Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[jayem]

If religion is the cause of the evil that people have done while espousing religious beliefs, how does one explain the good that people have done while espousing religious beliefs? Shouldn't it be one way only ? Can something cause people to do completely contradictory things simultaneously? Perhaps humans are much more complex than just summing up their behavior as "religion bad". People are prone to do nasty things and most seem to feel that they need an excuse. They might find it in religion or political ideology or in reciprocity. "They did me and mine wrong, so they deserve to be paid back exponentially." .

As I posted, religion has a mixed record in promoting ethical behavior. There is no doubt that Christianity has been responsible for some very commendable and worthwhile humanitarian endeavors. But OTOH, do you think the Holocaust would have occurred to the monstrous degree it did if the European Catholic and Protestant churches hadn't taught for centuries that Jews were responsible for Jesus's death? John's gospel in particular has some really ugly anti-Jewish passages.

Here's a thought experiment: Imagine a Christianity balance sheet. Several items are in the Assets column;
1) Many fine charities and philanthropic organizations.
2) The monasteries that kept knowledge and learning alive during the Dark Ages.
3) Great works of art, music, literature, and architecture.
4) Hospitals, schools, and universities.

These items are in the Liabilities column:
1) Fragmentation of the faith into dozens of denominations, often competing with one another.
2) Suspicion of, and in many cases, hostility to non-Christian beliefs.
3) The Spanish Inquisition.
4) The Protestant/Catholic religious wars of the 16th, 17th, and early 18th century.
5) The forced conversion of non-European, native peoples, the appropriation of their lands, and destruction of their civilizations.

More items could be listed in both columns. But after adding up each column, would the bottom line be in black ink or red?

 

[Bradskii]

Moses and Jesus weren't too much help at the time though.

Why not? They can teach us a lot about how we should live our lives.

 

[Bradskii]

Also Brad if you are too I'm sorry for getting frustrated and letting the caps lock loose, I'll try better next time to not let it boil over. Please forgive me.

No worries, buddy. No need to apologise.

 

[Bradskii]

I have a take on that if you don't mind hearing it. The difference is in authority not in subjectivity. If one believes that there is a Creator of the universe, one then must assume that that Creator is superior to oneself as one did not create oneself and does not have the ability to create a physical universe but is a product of the work of that Creator. By the act of Creation, one can also assume that this Creator has the authority to decide what is and is not the intended purpose of that universe and the purpose of all the individual things and actions that that Creator intended when that Creator created.

I think that most of us understand that. And let's face it, most divinely ordained rules and regs, either from God or His son are eminently sensible. Don't murder, don't chase after your neighbour's wife, don't steal. It's pretty basic stuff and you'd have to concede that if there was a society that had no inkling of God then they'd be following those rules in any case. In fact, without some basic 'Do not kill, Do not steal' type of self regulated positions, societies are not going to form in the first place.

The second problem is that each individual either has to follow the divinely ordained commandments blindly, with no thought as to their moral value OR she has to think about whether the rule is valid in the first place. And then follow them. So a decision on God's morality needs to be made.

If that isn't the case, then you can truly believe that God has commanded you to do something and however horrendous the act would be, you'd have to consider it morally acceptable. So 'murder all the children in the local school' becomes a morally acceptable act - if God commands it. And please, it's no good claiming it's something He wouldn't do. Because then you are prejudging what God's moral laws should be.

Finally, you might note the paucity of Christians who hold that 'Whatever God commands is good' and yet personally disagree with one or more of them. You'll never find anyone who says 'I personally can't see that this is moral, but God says so therefore it must be.'

 

[grasping the after wind]

Most religious books are written in a way that the reader can interpret any way he wants based on his subjective beliefs. As the old saying goes; good men will do good, bad men will do bad regardless of religion. The difference is the religious man will use his religion to justify his deeds, whereas the non-religious man will just act on his integrity.

