Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[GenemZ]

That's the silliest thing I've heard all day,

When it says.... "Thou shall not kill?" Weak translation.

The Hebrew means homicide = murder. Some had to be commanded not to.

Look for yourself! Exodus 20:13 - The Ten Commandments

We take too much for granted today.

 

[Bradskii]

If you say your morality is still subjective, then you will have to deny what you yourself have already said thus far.

Everything I have said is my opinion on how I think a morally correct position should be taken. I've deferred to no authority. I follow no fixed structure. I obey no set rules, other than those I set myself that I personally believe will make the world a better place. I see what works and what doesn't and I choose which path I take.

Now there are rules that determine what I can and cannot not do - the laws of the land for example. But they don't define objective morality - abortion having already been mentioned as an example (and I'll be honest with you, I ignore rules that I think are invalid as long as there is no harm caused - I'm spending the day doing just that as it happens).

All you have bolded is me saying that I think the golden rule is a good basis for morality and that I don't follow rigid, preconceived rules, other than those I set myself. And that there are authorities who decide what we canand cannot do, a fact which doesn't relate to objective morality whatsoever.

 

[zippy2006]

We make these descriptive statements about human thriving into normative moral rules to give them emotional force. And we make stories about over-watchers and punishments etc. Rational appeals and arguments arent enough to keep people in line, at least not until they gain wisdom - which is not guaranteed.

But this requires an argument, just as all moral claims do. You can't say, "It's not an appeal or an argument." You can only turn a descriptive statement into a moral claim by using it in an argument alongside a normative premise. For example:

1. Everyone prefers X.​

2. One ought to do whatever everyone prefers.​

3. Therefore one ought to do X.​

Yes we do build an authority for the reasons I just noted.

Again, a different argument:

4. The wise man says Y.​

5. One ought to do whatever the wise man says.​

6. Therefore, one ought to do Y.​

​

Note that this is a much better argument than the former, which is an appeal to popularity.

I didnt say morality is voted on by the many. I said its derived from whats been proven to be most satisfactory for the most people.

You said:

"The ultimate backstop for moral reasoning is a set of natural facts about the world.​

​

These facts take form: humans generally prefer X experiences in life to Y experiences."​

Thats the basics. Of course the moral authorities can bend the rules to favor themselves. If they deviate too far from whats good for people, or if they fail to adapt to changing real world conditions, they will be overthrown, from within or without, sooner or later. Its complex - and we havent even got to the weird contingencies that creep in. But the root level origin and rudder for human morality is what makes for satisfying human lives, generally.

I would call that hedonism, not the universal basis for morality. Most moralities are not actually about the satisfaction of desires. Kant even takes this to a somewhat comical extreme when he claims that there is no intersection whatsoever between morality and desire/inclination.

 

[Bradskii]

I would call that hedonism, not the universal basis for morality. Most moralities are not actually about the satisfaction of desires. Kant even takes this to a somewhat comical extreme when he claims that there is no intersection whatsoever between morality and desire/inclination.

If you're simply talking about doing something just because it feels good, then that's simply not true (notwithstanding a discussion as to whether there is anything that can be described as true altruism). Riffing on Plato's dictum that it is better being a dissatisfied man than a satisfied pig, there are many things we do where we'd prefer a different option because we have the foresight to know there'll be a better outcome. So I'll go to the gym instead of the pub. I'll study my next Spanish lesson rather than watch some hokey film. And I'd rather spend my own hard-earned cash in helping someone rather than spending it on myself - within reason (which is where the altruism comes in - am I doing it because it makes me feel good or to avoid feeling guilty?).

What the morally correct path is that I think I should take is not necessarily the one that necessarily benefits me.

 

[YahuahSaves]

All you have bolded is me saying that I think the golden rule is a good basis for morality and that I don't follow rigid, preconceived rules, other than those I set myself.

We've discussed the quoted philosophers' "golden rule" compared to Jesus, remember? Out of both of the philosophers quotes, one is pointing to survival, the other, to self-preservation. Jesus was specifically talking about selflessness. (loving others through obedience to God by putting ourselves last).

It's objective morality if you base any part of your subjective morality upon something (or someone) outside of yourself.

Now there are rules that determine what I can and cannot not do - the laws of the land for example. But they don't define objective morality - abortion having already been mentioned as an example (and I'll be honest with you, I ignore rules that I think are invalid as long as there is no harm caused - I'm spending the day doing just that as it happens).

You can't be a rebel without a cause.^
And you can't be a rebel unless there's an authority to rebel against.

That's reciprocal altruism

So you are leaving me to guess again because of your refusal to admit to what you actually said. I'm guessing your moral authority is based on survival, particularly social as per your below statement:

And the results are noted. Others see me as being helpful and I benefit. They see the guy who is sponging off others and someone to be avoided.

