Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[Bradskii]

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.

Any response I give (to hypothetical situations or specific, real world situations) are going to be my personal opinions. I've already explained that. What else do you want? A detailed discussion on zoological gardens? That I'm an animal lover? That's my personal position. I dislike seeing creatures caged? My personal opinion. I don't appreciate sentient creatures being paraded for our enjoyment? A personal belief.

How on earth earth is that advancing any discussion. I've already told you that any matter where I make a moral decision is my call. What are you going to do now in response? Tell me there's an objective rule regarding zoos?

 

[Larniavc]

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.

So now it’s only some people?

The suggestion that before that commandment people did not realise that murder was wrong is a silly position to take. It’s simply untrue.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Any response I give (to hypothetical situations or specific, real world situations) are going to be my personal opinions. I've already explained that. What else do you want? A detailed discussion on zoological gardens? That I'm an animal lover? That's my personal position. I dislike seeing creatures caged? My personal opinion. I don't appreciate sentient creatures being paraded for our enjoyment? A personal belief.

How on earth earth is that advancing any discussion. I've already told you that any matter where I make a moral decision is my call. What are you going to do now in response? Tell me there's an objective rule regarding zoos?

You do realise you've proven the OP right? (Of course you don't) but it's clear as day from where I'm sitting.

The OP predicted your response:

The only consistent stance within the *secular* worldview is that morality is arbitrary preference.

The OP mentions accusations from the secular world-view have no weight because there's no ability to claim moral truth, only personal preferences:

According to the modern secular worldview the accusations laid against Christianity have no weight because in the worldview that slings them there's no ability to claim moral truth, only personal preferences (based on experience of stimulus).

Your very first response doesn't challenge the OP, instead, you "sling" a veiled insult :

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

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

Unfortunately, moral people don't expect this kind of behaviour when they're attempting to have an engaging and thought-provoking discussion with other people:

You're joking right? you haven't answered a single one of my questions nor objected to my premises, yet you want to lead me along the rails of your worldview in order to establish a conclusion in concordance with it. The waste of time is on my end, assuming that for a single second you'd be able to dispense with your presuppositions in order to examine them. If it's personal preference then everything is arbitrary and "agreements upon behaviour =/= why I should follow them". I feel like I'm going insane. This entire line of reasoning you've concocted agrees with the OP, that you have no reason as to why your morals are true or authoritative.

You proved the OP right^ (and me) with your circular logic designed to evade even a hint of common agreement. (Which you claim in your below quote to be the intention behind your line of questioning)

I've just asked one simple, basic, uncontroversial question, based, as you say, on personal preference, in order to get to the very base line of common agreement.

I don't know how long you've been doing this, but debating anything at all is a complete wasteof time u til you work backwards from each individual claim to fins the first point at which you can agree on something.

Your sarcastic remarks make you appear insincere and clearly you don't want to engage the topic of this thread in a truly mature manner, so (with that said) I'm not going to attempt to get blood out of a stone. 》goodbye

 

[Bradskii]

You do realise you've proven the OP right? (Of course you don't) but it's clear as day from where I'm sitting.

The OP predicted your response:

Tranquil Bondservant said:
'The only consistent stance within the *secular* worldview is that morality is arbitrary preference.'

I guess you are determined to consider it arbitrary...

Definition: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

...despite being constantly told that it is most definitely not a whim, categorically not random but most certainly based on reason. This whole thread has been nothing except an op that has misrepresented secular morality and a discussion that has refused to listen to any and all explanations of its basis.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Definition: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

arbitrary
adjective

1) Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.
2) Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference.
3) Relating to a decision made by a court or legislature that lacks a grounding in law or fact.

》

 

[Chriliman]

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.



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​

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.


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.

I tend to think it’s good behavior to make descriptive statements about reality, because it promotes correct understanding, which is good, but this would mean descriptive statements should be defined as moral, which I doubt you’ll agree?

But maybe we should reevaluate the definition of morality to include all behaviors of humanity, including the behavior of making descriptive statements?

 

[durangodawood]

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.

The forms of your arguments are good. But you have chosen topics outside of morality. Use that form to investigate issues of moral concern and then it will be about morality.

