Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[rturner76]

What happens if the Christians out-vote the "secularists" and we end up with Christian laws? Is that still a secular state? Or does it magically become a non-democracy?

Then we have more laws based on Christian values. It doesn't change the fact that it would be "Christian based: secular laws. Would you support forced conversion or inquisition courts like when the church ruled Europe? then, who's brand of Christianity should rule?

Majority rule is not inherently secular.

It literally is in a free democratic society. That doesn't stop a Christian majority from passing Christian law but in the USA it's still secular because the next year, someone else may be the majority. I appreciate that you want to enforce Christian dogma as the law of the land but it doesn't work in a free society. We wouldn't even be able to determine which Christian dogma should be made law.

I can see why you would want to disengage. Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Chriliman]

Though the experiences can be objectively verified, the label of good/bad, moral/immoral will often vary from one person to another. Example; One person might say purposely giving false information concerning a specific event (lying) is bad, while the other person will say it is good. That’s because the good/bad label is subjectively determined by the person judging the event

But it depends on the motive of the lie, and my point is any sound mind would want to know what the motive is to determine if it was actually wrong or not.

My point is; some things are objective, some things are subjective. IMO Morality carries the subjective label.

I get that’s your opinion, I’m just continuing to see reasons why it’s maybe not fully thought out.

Yes; because human morality only applies to humans. When something is objective, it applies to everything; humans and animals alike. If I jump off a cliff, the impact upon landing will cause injury; this is the case for animals as well.

Ah, but it’s not true that feeling hurt(injury) from falling applies to everything, it only applies to experiencing creatures, just like objective morality would only apply to beings with the capacity to understand it. Come on, you have to admit that’s a good point!

Getting 2 outside sources will probably result in them disagreeing with each other.

But what if those two outside sources are of sound mind and can know the same facts, why would their conclusions be different? I’d bet they wouldn’t.

 

[zippy2006]

It literally is in a free democratic society. That doesn't stop a Christian majority from passing Christian law but in the USA it's still secular because the next year, someone else may be the majority.

"If a law can change, then it isn't religious."

You have defined religious laws out of existence. All laws can change, therefore no laws are religious. Your argumentation continues to be absurd. Your whole case reduces to special pleading.

I already pointed out that, "Regimes can move from one religion to another whether they are monarchies, timocracies, or democracies."

 

[Ken-1122]

But it depends on the motive of the lie, and my point is any sound mind would want to know what the motive is to determine if it was actually wrong or not.

Exactly! And the reason they would need to know the motivation in order to determine right vs wrong is because they are making a subjective moral judgment. If lying were objective wrong, knowing the motivation would not be necessary because if it’s a lie, then it’s wrong; case closed.

Ah, but it’s not true that feeling hurt(injury) from falling applies to everything, it only applies to experiencing creatures, just like objective morality would only apply to beings with the capacity to understand it. Come on, you have to admit that’s a good point!

My point was, it is not something that only applies to humans; like morality.

But what if those two outside sources are of sound mind and can know the same facts, why would their conclusions be different? I’d bet they wouldn’t.

Though they might know the same facts, they may have a different opinion concerning those facts and these opinions will determine whether they see it as right or wrong. Example; if your neighbor is hiding from the police and wants you to hide him in your attic; if you think the police are right and your neighbor is a criminal who needs to go to prison, you might say hiding him from the law is immoral. If you think the Police are evil, you might find it your moral duty to hide your neighbor and lie to the police about his whereabouts.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Yeah. Daniel Kahneman wrote about it.

Thinking, Fast and Slow : Kahneman, Daniel: Amazon.com.au: Books

Thinking, Fast and Slow : Kahneman, Daniel: Amazon.com.au: Books

www.amazon.com.au

Is that how you think we understand morality? That it's a process of evolution?

 

[Bradskii]

Is that how you think we understand morality? That it's a process of evolution?

We're evolved creatures. There's not much about being human that's not connected in some way to that process. If evolution had a rule book then page one, item number one would be 'Avoid harm'. And nothing is immoral if it causes no harm. So...

 

[YahuahSaves]

We're evolved creatures. There's not much about being human that's not connected in some way to that process. If evolution had a rule book then page one, item number one would be 'Avoid harm'. And nothing is immoral if it causes no harm. So...

