Secular Morality?

[Tassman]

Tass, you do realize that Jensens link was in response to the de Waal claim, and why it is not analogous to human behavior?

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/20/E1838.full

Are you daft Tass, I mean you do realize that Tomasello, Call, Jensen etc... are evolutionists - correct?

Of course, virtually all scientists worldwide take Evolution as a given. This is a disagreement about interpreting results of experiments, not evolutionary theory.

When apes invent primitive writing or art come talk to me...

Apes have invented primitive writing and art, i.e. the human ape.

Elephants are painting pictures that are marketed by institutions like National Elephant Institute (not a reco).

That's true. My vet has a beautiful painting of palm-fronds done by an elephant hanging in his waiting room.

[seer]

Apes have invented primitive writing and art, i.e. the human ape.

You are begging the question.

[Tassman]

You are begging the question.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/education...uman-evolution

[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.

Any substantive response, seer?

[Jichard]

Except without God there no fundamental moral truth, just moral opinion - subjective and relative.

That's a rather unhelpful statement.

First, atheism is compatible with moral objectivism, and you've never shown otherwise. You've never shown that God's non-existence would entail moral relativism or moral subjectivism

Second, God's existence is compatible with moral subjectivism being true, as discussed on another thread. Just because your appeal to God doesn't mean you've escaped subjectivism.

Third, your point about "moral opinion" leads nowhere, especially since your deity has moral opinions. After all, an opinion is a belief; that is: thinking a claim is true (ex: I am of the opinion that the Earth is flat; in my medical opinion, you have cancer). So a moral opinion would just be a moral belief. And since knowledge is a type of belief ("X knows that Y" entails that "X has a true belief that Y"), that would mean that to have moral knowledge, one must have moral beliefs and thus have moral opinions. So unless you're denying that God has moral knowledge, then you're committed to God having moral opinions. And if it's not problem for God to have moral opinions, then why are you objecting to humans having them? You certainly haven't shown that humans having moral opinions necessarily makes those opinions subjective or relative.

Fourth, your statement about "moral truth" leads nowhere. There's no incompatibility between their being moral truths and their being moral opinions. For example, one could have true moral opinions, just as one could have true scientific opinions.

[seer]

First, atheism is compatible with moral objectivism, and you've never shown otherwise. You've never shown that God's non-existence would entail moral relativism or moral subjectivism

Ok, please demonstrate this.

[JimL]

Ok, please demonstrate this.

I think it has been demonstrated many times seer. The truth is that morals are not existing things like physical objects, so they are not objective in that way. Morals are objective according to reason, and only by reason can their objective truth be discovered. That doesn't mean that all will agree, which is where your notion of subjective moralism comes from, but some will reason properly to the correct moral conclusion, the objective moral truth, and some will get it wrong through faulty or lack of good reasoning. Even if the moral that 'murder is wrong' flowed from God, the moral itself would be based on reason, not just because God says so. If it were just because God says so then it would be arbitrary and meaningless. Therefore reason is all that is necessary to determine right from wrong, and God is not necessary for reason.

[seer]

I think it has been demonstrated many times seer. The truth is that morals are not existing things like physical objects, so they are not objective in that way. Morals are objective according to reason, and only by reason can their objective truth be discovered. That doesn't mean that all will agree, which is where your notion of subjective moralism comes from, but some will reason properly to the correct moral conclusion, the objective moral truth, and some will get it wrong through faulty or lack of good reasoning. Even if the moral that 'murder is wrong' flowed from God, the moral itself would be based on reason, not just because God says so. If it were just because God says so then it would be arbitrary and meaningless. Therefore reason is all that is necessary to determine right from wrong, and God is not necessary for reason.

What do you mean objective according to reason - whose reason? And why does that make them objective?

[Jichard]

I think it has been demonstrated many times seer. The truth is that morals are not existing things like physical objects, so they are not objective in that way. Morals are objective according to reason, and only by reason can their objective truth be discovered. That doesn't mean that all will agree, which is where your notion of subjective moralism comes from, but some will reason properly to the correct moral conclusion, the objective moral truth, and some will get it wrong through faulty or lack of good reasoning. Even if the moral that 'murder is wrong' flowed from God, the moral itself would be based on reason, not just because God says so. If it were just because God says so then it would be arbitrary and meaningless. Therefore reason is all that is necessary to determine right from wrong, and God is not necessary for reason.

I take moral statements to refer to natural aspects of the world, like welfare, character traits, suffering, etc. I do agree that people can reason their way to true moral conclusions, and engage in faulty reasoning that leads them to false moral conclusions.

And it would be nonsensical to claim that something is wrong just because God says so. One actually needs a good reason, not just because some powerful authority figure says so. And as I mentioned elswhere:

Morriston, Wes. "God and the Ontological Foundation of Morality." Religious Studies 48 (2012): 15-34. page 19:

So appealing to God does nothing to get one out of needing good reasons.

[seer]

I take moral statements to refer to natural aspects of the world, like welfare, character traits, suffering, etc. I do agree that people can reason their way to true moral conclusions, and engage in faulty reasoning that leads them to false moral conclusions.

How do you decided whose reasoning is correct or faulty? And say you come to a true moral conclusion like it is always wrong to lie for selfish reasons - what good is that knowledge, will any one really then stop lying for selfish reasons?

That is just silly, since God is the source of said reasons, you may agree with the reasons, but He the originator and the Creator of the universe where these reasons make sense.

[Jichard]

How do you decided whose reasoning is correct or faulty? And say you come to a true moral conclusion like it is always wrong to lie for selfish reasons - what good is that knowledge, will any one really then stop lying for selfish reasons?

