Secular Morality

[VanillaGorilla]

I have read all this (well most). Concepts and views but nothing convincing.

Haha that is hilarious coming from you. I seriously just laughed out loud.

 

[Minstrel]

In this country, slapping your wife in the face and leaving a mark is illegal (defined immoral), yet you can do it in China without prosecution. So are the people in China wrong?

But that's the whole point of what I said--outside of a religious context, morality isn't objective. There's no defined laws of the universe for morality. Societies determine it as they go and everyone doesn't agree. Even within religion, there's often disagreement, so it's extremely questionable whether even religion has "objective morality."

Slavery was at one time considered perfectly moral in this country (by the religious and irreligious, though the religious were much more dominant at the time). Now it's considered horrific. Morality evolves.

 

[MarAzul]

I think its pretty hilarious how we debate morality, then it becomes a christian vs. atheist or agnostic view.

The question isn't "Christians are moral and atheists aren't". The debate should be "What would a naturalist use for their moral map?"

But yet again, the uptight atheists or agnostics get all defensive and start throwing out why the Bible is immoral. LOL

Exactly. So damn bent on winning a debate that doesn't exist, they will invent an undefined term.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I've looked into this after his debate with William Lane Craig. It is well thought out and there are a lot of good ideas. But it still has many holes.. It's the closest answer for the naturalist's view.

I agree it has holes, and that's because Sam Harris is a philosopher as well as a scientist. He just tries to base his philosophical ideas on science.

 

[MarAzul]

Haha that is hilarious coming from you. I seriously just laughed out loud.

Well glad to be a source of giggles.

 

[magnifier661]

I agree it has holes, and that's because Sam Harris is a philosopher as well as a scientist. He just tries to base his philosophical ideas on science.

I actually like Sam Harris. He doesn't come off as some pompous prick. He has a that "calmness" and rational way of trying to describe things.

 

[magnifier661]

But that's the whole point of what I said--outside of a religious context, morality isn't objective. There's no defined laws of the universe for morality. Societies determine it as they go and everyone doesn't agree. Even within religion, there's often disagreement, so it's extremely questionable whether even religion has "objective morality."

Slavery was at one time considered perfectly moral in this country (by the religious and irreligious, though the religious were much more dominant at the time). Now it's considered horrific. Morality evolves.

I do agree that morality could evolve, but should we allow those countries to evolve at their pace? Example: I seem to remember 10 years ago, Afghanistan people could shoot a woman in the head for not following the rules.

Wasn't an Asian housekeeper put to death in Saudi Arabia for practicing witch-craft?

A naturalist should not interfere with the natural evolution of another area, yet, we do.

 

[Denny Crane]

Just because murder is around doesn't mean there is no genetic component against it. It can be a predisposition to thinking in a certain way. But that predisposition needs to be overridden for the purpose of self preservation.

Links between murder and genetics are junk science at best.

Tho it's obvious that a mental disorder might reduce or eliminate a person's inhibitions.

Like I said, in cultures less Western ideology, killing was accepted, ordinary, commonplace, sport, etc. if there were some genetic disposition against, whole societies wouldn't accept it.

We have, in effect, a control or placebo in those cultures.

 

[Further]

Links between murder and genetics are junk science at best.

Tho it's obvious that a mental disorder might reduce or eliminate a person's inhibitions.

Like I said, in cultures less Western ideology, killing was accepted, ordinary, commonplace, sport, etc. if there were some genetic disposition against, whole societies wouldn't accept it.

We have, in effect, a control or placebo in those cultures.

I really don't know. I was simply offering what I thought might be a component. Neither of us are in neurosciences, and even if we were, I don't believe there is a conclusion to this. But to me murder seems so counter intuitive, I have such a visceral reaction to the thought of it, let alone doing it, that it makes me think there is something deeper than just how I was raised. We do know via separated twin studies that if one twin is violent, the other twin is also more likely to be violent. It seems to me that an extension of that violence would be murder.