Then how do you account for all the other people with "evolved" brains that do cause harm? Have they not got a buffer on their natural instincts?

 

[Bradskii]

Then how do you account for all the other people with "evolved" brains that do cause harm? Have they not got a buffer on their natural instincts?

Avoid harm to oneself. It's your genes that want to survive until they can be passed on. Generally that means holding back on baser instincts not to prompt others to release theirs. That's the glue that holds society together.

Do you know what some men will do when there is no risk whatsoever that they will suffer the consequences?

A third of male university students say they would rape a woman

A significant proportion of men who said they would force a woman to have sex did not recognise it as rape

www.independent.co.uk

 

[YahuahSaves]

That's the glue that holds society together.

I wouldn't say that.

Do you know what some men will do when there is no risk whatsoever that they will suffer the consequences?

Fair point^ SO...you're back to telling me how we agree as a society on the basics of morality.

 

[Chriliman]

Exactly! And the reason they would need to know the motivation in order to determine right vs wrong is because they are making a subjective moral judgment. If lying were objective wrong, knowing the motivation would not be necessary because if it’s a lie, then it’s wrong; case closed.

My point was, it is not something that only applies to humans; like morality.

Though they might know the same facts, they may have a different opinion concerning those facts and these opinions will determine whether they see it as right or wrong. Example; if your neighbor is hiding from the police and wants you to hide him in your attic; if you think the police are right and your neighbor is a criminal who needs to go to prison, you might say hiding him from the law is immoral. If you think the Police are evil, you might find it your moral duty to hide your neighbor and lie to the police about his whereabouts.

But again, it’s important to know what your neighbor actually did(objectively) in order to be certain(not just opinion) about the right thing to do. If they're innocent/wrongly accused and the police are honestly trying to figure that out(which would all be objective circumstances), then they shouldn’t be hiding in the first place, regardless of anyone’s opinion since the objective circumstances can be determined.

Definition of opinion for reference:

We’ve given it a good try, but seems like our reasoning will continue slipping past each other. All the best!

 

[Ken-1122]

But again, it’s important to know what your neighbor actually did(objectively)

Knowing what the neighbor did is objective, but it isn't a moral situation.

in order to be certain(not just opinion)

To be certain is not a moral situation

about the right thing to do.

The right thing to do is the moral situation. You have to do a bunch of objective stuff in order to determine the subjective decision to make

If they're innocent/wrongly accused and the police are honestly trying to figure that out(which would all be objective circumstances), then they shouldn’t be hiding in the first place, regardless of anyone’s opinion since the objective circumstances can be determined.

Definition of opinion for reference:
View attachment 326557

We’ve given it a good try, but seems like our reasoning will continue slipping past each other. All the best!

Your response indicates the police are honest and fair. Suppose it was the year 1939 and the police were the Gestapo in Nazi Germany, and the friends asking you to hide them were a Jewish family that didn’t want to be taken to the Treblinka Concentration camp? If hiding from the law were objectively wrong, it doesn’t matter; you would be morally obligated to turn them in. The fact that you have to judge the facts of the situation before deciding if it is right or wrong to hide them indicates this is a subjective moral situation not an objective one.

 

[Chriliman]

Your response indicates the police are honest and fair.

Yes, but if those facts are different then the moral decision can be justified to be different.

Suppose it was the year 1939 and the police were the Gestapo in Nazi Germany, and the friends asking you to hide them were a Jewish family that didn’t want to be taken to the Treblinka Concentration camp? If hiding from the law were objectively wrong, it doesn’t matter; you would be morally obligated to turn them in. The fact that you have to judge the facts of the situation before deciding if it is right or wrong to hide them indicates this is a subjective moral situation not an objective one.

I’m not arguing that hiding from the law is objectively wrong, it’s more nuanced than that.

I’m arguing that if you’re innocent and the law honestly wants to prove that then you have no need to hide based on those facts.

I’m also arguing that if you’re innocent and the law just wants to kill you anyway based on their false notions of you, then you’re justified to hide based on those facts.

Can you appreciate the nuance in those arguments?

