Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[Ken-1122]

The very reason you can claim these things as true is because you hold to immaterial laws of logic.

Yes! Laws, thoughts, imagination; happiness, and countless other things of the mind exist only in the context of things that are real, but they do not exist by themselves.

Ken, stop and think about this for the moment. The things you claim are material, is claimed as such because of logical inferences and arguments.

No The reason they are called material is because anything that is proven to have an actual existence is always given the label “material" or "energy”. If Ghosts were proven to be real, humans would include them into the material world. Even if God were proven to be real, he would be included as material. Note; what I mean by real is anything that can be experienced via one or more of our 5 scenes.

If laws of logic are made up then everything you're saying you can't actually believe because you have no reason as to say why it's true.

Laws of logic is just a system of deduction we use to make assumptions. These assumptions are completely made up of our thoughts, they have no real existence outside of ourselves.

The very designation of something as material is because of logic.

How is logic used in the decision to label everything existing either material or energy? Please explain that one ‘cause I’m not getting it.

And Ken, the logic you've used to disprove the realness of logic (refuting yourself) is only real under a materialist worldview, which as you've demonstrated is incredibly incoherent. I'll say it one more time just in case it wasn't clear, the truth of your positions that you've just rebutted with are inherently dependent on the truth of laws of logic existing.

If mankind were to disappear animals would still use a rudimentary logic to act in the world.

Just so we’re on the same page, as a materialist, I believe logic only exists within the context of sentient beings capable of thought. If all sentient beings disappeared, logic would no longer exist. As a non-materialist, do you agree with this?

Also, everything's existence (apart from God who is self existent) is dependent upon something. It's called causality. [Edit: Therefore just because something is dependant upon another thing for existence, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist]

How do you know everything except for your explanation requires something else? Maybe material and energy has always existed in one form or another; how do you know God is the only thing that isn't dependent on something else to exist?

 

[YahuahSaves]

No, I use exactly what Jesus reminded us to do. Treat others as we would like to be treated. So I buy a friend a beer. I help him because I would like people to help me. I don't treat him badly because I wouldn't like to be treated badly. But you? You literally quoted the bible telling you that if someone takes your property, don't even ask for it back. And I know, without any shadow of doubt, that you don't live like that. It's a farcical proposition. So why on earth quote it to me as if you expect me to live that way?

If you read the entire verse about loving your enemies, Jesus quotes the "golden rule" again. He refers to Leviticus where it says to "love your neighbor", neighbors in ancient times included not only people but neighboring countries. Hence, another reason why Jesus spoke of loving our enemies. It's not just about "treating others as you'd like to be treated", it's about being consistently righteous, and behaving in a way that is inherently good, regardless of what's being said and done in any given moment. To react from our ego's is a human thing to do, to react from our conscience is a righteous (Godly) thing to do. You gave an example of morality based on buying a friend a couple of beers, and if he sponged off you (without eventually reciprocating) you would "avoid him". Jesus set the bar really high when he said this:

John 15:12-13

12 This is my commandment: Love each other in the same way I have loved you. 13 There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

But this is why we need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to achieve the kind of righteousness God requires.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

The case that's been presented to you many times is simply that morality is subjective. What one person believes to be immoral may not be the same as what another person believes to be immoral, it's as simple as that.

Your argument seems to be that since all standards of morality are therefore equally valid it's impossible for any individual or group to judge the actions of any other individual or group, because to do so would be to proclaim that their standard of morality is wrong, and if someone truly believes in subjective morality then such a conclusion simply isn't possible.

Therefore subjective morality can hold no authority over anyone but oneself.

Not just this but if what is morally correct is different to each person (subjective morality) then everything is arbitrary and societal agreements upon behaviour =/= why I should follow them, to assume this in your position as you have done is to assume a logical non-sequitur. In order to say certain behaviours are right and should be mandated, or even to ascribe any value to specific behaviours at all, is to require a basis on which these actions and their causes can be evaluated. Which obviously under subjective morality is impossible to construct and in order to do so you would need to assume a moral standard (something not relative).

But I would argue that your reasoning is flawed, because it misunderstands the nature of morality. Morality is simply an evolutionary trait, wherein the standards of behavior that best ensure the stability of society will inevitably be the ones that survive. In some sense this is good, and in some sense it's bad. It's good in that morality has evolved to embrace justice, and empathy, and the golden rule. And it's bad in that it tends to cling to the intolerances and prejudices of the past, wrapped up in the guise of gods, divine laws, and cultural taboos.

