *secular* worldview agreements upon behaviour =/= why I should follow them, they are arbitrary agreements and need a basis if you want to condemn someone. If a society comes together and agrees that torture for x reason is moral, and I disagree, which one would be right and why? The moral principles are entirely arbitrary, you need a reason as to why hurting people is bad and then a reason as to why it's true. If you have no reason as to why it's true then you literally have no reason to believe it or follow it, let alone legislate it. If your reason is the avoidance of harm, you have now assumed that the avoidance of harm is a moral truth and you assume the value of human life which has no basis in materialism & naturalism (the dogmas which *secular* science is dependent upon). It seems incoherent. The only consistent stance within the *secular* worldview is that morality is arbitrary preference. I've only ever seen one person take this stance and it was The Amazing Atheist (used to watch him back in my atheist days) and if you were to take it I couldn't argue against it, I could only disagree on other basis's like philosophy & etc.

[Edit: There seems to be misunderstanding, I don't know if that's because of a lack of clarity on my part or if it's because of the opposing view's presuppositions imparting blinders on those who think them (all presuppositions do in a sense when you explain from them frequently). So I thought it prudent to link a detailed comment/response that explains the points a bit further and might provide some clarification. This is it here.]

[Edit 2: My final post on the thread. I encourage you all in peace & love for one another to continue discussing. God bless .]

 

[Bradskii]

If a society comes together and agrees that torture for x reason is moral, and I disagree, which one would be right and why?

The one with the best argument. I sincerely hope you can give good practical arguments against torture without invoking any reference go God.

Give it a go. I'm keen to see you do it.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

The one with the best argument. I sincerely hope you can give good practical arguments against torture without invoking any reference go God.

Give it a go. I'm keen to see you do it.

Under a secular worldview I can't. That's the point of the post. All "moral truths" assume other morals in order to give the proposed morality justification. It's circular.

 

[Bradskii]

Under a secular worldview I can't. That's the point of the post. All "moral truths" assume other morals in order to give the proposed morality justification. It's circular.

So if you had a blow to tbe head and forgot that you were a Christian, then rape, pillage, torture etc would then be perfectly fine?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

So if you had a blow to tbe head and forgot that you were a Christian, then rape, pillage, torture etc would then be perfectly fine?

If I had a blow to the head and forgot I was a Christian I would still need a reason as to why my morals are correct without assuming the truth of them because of stimulus

 

[Jonaitis]

Under a secular worldview I can't. That's the point of the post. All "moral truths" assume other morals in order to give the proposed morality justification. It's circular.

I'm not against you, friend, but to reason from belief is circular in itself. Anyone can claim that their personal god is the creator and authority on morality, and base their reasoning on it.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I'm not against you, brother, but to reason from belief is circular in itself. Anyone can claim that their personal god is the creator and authority on morality, and base their reasoning on it.

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 authoriative 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"

 

[Jonaitis]

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 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 authoriative 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.

The main concern with this sort of presentation is when an authority origin makes conflicting statements that doesn't resonate with compassion, which is universally accepted throughout the world as the guiding light for rationale within any civilization. Compassion is foundational, because it furthers society and its progress. We like to dodge questions about the morality presented in the Torah (Mosaic Law), because we rather accept what seems obscene to natural reason in favor of our precious and comforting beliefs. I'm not putting down God, but I am bothered as of late of how well-accepted certain principles held therein now precisely because of the age those principles relates to, thus making morality subjective indirectly, defeating its own argument of an objective footing.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

The main concern with this sort of presentation is when an authority origin makes conflicting statements that doesn't resonate with compassion, which is universally accepted throughout the world as the guiding light for rationale within any civilization. Compassion is foundational, because it furthers society and its progress. We like to dodge questions about the morality presented in the Torah (Mosaic Law), because we rather accept what seems obscene to natural reason in favor of our precious and comforting beliefs.

Making your presupposition or hermeneutic the universality of compassion, without a reason for doing so or it being the case is just as erroneous as the thing you claim I am doing my friend. The reason we are compassionate at all is because we are created in the image of God, it has nothing to do with the universality of the proposed thing. [Edit: which makes your presupposition the same as mine .]

 

[Jonaitis]

Making your presupposition or hermeneutic the universality of compassion, without a reason for doing so or it being the case is just as erroneous as the thing you claim I am doing my friend. The reason we are compassionate at all is because we are created in the image of God, it has nothing to do with the universality of the proposed thing. [Edit: which makes your presupposition the same as mine .]