Try not to use the terms “opinion”, “subjective”, or “objective” in your response, maybe that will help.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you'd have asked if I knew what Plato's 'the good' was then you'd have received the same answer. He was hardly up for defining it himself. From the Republic:

Adeimantus: We'll be satisfied if you discuss the good as you discussed justice, moderation, and the rest.

Socrates: That, my friend, I said, would satisfy me too, but I'm afraid that I won't be up to it and that I'll disgrace myself and look ridiculous by trying.

Let's avoid terms like evil. There are too many connotations there that will cloud the water. And as I said upstream, we can crank up the examples until we reach a point where your wife being beaten to death is a tad more than an inconvenience. The terms good and bad are simple enough to be used to describe actions that we term moral or immoral. Leaving my wallet at home is an inconvenience. Having it stolen is bad.

No. Which is precisely my point. But if you don't mind having it stolen then as far as you are concerned there has been no immorality. That's your call. That's what makes the morality of the action relative.

No. I think I'll just stick with calling moral evil what moral evil is. EVIL. And we can also always consider how our common designation of Radical Evil in humanity isn't simply relative and is not comparable to the taste which the lion has for the antelope.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, but if those facts are different then the moral decision can be justified to be different.

I’m not arguing that hiding from the law is objectively wrong, it’s more nuanced than that.

I’m arguing that if you’re innocent and the law honestly wants to prove that then you have no need to hide based on those facts.

I’m also arguing that if you’re innocent and the law just wants to kill you anyway based on their false notions of you, then you’re justified to hide based on those facts.

Can you appreciate the nuance in those arguments?

Try not to use the terms “opinion”, “subjective”, or “objective” in your response, maybe that will help.

I agree with the points you are making. My disagreement was only based on whether or not morality should have the objective or subjective label. Putting that aside, I think you and I are pretty much in agreement.

 

[Bradskii]

I wouldn't say that.


Fair point^ SO...you're back to telling me how we agree as a society on the basics of morality.

It's more a consensus.

 

[perplexed]

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

I want people to care for one another I have no justification for this. This is not a problem
Did a lack of justification ever make a horrible Nazi less horrible?
Did a lack of justification ever make someone with the deluded belief that Marxism works less deluded?

I assume you use your framework to make you less selfish so you find it very valuable. But I would argue you don't need it , I resist the urge to drink and watch porn by thinking how wonderful it is people care for each other. Drunk perverts don't make the world a more compassionate place, a framework would not help me at all

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I want people to care for one another I have no justification for this. This is not a problem
Did a lack of justification ever make a horrible Nazi less horrible?
Did a lack of justification ever make someone with the deluded belief that Marxism works less deluded?

I assume you use your framework to make you less selfish so you find it very valuable. But I would argue you don't need it , I resist the urge to drink and watch porn by thinking how wonderful it is people care for each other. Drunk perverts don't make the world a more compassionate place, a framework would not help me at all

You may not consider yourself to have a "framework," but you do still have principles that serve as a heuristic. You're still operating by some form of justifiation, even if it is a simpler set of notions And that provides for at least a minimum of moral capacity for most people. I'm not going to complain about that, but the presence of Jesus in the middle of the Ethical complex does help.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You may not consider yourself to have a "framework," but you do still have principles that serve as a heuristic. You're still operating by some form of justifiation, even if it is a simpler set of notions And that provides for at least a minimum of moral capacity for most people. I'm not going to complain about that, but the presence of Jesus in the middle of the Ethical complex does help.

Looking back, I don't see Jesus as being a particularly a particularly large component of any moral framework I used. Church tradition and teachings, God -- those were both there and more important overall. The specific teachings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels not nearly as much.

 

[Neutral Observer]

Looking back, I don't see Jesus as being a particularly a particularly large component of any moral framework I used. Church tradition and teachings, God -- those were both there and more important overall. The specific teachings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels not nearly as much.

I'm curious, just how would you describe your current moral framework? The Ten Commandments? The Golden Rule? Live and let live?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm curious, just how would you describe your current moral framework? The Ten Commandments? The Golden Rule? Live and let live?

I don't really know. I haven't categorized it all. There isn't a single organizing principle. Certainly not the 10-ish commandments. I value self-determination and freedom of choice, neither of which are that biblical, among others. Like most people, I get my moral frameworks from my community, past and present, and the things it values. Some of those community values have been influenced by Christianity, and vice versa.