Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[2PhiloVoid]

Take a class in ethical philosophy. It will give you a grounding in ethical theories which are independent on which god or gods you believe in.

Being ethical and moral is on principles such as do no harm. That you are a Hindu or Moslem or believe in the three Christian gods, makes no difference to that principle.

I suggest you do some reading on the topic.

However, I think Tranquil has done a decent job of laying out some basic concepts which so many today ignore.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Take a class in ethical philosophy.

I appreciate the suggestion but I took Epistemology instead. My claim isn't that people can't be moral, it never has been. It's that you have no reason to be and have no justification for any behaviours because you're unable to establish a framework from which to evaluate them from and that any framework that's established assumes moral truths without justification. Please at least read the linked edit in the OP down the bottom before asking me to do some more reading.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I appreciate the suggestion but I took Epistemology instead. My claim isn't that people can't be moral, it never has been. It's that you have no reason to be and have no justification for any behaviours because you're unable to establish a framework from which to evaluate them from and that any framework that's established assumes moral truths without justification. Please at least read the linked edit in the OP down the bottom before asking me to do some more reading.

Just one bit here, brother Tranquil. We both highly value studies in Epistemology, but Zoii is correct to say that folks need to have a firm engagement with Ethics, and I'd perfer they even expand that to Axiology (Values/Aesthetics/and Ethics).

So, because the field of Ethics, like Epistemology, is so pluralistic, it really is a necessity for the sake of bolstering one's arguments and vantage point to engage it, even if it's just reading a couple of good, introductory, survey type books on Ethics.

Just a word to the wise, and I know you're wise!

 

[Ken-1122]

My claim isn't that people can't be moral, it never has been. It's that you have no reason to be and have no justification for any behaviours because you're unable to establish a framework from which to evaluate them from

There are countless reasons to be moral; establishing a framework to evaluate behaviors is not a requirement.

and that any framework that's established assumes moral truths without justification.

Justification by whose standards? Yours or his?

 

[Chriliman]

This may seem to be extremely naive, but under objective morality how am I supposed to have any idea whatsoever about what's moral and what isn't?

There would seem to be absolutely no way to know.

You have to know what it feels like to get stolen from or to have something you lost returned to you. Its objective because you can acknowledge others(objective to you) can have those same feelings as you.

 

[Ken-1122]

You have to know what it feels like to get stolen from or to have something you lost returned to you. Its objective because you can acknowledge others(objective to you) can have those same feelings as you.

Empathy does not make stealing objectively wrong.

 

[Chriliman]

Empathy does not make stealing objectively wrong.

How so? If you feel wronged when stolen from, why can’t we extend that feeling to others, objectively speaking, and acknowledge they can feel that way too? IOW, their feeling of being wronged does not depend on your subjectivity, therefore it’s objective to you. How does this not compute?

You’ve made some one liner claims without much reasoning to back it.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Just one bit here, brother Tranquil. We both highly value studies in Epistemology, but Zoii is correct to say that folks need to have a firm engagement with Ethics, and I'd perfer they even expand that to Axiology (Values/Aesthetics/and Ethics).

So, because the field of Ethics, like Epistemology, is so pluralistic, it really is a necessity for the sake of bolstering one's arguments and vantage point to engage it, even if it's just reading a couple of good, introductory, survey type books on Ethics.

Just a word to the wise, and I know you're wise!

You're right as always. Apart from that last sentence. Sometimes I can't help but feel like we're all just children reasoning. Ultimately when the books are open at the place where time ends and eternity begins, we're all going to be standing there recognising that there's no such thing as a grey morality or ethics, that it is ultimately black and white. Either The Living Holy God set the parameters for our behaviour and conduct or He didn't. Either He revealed Himself clearly to all men in the person of Jesus Christ as the definitive revelation of Himself or He didn't. I can't see a way to establish any rationality without God, our Christian God "I AM THAT I AM" to be specific. I feel like I've given thorough, specific justifications and reasons for these beliefs though in the long run even the ones I've written are not really the reason why I believe any of the things I do. I've even been on the other side of Atheism for about 7-8 years which obviously is not as much as others here but it's not like I don't understand it's shortcomings or the Nihilism that Naturalism & Materialism necessitate. See the thing is, even if I succeed in establishing the point that within these systems morality is ultimately personal preference or that in order to evaluate moral claims you need a basis/framework to do it on (that doesn't assume truths), there's still 1000 other open theaters in other fields of science, in other branches of philosophy & etc. And it doesn't even deal with the fallout of what results from that (though the book of Judges does).

