Secular Morality?

[seer]

Much has been made on this thread about gleaning moral principles from religion(s) and the difficulty therein. But I don't see how secular morality, in anyway, is a step up. Secular morality by definition does not tell us what is actually right or wrong, only that we leave religion behind as a source for ethics. Over the years, especially in the last century or so, there have been many forms of secular morality. What we find in the Western European countries, or to a lesser degree what we find here in the States. Or the secular morality we find in North Korea, China or the former Soviet Union. None of these system are objectively better or more correct, or more insightful as a source for ethics than religion.

[Enjolras]

Much has been made on this thread about gleaning moral principles from religion(s) and the difficulty therein. But I don't see how secular morality, in anyway, is a step up. Secular morality by definition does not tell us what is actually right or wrong, only that we leave religion behind as a source for ethics. Over the years, especially in the last century or so, there have been many forms of secular morality. What we find in the Western European countries, or to a lesser degree what we find here in the States. Or the secular morality we find in North Korea, China or the former Soviet Union. None of these system are objectively better or more correct, or more insightful as a source for ethics than religion.

Leaving gods out of moral decision-making (even if they exist) offers at least a couple of huge advantages:

1. We don't have to decide which god is the 'true' god, if any.
2. We don't have to decide what the will of these gods is.

Of course, if you just replace a celestial dictator with a human dictator like Stalin or Kim Jong-Un, you're right back where you started.

[seer]

Leaving gods out of moral decision-making (even if they exist) offers at least a couple of huge advantages:

1. We don't have to decide which god is the 'true' god, if any.
2. We don't have to decide what the will of these gods is.

Of course, if you just replace a celestial dictator with a human dictator like Stalin or Kim Jong-Un, you're right back where you started.

There is zero advantage. How do you decide which form of secular morality is correct?

[shunyadragon]

Much has been made on this thread about gleaning moral principles from religion(s) and the difficulty therein. But I don't see how secular morality, in anyway, is a step up. Secular morality by definition does not tell us what is actually right or wrong, only that we leave religion behind as a source for ethics. Over the years, especially in the last century or so, there have been many forms of secular morality. What we find in the Western European countries, or to a lesser degree what we find here in the States. Or the secular morality we find in North Korea, China or the former Soviet Union. None of these system are objectively better or more correct, or more insightful as a source for ethics than religion.

Long term disagreement seer. By definition morality is a human social construct that evolved with time with religious and secular attributes. There is no specific moral and ethical standard that can be defined as religious. All cultures have evolved moralities in the East and the West. From the religious perspective we have Divine Law. Moral systems of different cultures often reflect Divine Law of the religion at the foundation of the culture, but morality remains a secular social construct. Even in Christian cultures the secular morality evolved over time just as all secular/religious moralities of the world. The differentiation on what would call religious morals and secular morals cannot be clearly separated as distinctly different.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good or right and those that are bad, evil or wrong.[citation needed] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[1] Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness."

Moral philosophy includes moral ontology, or the origin of morals, as well as moral epistemology, or what is known about morals. Different systems of expressing morality have been proposed, including deontological ethical systems which adhere to a set of established rules, and normative ethical systems which consider the merits of actions themselves. An example of normative ethical philosophy is the Golden Rule which states that, "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."[2]

Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.

© Copyright Original Source

[Enjolras]

There is zero advantage. How do you decide which form of secular morality is correct?

We've been through all this before, so I'm not sure why you keep asking the same questions.

You decide moral behavior based upon whether it will help people or cause them to suffer.

[Quantum Weirdness]

We've been through all this before, so I'm not sure why you keep asking the same questions.

You decide moral behavior based upon whether it will help people or cause them to suffer.

Why not just base moral behavior on what is good for yourself?

[seer]

You decide moral behavior based upon whether it will help people or cause them to suffer.

Who decides? See Enjolras, that is the problem with "secular morality." There is no such definition, no such objective ethical goal. You may prefer behaviors that help others, someone else may not. Again my point in this thread is to show is that appealing "secular morality" over and above religiously based ethics get us no where.

[Enjolras]

Why not just base moral behavior on what is good for yourself?

Much of the time, being kind to others IS good for you.

[seer]

Much of the time, being kind to others IS good for you.

Yes, like what IS is doing? The Hutus? The Communists?

[Enjolras]

Who decides? See Enjolras, that is the problem with "secular morality." There is no such definition, no such objective ethical goal. You may prefer behaviors that help others, someone else may not. Again my point in this thread is to show is that appealing "secular morality" over and above religiously based ethics get us no where.

People decide, just as people in religious systems decide who God is and what he wants. But in a secular system you avoid the middleman.

[seer]

People decide, just as people in religious systems decide who God is and what he wants. But in a secular system you avoid the middleman.

But losing the middleman is meaningless when deciding what it right or wrong.

[Truthseeker]

People decide, just as people in religious systems decide who God is and what he wants. But in a secular system you avoid the middleman.

"Middleman" . . .. You mean, like Jesus Christ?

[Enjolras]

"Middleman" . . .. You mean, like Jesus Christ?

Any god, really.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Much of the time, being kind to others IS good for you.

True. Now what happens when it isn't? For example, when a person made money from chattel slavery. Many of the families that had owned slaves in the late 18th and early 19th century got rich from this venture.

[Enjolras]

True. Now what happens when it isn't? For example, when a person made money from chattel slavery. Many of the families that had owned slaves in the late 18th and early 19th century got rich from this venture.

What happens when isn't is that sometimes people do terrible things. One might note that much of the justification for slavery came from Christians and the Bible.