 

[Minstrel]

I do agree that morality could evolve, but should we allow those countries to evolve at their pace? Example: I seem to remember 10 years ago, Afghanistan people could shoot a woman in the head for not following the rules.

Wasn't an Asian housekeeper put to death in Saudi Arabia for practicing witch-craft?

A naturalist should not interfere with the natural evolution of another area, yet, we do.

I'm not sure why you believe a "naturalist" (I assume you mean someone who believes morality does not come from gods) should never interfere with morality in other areas. Sure, there is some cultural relativism, but we're all a part of a world society too. We have things like the Geneva Conventions for that reason. Sometimes intervention is considered necessary (many would argue the Holocaust is such an example, though it's extremely debatable how much the Holocaust was actually a factor in the world war), but intervention carries a steep cost and often causes more misery. So it's always a very complicated issue.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

The use of the term Secular Morality set me off. It seems to be a well discussed subject but never defined.

The "secular" is redundant. There's morality and there's non-morality. What's "religious morality"? Rules you follow because you think something told you to?

 

[Further]

Mar Azul and Mags, I laid out clearly where I believe morality comes from, I didn't dodge nor did I sling mud at religion. In my first post I stated exactly my thoughts without filter. Stop acting like everyone is obfuscating their thoughts on "secular morality".

 

[MarAzul]

The "secular" is redundant. There's morality and there's non-morality. What's "religious morality"? Rules you follow because you think something told you to?

I didn't use either term. I simply repeated one that I found to be undefined that someone else used.

 

[RR7]

Back then, that was called "marriage."

Lol

 

[crandc]

Why not take 10 seconds on google and go to the source?

Secular humanist manifesto

humanist manifesto

 

[GoldStandard]

humanist manifesto

Is foolhardy...

IV. The Benefits of Technology

Humanists have consistently defended the beneficent values of scientific technology for human welfare. Philosophers from Francis Bacon to John Dewey have emphasized the increased power over nature that scientific knowledge affords and how it can contribute immeasurably to human advancement and happiness.

[video=youtube;SUMC6ZsyylY]

VIII. A New Global Agenda

Many of the high ideals that emerged following the Second World War, and that found expression in such instruments as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, have waned through the world. If we are to influence the future of humankind, we will need to work increasingly with and through the new centers of power and influence to improve equity and stability, alleviate poverty, reduce conflict, and safeguard the environment.

[video=youtube;3JC8yY0SaBM]

Wake Up.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

i think it has a lot to do with how the reptilian draconian overlords have subverted our brains instinctual programming with speech triggers and consumerism

 

[crowTrobot]

I asked Crowfoot for a link to the Secular Morality code yesterday after he used the phrase in one of his posts.

There is no secular code. I used the phrase "secular morality" in context referring to the fact that religious people (most of the time) in actuality base their view of right and wrong on judgment/feelings that are derived independently from texts of their particular religion. In other words they parse their religious texts using a separate, secularly derived standard. That standard is typically based on a combination of social norms and their own personal common sense.

 

[crowTrobot]

If you're really interested in a scientific view on morality, try taking a look at The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris, neuroscientist and philosopher.

Good book. Unfortunately SH got in a lot of trouble with philosophers when he tried to paint his views on morality (evolutionary fitness landscape, prioritizing well-being of sentient creatures) as potentially scientifically objective. Trying to turn morality into a science is always going to have a ton of philosophical baggage.

 

[crowTrobot]

One departure point is that the irreligious (who think about these things) would likely argue that there's no such thing as "objective morality"...objective good and evil.

A surprising amount of secular philosophers are in fact moral realists. They believe moral axioms do objectively exist in the same "platonic realm" sense as many feel axioms of logic and numbers do.

I personally think the notion is too anthropocentric to be meaningful, but there are some really smart atheists that buy into it.

 

[magnifier661]

There is no secular code. I used the phrase "secular morality" in context referring to the fact that religious people (most of the time) in actuality base their view of right and wrong on judgment/feelings that are derived independently from texts of their particular religion. In other words they parse their religious texts using a separate, secularly derived standard. That standard is typically based on a combination of social norms and their own personal common sense.