And to elaborate my assumption, your moral authority^ is a social construct based on appearances of acceptable behaviour.

 

[Bradskii]

It's objective morality if you base any part of your subjective morality upon something (or someone) outside of yourself.

No. It's objective morality if an an act is moral (or immoral) despite anyone's personal opinion on the matter. Did I really have to define it at this point in a discussion?

Literally everything I base my decisions on are obviously outside myself. How could they not be? But there are no externally fixed rules such that I must believe this or must act like that. My decisions are my own. And someone using the same basis for making their decisions on the same matter might well reach a different conclusion.

And to elaborate my assumption, your moral authority^ is a social construct based on appearances of acceptable behaviour.

Again, no. They are based on what I determine to be a successful outcome. Which may or may not be to my benefit. Which some people might find acceptable or unacceptable. Don't be confused when I say that an altruistic act can benefit me. It's not done with that intent - else it wouldn't be altruistic. It's a benefit to me, and to others, as we all see that if we help each other then we all benefit. The sum becomes greater than the parts. That's how reciprocal altruism develops from simple altruism. But one needs to be altruistic in the first instance.

 

[YahuahSaves]

No. It's objective morality if an an act is moral (or immoral) despite anyone's personal opinion on the matter.

I'm glad you understand morality is not based upon opinions or feelings. That is why it cannot be truly subjective.

But there are no externally fixed rules such that I must believe this or must act like that. My decisions are my own. And someone using the same basis for making their decisions on the same matter might well reach a different conclusion.

I'm glad you understand the choice we all have to use our god-given conscience.

Romans 2:14-15

14 Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. 15 They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm glad you understand morality is not based upon opinions or feelings. That is why it cannot be truly subjective.

Of course it's based on opinions. A decision I make on a moral act is my personal opinion on the matter. My subjective opinion.

Let's look at a simple example. I think zoos, where the purpose of the zoo is just to give us an opportunity to gawk at animals, are immoral. Now someone else with the same objective facts that are available to both of us might have a different opinion. So both views will be subjective. Is there an objectively correct answer? Obviously not. So who is correct? Well, we'll each give our arguments and others can decide.

I'm glad you understand the choice we all have to use our god-given conscience.

That's what makes our decisions subjective. We make a personal choice on any given matter. What else could we do? Take a moral path because we have been told we must even though we personally think it's wrong?

 

[YahuahSaves]

I think zoos, where the purpose of the zoo is just to give us an opportunity to gawk at animals, are immoral.

So is that your personal view or are you just using the example for the sake of it?

That's what makes our decisions subjective. We make a personal choice on any given matter. What else could we do? Take a moral path because we have been told we must even though we personally think it's wrong?

Our decisions, yes, distinguishing right and wrong, does come from our conscience. But in a larger group we learn to act in ways that take on a more inclusive view in order to maintain peace. Would you agree that one of the things that drives a person is a need for peace? What is the precursor of personal happiness do you think? Is it chaos, or peace?

 

[durangodawood]

But this requires an argument, just as all moral claims do. You can't say, "It's not an appeal or an argument." You can only turn a descriptive statement into a moral claim by using it in an argument alongside a normative premise. For example:

1. Everyone prefers X.​

2. One ought to do whatever everyone prefers.​

3. Therefore one ought to do X.​

I see it like:
1. over the long term, most people prefer X
2. long term observation teaches us that Y leads to X
3. therefore we are going to do Y
The feeling of "ought" is instigated later to give the imperative some emotional force.
There's is no "ought" apart from that, except in the instrumental sense of: in order to achieve X you ought to do Y.

I would call that hedonism, not the universal basis for morality. Most moralities are not actually about the satisfaction of desires. Kant even takes this to a somewhat comical extreme when he claims that there is no intersection whatsoever between morality and desire/inclination.

Lets not conflate desire and deep long term satisfaction. Desire has a very hedonistic and impulsive ring, as you note. Long term satisfaction otoh is much deeper and typically requires wisdom to appreciate.

 

[stevevw]

Then you must also disbelieve in the laws of logic you used to form your argument and the mathematics used to measure matter in your worldview.

Logic and math don't equate to naturalism or materialism and in fact point to some immaterial truth about reality.

Modern Atheism is built on naturalism or materialism, it's how it establishes "truth". One is not strong than the other, one flows from the other.

Establish what 'truth'. Truth about what reality is. Is this a metaphysical truth.

 

[Bradskii]

So is that your personal view or are you just using the example for the sake of it?

Uh? Obviously mine...

Our decisions, yes, distinguishing right and wrong, does come from our conscience. But in a larger group we learn to act in ways that take on a more inclusive view in order to maintain peace. Would you agree that one of the things that drives a person is a need for peace? What is the precursor of personal happiness do you think? Is it chaos, or peace?

