Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Secular Morality?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Enjolras View Post
    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.
    Ok, so what makes it wrong now?
    -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
    Sir James Jeans

    -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
    Sir Isaac Newton

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
      Ok, so what makes it wrong now?
      It's wrong because it harms those who are being enslaved.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Secular morality by definition does not tell us what is actually right or wrong
        It doesn't take a God or a holy book to be able to point to an action and say that it was a "loving" and "kind" action, or point to another one and say it was a "harmful" action done out of "malice". And the secular world has found that's all that's needed. You simply describe the motivations of the person acting with respect to another person, and ask "are they positive motivations or are they negative ones?". That is what morality / ethics is about - the positive or negative nature of interpersonal interactions. So if an action is kind, loving, benevolent, compassionate, merciful or generally concerned with the good of others, then we call that "good", and if an action if harmful, malevolent, spiteful or generally seeking to harm others, then we call that "evil".

        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.
        Well secular morality is a lot simpler: To the extent an action is motivated by love and brings benefit to people, it is "right" / "good" / "moral", and to the extent to which it is motivated by hate and brings harm to people, it is "wrong" / "evil" / "immoral". No deciphering of ancient religious texts is needed.

        Sometimes religious people get a little confused by moral terminology and what the terms mean, so I often find it simply to use purely descriptive words such as "loving" / "hating" or "benevolent" / "malevolent" or "beneficial" / "harmful" because such terminology is less ambiguous than normative terms like "right" and "wrong". If you describe an act as "kind and loving" people immediately understand what you mean, and understand how you can have reached that conclusion without reference to God or to a holy book, whereas if you describe the same actions as "right" or "good" and mean "kind and loving" by those words, religious people sometimes get confused because they associate moral terminology with God or the Bible, rather than with positive/negative interpersonal interactions (which is what I consider ethics/morality to be about).

        As Enjolras put it earlier in the thread, whether a interpersonal interaction is positive or negative in nature can be measured by "whether it will help people or cause them to suffer." You can phrase it in many and various ways, but at the end of the day what people are primarily thinking about when they talk about "ethics" and "morality" are interpersonal interactions and judging whether such actions are positive or negative. But as soon as you admit that's what morality is about, you've immediately got a yard-stick to measure it by, because we are all quite capable of determining (in general) whether an action is positive or negative - whether it helps or harms, whether it is kind and loving or malevolent and spiteful, whether it is compassionate or harmful. Whatever way you want to phrase it, the question always comes back to whether it is a positive interpersonal interaction or a negative one, and that is what morality is about, and God seems totally irrelevant to the issue.
        Last edited by Starlight; 02-18-2015, 06:41 AM.
        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Enjolras View Post
          It's wrong because it harms those who are being enslaved.
          Right, but why is it wrong to harm someone for your benefit? That may be a personal or cultural preference, but those preferences are no more correct or valid than their opposites.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            Well secular morality is a lot simpler: To the extent an action is motivated by love and brings benefit to people, it is "right" / "good" / "moral", and to the extent to which it is motivated by hate and brings harm to people, it is "wrong" / "evil" / "immoral". No deciphering of ancient religious texts is needed.
            No Starlight, this is nonsense. Secular morality does not say any such thing. North Korea practices secular morality, so did the former Soviet Union, China and Cuba of today. So by definition secular morality never tells us what is actually right or wrong - only that it is not based in religion.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Right, but why is it wrong to harm someone for your benefit? That may be a personal or cultural preference, but those preferences are no more correct or valid than their opposites.
              If you don't think harming others for your own personal gain is wrong, there's probably not much else that can be said. We have reached moral bedrock, as it were: it just is good to be kind and is bad to be malicious.