Yeah right. The non-religious are all paragons of virtue. Not really. I would assume that most religious books are written with one interpretation in mind. It is the reader, not the writer, that is doing the interpretation so that it will suit the reader's purposes. We see this with the Constitution of the US as well. The writers of that document had a single meaning for what they wrote in mind but we have read into it so many other things based solely upon what we want it to say and not what the writer's intended us to understand.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I think that most of us understand that. And let's face it, most divinely ordained rules and regs, either from God or His son are eminently sensible. Don't murder, don't chase after your neighbour's wife, don't steal. It's pretty basic stuff and you'd have to concede that if there was a society that had no inkling of God then they'd be following those rules in any case. In fact, without some basic 'Do not kill, Do not steal' type of self regulated positions, societies are not going to form in the first place.

The second problem is that each individual either has to follow the divinely ordained commandments blindly, with no thought as to their moral value OR she has to think about whether the rule is valid in the first place. And then follow them. So a decision on God's morality needs to be made.

If that isn't the case, then you can truly believe that God has commanded you to do something and however horrendous the act would be, you'd have to consider it morally acceptable. So 'murder all the children in the local school' becomes a morally acceptable act - if God commands it. And please, it's no good claiming it's something He wouldn't do. Because then you are prejudging what God's moral laws should be.

Finally, you might note the paucity of Christians who hold that 'Whatever God commands is good' and yet personally disagree with one or more of them. You'll never find anyone who says 'I personally can't see that this is moral, but God says so therefore it must be.'

There are things that God has commanded that I don't see the moral value of out of my own subjective lens. Love your enemies. Seems to me I would prefer to hate my enemies if it was up to me, and God did not tell me otherwise. After all, they are in my eyes evil people that deserve my disdain and i ought to see to it that they get what they deserve. Do not steal. I need things that people with much more than I have would never miss if i grabbed it when they were not looking. Where's the harm in that? Don't gossip. what fun is that? Why should something so interesting be considered morally bankrupt? Be humble? Care as much about others as I do about myself? No, none of that is something would espouse if I was making up my own moral code.

 

[Jonaitis]

Why do you think that compassion is universally accepted throughout the world as the guiding light for rationale within any civilization? I see no evidence to support that.

Then there is no evidence to support it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why not? They can teach us a lot about how we should live our lives.

How can Moses and Jesus teach us anything at ages 3 through 7 if the lessons provided by adults, or by one's parents and guardians, aren't more substantive than the 2 penny flannel board paper figures that are all so often used to "teach" children at church or kindergarten?

I mean, it's not as if my own parents taught me about Moses and Jesus at home. They really didn't. We didn't read the Bible nor did we talk about religion other than to occasionaly darken the halls of a local church and to passively, and briefly, read an occasional, highly pared down two penny kiddy version of several favorite (and non-threatening) Bible stories. All of which were exactly what an unwitting, non-comprehending child needed for "good moral and empathic development."

My parents did, however, buy me a ton of comic books and bubble gum cards, and they encouraged me to be a typically active (and non-intellectual), sports minded boy. I was directed to "be competitive as best I could," to hit those T-ball and soccer balls and zap those 2-bit video games, but I was allowed to avoid questioning and learning much of anything substantive since it was evaluated as an essential waste of time, and so was the act of learning how to understanding other people.

Thank God for Stan Lee, George Lucas and Hugh Hefner! They all came to the rescue in my "all-American" moral development as a very young lad and they played an authoritative role in the social and psychological matrix that took me on into my teen years. If anything, it was convenient that Moses and Jesus were mosty displaced from that matrix. Isn't that good news?! [...that's sarcasm for those who can't tell the difference].

 

[Bradskii]

There are things that God has commanded that I don't see the moral value of out of my own subjective lens. Love your enemies. Seems to me I would prefer to hate my enemies if it was up to me, and God did not tell me otherwise. After all, they are in my eyes evil people that deserve my disdain and i ought to see to it that they get what they deserve. Do not steal. I need things that people with much more than I have would never miss if i grabbed it when they were not looking. Where's the harm in that? Don't gossip. what fun is that? Why should something so interesting be considered morally bankrupt? Be humble? Care as much about others as I do about myself? No, none of that is something would espouse if I was making up my own moral code.

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

 

[Ken-1122]

Not really. I would assume that most religious books are written with one interpretation in mind. It is the reader, not the writer, that is doing the interpretation so that it will suit the reader's purposes.

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

We see this with the Constitution of the US as well. The writers of that document had a single meaning for what they wrote in mind but we have read into it so many other things based solely upon what we want it to say and not what the writer's intended us to understand.