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 think I really mislead you when I first proposed this:
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

3 is meant to be about an imperative, a rule, and not just a description. Thats how its about morality. 3 is the creation by the culture of an emotional force ought with all the reinforcing and conditioning necessary. I was not at all clear about that and probly should have deployed a triple !!!.

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.


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.

Ok, so the desire for salvation can be framed as a hedonistic impulse. Great. Yay hedonism!

I'm not so sure though. A deeply satisfying life, as viewed from a wisdom pov, is not guided by pleasure seeking (hedonism). The wise have seen that long term life satisfaction is about much more than pleasure. I agree with them. Do you?

 

[zippy2006]

I tend to think it’s good behavior to make descriptive statements about reality, because it promotes correct understanding, which is good, but this would mean descriptive statements should be defined as moral, which I doubt you’ll agree?

I have some threads where this is discussed in detail:

• Is there Objective Morality?
• Is Moral Neutrality a Myth?

But maybe we should reevaluate the definition of morality to include all behaviors of humanity, including the behavior of making descriptive statements?

You are mistaken in your conclusion because you are failing to understand the distinction between a mere description and a description evaluated under the notion of 'meritorious' or 'accurate' (as opposed to inaccurate). Your argument is normative, and therefore moral. It is based on the ought-premise that, "We ought to be accurate and precise in our descriptions of reality." This is altogether different from durangoda's attempt to avoid 'ought' premises.

 

[grasping the after wind]

The difference is there are things written in the Bible that Bible believers will claim are morally perfect, and without flaw. There is nothing in the Constitution that Constitutional followers will claim to be morally perfect and without flaw. So unless you are willing to admit to moral flaws and imperfections from the Bible, you cannot compare the two

Sorry to disappoint you but in reality, I can compare the two without being saddled by some subjective criterion you decided to use to in order to tell me I couldn't. Due to the nature of human differences of perspective, there are things written in the Constitution and just about any document that declares itself to be a governing instrument, that some people will tell you are morally perfect and without flaw as well but even if no one ever told anyone that it so doesn't change everyone's ability to compare the two written documents.

 

[GenemZ]

So now it’s only some people?

The suggestion that before that commandment people did not realise that murder was wrong is a silly position to take. It’s simply untrue.

They had to be told......... In the very beginning Cain needed to be told. Its not ingrained normally. We all needed to learn this command as we grew up..

You murder today. In God's eyes you murder.

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,
and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone
who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. "

Matthew 5:21-22a​

The Greek indicates a type of anger. One full of malicious intent.
Have you not ever wished someone dead? In God's eyes you murdered. For God to think it is to do it.
And, that is what God designed man for to ultimately have in power which will be manifested in eternity. Jesus also said if you just look upon a woman lustfully you have committed the sin in your heart.

 

[zippy2006]

The forms of your arguments are good. But you have chosen topics outside of morality. Use that form to investigate issues of moral concern and then it will be about morality.

You provided the form for moral claims and I followed that form. Therefore, according to your claims about morality, the arguments I gave result in moral conclusions. What you're doing now is equivocating on what you mean by 'morality'. If the arguments I gave are not moral, that's your fault, not mine. I used your formula. This is of course the whole point, and proves that your formula is mistaken!

I think I really mislead you when I first proposed this:
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

3 is meant to be about an imperative, a rule, and not just a description. Thats how its about morality. 3 is the creation by the culture of an emotional force ought with all the reinforcing and conditioning necessary. I was not at all clear about that and probly should have deployed a triple !!!.

Okay, so how do you want to phrase the imperative? "Therefore, we ought to do Y"? "Therefore, we should do Y"? It looks like this makes your argument invalid:

1. Over the long term, most people prefer X​

2. Long term observation teaches us that Y leads to X​

3. Therefore, we ought to do Y​

How does (3) follow from (1) and (2)?

Ok, so the desire for salvation can be framed as a hedonistic impulse. Great. Yay hedonism!

I'm not so sure though. A deeply satisfying life, as viewed from a wisdom pov, is not guided by pleasure seeking (hedonism). The wise have seen that long term life satisfaction is about much more than pleasure. I agree with them. Do you?