Sometimes you sue for peace. Sometimes you raise arms. All things being equal, I'd prefer peace. But individual problems need individual solutions. If someone threatens you and some friends, do you turn tail or step up? You have to deal with honour, loyalty, shame, pride, fear, courage, responsibility, self preservation and sacrifice.

There's no one answer fits all.

 

[zippy2006]

I see it like:
1. over the long term, most people prefer X
2. Long term observation teaches us that Y leads to X
3. therefore we are going to do Y
The feeling of "ought" is instigated later to give the imperative some emotional force.
There's is no "ought" apart from that, except in the instrumental sense of: in order to achieve X you ought to do Y.

But what does this have to do with morality? Here's one for you:

1. Over the long term, most monkeys prefer bananas.​

2. Long term observation teaches us that bananas lead to defecation.​

3. Therefore, monkeys are going to defecate.​

Okay, cool. We just made a descriptive observation about reality. Of course this has nothing to do with morality. "A causes B" is not a moral statement.

Lets not conflate desire and deep long term satisfaction. Desire has a very hedonistic and impulsive ring, as you note. Long term satisfaction otoh is much deeper and typically requires wisdom to appreciate.

Hedonism is a philosophical position which in no way limits itself to unsatisfactory, short-term pleasures. My point remains unchanged.

 

[durangodawood]

But what does this have to do with morality? Here's one for you:

1. Over the long term, most monkeys prefer bananas.​

2. Long term observation teaches us that bananas lead to defecation.​

3. Therefore, monkeys are going to defecate.​

Okay, cool. We just made a descriptive observation about reality. Of course this has nothing to do with morality. "A causes B" is not a moral statement.

You put Y in the wrong place in step 2 of your analogy and thats completely broken any relation to mine.
I would say:
1. over the long term monkeys like to be healthy
2. bananas promote health in monkeys
3. therefore monkeys are drawn to banana habitats.
I have no idea if that leads to an actual morality in monkey societies. We seem to presume not as we've defined morality as explicit rules. With humans we know we have moral rules that are passed along through explicit conditioning in parenting, culture, religion.

Hedonism is a philosophical position which in no way limits itself to unsatisfactory, short-term pleasures. My point remains unchanged.

I still think its wrong. Long term satisfaction often goes directly against our desires (hedonism), which is precisely why we need to charge the culture with normative rules that carry emotional weight. Many people desire their neighbors wife. Hedonism says: fulfill your desires! But the wise say wait a minute, you may not appreciate this now, but if we fail to sanction against this desire it can easily lead to a society of miserable chaos and mistrust.

We could stretch the term "hedonism" to include aiming to satisfy the desire even for the Kingdom of God. OK. Congrats for breaking the word hedonism to make a point.

I dont really see the contents of most human morality as directing people to what we think of as a "hedonistic" life. If acting on an aversion to chaos and misery, and fulfilling a desire for desire for justice, for peace, for basic material satisfaction, for health, for love, for godliness, is hedonistic. Then OK. But such a word isnt very useful anymore.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Uh? Obviously mine...

OK then...

I think zoos, where the purpose of the zoo is just to give us an opportunity to gawk at animals, are immoral. Now someone else with the same objective facts that are available to both of us might have a different opinion. So both views will be subjective. Is there an objectively correct answer?

So your view of immorality concerning zoos; is your problem with the fact that the animals are in captivity, or have been captured solely for the sake of human entertainment, or both?

Sometimes you sue for peace. Sometimes you raise arms. All things being equal, I'd prefer peace. But individual problems need individual solutions. If someone threatens you and some friends, do you turn tail or step up? You have to deal with honour, loyalty, shame, pride, fear, courage, responsibility, self preservation and sacrifice.

I don’t disagree the struggle with our flesh is universal. Concerning your example: "If someone threatens you and some friends, do you turn tail or step up?" Of course, (speaking from a non-christian, secular world-view), most people would step-up if they had any self-respect and respect for their friends - but is there only one way to "step-up"? Obviously, you didn't elaborate, so by threaten, I will take that as a verbal cue. Do we initiate violence based on a verbal cue? Should we, if our innermost desire is to strive for personal peace?

 

[zippy2006]

You put Y in the wrong place in step 2 of your analogy and thats completely broken any relation to mine.
I would say:
1. over the long term monkeys like to be healthy
2. bananas promote health in monkeys
3. therefore monkeys are drawn to banana habitats.
I have no idea if that leads to an actual morality in monkey societies. We seem to presume not we've defined morality as explicit rules. With humans we know we have moral rules that are passed along through explicit conditioning in parenting, culture, religion.

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. You seem to be running towards Philippa Foot's paper, "Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives."

