Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[YahuahSaves]

Of course I have a justification for what I do and don't consider to be moral, "do onto others as you would have them do onto you"

Are you an atheist? You're quoting the golden rule in Matthew 7:12 proving you base your morality on scripture.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Re-iterating the point of disagreement
Restating the premise you refuse to engage
answering your question for the first time while disputing your ability to make moral claims
Answering your question a second time while you again refuse to engage
pointing out your refusal to engage
Disputing your moral basis to claim that bodily autonomy should be respected, you again refuse to engage apart from your own line of questioning
Responding to you saying me responding to you is a waste of time even though I've answered your question twice
Pointing out again the fact you haven't actually engaged a single thing but have only asked questions over and over
Showing you I've answered your questions with quotations and you still say I didn't
Me responding to your question for a THIRD time
Me quoting my response to your question and giving you an additional FOURTH answer
Me explaining that my response was genuine and you refusing to engage

Mate you're responsible for not accepting the multiple answers I gave you. All you did was ask the same question over and over even though I answered, objected and tried to move the conversation forward. You can't fish for a specific answer in order to counter it, discussions don't work on rails.

You will notice this happening a lot on this site as you engage in conversations with the atheists. They like to argue on their terms and will try circular logic to "win", rather than just have a discussion based on the OP.

 

[Neutral Observer]

You're quoting the golden rule in Matthew 7:12 proving you base your morality on scripture.

No, I was paraphrasing Confucius... who preceded Christ by some 600 years.

Confucius's principles have commonality with Chinese tradition and belief. With filial piety, he championed strong family loyalty, ancestor veneration, and respect of elders by their children and of husbands by their wives, recommending family as a basis for ideal government. He espoused the Golden Rule, "Do not do unto others what you do not want done to yourself".

Which means that using your logic Christ was basing His morality on Confucianism. But then again the bible does tend to plagiarize a lot, so perhaps you should practice a little more discretion before using that line of reasoning.

 

[Bradskii]

Are you an atheist? You're quoting the golden rule in Matthew 7:12 proving you base your morality on scripture.

Do you think that the golden rule was first suggested by Jesus? That it's the only reference to it anywhere? It's universal. I don't think that there's a religion or a philosophically moral position that doesn't include it.

Confucius said "Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself" 500 years before Christ. There was the Egyptian story of the Eloquent Peasant in 2000 BCE: “Do for one who may do for you, That you may cause him thus to do.” Socrates in 400 BCE: “Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others.”

Jesus wasn't saying 'Hey, this is a new rule for you to follow'. He was saying 'Remember this rule? Try to live by it'. Your statement is like saying 'Do not steal' wasn't a concept until Moses produced his tablets. You might just as well have said that Jesus based His morality on Confucianism.

Edit: @Walking Contradiction beat me to it...but I'll let mine stand so that you know it's relatively common knowledge. Or at least I thought it was.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

You will notice this happening a lot on this site as you engage in conversations with the atheists. They like to argue on their terms and will try circular logic to "win", rather than just have a discussion based on the OP.

Out of all the comments I've made regarding morality, which is a lot, I've never been presented with a case as to why their morality is true/correct. Not once. They don't defend their presuppositions, they ignore them. When I ask how can you determine which person is right when someone within the same worldview conflicts with your morality, they ignore it. This whole entire thing feels utterly pointless, not a single person has engaged with the positions posed in the OP. Makes me feel like a moron for even trying.

 

[YahuahSaves]

No, I was paraphrasing Confucius... who preceded Christ by some 600 years.



Which means that using your logic Christ was basing His morality on Confucianism. But then again the bible does tend to plagiarize a lot, so perhaps you should practice a little more discretion before using that line of reasoning.

"Christ was deriving this moral law from the Old Testament, specifically the book of Levitcus, which was written a thousand or more years before Christ. The passage in which Jesus cites this is Matthew 7:12, as well as Luke 6:31. This is the passage in Matthew: "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." The phrase the "Law and the Prophets" echoes Matthew 5:17 (Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill). This so-called "Golden Rule" is the practical application of Leviticus 19:18, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Leviticus is one of the books of the Law written by Moses, hence Jesus' statement that it fulfills the Law and the Prophets".

"Confucius did not espouse "The Golden Rule." What Confucius said was, "What is loathsome to thee, do not to another." Jesus was the first moralist/ethicist/religious to express the "Golden Rule" in the positive: And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."

"No.. Confucius wrote the rule which says " DO NOT do unto others, which you DO NOT want others to do unto you."

From: Is it true that Confuscius wrote the Golden Rule- do unto others 500 years before Christ?

 

[YahuahSaves]

Do you think that the golden rule was first suggested by Jesus? That it's the only reference to it anywhere? It's universal. I don't think that there's a religion or a philosophically moral position that doesn't include it.

Confucius said "Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself" 500 years before Christ. There was the Egyptian story of the Eloquent Peasant in 2000 BCE: “Do for one who may do for you, That you may cause him thus to do.” Socrates in 400 BCE: “Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others.”

Jesus wasn't saying 'Hey, this is a new rule for you to follow'. He was saying 'Remember this rule? Try to live by it'. Your statement is like saying 'Do not steal' wasn't a concept until Moses produced his tablets. You might just as well have said that Jesus based His morality on Confucianism.

Edit: @Walking Contradiction beat me to it...but I'll let mine stand so that you know it's relatively common knowledge. Or at least I thought it was.

Post #146

 

[YahuahSaves]

Makes me feel like a moron for even trying.

Unfortunately, I think that's the intention of some. When that circular argument gets to a point where they repeat the same arguments I've already refuted with evidence, I opt out with a big wave. ( )

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

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.