Fortunately I don't believe I need a book to tell me what's right or wrong either. I believe once you are tapped in, you are now just a part if God as God himself.

And to add for good measure, I do extreme amounts of mind altering drugs to let me visualize what I feel. Smell colors, taste sounds, live dreams.

 

[Further]

Fortunately I don't believe I need a book to tell me what's right or wrong either. I believe once you are tapped in, you are now just a part if God as God himself.

And to add for good measure, I do extreme amounts of mind altering drugs to let me visualize what I feel. Smell colors, taste sounds, live dreams.

I have never wondered what the right or wrong thing to do is. I don't always do the right thing, but I usually do. But who decides what is right? It's not God for me, it's not tapping into some existential force. It's also not Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins. It's innate, within me. In the 5-7th grades I got into many fist fights. In the 8th grade I made a decision to stop fighting. I haven't thrown a punch since. The point being, we have the power within ourselves to realize what is bad (fighting for me) and then weave that thought into our makeup. It was introspection and personal disappointment that helped me construct my new non-fighting paradigm.

 

[MadeFromDust]

I have never wondered what the right or wrong thing to do is. I don't always do the right thing, but I usually do. But who decides what is right? It's not God for me, it's not tapping into some existential force. It's also not Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins. It's innate, within me. In the 5-7th grades I got into many fist fights. In the 8th grade I made a decision to stop fighting. I haven't thrown a punch since. The point being, we have the power within ourselves to realize what is bad (fighting for me) and then weave that thought into our makeup. It was introspection and personal disappointment that helped me construct my new non-fighting paradigm.

So if Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's decide to wipe out 6 million Jews, and it's innate within them that this is the right and good thing to do, does it make it right? Is almost a million babies being murdered so far this year in the US right or wrong? Or does it just boil down to your opinion versus someone else's? There are literally millions of examples of this, some even more horrifying. This sort of justification is disturbing, making people the standard for morality.

 

[Further]

All I know is for myself. I am not hitler. I have killed everyone I have ever wanted to kill.

You have many cases of religious people also using their religion as a reason why they kill. Millions have been killed by both secular and religious, so neither system can be touted as some moral high ground. I suppose, as I stated earlier in this thread, my innate knowing of right vs wrong is based on a combination of nature and nurture, with nurture being the more important. My parents, family, friends, school, teachers, and society at large have all influenced who I have become. So have my genes. I know what's right because I just know, I don't need to reason why sticking a fork in someone's eye is wrong, to me it just is wrong. No code, no manifesto. But I am not born in a test tube and raised without influence. But that influence, be it from a religious person or a secular one helped form me. Helped make right and wrong an unconscious part of me.


This is not some philosophy I'm spouting, just my thoughts on my personal morality (and I'm an atheist) .

 

[MadeFromDust]

All I know is for myself. I am not hitler. I have killed everyone I have ever wanted to kill.

You have many cases of religious people also using their religion as a reason why they kill. Millions have been killed by both secular and religious, so neither system can be touted as some moral high ground. I suppose, as I stated earlier in this thread, my innate knowing of right vs wrong is based on a combination of nature and nurture, with nurture being the more important. My parents, family, friends, school, teachers, and society at large have all influenced who I have become. So have my genes. I know what's right because I just know, I don't need to reason why sticking a fork in someone's eye is wrong, to me it just is wrong. No code, no manifesto. But I am not born in a test tube and raised without influence. But that influence, be it from a religious person or a secular one helped form me. Helped make right and wrong an unconscious part of me.


This is not some philosophy I'm spouting, just my thoughts on my personal morality (and I'm an atheist) .