Morality is the way it is because it evolved that way. It's what you get when you take an individual's sense of right and wrong and filter it through the brutal lens of survival. On the one hand you get "an eye for an eye", and on the other hand you get "the golden rule". For better or worse, morality is part of us. It shaped us, just as much as we shaped it. Perhaps we needed a God, or a book, or an institution, to inspire and defend our better traits, but we have to be able to accept them for what they are, they're the hallmarks of our past, of where we as humans came from, and the better part of what we are.

Morality is more than just each person's subjective interpretation of right and wrong, or some objective writ sent down by God. It's right and wrong refined by our struggle to survive. At its core it's still subjective, but to think of it as simplistically as that, is to diminish the struggle that instilled it in us.

You've made the mistake of saying that because morality has a cause therefore it necessitates certain actions be committed based upon that cause, to re-iterate the OP again "agreements upon behaviour =/= why I should follow them" especially if I'm the ultimate and only arbiter of moral truths (not really truth but belief, subjective truth is a misnomer see: the comment you yourself responded to). To add to this, just because there is subjective interpretation about morals it does not mean that morality is subjective. Disagreement on belief about what the truth (or correct morality) is =/= that truth (or morality) is subjective, if it was the case there's no point in discussing any disagreements at all as we're both "true/correct".

Specifically you're also incredibly blind here and highlight the issue and why I'm saying nobody is engaging the OP because it refutes this exact thing:

In some sense this is good, and in some sense it's bad. It's good in that morality has evolved to embrace justice, and empathy, and the golden rule. And it's bad in that it tends to cling to the intolerances and prejudices of the past, wrapped up in the guise of gods, divine laws, and cultural taboos.

I know you've read a bunch of the posts where I was speaking with Brad and showing him this very error, you responded to some. In order to call these things good or bad you have assumed a moral stance and in order to justify it as a moral stance you will assume other moral stances, a perpetual circle. Within your worldview your very foundations here for saying "it's good morality has evolved to embrace justice" don't exist. That's the point. You're determining things to be good and bad without any justification. Even if that justification is survival, in order to call survival good you need to unfoundedly ascribe (assume) value to human life (hence why Materialism & Naturalism is mentioned). "You're assuming an inherent value to survival that's unable to be substantiated.". I'll re-iterate here because I know what's coming as a response and I'll remind you "because morality has a cause it does not therefore necessitate certain actions be committed based upon that cause". The explanation of morality's cause (Edit: morality's cause within your worldview/paradigm) does nothing to condemn murder hence why in the thread title there is the word authoritative. In order for something to be right, like every other single truth, it needs to be universal and exist independent of belief (e.g rocks will continue to exist after I die even if I don't believe in them). Which as you know if a moral stance is universal then it's not relative/subjective.

It's right and wrong refined by our struggle to survive. At its core it's still subjective, but to think of it as simplistically as that, is to diminish the struggle that instilled it in us.

To ascribe value to survival is to assume an unsubstantiated thing that within Naturalism & Materialism is unable to be substantiated.

Morality is more than just each person's subjective interpretation of right and wrong, or some objective writ sent down by God.

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

God bless you all and I wish you all the best.

Hebrews 3:4

 

[Bradskii]

If you read the entire verse about loving your enemies, Jesus quotes the "golden rule" again.

We were discussing reciprocal altruism. That has been explained to you in a great deal of detail. As it applies to what Jesus reminded us of: the golden rule. It's been shown that variations of that rule are found in literally all religions and philosophical ideas, from Plato onwards. No-one needs to be a Christian to understand why it's been constantly promoted and how it serves so well as a basis for a solid understanding of morality.

That is part of the basis for my moral outlook. Taken from philosophers such as Plato and Marcus Aurelius and very many more that followed them. Jesus gets a quick footnote as He promoted what others already had. But if you think that makes my moral code a Christian one then you couldn't be further from the truth. I reject entirely the Christian concept of an absolute morality and discount entirely most of what else you might glean from scripture.

You gave an example of morality based on buying a friend a couple of beers, and if he sponged off you (without eventually reciprocating) you would "avoid him". Jesus set the bar really high when he said this:

Yeah, and you said the bible commands us to turn the other cheek and if something is taken from us we should not even ask for it back and if something is demanded from us we should give it and more. At least here's something on which we agree. Neither of us thinks that's a great idea and neither of us lives like that. We both reject that concept.

Of course, you can prove me wrong by sending me a pm and I'll tell you where to send your iPad.

 

[Bradskii]

To ascribe value to survival is to assume an unsubstantiated thing that within Naturalism & Materialism is unable to be substantiated.