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.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I haven’t read every post in this thread. This may have been discussed already. I don’t believe in any of the gods in any of the world’s religions. To me they’re all products of the human imagination. But I do believe that what goes around comes around. If I act like a jerk, and treat other people like trash, the chances are good that I’ll eventually be treated the same way. And since this life is all I’ve ever have, I want it to be as pleasant and stress-free as possible. This is simply the principle of reciprocity. It’s reason enough for me, and it should be common sense. And it seems to me that something is seriously lacking if you need belief in a supernatural deity to have a moral compass.

And BTW, history is replete with wars, pogroms, persecutions, stolen lands and resources, forced conversions, and other atrocities committed by adherents of one religion on those of a different faith. Religion has a decidedly mixed record in promoting ethical behavior. Religious faith is far too easily used to put a veneer of godliness on all manner of human greed, prejudice, and powerlust. As Pascal (an astute and sincere Christian) said: Men never do evil as cheerfully and as completely as when they do it from religious conviction.

You might believe that what goes around comes around but my friend I would re-direct you to the thread title. This is one of the points I'm not sure how so many people are missing, is the standard here your personal preferences? If so then it's arbitrary and the person you disagree with is just in the right as you according to this definition of morality because the reason their morals are true would be their personal preference. "What goes around comes around" sounds awesome as a blanket term but when feeling human beings are attacked our sense of judgement is warped and who's to say that your sense of judgement of what an adequate retribution would be is correct? And here's the point of the OP, by what standard that's not arbitrary (you're unable to establish any without a transcendent cause for morality) would you be held to be proven correct in your moral stance and the other person wrong?

Your guiding morality for life has now become how you feel and I don't need to recite the traditional definition of sentimentality in order for the conclusions of this line of thinking to come home to roost. Let me point out to you the main assumption, this assumption I even mentioned in my OP, that you have assumed as somehow true and use in order to establish a nebulous, arbitrary morality that only applies to the stimulus you've experienced and your judgement of it.

And since this life is all I’ve ever have, I want it to be as pleasant and stress-free as possible.

This principle is what you base your morality on, the avoidance of pain. Yet you have no reason as to why avoiding pain is bad apart from your subjective opinion, which is not authoritative. Not to mention we always actively undertake stress and unpleasantness in order to achieve a specific outcome. This is what I meant when I said in the OP "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". All you've done is assume the truth of another moral stance which has no reason for it even being a moral stance in order to base the principle of reciprocity on it. This will go on for eternity, a perpetual cycle because you have no ability to form moral truths within your worldview due to evolution not giving you inherent value to human life or any kind of stable ground in order to establish them. A concise summary of your position is "I don't want to hurt people because I don't want them to hurt me". Your entire view of morality is based solely upon your personal feelings. If somebodies personal stance of morality was "I hurt people before they can hurt me" you would need a reason for your disagreement and according to this moral stance you've taken, which has personal feelings establishing (really assuming) truth, the only answer you'd be able to provide is completely arbitrary. Hence the title of the thread.

You can't keep quoting your personal arbitrary feelings at me as if it's a moral stance when it refutes itself the second it gets into a moral disagreement with somebody who's personal arbitrary feelings conflict with yours.

 

[Chriliman]

We can agree that bodily autonomy is important.

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.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I disagree. Though the acceptability of my moral actions is determined by the society around me, not all of society's moral views are the same, so I pick and choose which moral views meets my approval and which ones I reject. As a moral agent, I consider myself qualified to do this.

On what basis do you choose what's right? By saying you just pick and choose you're agreeing with the OP that your morality is entirely arbitrary and you just assume that because you're a moral agent that the morals you choose are right. Nevertheless this isn't even the problem, 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. 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.

I disagree! If you are a moral agent, this is simple! What I find difficult is to take somebody else's word for it without an ability to verify what they're telling you is right.

You can't verify what's right because you have no fixed standard by which to verify any moral claims. As you've shown by picking and choosing, it's all arbitrary. If you argue and reason for moral truths you're arguing for a fixed morality, something not relative. To even argue for certain morals to be true you're already assuming that there's a standard that makes them true but it's a standard that doesn't have any basis within reality because under an evolutionary dogma there's no inherent value to human life, only matter smacking up against other matter.