Two revised arguments, only one of which utilizes the "long term" idea, which seems superfluous:

1. Humans prefer to be mobile.​

2. Cars provide for mobility.​

3. Therefore, humans will buy cars.​

​

4. Over the long term, humans prefer to maintain a diet which includes sufficient sodium levels.​

5. Long term observation teaches us that granulated salt is an ideal way to maintain sufficient sodium levels.​

6. Therefore, humans are going to learn to efficiently produce granulated salt.​

​

Again I ask: What in the world does any of this have to do with morality!? My conclusion is unchanged: Okay, cool. We just made a descriptive observation about reality. Of course this has nothing to do with morality. "They will behave in such-and-such a way" is not a moral statement.

We seem to presume not we've defined morality as explicit rules. With humans we know we have moral rules that are passed along through explicit conditioning in parenting, culture, religion.

This is the first time you've mentioned explicit rules. What do they have to do with anything? Did you mean to write 3a instead of 3?

3. therefore we are going to do Y​

3a. Therefore, we are going to mandate explicit rules in favor of Y​

I still think its wrong. Long term satisfaction often goes directly against our desires (hedonism), which is precisely why we need to charge the culture with normative rules that carry emotional weight.

No, you're not accepting what I said and "still" maintaining that it is wrong. You're denying my correction. At the end of the day you're just redefining hedonism to be something that doesn't care about long term desires/satisfaction. As already noted, you don't understand hedonism, and are substituting a strawman, pseudo-hedonism. Hedonism by no means limits itself to short-term whims or desires.

We could stretch the term "hedonism" to include aiming to satisfy the desire even for the Kingdom of God. OK. Congrats for breaking the word hedonism to make a point.

John Piper has actually written in favor of Christian hedonism. It doesn't break the word. It seems that you have confused a specific school of morality (hedonism) for the whole of morality.

 

[Bradskii]

So your view of immorality concerning zoos; is your problem with the fact that the animals are in captivity, or have been captured solely for the sake of human entertainment, or both?

My position is irrelevant. It's how I reached it. Objective facts about zoos and my personal opinion as to the morality.

I don’t disagree the struggle with our flesh is universal. Concerning your example: "If someone threatens you and some friends, do you turn tail or step up?" Of course, (speaking from a non-christian, secular world-view), most people would step-up if they had any self-respect and respect for their friends - but is there only one way to "step-up"? Obviously, you didn't elaborate, so by threaten, I will take that as a verbal cue. Do we initiate violence based on a verbal cue? Should we, if our innermost desire is to strive for personal peace?

Again, unless you have an extremely specific situation, I have no idea what I am likely to do. Hopefully the situation doesn't result in me or one of my friends being hurt and no-one suffers from guilt or shame by their actions.

The point I am making is that there are moral decisions to be made in all sorts of situations. And it's nonsense to think that there is some objective rule that covers all eventualities. And to head you off at the pass, saying that there are obviously situations when any reasonable person would agree that an act is immoral is nothing more than saying 'we all agree.' So is objective morality then simply a situation where there is consensus? I sincerely hope not...

 

[YahuahSaves]

My position is irrelevant. It's how I reached it. Objective facts about zoos and my personal opinion as to the morality.

Why is it so hard for you to answer simple questions? We're discussing scenarios that require a moral judgement. Can you answer the posed questions or not?

So your view of immorality concerning zoos; is your problem with the fact that the animals are in captivity, or have been captured solely for the sake of human entertainment, or both?

but is there only one way to "step-up"? Obviously, you didn't elaborate, so by threaten, I will take that as a verbal cue. Do we initiate violence based on a verbal cue? Should we, if our innermost desire is to strive for personal peace?

The point I am making is that there are moral decisions to be made in all sorts of situations. And it's nonsense to think that there is some objective rule that covers all eventualities. And to head you off at the pass, saying that there are obviously situations when any reasonable person would agree that an act is immoral is nothing more than saying 'we all agree.' So is objective morality then simply a situation where there is consensus? I sincerely hope not...

Wow. I guess I have my answer then?

 

[Bradskii]

Why is it so hard for you to answer simple questions? We're discussing scenarios that require a moral judgement.

We're actually not. We're discussing objective v subjective. The scenarios are only examples I've used to show that there is no objective answer. Me giving a detailed subjective opinion on any of the examples is irrelevant, unless you want to develop any given scenario to counter the fact that my opinion can only be subjective. Otherwise I'm not interested. The thread is not about zoos or possible fist fights in a bar.

 

[YahuahSaves]

We're actually not. We're discussing objective v subjective.

Exactly the point. And you claim morality is purely based on subjective opinion, but when I request that you elaborate on your own examples, you dodge it. It's not a great way to have a discussion, and especially not a debate. If your claim is I can't counter, then why avoid the questions? My guess: you're in denial. (have at it). 》 CYA!