              Why is it wrong to harm someone for your benefit under theism? Because God says so? Well, God has a pretty sketchy moral record at best, so his opinion doesn't carry much weight for some of us.
              Last edited by Enjolras; 02-18-2015, 08:09 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Enjolras View Post
                If you don't think harming others for your own personal gain is wrong, there's probably not much else that can be said. We have reached moral bedrock, as it were: it just is good to be kind and is bad to be malicious.
                But there is no moral bedrock Enjolras in a godless universe, nor can there be, there is only preference. And no moral preference is more correct than its opposite. You like lobster, I like steak.

                Why is it wrong to harm someone for your benefit under theism? Because God says so? Well, God has a pretty sketchy moral record at best, so his opinion doesn't carry much weight for some of us.
                Well Christ gave His life for our benefit, and not for His own. That should give you a clue about the character of God.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  But there is no moral bedrock Enjolras in a godless universe, nor can there be, there is only preference. And no moral preference is more correct than its opposite. You like lobster, I like steak.
                  You like God's ways. I don't. Your preference is no more correct than mine. This is what you fail to see, seer: you have the same problem, just one step removed.


                  Well Christ gave His life for our benefit, and not for His own. That should give you a clue about the character of God.
                  Christ also believed in a god who commanded genocide and slavery.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Enjolras View Post
                    If you don't think harming others for your own personal gain is wrong, there's probably not much else that can be said. We have reached moral bedrock, as it were: it just is good to be kind and is bad to be malicious.

                    Why is it wrong to harm someone for your benefit under theism? Because God says so? Well, God has a pretty sketchy moral record at best, so his opinion doesn't carry much weight for some of us.
                    Under Christianity, God has created humanity with a purpose. It is to worship and be with him. Goodness is defined as being part of his nature, and so we must be good to enter the kingdom. Otherwise, we would not be fulfilling our purpose/duty. Therefore, we ought to be good or we will simply get shut out of his presence in a state of shame. Thus, there are oughts (right) and ought nots (wrong).


                    Ok, let's work with the definition of good as being helpful and kind to others. Why ought I be good?
                    -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
                    Sir James Jeans

                    -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
                    Sir Isaac Newton

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Enjolras View Post
                      You like God's ways. I don't. Your preference is no more correct than mine. This is what you fail to see, seer: you have the same problem, just one step removed.
                      Unless of course God actually exists, then it is a completely different ball game. In scope, seriousness and consequence.


                      Christ also believed in a god who commanded genocide and slavery.
                      Yes, slavery was a common institution that God allowed, and yes God does have the right to remove recalcitrant sinners from earth. And that is exactly what hell is - the removal of unrepentant sinner from civil society. And that too is a moral good, for our (believers) benefit.
                      Last edited by seer; 02-18-2015, 09:40 AM.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                        Under Christianity, God has created humanity with a purpose. It is to worship and be with him. Goodness is defined as being part of his nature, and so we must be good to enter the kingdom. Otherwise, we would not be fulfilling our purpose/duty. Therefore, we ought to be good or we will simply get shut out of his presence in a state of shame. Thus, there are oughts (right) and ought nots (wrong).


                        Ok, let's work with the definition of good as being helpful and kind to others. Why ought I be good?
                        Why should you be good? You should be good for it's own sake, and because you'd like to live in a society where others are kind to you.

                        Is the only reason you are good because you think God is watching you? Would you immediately resort to murder the moment you thought there was no God?

                        Imagine you go out to a nice restaurant and notice 2 other tables. At one, the father excuses himself go to to the restroom. He warns the kids to behave while he's gone or he will beat the daylights out of them when he returns. At the other table, the father excuses himself as well, but instead of threatening punishment he tells the children to be considerate of others in the same way they would like to be treated themselves. Both sets of children obey.