I have no idea how you’ve made such a leap of logic but you are wrong. I am empathetic, have reasons to live and have inherent value because these are standards I apply; not because someone else told me to.

See the point above. It's not a leap in logic, nihilism is the only recourse for an Atheism that holds to evolution or dogma that begins explaining existence from the starting point of matter (naturalism & materialism).

If you’re saying according to non believers, Christians basing their morals on their God’s opinions is equal to me basing my moral views on my opinions; I will agree with you to an extent, because unlike the Christian; I can articulate why my moral views are best observed.

I'm not. And you can't articulate why your morals are true, you can only argue from a position of subjective morality. Which makes it arbitrary and unable to be universal or fixed. To say why your morals are best observed is to assume the truth of something which you have no basis for. If someone personally wants to utterly destroy others, you have no recourse to but to say that people should avoid pain, as it's the standard on which you pick and choose your morality. There's no justice in your worldview, only things you don't like.

I agree! And unless the person you are trying to convince shares the Christian worldview, “Because God said so” is not gonna be a convincing argument

As apposed to "Ken said so". The source of all truth who created us and determines the parameters of our behaviour is the only being who is able to set a fixed morality. Nobody else or nothing else can do so, your worldview only allows for a subjective morality.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

And that is what makes me think that a Christian has a subjective morality because only Jesus truly understands. Everyone else should acknowledge (according to John) that that truth is not something we can ever have. So morality of a human is subjective due to imperfect human understanding.

This is very similar to my own take. I know my morality is imperfect because I am not perfect so I do the best I can.

What say you?

I say that your understanding of Christianity is what's causing you to think it purports a kind subjective morality. The Christian claim is that Jesus is The Christ and Yahweh incarnate. The Son of God is the objective and universal revelation of The Father and therefore following Him means doing our utmost to follow His objective precepts. Sin means we fail, some of us more often [Edit: and more severely] than others in the application of His universal morality. The failure of man to follow God is not indicative of subjective morality, it just means we fail to follow the objective morality. I also think you're making the mistake of thinking that because we interpret what the truth is, therefore it necessarily follows that the truth is subjective. No, the truth exists independent of us whether we believe in it or not. Using inductive reasoning (which there is no justification for outside of God because you can't examine the future) I can be certain that rocks will continue to exist after I die. My belief or non belief in them does not change the fact that they exist.

Also there's the self-refuting nature of denying an objective or universal truth. When you say that truth is subjective, you make a claim that it is universally true that truth is subjective. You can't even argue about a single thing without assuming the truth of something or that something is true. Which is why an authoritative reason is so important as without it you can't make any substantial claims to truth (Edit for clarification: provide evidence that is substantive for claims to the truth).

 

[Neutral Observer]

Also there's the self-refuting nature of denying an objective or universal truth. When you say that truth is subjective, you make a claim that it is universally true that truth is subjective. You can't even argue about a single thing without assuming the truth of something or that something is true.

I would just like to point out that this argument seems a bit disingenuous, because as far as I can tell you failed to raise it in the OP, so to raise it now would seem to do nothing more than sidetrack the intent of the original OP. Why would you ask us to defend a position and then invalidate the very grounds upon which you've asked us to form our argument?

 

[Ken-1122]

On what basis do you choose what's right?

Based on my personal beliefs

By saying you just pick and choose you're agreeing with the OP that your morality is entirely arbitrary

No it is not arbitrary, it isn’t random at all; it’s thought out.

and you just assume that because you're a moral agent that the morals you choose are right.

Yes

Yes. Nevertheless this isn't even the problem, 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.

What's wrong with that?

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.

It becomes authoritative only if I can give a convincing argument that I am right, and they are wrong causing them to change their minds. Right vs wrong should never be taken on faith IMO

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.

Human flourishing is not the basis of all moral issues, each issue is different and may require different basis.

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

Every moral issue that I have an opinion on, is grounded in something If not, then I do not have an opinion on that moral issue. And what’s the alternative? Assuming all moral issues are based on what somebody else tells you, and assuming they are telling you what is right? I would rather have my moral views originate from myself rather than what someone else tells me.

