When two worldviews collide.

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Being moral can be defined by:

a) theological source - the lifestyle is not condemned for example in the Bible
b) evolutionary source - the lifestyle is not against the survival and prosperity of the species
c) sociological source - the lifestyle is not against the survival and prosperity of the society
d) health source - the lifestyle supports physical and mental health

There are probably some other basis for morals, these are just some examples. People frequently mix multiple basis and look for/suppor a lifestyle that makes the most sense in all of them.

In order to justify a moral action you need to say why it's true and the opposing moral action is false. The lack of a universal authoritative standard by which to evaluate morals within a secular paradigm also means that two people who morally oppose each other would be equally correct in their moral stances and you couldn't say one person's morals are wrong, only that their morals are different. Therefore, if you want to evaluate behaviours from person to person or ascribe any kind of value/hierarchy to morals you need to assume the truth of a moral stance or standard in order to judge or weigh evidence against said behaviours. To judge by a standard is not relative. So assuming human flourishing (empathy, kindness, love) as a standard by which to judge things is to assume without justification a moral truth which doesn't exist within the paradigm. As the value ascribed to each individual moral stance or action are different from person to person and you have no authoritative transcendent standard which imparts value to and imposes parameters on specific behaviours.

So you can claim other moral sources for morality but within a secular paradigm it's an entirely circular justification for moral actions.

tldr: your a,b,c,d propositions all rely upon established moral truths that don't exist independent of a transcendent source for morality.

 

[trophy33]

In order to justify a moral action you need to say why it's true and the opposing moral action is false. The lack of a universal authoritative standard by which to evaluate morals within a secular paradigm also means that two people who morally oppose each other would be equally correct in their moral stances and you couldn't say one person's morals are wrong, only that their morals are different. Therefore, if you want to evaluate behaviours from person to person or ascribe any kind of value/hierarchy to morals you need to assume the truth of a moral stance or standard in order to judge or weigh evidence against said behaviours. To judge by a standard is not relative. So assuming human flourishing (empathy, kindness, love) as a standard by which to judge things is to assume without justification a moral truth which doesn't exist within the paradigm. As the value ascribed to each individual moral stance or action are different from person to person and you have no authoritative transcendent standard which imparts value to and imposes parameters on specific behaviours.

So you can claim other moral sources for morality but within a secular paradigm it's an entirely circular justification for moral actions.

tldr: your a,b,c,d propositions all rely upon established moral truths that don't exist independent of a transcendent source for morality.

If your wife broke the promise she made and cheated on you, will you say "Its ok, I have no transcendent source for morality"?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

If your wife broke the promise she made and cheated on you, will you say "Its ok, I have no transcendent source for morality"?

No, it would be wrong because of what God has established and because of who He is. If you derive your morality within a secular paradigm then yeah, there's no basis for saying what's right or wrong because moral truths don't exist. That's the dichotomy I was trying to show.

 

[trophy33]

If you derive your morality within a secular paradigm then yeah, there's no basis for saying what's right or wrong because moral truths don't exist. That's the dichotomy I was trying to show.

I am not sure what your point is, but what you describe is a form of sociopathy.

As some people are colorblind, but most people can see colors (though its basically impossible to define or describe them), so also some few people are morally blind. Most people know if they do something wrong.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I am not sure what your point is, but what you describe is a form of sociopathy.

As some people are colorblind, but most people can see colors (though its basically impossible to define or describe them), so also some few people are morally blind. Most people know if they do something wrong.

My point was that arguing morality with someone who derives their morality from within a secular paradigm will be spinning your wheels (a waste of time). That in order to say what's right or wrong you first need to believe in a transcendent source for morality (I.e. God or something external to man) that establishes moral truths. People who adhere to morality within a secular worldview, one which excludes God, have no fixed standard by which to evaluate moral actions. It's entirely arbitrary and therefore pointless to argue morals with them.

To use your example; if you don't believe that something created colours then you can't be colourblind because nothing exists to say that blue is blue. The idea that somebody knowing they did something 'wrong' presupposed something that made it 'wrong'. Whom I was responding to was arguing with somebody who belives that there is nothing that makes something 'wrong', or at the very least they establish what's 'wrong' arbitrarily and therefore are unable to say what's right or wrong.

 

[trophy33]

My point was that arguing morality with someone who derives their morality from within a secular paradigm will be spinning your wheels (a waste of time). That in order to say what's right or wrong you first need to believe in a transcendent source for morality (I.e. God or something external to man) that establishes moral truths. People who adhere to morality within a secular worldview, one which excludes God, have no fixed standard by which to evaluate moral actions. It's entirely arbitrary and therefore pointless to argue morals with them.

To use your example; if you don't believe that something created colours then you can't be colourblind because nothing exists to say that blue is blue. The idea that somebody knowing they did something 'wrong' presupposed something that made it 'wrong'. Whom I was responding to was arguing with somebody who belives that there is nothing that makes something 'wrong', or at the very least they establish what's 'wrong' arbitrarily and therefore are unable to say what's right or wrong.