The bolstering of arguments, while necessary, seems to have increasing diminishing returns. That's one thing this thread has taught me. Some people just look right past the amount of writing and excessive, thorough explanation only to excise a single thing you've said while ignoring the rest of the argument. It's not that they're doing it on purpose, it's just that they don't care and don't have a reason to fully engage the arguments presented. The ironic thing is it's because their very own (as you succinctly put it) Pluralistic framework smooths the way for this behaviour. They don't need to do anything because belief = truth and subjective interpretation of behaviour = subjective morality.

This is definitely going to be my last post on this thread and I'm going to actively avoid as best I can it so I don't get drawn back into the circle, I've essentially said all I have had to say anyway so it's not going to be a loss. I'll leave everyone who reads this with the Scripture that treats this subject with the vehemence it deserves.

2 Peter 2:10-14; 17-19
"This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from the Lord. But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood!"

"These people are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for “people are slaves to whatever has mastered them."

It ultimately all comes back to the person of Christ, and that's where it's going to end too.

God bless.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're right as always. Apart from that last sentence. Sometimes I can't help but feel like we're all just children reasoning. Ultimately when the books are open at the place where time ends and eternity begins, we're all going to be standing there recognising that there's no such thing as a grey morality or ethics, that it is ultimately black and white. Either The Living Holy God set the parameters for our behaviour and conduct or He didn't. Either He revealed Himself clearly to all men in the person of Jesus Christ as the definitive revelation of Himself or He didn't. I can't see a way to establish any rationality without God, our Christian God "I AM THAT I AM" to be specific. I feel like I've given thorough, specific justifications and reasons for these beliefs though in the long run even the ones I've written are not really the reason why I believe any of the things I do. I've even been on the other side of Atheism for about 7-8 years which obviously is not as much as others here but it's not like I don't understand it's shortcomings or the Nihilism that Naturalism & Materialism necessitate. See the thing is, even if I succeed in establishing the point that within these systems morality is ultimately personal preference or that in order to evaluate moral claims you need a basis/framework to do it on (that doesn't assume truths), there's still 1000 other open theaters in other fields of science, in other branches of philosophy & etc. And it doesn't even deal with the fallout of what results from that (though the book of Judges does).

The bolstering of arguments, while necessary, seems to have increasing diminishing returns. That's one thing this thread has taught me. Some people just look right past the amount of writing and excessive, thorough explanation only to excise a single thing you've said while ignoring the rest of the argument. It's not that they're doing it on purpose, it's just that they don't care and don't have a reason to fully engage the arguments presented. The ironic thing is it's because their very own (as you succinctly put it) Pluralistic framework smooths the way for this behaviour. They don't need to do anything because belief = truth and subjective interpretation of behaviour = subjective morality.

This is definitely going to be my last post on this thread and I'm going to actively avoid as best I can it so I don't get drawn back into the circle, I've essentially said all I have had to say anyway so it's not going to be a loss. I'll leave everyone who reads this with the Scripture that treats this subject with the vehemence it deserves.

2 Peter 2:10-14; 17-19
"This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the flesh and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from the Lord. But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood!"

"These people are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for “people are slaves to whatever has mastered them."

It ultimately all comes back to the person of Christ, and that's where it's going to end too.

God bless.

You've said what needs to be said. And thanks for starting this thread, Tranquil!

 

[Ken-1122]

How so? If you feel wronged when stolen from, why can’t we extend that feeling to others, objectively speaking, and acknowledge they can feel that way too? IOW, their feeling of being wronged does not depend on your subjectivity, therefore it’s objective to you. How does this not compute?

You’ve made some one liner claims without much reasoning to back it.

In order for an act to be objective morally wrong, it has to be wrong regardless to how you feel about the situation. Subjectivity is based on your feelings, Objectivity is not. Empathy is about how you feel thus subjective; not objective. So the ability to understand how hurtful it is to have something stolen from you is how you determine stealing is subjectively wrong; not objectively wrong.