Your continued failure to engage the basis of disagreement either A) shows you don't understand it or B) understand it but refuse to engage it.

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.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Unfortunately, I think that's the intention of some. When that circular argument gets to a point where they repeat the same arguments I've already refuted with evidence, I opt out with a big wave. ( )

Seems like the only way honestly. Everybody slings arbitrary feelings towards stimulus at me as if they're moral arguments but in order to do so they agree with the OP which presents arguments as to why doing so is arbitrary. I think I've about had enough.

 

[Neutral Observer]

This whole entire thing feels utterly pointless,

Trust me, we feel the same way.

 

[Bradskii]

Out of all the comments I've made regarding morality, which is a lot, I've never been presented with a case as to why their morality is true/correct. Not once. They don't defend their presuppositions, they ignore them. When I ask how can you determine which person is right when someone within the same worldview conflicts with your morality, they ignore it. This whole entire thing feels utterly pointless, not a single person has engaged with the positions posed in the OP. Makes me feel like a moron for even trying.

The only position you put forward that was likely to be accepted by the 'secularists' was this: ' The only consistent stance within the *secular* worldview is that morality is arbitrary preference.' All else was your take on what morality should be, what it is according to you and how everyone else would be wrong not to accept your view. What were you expecting to get from that?

Well, what you have got is a few people telling you exactly how they view secular morality. And why they think it's valid. And why they hold to it. The case has been presented any number of times. And defended. And it's also been explained what happens when people hold differing views. I can't recall you addressing any of the points made.

And going back to the 'arbitrary preference' comment, that has been addressed as well. It was explained in post 116. In fact here's a run down of the posts directly referencing your op and addressing opposing arguments:

6: Argument from belief.
8: Appeal to authority.
29: Your claim that any other position was impossible.
33: Explanation that morality is not objective.
54: Morality can be based on the golden rule. It is subjective.
62: You saying that you have a basis for morality but nobody else can.
82: Explanation tat it is a personal decision as to whether someone is wrong.
84: A reiteration of that.
88: Ditto. And reasonable arguments determine it.
91: Contradictions in scripture.
94: Admission that morality is not perfect.
97: Reciprocity explained as a concept critical to morality.
99: Is what God commands necessarily good?
116: Morality is NOT arbitrary or random but based on axiomatic truths (which are objective).
120: Golden rule yet again.
121: We must assume some axiomatic truths are objectively true.
133: A run down of what determines secular morality.
138: Your confusion re empathy.
139: Empathy re-explained.
143: Golden rule shown to be universal.

Address (or re-address) any of those posts. Ask for clarification. Ask for further arguments to back up any point made. Make a counter argument - and NOT simply a counter claim. Feel free to enter into a debate. But please don't tell us we have not engaged with the op.

 

[Bradskii]

You will notice this happening a lot on this site as you engage in conversations with the atheists. They like to argue on their terms and will try circular logic to "win", rather than just have a discussion based on the OP.

If you don't like 'conversations with the atheists' then feel free to wander the majority of the forum where we are asked not to participate. I'm sure you'll find some people with whom you can agree.

 

[Bradskii]

Post #146

My 2000 BC Egyptian beats your Leviticus. In any case, to suggest that all religions defered to Christianity in formulating their own version of the golden rule is nonsensical.

 

[Bradskii]

Your continued failure to engage the basis of disagreement either A) shows you don't understand it or B) understand it but refuse to engage it.

Do you think that empathy is somehow something we choose to use? Can you confirm that and perhaps try to explain that if it's actually what you mean?

 

[Bradskii]

Out of all the comments I've made regarding morality, which is a lot, I've never been presented with a case as to why their morality is true/correct.

And in passing, if you mean by that that no-one has shown how their morality can be objectively true, then at least three of us have been telling you that morality itself is not objective. So...why would you think we'd say any different? We're arguing against your position...

 

[YahuahSaves]

If you don't like 'conversations with the atheists' then feel free to wander the majority of the forum where we are asked not to participate. I'm sure you'll find some people with whom you can agree.

Believe me, I try but I end up clicking posts from the main screen without checking where it's located. The OP I'm in agreement with, otherwise I wouldn't be here

 

[Bradskii]

The OP I'm in agreement with...

Then while you are here, feel free to argue with any other points of view. Have a shot with any 'circular arguments' you come across. I'm sure we'll all benefit from an honest discussion.

 

[YahuahSaves]

My 2000 BC Egyptian beats your Leviticus. In any case, to suggest that all religions defered to Christianity in formulating their own version of the golden rule is nonsensical.

So the "golden rule" is universal in the same way Jesus intended it to be? (Love)?

My initial comment quoted the exact  wording as found in the bible:

Of course I have a justification for what I do and don't consider to be moral, "do onto others as you would have them do onto you"

Jesus is talking about loving one another, even down to "loving thy enemies". Is that kind of self-sacrificing love "universal" naturally? I don’t think so.

Your quote sounds more like a transaction: "Do for one who may do for you, That you may cause him thus to do"

There was the Egyptian story of the Eloquent Peasant in 2000 BCE: “Do for one who may do for you, That you may cause him thus to do.” Socrates in 400 BCE: “Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others.”

Confucius is specifically talking about self-preservation:

Confucius wrote the rule which says " DO NOT do unto others, which you DO NOT want others to do unto you."

 

[Bradskii]

My initial comment quoted the exact  wording as found in the bible:

The exact wording?

Lucky for us someone was there who could write and take down exactly what He said in aramaic when He reminded us of it. And then lucky that someone recalled the story a few decades later to transcribe it into Greek. And then eventually in KIng James English. Which actually doesn't mention love.

But anyway, love your enemies? Hey, you can give that a go if you like.