"In general, pleasure is understood broadly below, as including or as included in all pleasant feeling or experience: contentment, delight, ecstasy, elation, enjoyment, euphoria, exhilaration, exultation, gladness, gratification, gratitude, joy, liking, love, relief, satisfaction, Schadenfreude, tranquility, and so on. Pain or displeasure too is understood broadly below, as including or as included in all unpleasant experience or feeling: ache, agitation, agony, angst, anguish, annoyance, anxiety, apprehensiveness, boredom, chagrin, dejection, depression, desolation, despair, desperation, despondency, discomfort, discombobulation, discontentment, disgruntlement, disgust, dislike, dismay, disorientation, dissatisfaction, distress, dread, enmity, ennui, fear, gloominess, grief, guilt, hatred, horror, hurting, irritation, loathing, melancholia, nausea, queasiness, remorse, resentment, sadness, shame, sorrow, suffering, sullenness, throb, terror, unease, vexation, and so on."​

​

-Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy | Hedonism​

​

-----

"As a theory of value, hedonism states that all and only pleasure is intrinsically valuable and all and only pain is intrinsically not valuable. Hedonists usually define pleasure and pain broadly, such that both physical and mental phenomena are included. Thus, a gentle massage and recalling a fond memory are both considered to cause pleasure and stubbing a toe and hearing about the death of a loved one are both considered to cause pain. With pleasure and pain so defined, hedonism as a theory about what is valuable for us is intuitively appealing. Indeed, its appeal is evidenced by the fact that nearly all historical and contemporary treatments of well-being allocate at least some space for discussion of hedonism."​

​

-Internet Encyclopedia of Philosopohy | Hedonism​

 

[durangodawood]

You provided the form for moral claims and I followed that form. Therefore, according to your claims about morality, the arguments I gave result in moral conclusions. What you're doing now is equivocating on what you mean by 'morality'. If the arguments I gave are not moral, that's your fault, not mine. I used your formula. This is of course the whole point, and proves that your formula is mistaken!

Oh come on. Just because the form works for morality doenst mean the forms applications are limited to morality. If you use that form to think about other topics, that wont transmute them into statements about morality.

Okay, so how do you want to phrase the imperative? "Therefore, we ought to do Y"? "Therefore, we should do Y"? It looks like this makes your argument invalid:

1. Over the long term, most people prefer X​

2. Long term observation teaches us that Y leads to X​

3. Therefore, we ought to do Y​

How does (3) follow from (1) and (2)?

Thats your formula, not mine. Mine has 3 being: Therefore we will make Y happen. There is no norm. Its not "right". Its just what we want, filtered through wisdom, which is essentially long term knowledge. We add the "oughts" and "rights" and "wrongs" at the back end to give them emotional weight via constant conditioning, the dispensing or withholding of precious regard.

I think the desire for a good life is deeper than reasoning and doesnt need justification by reasoning. I see it as a raw fact of nature. Christians might say we were created with it. I also think theres an natural selection of cultures: all other things being equal, those that provide good, satisfying lives tend to thrive and persist. Those who provide chaos and misery tend to dwindle out or get conquered. And so morals have their own sort of survival of the fittest going on.

"In general, pleasure is understood broadly below, as including or as included in all pleasant feeling or experience: contentment, delight, ecstasy, elation, enjoyment, euphoria, exhilaration, exultation, gladness, gratification, gratitude, joy, liking, love, relief, satisfaction, Schadenfreude, tranquility, and so on. Pain or displeasure too is understood broadly below, as including or as included in all unpleasant experience or feeling: ache, agitation, agony, angst, anguish, annoyance, anxiety, apprehensiveness, boredom, chagrin, dejection, depression, desolation, despair, desperation, despondency, discomfort, discombobulation, discontentment, disgruntlement, disgust, dislike, dismay, disorientation, dissatisfaction, distress, dread, enmity, ennui, fear, gloominess, grief, guilt, hatred, horror, hurting, irritation, loathing, melancholia, nausea, queasiness, remorse, resentment, sadness, shame, sorrow, suffering, sullenness, throb, terror, unease, vexation, and so on."​