So you're saying you were fortunate enough to be raised 'right' (whatever that would be anyway)? So if someone was raised differently than you in a society where they had to steal and kill in order to survive, is that good or bad? Or even just different values, like say it's okay to steal as long as you don't get caught, is that wrong? Who decides? If a serial killer was born with the 'wrong' genes and had an impulse to kill people based purely on their genetics, are they to blame or be pitied? There are literally millions of examples one can make. And regardless of religious motives or not, if people decide to murder it's because of a fallen, sinful nature causing these things in my eyes. If you are a Christian and doing those things then you are not actually a Christian, since what you are doing is in direct contradiction with what Christ taught and commanded you to do.

 

[magnifier661]

All I know is for myself. I am not hitler. I have killed everyone I have ever wanted to kill.

You have many cases of religious people also using their religion as a reason why they kill. Millions have been killed by both secular and religious, so neither system can be touted as some moral high ground. I suppose, as I stated earlier in this thread, my innate knowing of right vs wrong is based on a combination of nature and nurture, with nurture being the more important. My parents, family, friends, school, teachers, and society at large have all influenced who I have become. So have my genes. I know what's right because I just know, I don't need to reason why sticking a fork in someone's eye is wrong, to me it just is wrong. No code, no manifesto. But I am not born in a test tube and raised without influence. But that influence, be it from a religious person or a secular one helped form me. Helped make right and wrong an unconscious part of me.


This is not some philosophy I'm spouting, just my thoughts on my personal morality (and I'm an atheist) .

Yes you aren't hitler and there have been obvious abuse from all sides of the spectrum.

But then again, what determines if what hitler did was immoral? Do you think he thought it was wrong? Or maybe a sociopath killing victims, using justifications within himself? I'm sure he thinks he feels that's justifiable as well.

So in the end, I believe we do have that footprint embedded inside us. Ones either choose to listen or ignore. I believe it's God and you believe it's DNA.

We all are puppets (to naturalism or theism), so choose which strings you wish to control you. Atheism is not freedom like so many claim. In fact, it's even more control because you give that power to those men or woman with more power and wealth than you.

If you want true freedom, be an anarchist!

 

[Denny Crane]

 

[crowTrobot]

So if Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's decide to wipe out 6 million Jews, and it's innate within them that this is the right and good thing to do, does it make it right?

Innate behavior doesn't make anything objectively right OR wrong. The functionality of the golden rule combined with the fact that most humans value their own lives undeniably makes genocide functionally wrong from a utilitarian standpoint. Utilitarianism is ultimately subjective, however.

There are literally millions of examples of this, some even more horrifying. This sort of justification is disturbing

you're just referencing your feelings here. how anyone feels has no relevance to the subject of objective morality.

 

[Further]

Society norms. We live in societies with norms and laws, and those are designed to help steer people towards what societies deem right. There have been many societies where what was considered the most praiseworthy thing one could do was sacrifice oneself. In most of those (all I can think of off hand) it was a religious act. But it is not some universal truth that says that sacrifice is wrong, it is the culture, the times, the society that dictates what is or is not acceptable. Or killing others under gods name. Spanish Inquisition anyone?

Is killing wrong? In our society it is under most circumstances. But at other times, with different societal norms and laws, perhaps killing wasn't wrong. To me, under my parents tutelage, killing is totally wrong. But times change and morals adjust. Look in the Old Testament as to what was accepted, even encouraged from murder to slavery, but times changed, and so did morality.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Innate behavior doesn't make anything objectively right OR wrong. The functionality of the golden rule combined with the fact that most humans value their own lives undeniably makes genocide functionally wrong from a utilitarian standpoint. Utilitarianism is ultimately subjective, however.

Well obviously millions think the golden rule is BS and don't abide by it at all. Maybe you should talk to them and not me since I actually agree with you here and the faith I follow makes it central (Matthew 7). I just fail to see where your foundations are when you bring it up. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pot, etc. obviously didn't follow it. Not saying you are them but many atheists have used naturalism and evolutionary thought as an excuse to wipe people out. They are seen as excess protoplasm and inferior, nothing more.

you're just referencing your feelings here. how anyone feels has no relevance to the subject of objective morality.

I'm actually not because I know where my morality comes from. By even bringing this up you are only strengthening my point.