Secular Morality?

[Truthseeker]

At the most basic level testing the level of consciousness of a given individual would include observing muscle reflexes and whether or not the individual is aware of their surroundings. Fairly obvious stuff I would have thought!

After I attempt to swat a house fly in front of you several times, would you conclude that the fly showed more awareness of its surroundings than I did? So, the fly is just as conscious as I think I am.

[Tassman]

After I attempt to swat a house fly in front of you several times, would you conclude that the fly showed more awareness of its surroundings than I did? So, the fly is just as conscious as I think I am.

do have self awareness apart from humans, e.g. elephants, certain types of dolphins and whales and of course several of the non-human primates such as Bonobos and Gorillas.

[seer]

You said that, as a Christian, you were not limited to a materialistic view of the human person. However the only alternative is a non-material view – do you have substantive evidence of such a non-material universe? If not then you don’t have an argument.

The question is not being begged. ALL the considerable available evidence points to “the human person”, and every other life form, as being an intrinsic part of the material universe. This includes measurable, existing conscious states of us and many other species. One does not need to “take it by faith”; it’s the only viable option and subject to testing.

Hypocritical Tass, you can not even begin to process or understand evidence until you assume that you are a conscious being. And that assumption is taken by faith, you can not make a case for your own self-awareness unless you beg the question or argue in a circle. And I didn't say that the universe was non-material, I said, or implied, that we know way to little to assume that it is. So no, I am not restricted to your narrow view.

Neither. I’m using the massive accumulation of evidence which renders ‘evolution’ beyond doubt. The only people who oppose it are those with a religious agenda based upon ancient creation myths.

No Tass, you said "vast majority of scientists worldwide..." That is an argumentum ad populum, or argument from authority. But back to the original point - on this subject HOW DO YOU KNOW that the evolutionary process programmed you to correctly understand?

[Jichard]

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.

I'm confused on your definition of "secular morality" here, since it doesn't seem to be uses in a standard way. As far as I know, "secular morality" just means something like "a morality that remains non-committal on the existence or non-existence of a deity". In that sense, it's akin to a secular government, where the government (as a body) takes no position on God's existence or non-existence.

In this sense, there are many forms of secular morality, just as there are many secular forms of science. For example: various forms of utilitarianism (ex: act utilitarianism, welfare utilitarianism), virtue ethics (ex: neo-Aristotlean, Aristotlean), and deonntology (ex: Kantian).

Now, you could take the additional steps of saying that "[n]one of these system[s] are objectively better or more correct, or more insightful as a source for ethics than religion." But you've provided no support for that claim, and you'd also be wrong. Each of these systems make truth-apt moral claims, and can therefor be evaluated based on whether their claims are true or false. Similarly, there are objectivist versions of these systems (or, more precisely: systems compatible with moral objectivism), such that these systems make objectively true or objectively false moral claims. So that deals with your "objectively better" claim, whatever that means.

[shunyadragon]

After I attempt to swat a house fly in front of you several times, would you conclude that the fly showed more awareness of its surroundings than I did? So, the fly is just as conscious as I think I am.

If your survival was dependent on eating flies you would die without leaving off spring, the fly would be more evolved at skills of evasion, and evolution would resolve the problem.

[shunyadragon]

I'm sorry I didn't write clearly. Yes, evidence. Yes, abundant evidence. What evidence there is to support the negative seems rather lacking. Yes, the inference is clear that there is progression from simplicity to complexity, except that we still do have virii or bacterium. These organisms may constitute by mass a huge part of life. By numbers, nearly all of it, IIRC. What I was asking for is a fundamental theory that explains the inference. Why is there this progression or why there must be this progression?

The science of evolution does not determine why there 'must be' a progression (evolution and change in species?)in some cases, and in some cases there 'must not be' a progression, because nothing 'must be' in the science of evolution. The science of evolution is an opportunistic process for the survival of genes. It does explain the progression of the evolution of species with concepts like changes in the environment, available environmental niches for species to diversify into, and competition when mutations in one group that give an advantage to that groups over other(s). Relationships with stable environments and other species provide situations where species can remain unchanged for billions of years.