​

-Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy | Hedonism​

​

-----

"As a theory of value, hedonism states that all and only pleasure is intrinsically valuable and all and only pain is intrinsically not valuable. Hedonists usually define pleasure and pain broadly, such that both physical and mental phenomena are included. Thus, a gentle massage and recalling a fond memory are both considered to cause pleasure and stubbing a toe and hearing about the death of a loved one are both considered to cause pain. With pleasure and pain so defined, hedonism as a theory about what is valuable for us is intuitively appealing. Indeed, its appeal is evidenced by the fact that nearly all historical and contemporary treatments of well-being allocate at least some space for discussion of hedonism."​

​

-Internet Encyclopedia of Philosopohy | Hedonism​

I dont see how just "feeling or experience" of any sort is sufficient to capture the motives that drive the wise of a culture to maintain morality. I think theres an inborn (naturally evolved or created) push toward human social thriving thats deeper than chasing feelings or experiences. Dont you?

If we open up hedonism as broadly as you want, then it swallows up all human impulses including the religious.

 

[Bradskii]

arbitrary
adjective

1) Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.
2) Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference.
3) Relating to a decision made by a court or legislature that lacks a grounding in law or fact.

I'm completely aware that there is more than one definition. But guess why I referenced the first one...because it's the one that's applicable as secular morality 'is most definitely not a whim, categorically not random but most certainly based on reason.'

Y: How do you know that stealing is wrong?
B: Gee, I dunno. I just decided it on a whim. It was pretty random. I certainly don't have any reasons for it.

And that apparently makes sense to you.

 

[Neutral Observer]

And that apparently makes sense to you.

And apparently he, and anyone who agrees with him, are the only one's here capable of reason. It definitely seems as though that's what he thinks.

 

[Bradskii]

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

I prefer this:

1. The majority of people have a tendency to do X.
2. X works.
3. Society survives.
4. We term X as 'good'.

A. The majority of people have a tendency to do Y.
B. Y doesn't work.
C. Society fails.
D. We term Y as 'bad'.

 

[Bradskii]

They had to be told...

By whom?

 

[Neutral Observer]

A. The majority of people have a tendency to do Y.
B. Y doesn't work.
C. Society fails.
D. We term Y as 'bad'.

I would alter this one a bit.

A. People, be it a minority or a majority, have a proclivity to do Y.
B. In aggregate Y tends toward less desirable outcomes
C. Evolution selects against Y
D. People learn to associate Y with 'bad'

 

[Ken-1122]

Sorry to disappoint you but in reality, I can compare the two without being saddled by some subjective criterion you decided to use to in order to tell me I couldn't. Due to the nature of human differences of perspective, there are things written in the Constitution and just about any document that declares itself to be a governing instrument, that some people will tell you are morally perfect and without flaw as well

Who claims the Constitution is morally perfect and without flaw? Not even the men who penned that document makes such a claim. All reasonable people who follow the Constitution acknowledge it is not a morally perfect document, it's just a law and laws aren't perfect. Can the same be said about the Bible?

 

[Neutral Observer]

A. People, be it a minority or a majority, have a proclivity to do Y.
B. In aggregate Y tends toward less desirable outcomes
C. Evolution selects against Y
D. People learn to associate Y with 'bad'

The obvious question then is: why do people still have a proclivity to do Y?

The answer is that most actions are situation dependent. Killing is bad "most of the time". Stealing is bad "most of the time". But they're useful in just enough situations that the genes that express them continue to survive. Hence we continue to do bad, because sometimes bad is beneficial, and then we as moral agents are left to justify this dichotomy.

 

[Bradskii]

And apparently he, and anyone who agrees with him, are the only one's here capable of reason. It definitely seems as though that's what he thinks.

I'm bemused by it.

I naturally accept that the vast majority of people who have ever lived have had and do have some sort of religious belief and that their religion will have scripture of some sort that will tell them what that religion considers to be good and bad. Some of it is is blindingly obvious - don't murder anyone. Some of it is patently wrong - stone women to death for adultry. And some obviously contradictory - treat others as you would wish to be treated ...but don't beat your slaves too much.

That someone would blindly follow a scriptural edict simply because it's scripture horrifies me. Surely, and I mean surely, any reasonable person would think about what it means, why it was written, when it was written, for whom it was written...and consider 'is this reasonable?'