Sorry, not interested in playing 20 questions with you (given your track-record), until you show yourself capable of honestly answering questions and addressing rebuttals. You've been given one below to address.

That is just silly, since God is the source of said reasons, you may agree with the reasons, but He the originator and the Creator of the universe where these reasons make sense.

Which does nothing to address the dilemma. There's no third horn, seer. And you're making the same mistake I already addressed on another thread: you confusedly think that just because X causes Y, that means statements about Y actually refer to X. So you confusedly think that statements about the reasons (statements true in virtue of the reasons), must refer to the God just because God made those reasons. This is ridiculous, as I explained, but which you didn't bother addressing:

"I'm willing to grant that, in principle, a deity could cause a state of affairs, such that objective scientific laws were true. But that's not the same as objective scientific laws being true in virtue of God, and so it doesn't undermine the OP's. An example might illustrate the point.

Suppose a bat strikes a ball, causing the ball to move at speed of 50mph. So the statement "the ball is moving at 50mph" is true. But even though the bat caused the ball's movement, and thus helped cause the state of affairs that makes that statement true, the statement is not true in virtue of of the bat. Instead, it's true in virtue of the ball and the ball's properties; in particular: the ball's motion. To see this, note that the statement "the ball is moving at 50mph" could be true even if the ball never existed (for example: if the ball's motion was caused by hand, as opposed to a bat). To put it another way: the ball's properties, not the bat, are what make the statement true and thus serve as the truth-makers for the statement. The state refers to (or is about) the ball and its properties, not the bat.

Now, you can extend the same point to objective scientific laws and God: even if God caused the natural state of affairs in virtue of which objective scientific laws are true, that would not mean those laws are tue in virtue of God. Instead, they are true in virtue of the natural state of affairs. And to see that, note that the laws would still be true if God never existed, as long as the natural state of affairs were so (unless one is some sort of Berkeleyan idealist, who thinks that natural world is just an aspect of God's mind). The laws refer to (or are about) the natural state of affairs and its properties, not God. The natural world serves as the truth-maker, not God."

seer, why do you repeat the same mistakes over and over and... without bothering to address when people point out those mistakes? Is that an honest thing to do?


So please try to honestly address the dilemma this time:

"."

[Jichard]

First, atheism is compatible with moral objectivism, and you've never shown otherwise. You've never shown that God's non-existence would entail moral relativism or moral subjectivism

Ok, please demonstrate this.

Easy. Here's a definition of "moral objectivism":

"Moral objectivism may refer to:

Robust moral realism, the meta-ethical position that ethical sentences express factual propositions about robust or mind-independent features of the world, and that some such propositions are true."

Nothing in there about God existing, nor anything entailing God's existence. So it's compatible with atheism.

*cue your usual excuses*

[seer]

Sorry, not interested in playing 20 questions with you (given your track-record), until you show yourself capable of honestly answering questions and addressing rebuttals. You've been given one below to address.

You are being a coward Jichard, I have asked this question, in different ways, a dozen times now.

The questions are, where do these moral facts exist? And how are we obligated to them if they do exist?

[seer]

Easy. Here's a definition of "moral objectivism":

"Moral objectivism may refer to:

Robust moral realism, the meta-ethical position that ethical sentences express factual propositions about robust or mind-independent features of the world, and that some such propositions are true."

Nothing in there about God existing, nor anything entailing God's existence. So it's compatible with atheism.

*cue your usual excuses*

No, tells why moral objectivism is true. That is what I have been asking, and asking, and you have been deceptively avoiding. You claim that there is something more than moral relativism or moral subjectivism - then demonstrate it.

[Jichard]

You are being a coward Jichard, I have asked this question, in different ways, a dozen times now.

The questions are, where do these moral facts exist? And how are we obligated to them if they do exist?

As expected, you didn't honestly address what was written. Feel free to try again:

"Which does nothing to address the dilemma. There's no third horn, seer. And you're making the same mistake I already addressed on another thread: you confusedly think that just because X causes Y, that means statements about Y actually refer to X. So you confusedly think that statements about the reasons (statements true in virtue of the reasons), must refer to the God just because God made those reasons. This is ridiculous, as I explained, but which you didn't bother addressing:

"I'm willing to grant that, in principle, a deity could cause a state of affairs, such that objective scientific laws were true. But that's not the same as objective scientific laws being true in virtue of God, and so it doesn't undermine the OP's. An example might illustrate the point.

Suppose a bat strikes a ball, causing the ball to move at speed of 50mph. So the statement "the ball is moving at 50mph" is true. But even though the bat caused the ball's movement, and thus helped cause the state of affairs that makes that statement true, the statement is not true in virtue of of the bat. Instead, it's true in virtue of the ball and the ball's properties; in particular: the ball's motion. To see this, note that the statement "the ball is moving at 50mph" could be true even if the ball never existed (for example: if the ball's motion was caused by hand, as opposed to a bat). To put it another way: the ball's properties, not the bat, are what make the statement true and thus serve as the truth-makers for the statement. The state refers to (or is about) the ball and its properties, not the bat.

Now, you can extend the same point to objective scientific laws and God: even if God caused the natural state of affairs in virtue of which objective scientific laws are true, that would not mean those laws are tue in virtue of God. Instead, they are true in virtue of the natural state of affairs. And to see that, note that the laws would still be true if God never existed, as long as the natural state of affairs were so (unless one is some sort of Berkeleyan idealist, who thinks that natural world is just an aspect of God's mind). The laws refer to (or are about) the natural state of affairs and its properties, not God. The natural world serves as the truth-maker, not God."

seer, why do you repeat the same mistakes over and over and... without bothering to address when people point out those mistakes? Is that an honest thing to do?


So please try to honestly address the dilemma this time:

"."