 

[Chriliman]

In order for an act to be objective morally wrong, it has to be wrong regardless to how you feel about the situation. Subjectivity is based on your feelings, Objectivity is not. Empathy is about how you feel thus subjective; not objective. So the ability to understand how hurtful it is to have something stolen from you is how you determine stealing is subjectively wrong; not objectively wrong.

I agree there’s no objective morality apart from any moral agent capable of experiencing moral feelings in a rational way, but when you have multiple moral agents with rational minds all reacting the same way to an objective fact, you then have objective morality in that circumstance.

Maybe all this points to ‘objective morality’ not being the right term to describe this circumstance, though it is something that happens in objective reality.

 

[Ken-1122]

I agree there’s no objective morality apart from any moral agent capable of experiencing moral feelings in a rational way, but when you have multiple moral agents with rational minds all reacting the same way to an objective fact, you then have objective morality in that circumstance.

I disagree! Having multiple people having the same reaction to a specific moral act has nothing to do with that act being objectively good or bad, that’s just an example of multiple people having the same subjective opinions on that moral issue.

 

[Neutral Observer]

You have to know what it feels like to get stolen from or to have something you lost returned to you.

Yes, but does my empathizing with the feelings of another make the actions that elicited those feelings morally right or wrong?

For example, children will often get upset because their little brother or sister looked at them the wrong way, and I can empathize with the way they feel. But does my empathizing with the child's anger make the actions that elicited that anger morally wrong?

It would seem that we must have a criteria other than how we feel about something by which to judge it as being moral or immoral. Otherwise we end up with morality either being bifurcated, or a matter of majority rule, inevitably depending upon how we feel, either individually or collectively, about such things as abortion, or slavery, or having my sister look at me the wrong way.

Surely that can't be a path to objective morality. All that it would seem to be is a path to understanding how we as conscious beings react to certain conditions.

 

[zippy2006]

I was under the impression that democracy is secular, as there is no church to "crown" the President/Prime Minister/Chancellor.

You are making all sorts of assumptions that would need to be ferreted out, but to take the most obvious assumption, why would you claim that there is no church to crown a leader? This is just begging the question.

In a way, it is because it is based on the consensus of the people rather than a Holy Book.

There is no form of government that is based on a holy book. If a government adheres to a holy book, it is always through the mediation of human beings (whoever represents the sovereignty of that particular state). An Emperor like Constantine could convert and cause the Empire to follow, for he was the sovereign. The same thing can happen in a democracy, except in that case the sovereignty belongs to the majority. And of course democracies can be pre-religious in the same way that a king can assume a state that was religious before he arrived.

Monarchies are not necessarily religious and democracies are not necessarily secular. Again, the common (and mistaken) impression to the contrary is an accident of history.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, but does my empathizing with the feelings of another make the actions that elicited those feelings morally right or wrong?

For example, children will often get upset because their little brother or sister looked at them the wrong way, and I can empathize with the way they feel. But does my empathizing with the child's anger make the actions that elicited that anger morally wrong?

Yea, it’s nuanced because it depends if they meant to look at them the wrong way in order to upset them, if that’s the case, then yes, it was wrong and objectively so. If not, then time to teach the child to try not to get upset or blame full by small, unintentional actions. But again, it’s important to know what’s actually happening in any given situation, hence the need for objectivity.

It would seem that we must have a criteria other than how we feel about something by which to judge it as being moral or immoral. Otherwise we end up with morality either being bifurcated, or a matter of majority rule, inevitably depending upon how we feel, either individually or collectively, about such things as abortion, or slavery, or having my sister look at me the wrong way.

Surely that can't be a path to objective morality. All that it would seem to be a path to is an understanding of how we as conscious beings react to certain conditions.

The criteria would be the need to know exactly what’s happening in any given circumstance. If that’s possible then objective morality can be reached.

 

[Chriliman]

I disagree! Having multiple people having the same reaction to a specific moral act has nothing to do with that act being objectively good or bad, that’s just an example of multiple people having the same subjective opinions on that moral issue.

Can you describe how good/right/true and bad/wrong/false is real to anyone? Or even just goodness and badness?

 

[Neutral Observer]

The criteria would be the need to know exactly what’s happening in any given circumstance. If that’s possible then objective morality can be reached.