You can't verify what's right because you have no fixed standard by which to verify any moral claims. As you've shown by picking and choosing, it's all arbitrary.

Picking and choosing does not mean arbitrary and random. Big difference between the two.

If you argue and reason for moral truths you're arguing for a fixed morality, something not relative.

All morality is relative to the situation. Example; is it wrong to kill someone? How about if the person breaks into your house with intent of killing you? You can’t say all killing is wrong because there is always a scenario where killing might be the right thing to do. That goes with all moral issues; they are all relative to the situation at hand

To even argue for certain morals to be true you're already assuming that there's a standard that makes them true but it's a standard that doesn't have any basis within reality

The standard is my personal opinion, and my opinions do have a basis within reality.

See the point above. It's not a leap in logic, nihilism is the only recourse for an Atheism that holds to evolution or dogma that begins explaining existence from the starting point of matter (naturalism & materialism).

No. Nihilism is the opposite of being a moral agent.

I'm not. And you can't articulate why your morals are true, you can only argue from a position of subjective morality. Which makes it arbitrary and unable to be universal or fixed. To say why your morals are best observed is to assume the truth of something which you have no basis for.

I believe all moral issues are completely subjective and relative. Is it wrong to lie? (yes) How about if lying saves an innocent person’s life?(no) How about if lying saves a guilty person’s life (yes) See it’s all subjective and relative to the situation at hand.

There's no justice in your worldview, only things you don't like.

And how is that different from your worldview based only on things you are convinced your God doesn’t like?

As apposed to "Ken said so". The source of all truth who created us and determines the parameters of our behaviour is the only being who is able to set a fixed morality. Nobody else or nothing else can do so, your worldview only allows for a subjective morality.

My source of truth is based on my subjective morality. Your source of truth is based on your God’s subjective morality. In order for morality to be objective, every sentient, thinking being; your God included will have to be subjected to it. Just like if your God said I were 200 years old, your God would be wrong because age is objective, If “X” is objectively wrong, but your God said it was right; your God would be wrong. IOW in order for morality to be objective, it cannot originate from your God any more than it can originate from me because by definition; that which is objective can't be influenced by any type of thought.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I would just like to point out that this argument seems a bit disingenuous, because as far as I can tell you failed to raise it in the OP, so to raise it now would seem to do nothing more than sidetrack the intent of the original OP.

I was to responding the claim of not being able to know truth due to the subjective nature of interpretation, otherwise the argument wouldn't have been raised at all. That specific claim was brought against my argument, therefore I responded to it.

Why would you ask us to defend a position and then invalidate the very grounds upon which you've asked us to form our argument?

I claim that you have no ground for a fixed morality [Edit: or reason & logic in general], I don't invalidate it. Feel free to disagree with the claims and present your reasons as to why your ground is solid. If it turns out you can't form arguments without borrowing necessary Christian presuppositions (inductive reasoning for example) then we've both learned something haven't we?

 

[Ken-1122]

Also there's the self-refuting nature of denying an objective or universal truth.

Please explain

When you say that truth is subjective, you make a claim that it is universally true that truth is subjective.

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

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

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

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Please explain

I did in the comment you quoted.

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

I would like to keep it on topic, the only reason I presented the argument I did was because of the claim of subjective truth against the argument for moral truths.

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.

I'm not going to respond to any more on this topic re: Subjective truth as I think I have done so appropriately. Feel free to rebut my points but I won't be responding to them in order to not derail. If there's one thing that can do so it's this topic.

 

[jayem]

This principle is what you base your morality on, the avoidance of pain. Yet you have no reason as to why avoiding pain is bad apart from your subjective opinion, which is not authoritative.

Is it a bad thing to avoid pain to myself by not inflicting pain on others? Isn't that actually a biblical directive?

So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Matt 7:12 ESV

The Buddha (who lived 6 centuries before Jesus came on the scene) says much the same: "All beings tremble before violence. All fear death. All love life. See yourself in others. Then whom can you hurt?"

This is common sense. Why do you need belief in some supposed transcendent entity to make it authoritative?

BTW: I don't believe in any gods, of any religion. But I do have a higher power who watches over me. It's called my wife.