We'll, let me see. We can put you in a building and set it on fire and see if you try to escape. Or place you in a boat and sink it and see if you attempt to swim to shore. Or give you a fatal disease and ask if you want to be cured.

You are actually saying that we can't assume you'll run from the flames or swim to shore or ask for the antidote. Can't you see how ridiculous that is.

And to save you some typing, even if you sacrifice your life for another (which I am not talking about), you are therefore accepting that their life has value.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

We'll, let me see. We can put you in a building and set it on fire and see if you try to escape. Or place you in a boat and sink it and see if you attempt to swim to shore. Or give you a fatal disease and ask if you want to be cured.

You are actually saying that we can't assume you'll run from the flames or swim to shore or ask for the antidote. Can't you see how ridiculous that is.

And to save you some typing, even if you sacrifice your life for another (which I am not talking about), you are therefore accepting that their life has value.

If I see someone has a gold watch and I murder them and take it, am I therefore accepting that people are worth less than watches? What kind of logic is that?
Regardless, belief something has value =/= that thing has value. Hence the need for a basis on which to evaluate and compare evidence for stances, which within subjective morality is unable to be provided without assuming a standard (something not relative).

 

[Bradskii]

If I see someone has a gold watch and I murder them and take it, am I therefore accepting that people are worth less than watches? What kind of logic is that?

If you had thought about it and the deed was intentional, that's exactly what you accepted. And the logic is then undeniable.

Regardless, belief something has value =/= that thing has value. Hence the need for a basis on which to evaluate and compare evidence for stances, which within subjective morality is unable to be provided without assuming a standard (something not relative).

Of course. So do we humans have value? Well, I have to start with myself and I value my life. I'd run from the burning building and swim from the sinking boat. Simply because, all things being equal, I would rather live than die. This is about as basic as it can be. It's an evolutionary requirement. It's inbuilt. I throw up if I eat bad food. I snatch my hand away from the hot plate. I run from the lion.

And I have inbuilt empathy (not to be confused with sympathy) and I see others running from the flames and trying to reach the shore and I can understand their desire to live. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that people value their lives as I do mine. It's axiomatic. It's the baseline. It's literally undeniable.

So bodily autonomy for me is important and it's just as important (all things being equal) for all others. And now we have the golden rule. And its partner in crime, reciprocal altruism. The former has come about from the latter and the latter is evolutionary driven. The former is simply the written law that explains reciprocal altruism in a bumper sticker format.

Based on those two concepts, which can be determined from first principles pretty much along the lines as I just did, being bodily autonomy and reciprocal altruism, one has a basis for a moral code.

So how would it work. We'll, taking your watch thief, we can argue that the person who owns it is more valuable than the watch (bodily autonomy v a few bucks), so it's a bad deal. And from reciprocal altruism, or the golden rule, we can say to the thief 'Would you like being killed for a few dollars worth of watch?' And the answer is obviously no. So that's two strikes and we have a decision. It would be immoral to kill for a watch.

Wait, is that it? Yep. Morality is determined by what we individually think is right. Backed up by reasonable arguments.

 

[Larniavc]

but what is inherently "good".

You keep claiming inherent goodness but provide no evidence for that claim.

 

[Larniavc]

everything's existence (apart from God who is self existent)

I can’t not call this out as special pleading and a logical fallacy.

 

[Larniavc]

In order to say certain behaviours are right and should be mandated, or even to ascribe any value to specific behaviours at all, is to require a basis on which these actions and their causes can be evaluated.

The same way secular laws are derived. By consensus. People are not asked to justify why there at laws against murder. No one wants murder not to be sanctioned by society.

 

[YahuahSaves]

We were discussing reciprocal altruism. That has been explained to you in a great deal of detail. As it applies to what Jesus reminded us of: the golden rule. It's been shown that variations of that rule are found in literally all religions and philosophical ideas, from Plato onwards.

And I've already discussed the difference between what Jesus meant, and what the other philosophers that were mentioned said, Here and in further responses with reference to loving our enemies. The world's philosophers were talking about reciprocal altruism (as were you), Jesus was talking about altruism in its purest form; selflessness, which is opposed to the ego and selfishness (survival and self-preservation).

I reject entirely the Christian concept of an absolute morality and discount entirely most of what else you might glean from scripture.

Exactly the point. Morality is not subjective like you may think, there is an authority, whether you believe that authority is law and governance, social constructs and virtue signalling, or God. You cannot deny personal morality has constraints. One person may think it's moral to go and murder someone for cheating on them, but the law and society disagree.