                        Let me ask, which of these sets of children has a deeper, better understanding of morality?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Enjolras View Post
                          Is the only reason you are good because you think God is watching you? Would you immediately resort to murder the moment you thought there was no God?
                          Well the idea of God and a future reckoning can be a powerful motivator. Just as human law, and the possibility of going to prison, can be a powerful motivator. But in the bigger picture the theist would say that our best moral instincts are tied to something more than mere biology, not simply the result of a biological accident of nature. That we live, finally, in a just universe - a Mother Teresa and a Mao do not come to the same ultimate end, as they do in your world. The Hutus did not just slaughter 800,000 random accidents of nature, but human beings, of inherent worth, created in the image of God.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            North Korea practices secular morality, so did the former Soviet Union, China and Cuba of today.
                            What would make you trust anything they said about morality given you couldn't trust anything much they said on any other topic? Even if you could convince me that they know what morality is, why would anyone think they actually practice it? Looking to crazy countries to define secular morality for you, and taking it for granted their behaviour is moral, is like looking to ISIS to define religious morality for you. You'd be much better to try asking people from the increasingly secularized West. Oh wait, you did, and they unanimously agreed on the answer.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Right, but why is it wrong to harm someone for your benefit? That may be a personal or cultural preference, but those preferences are no more correct or valid than their opposites.
                            We've reached the point of the definition of words: Harming someone else is simply what people use the word "wrong" to mean. Now I guess you could ask what motivates society to define words in certain ways, but that's a complicated sociological / historical / linguistic discussion - why does any given word mean anything? The more interesting questions are:
                            * Why is anybody interested in assessing whether interpersonal interactions are positive or negative in nature?
                            * What motivations are there for people to perform positive rather than negative interactions with others?

                            I grant you that the answer to both of those questions is cultural. It's entirely possible to set up cultures that are so strict and rigid in their behavioral codes and so strict in their enforcement of their rules that it gets everyone into the habit of blindly following whatever the rules are. In such cultures where there is no freedom of choice, there may be little to no interest among the general population of even asking themselves whether any given action has positive or negative effects on others, precisely because they do not have a choice and so the question of whether it's a "better" or a "worse" choice than some other choice is nonsensical. The penalties for straying from their society's behavioral codes may be so serious that no one is motivated to stray from the set path in order to treat others better.

                            Such strict behavioral regulations are most common in societies that follow religious laws (eg Shariah law, levitical law etc), but we've seen it also in some of the extreme communist countries you've mentioned. However, in the modern West, where people have both freedom of choice and their decisions not dictated by religion, we've seen a resurgence of interest in the question of "given I can choose how to act, what factors ought I to consider in my choice?" People have had to think about what motivations are relevant to their actions precisely because they have a choice. A general consensus has formed that a really really important consideration is whether interpersonal interactions are positive or negative in nature. Non-religious society as a whole has adopted moral terms such as "good", "evil", "right" and "wrong" to refer to the positive/negative nature of interpersonal interactions because that is what we have come to view as central in assessing whether a free choice that affects others is "good" or "bad". It's easy to see how people slipped into using this terminology because thinking of an actions as "good for others" or "bad for others" is easily shortened to saying the action is "good" or "bad".

                            If, to you Seer, "morality" simply means "the behavioral code of any given society" then of course you can get almost any behavioral code you like in any extremely-strict non-free society. However that's not a very meaningful observation: If you take away people's freedoms and force them to act in certain ways, then they do. That's sad for the people involved, but it doesn't tell us much about how humans behave when they are free to choose and what kinds of things they value when they are free.
                            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              But in the bigger picture the theist would say that our best moral instincts are tied to something more than mere biology, not simply the result of a biological accident of nature.
                              Well the atheist would say that our moral instincts have evolved to help us live in groups. Our biology is thus a product or our social interconnectedness (first as animals and then as humans). Our biology is therefore no accident: Groups comprised of individuals who cared about one another survived much better than individuals alone or than groups that squabbled too much.
                              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Enjolras View Post
                                It's wrong because it harms those who are being enslaved.
                                one man's "slavery" is another man's "job-creating"
                                ...viva la revolucion!"
                                To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X