Sorry, but I'm not sold on that answer, because it doesn't really explain what the criteria is, it simply argues that if we had enough information then we could apply the criteria to determine the morality. But what's the criteria?

 

[Hans Blaster]

So, farewell from this thread. Thanks (I think) for starting it. I don't remember if we interacted or not. Do not feel inclined to respond, that is for everyone else who remains.

You're right as always. Apart from that last sentence. Sometimes I can't help but feel like we're all just children reasoning. Ultimately when the books are open at the place where time ends and eternity begins, we're all going to be standing there recognising that there's no such thing as a grey morality or ethics, that it is ultimately black and white. Either The Living Holy God set the parameters for our behaviour and conduct or He didn't. Either He revealed Himself clearly to all men in the person of Jesus Christ as the definitive revelation of Himself or He didn't. I can't see a way to establish any rationality without God, our Christian God "I AM THAT I AM" to be specific.

To all those who remain (and I'm not sure there is much more to be said):

The thread (as titled and through the OP) is about whether secular morality is authoritative and objective. One major theme has been the claim that secular moral systems *can't* be either because they are not grounded properly.

Do I think it is possible there is an objective morality? Yes.
Do I think that such a moral system could be properly grounded? Yes.
Do I think that it is possible that to be proper a moral system must be grounded? Yes.

All of these things are possible (though I think unlikely) and I am willing to entertain actual arguments as should anyone interested in the topic.

Unfortunately, a significant thread of this conversation has been to take as evidence against secular moral systems and their foundations the fact that they aren't based on the god believed in by the poster. This is evident even in the part of this post I quoted. The argument simplifies to "secular morality is not authoritative because it is not based on the god that I attribute authority to". It is not a good argument no matter how many florid paragraphs are wrapped about it.

Unfortunately, there is not much to be gained by continued discussion if the answer to the question is baked in so hard to the arguments. Cheers, and perhaps so long.

 

[rturner76]

You are making all sorts of assumptions that would need to be ferreted out, but to take the most obvious assumption, why would you claim that there is no church to crown a leader? This is just begging the question.

I say that because there is no national church in our country like for example Great Britain which has the Church of England which anoints every new king/queen. In our country which church would be responsible for anointing the President? there are so many. Which church wouldhave the authority? There are liberal and conservative denominations so who's church would be considered the national religion?

There is no form of government that is based on a holy book. If a government adheres to a holy book, it is always through the mediation of human beings (whoever represents the sovereignty of that particular state). An Emperor like Constantine could convert and cause the Empire to follow, for he was the sovereign. The same thing can happen in a democracy, except in that case the sovereignty belongs to the majority. And of course democracies can be pre-religious in the same way that a king can assume a state that was religious before he arrived.

Monarchies are not necessarily religious and democracies are not necessarily secular. Again, the common (and mistaken) impression to the contrary is an accident of history.

Well, there is one form of government based on a holy book. That would be nations like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and the like. You are right that the majority has the right to rule the majority. What problem arises is people's differing opinions on what Christian dogma to follow. For example, there are pro-life Christians and pro-choice Christians. Which form of Christianity should rule? I think it's better to leave the law with the lawmakers and religion to the churches.

 

[zippy2006]

I say that because there is no national church in our country like for example Great Britain which has the Church of England which anoints every new king/queen. In our country which church would be responsible for anointing the President? there are so many. Which church would have the authority? There are liberal and conservative denominations so who's church would be considered the national religion?

But this is the perfect illustration of my point. You are conflating democracy with historical accidents. You are conflating democracy-in-general with the current state of the United States of America. Just because the United States of America does not have a dominant societal religion does not mean that democracy itself is inherently secular.

Your implicit argument is, "Since America doesn't have a dominant religion, therefore no democracy can have a dominant religion." But again, democracy and the United States of America are two different things. The U.S. is a democracy, but it is not the only democracy.

Well, there is one form of government based on a holy book. That would be nations like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and the like.

As I said, it is mediated through human beings, such as the king, or the caliph, or the salman, or the parliament, or the people.

You are right that the majority has the right to rule the majority. What problem arises is people's differing opinions on what Christian dogma to follow. For example, there are pro-life Christians and pro-choice Christians. Which form of Christianity should rule?

Regimes can move from one religion to another whether they are monarchies, timocracies, or democracies.