At least here's something on which we agree. Neither of us thinks that's a great idea and neither of us lives like that. We both reject that concept.

I said our flesh (mind/ego) is what makes it difficult for humans to achieve the standard God has set. That's why the scriptures say it's a constant wrestle with our flesh to follow Christ. With the help of the Holy Spirit is the only way we can achieve this. But since you're a non-believer, and reject God, there is no point in discussing these things further.

 

[YahuahSaves]

You keep claiming inherent goodness but provide no evidence for that claim.

If you quoted my whole statement you would have the evidence I provided. Here it is again:

Exactly what agape love seems like to many. Its not based on emotion or intellect, but what is inherently "good".

 

[Larniavc]

If you quoted my whole statement you would have the evidence I provided. Here it is again:

You’re just restating your position. What exactly do you think is evidentiary, here? Why is agape love inherently good?

 

[YahuahSaves]

You’re just restating your position. What exactly do you think is evidentiary, here? Why is agape love inherently good?

Because a human beings idea of love is based on emotion, God’s love is based on selflessness. Human beings are made in God's image (whether you believe that is beside the point). We were designed for agape love.

Definition of agape love:

agape love
noun

selfless love of one person for another without sexual implications (especially love that is spiritual in nature)

Regular definition of love:

love
noun

1) A strong feeling of affection and concern toward another person, as that arising from kinship or close friendship.
2) A strong feeling of affection and concern for another person accompanied by sexual attraction.
3) A feeling of devotion or adoration toward God or a god.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I can’t not call this out as special pleading and a logical fallacy.

It's not special pleading it's an ontological statement that has arguments that support it. Not to mention it's an ontological statement through which all Christian Theistic presuppositions and axioms are justified (like the existence of laws of logic). It's my bad for mentioning it off the cuff without providing them but given the nature of the thread I didn't feel it necessary, I thought it was obvious. Let me put it like this, in the same way positing an eternal universe isn't special pleading in order to solve the infinite regress within naturalism in regards to causality, neither is this. By the way within your worldview it's impossible to justify your use of logic & reason without resorting to special pleading (the arguments for this are on the first and second page).

God bless.

 

[Bradskii]

But since you're a non-believer, and reject God...

You really want to get a grip on the concept of what constitutes an atheist. It's not possible to reject that which one does not believe in. It's aspects of the Christian concept of morality - which does exist, that I reject.

And you think that having an authority ('Morality is not subjective like you may think, there is an authority, whether you believe that authority is law...') on what you might deem moral matters means that morality is objective? That's actually a new one for me. Never heard it before. So if there's a law allowing abortion then abortion must be objectively moral?

Maybe you need to think that through some more.

 

[Bradskii]

selfless love of one person for another

Who do you save from a burning building if it's a choice between your child and a stranger? A lifelong friend or a stranger? What kind of car do you drive? How much did you spend on your last holiday? Do you know how much you could could have done with the money? How many selfless acts you could you have performed?

You keep promoting these concepts with no reference to real life. Me? I'm a practical sort of guy. I live in the real world.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Maybe you need to think that through some more

First of all, way to edit what I said in order to twist what I actually said. Here it is again (and I note here, that I included the other "authorities" for your benefit because you are an atheist.) but in truth, God is the only authority on morality, in which case, it is objective, but humans have turned away from God and chosen their own ideas of right and wrong.

there is an authority, whether you believe that authority is law and governance, social constructs and virtue signalling,

The arguments on this thread keep reiterating that morality is subjective but:

You cannot deny personal morality has constraints.

So, one needs to have an authority as a basis for morality when living within the confines of society.

 

[YahuahSaves]

You keep promoting these concepts with no reference to real life. Me? I'm a practical sort of guy. I live in the real world.

There are references if you look for them, but unfortunately in "the real (*fallen) world", a majority of people are all about survival and self-preservation.

 

[Larniavc]

It's not special pleading it's an ontological statement that has arguments that support it. Not to mention it's an ontological statement through which all Christian Theistic presuppositions and axioms are justified (like the existence of laws of logic). It's my bad for mentioning it off the cuff without providing them but given the nature of the thread I didn't feel it necessary, I thought it was obvious. Let me put it like this, in the same way positing an eternal universe isn't special pleading in order to solve the infinite regress within naturalism in regards to causality, neither is this. By the way within your worldview it's impossible to justify your use of logic & reason without resorting to special pleading (the arguments for this are on the first and second page).

God bless.

I really don't buy into ontological arguments. A supremely perfect being can be conceived without existing.