I'm not suggesting that my premise is any better, but that any and all presuppositions still has its flaws.

The problem with theism and atheism are their disagreements with each other. They both fit in the other shoe that they themselves cannot fit, that is, they are compatible, not contrary, to each other. And, no, I do not refer to agnosticism, but its antithesis as it were.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I'm not suggesting that my premise is any better, but that any and all presuppositions still has its flaws.

The problem with theism and atheism are their disagreements with each other. They both fit in the other shoe that they themselves cannot fit, that is, they are compatible, not contrary, to each other. And, no, I do not refer to agnosticism, but its antithesis as it were.

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.

 

[Jonaitis]

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 and rely upon the material world (without any justification for doing so) in order to discern reality.

Suprarational: it gives naturalism and supernaturalism a lodging place to rest together. The authority they establish is an emanating prototype of the suprarational which doesn't utterly defy self-reason, but at the same time encompasses and transcends it.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Supranatural: it gives naturalism and supernaturalism a lodging place to rest together. The authority they establish is an emanating prototype of the supranatural which doesn't utterly defy self-reason, but at the same time transcends it.

Again: "from the OP "under naturalism or materialism, a philosophical perspective that denies the transcendent it’s impossible". My issues don't stem from someone affirming the transcendent, but the modern dogma that permeates western society which denies it. Supernaturalism isn't Atheism, it's Agnosticism as it affirms a transcendent agent.

 

[Jonaitis]

Again: "from the OP "under naturalism or materialism, a philosophical perspective that denies the transcendent it’s impossible". My issues don't stem from someone affirming the transcendent, but the modern dogma that permeates western society which denies it. Supernaturalism isn't Atheism, it's Agnosticism.

Sorry, I updated my post.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Sorry, I updated my post.

No need to apologise, I'm a serial editor never comfortable with my initial way of expressing my thoughts lol.

 

[Jonaitis]

No need to apologise, I'm a serial editor never comfortable with my initial way of expressing my thoughts lol.

I get that, too. I accidently threw in supranatural, when I meant suprarational.

An example I would give of suprarational would be consciousness. It encompasses the premise of all rational thought, but cannot be explain by rational thought, yet does not quite fit in the supernatural alone since we all can subjectively agree that it is happening. It is a suprarational concept and reality, embodying naturalism and supernaturalism.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Sorry, I updated my post.

It doesn't give naturalism a space at all, as naturalism has no mechanism to describe how an immaterial thing comes from a material thing.

 

[Jonaitis]

It doesn't give naturalism a space at all, as naturalism has no mechanism to describe how an immaterial thing comes from a material thing.

Suprarational includes naturalism by extending further without denying it. The naturalist cannot explain it, but at the same time, cannot deny it. Consciousness is the only truth that fits this category. The quality of a subjective experience of this is undeniably knowable and unknowable at the same time. It eludes us, yet is the most familiar truth in all of us.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Suprarational includes naturalism by extending further without denying it. The naturalist cannot explain it, but at the same time, cannot deny it. Consciousness is the only truth that fits this category. The quality of a subjective experience of this is undeniably knowable and unknowable.

The presupposition of consciousness is no different than the Naturalistic assumption. Both rely on themselves to prove themselves without any reason to say why they're authoritative. All it does is allow for explainable phenomena to be included in a super natural schema with supernatural agents, it's essentially Deism. This is apposed to the Theistic presupposition which says God is why our reason is authoritative. You're still left hanging in the air with suprarational (Deistic) assumptions, which makes it essentially the same as Naturalism.

 

[Jonaitis]

What does this say about morality?

If we define consciousness as that quality of subjective experiencing, then, this is without a doubt the ultimate authority on reason and belief. Should we, then, base principles that enhances the propensity of experiencing? I believe so, but to what extend and held by what boundary?

Have you ever heard of a autotelic personality? It is someone who does things, not for some future reward in mind, but for the things in themselves. What is the goal of experiencing? Experience. This is circular, but at the same time undeniably true. It may be that, perhaps, morality should be focused on the enhancement or fitness of experience for me and others? This leads us back to compassion as furthering and progressing the natural state of things. What if compassion enhances conscious experiencing? Then it would be synonymous with the experiencing itself, making compassion the principle and enhancement of experiencing. We should do those things that furthers one's proper experiencing, not deteriorates it.