[seer]

I'm confused on your definition of "secular morality" here, since it doesn't seem to be uses in a standard way. As far as I know, "secular morality" just means something like "a morality that remains non-committal on the existence or non-existence of a deity". In that sense, it's akin to a secular government, where the government (as a body) takes no position on God's existence or non-existence.

In this sense, there are many forms of secular morality, just as there are many secular forms of science. For example: various forms of utilitarianism (ex: act utilitarianism, welfare utilitarianism), virtue ethics (ex: neo-Aristotlean, Aristotlean), and deonntology (ex: Kantian).

Now, you could take the additional steps of saying that "[n]one of these system[s] are objectively better or more correct, or more insightful as a source for ethics than religion." But you've provided no support for that claim, and you'd also be wrong. Each of these systems make truth-apt moral claims, and can therefor be evaluated based on whether their claims are true or false. Similarly, there are objectivist versions of these systems (or, more precisely: systems compatible with moral objectivism), such that these systems make objectively true or objectively false moral claims. So that deals with your "objectively better" claim, whatever that means.

We will discuss this in the other thread.

[Truthseeker]

That’s not a reasonable conclusion to arrive at. Houseflies have no self-awareness but they do have hard-wired instincts for survival, as is the case with all life forms. Conversely there are several species that do have self awareness apart from humans, e.g. elephants, certain types of dolphins and whales and of course several of the non-human primates such as Bonobos and Gorillas.

More ipse dixit stuff. Please no more posting ipse dixit stuff--make citations of the scientific literature concerning measurements of consciousness in, e.g., "elephants, certain types of dolphins and whales and of course several of the non-human primates such as Bonobos and Gorillas."

ETA: I have vague memories of experiments that involved mirrors. A creature would show signs of recognizing itself as an image in the mirror.

[Jichard]

We will discuss this in the other thread.

Not sure why we'd need to, since I make different points on that thread than I do here.

[Jichard]

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

Actually it has a number of advantages. For example:

Not having to square God's existence with moral evil (problem of evil).

Not having to square God's existence with morally problematic suffering (problem of suffering).

Not having to deal with the problems of skeptical theism (such as skeptical theism leading to moral skepticism).

Not having to square God's existence with morally wrong, biblical genocide.

Having a position that fits with the existence of ordinary moral obligations.

[Tassman]

Hypocritical Tass, you can not even begin to process or understand evidence until you assume that you are a conscious being. And that assumption is taken by faith, you can not make a case for your own self-awareness unless you beg the question or argue in a circle.

And I didn't say that the universe was non-material, I said, or implied, that we know way to little to assume that it is. So no, I am not restricted to your narrow view.

We have no credible evidence to think the universe might be anything other than natural. Any conjecture to the contrary without supporting evidence is fantasy.

No Tass, you said "vast majority of scientists worldwide..." That is an argumentum ad populum, or argument from authority.

But back to the original point - on this subject HOW DO YOU KNOW that the evolutionary process programmed you to correctly understand?

More ipse dixit stuff. Please no more posting ipse dixit stuff--make citations of the scientific literature concerning measurements of consciousness in, e.g., "elephants, certain types of dolphins and whales and of course several of the non-human primates such as Bonobos and Gorillas."

ETA: I have vague memories of experiments that involved mirrors. A creature would show signs of recognizing itself as an image in the mirror.

Please make you question more specific. BTW "ipse dixit" seem to be your words of the week.

[Truthseeker]

Evolution doesn’t program us to understand any specific factual knowledge.

Have you anything to say about one's failure to recognize a lion running towards him?

[Truthseeker]

Please make you question more specific.

If that was a dodge, bravo, well executed

[Tassman]

Have you anything to say about one's failure to recognize a lion running towards him?

A man wouldn't normally fail "to recognize a lion, running towards him" and the evolved autonomic nervous system would generate an instant fight-or-flight response. This is an instinctive reaction to possible danger, not a matter of specific factual knowledge.

[Truthseeker]

A man wouldn't normally fail "to recognize a lion, running towards him" and the evolved autonomic nervous system would generate an instant fight-or-flight response. This is an instinctive reaction to possible danger, not a matter of specific factual knowledge.

Oh, wait. Maybe first you should explain what you mean by "program" in your post: "Evolution doesn’t program us to understand any specific factual knowledge." We can learn facts, can we?