As the majority of people share the same functionality of healthy eyes and healthy brain (and therefore can see colors), so also the majority of people have morals, because they share the (secular) society they live in. They intuitively know what supports this society and what destroys it - its just a matter of experience, logic or prediction.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

As the majority of people share the same functionality of a healthy eyes and brain (and therefore can see colors), so also the majority of people have morals, because they share the (secular) society they live in. They intuitively know what supports this society and what destroys it - its just a matter of experience, logic or prediction.

Maybe this question will show you what I was getting at; why is physically assaulting innocent people wrong? and why is the answer you give true/correct?

 

[trophy33]

Maybe this question will show you what I was getting at; why is physically assaulting innocent people wrong? and why is the answer you give true/correct?

Empathy - we can mirror the pain of others and so we know its not a good thing. Sociopaths lack this, they are like morally disabled.

Also, such assaults would make society unstable and we would not prosper.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Empathy - we can mirror the pain of others and so we know its not a good thing. Sociopaths lack this, they are like morally disabled.

Why is empathy authoritative instead of the moral opposite of empathy?

 

[trophy33]

Why is empathy authoritative instead of the opposite thing?

Not sure what you mean by authoritative.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Not sure what you mean by authoritative.

The ability to say why one thing has authority over another. So why is empathy authoritative over the moral that is it's opposite?

 

[trophy33]

The ability to say why one thing has authority over another. So why is empathy authoritative over the moral that is it's opposite?

Viz reasons listed in the post #1,480

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Viz reasons listed in the post #1,480

Those reasons assumed without any justification that certain morals are correct in order to establish a basis on which to evaluate moral actions. See:

tldr: your a,b,c,d propositions all rely upon established moral truths that don't exist independent of a transcendent source for morality.

 

[Bradskii]

In order to justify a moral action you need to say why it's true and the opposing moral action is false.

You actually need to show that an action is harmful for it to be considered immoral. If it isn't then at worse it's amoral.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

You actually need to show that an action is harmful for it to be considered immoral. If it isn't then at worse it's amoral.

You have no basis on which to say that, that which is harmful is immoral. The point is that there exists no basis that's not arbitrary within a secular paradigm. For that which is harmful can also be good, like weight training. But what makes this harmful action moral or immoral? You can't say that something does without assuming the truth of a thing (assuming life promoting actions are correct without an authoritative justifcation for it actually being the case).

 

[Bradskii]

Maybe this question will show you what I was getting at; why is physically assaulting innocent people wrong? and why is the answer you give true/correct?

If it were considered amoral to assault people then it would become common and society would collapse. That we have formed societies shows that considering it to be wrong has worked to our advantage. Those that didn't consider it to be wrong either aren't with us or are considered a detriment to a healthy society and are punished for it.

So we have come to realise that what works is good. And what we consider to be good can be described as moral.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

If it were considered amoral to assault people then it would become common and society would collapse. That we have formed societies shows that considering it to be wrong has worked to our advantage. Those that didn't consider it to be wrong either aren't with us or are considered a detriment to a healthy society and are punished for it.

So we have come to realise that what works is good. And what we consider to be good can be described as moral.

Why is society collapsing wrong? The advantage assumes that there's some inherent value to life and therefore it's correct that we should do actions in keeping with it. Within a secular paradigm that which 'works' is arbitrary, for a rapist thinks that a system which encourage rape 'works'. There's nothing to differentiate your morals from that of a murderer or rapist, nothing to say why this specific moral action is better than another specific moral action. There only exists personal preference towards certain stimulus.

So what 'works' for you is not inherently authoritative over what 'works' for those who do what you deem to be immoral.

 

[Bradskii]

You have no basis on which to say that, that which is harmful is immoral. The point is that there exists no basis that's not arbitrary within a secular paradigm. For that which is harmful can also be good, like weight training. But what makes this harmful action moral or immoral? You can't say that something does without assuming the truth of a thing (assuming life promoting actions are correct without an authoritative justifcation for it actually being the case).

Maybe you are confusing what I am saying. I'm not saying that what is good is also moral. I'm saying that if something is good it is therefore moral.

And yes, there are many examples when harm has to be done for the greater good. So you amputate a diseased leg to save to person. Is saving the person a good thing? Yes. So amputating the leg can be considered a moral action. Are you cutting off the leg to torture someone? Yes? Then it is causing harm and is immoral.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I'm saying that if something is good it is therefore moral.

Maybe you're confusing what I'm saying. A rapist thinks rape is good. Is it therefore moral? According to what standard do you disagree and why is it authoritative over rapist's morality?

 

[trophy33]

Those reasons assumed without any justification that certain morals are correct in order to establish a basis on which to evaluate moral actions. See:

Not sure what you mean by "without any justification". They are the justification. Or do you want to debate if survival and prosperity is better than death and suffering? Such debates are totally useless and such mindset is rightfully seen as a deviation, in the society.