Secular Morality?

[seer]

What the Hutus did was not a loving and benevolent action, and it did not benefit the people they interacted with. That's a 100% objective truth that everyone can agree upon regardless of their views on morality. That's the thing with my morality: It's objective and everyone agrees with it even if they don't hold to my view of morality. It 'works' as a system of morality even when people say they don't believe it.

I have no idea what you are getting at. Yes, what the Hutus did did not benefit the Tutsi. But the question is - was it a good act? The Hutus thought so.

I don't think the theist can answer in the affirmative either, apart from by tortured logic. The idea that moral truths exist 'out there' somewhere like Platonic Forms seems pretty silly, even given the existence of God. The only sensible versions of morality as descriptive ones - eg "we use the word 'good' to refer to that which God has commanded" or "we use the word 'good' to refer to positive interpersonal interactions".

Of course the theist can and do answer in the affirmative, ontologically the law of God exists even if we have trouble understanding it.

Humans are the ones who attribute worth to things. So once humans exist they can quite happily attribute worth to their own existence, and to various other things which they label 'good'.

Sure, the Jews think they have worth, the Nazis didn't think they had worth. Neither opinion is more correct or valid than the other. You like lobster, I like steak. Mere preference.

[Starlight]

I have no idea what you are getting at.

All right, here's another way of looking it. In this TED talk Jonathan Haidt outlines his cross-cultural research on morality, which has found that there are 5 (or six, given his subsequent work) kinds of moral reasoning that are common across all cultures: (1) Harm/Care, (2) Fairness, (3) Group loyalty, (4) Obedience to Authority, (5) Purity/Disgust. He doesn't emphasize it greatly in that particular talk, but his category #4 of Authority is where obedience to God & God's laws applies.

It's worth noting that surveys and questionnaires have found that religious conservatives tend to be fairly balanced in their application of all five kinds of moral reasoning equally. So although the philosophically-minded theologian might claim that God is the single source of religious morality, what we find in practice is actually that religious conservatives use at least 5 kinds of moral reasoning regularly, only one of which is "God says so". This shouldn't surprise us if we think about it, because the Bible doesn't cover every single situation - especially not in today's technologically advanced world, and issues come up all the time that the Bible only tangentially speaks to, if at all, so conservatives have to have other kinds of moral reasoning they can use in cases where the Bible doesn't give a relevant answer.

Secular liberals, however, have discarded 3 of those 5 kinds of moral reasoning, rejecting them as amoral or immoral. That leaves them using only 2 kinds of moral reasoning: Harm/Care & Fairness (both of which are about positive/negative interpersonal interactions, which is why I prefer that terminology as I think it summarizes their core better than his splitting it into two ideas).

But what this means seer, is that those 2 kinds of moral reasoning that secular liberals use are shared by conservatives. They are also cross-cultural. So any moral argument a secular liberal in the modern west ever makes will use moral reasoning that everyone everywhere accepts as a valid kind of moral reasoning. Whereas if a religious conservative uses moral reasoning from the other 3 categories, it's going to carry no weight whatsoever with secular liberals because we don't regard those 3 kinds of reasoning as valid moral reasoning.

[Enjolras]

Of course the theist can and do answer in the affirmative, ontologically the law of God exists even if we have trouble understanding it.

All the theist can do is have an ontological existence of a law, but that does not mean that law is necessarily good. The Hutus were Christians and thought they were doing God's will. Maybe they were- God's ways are mysterious after all. How is that any advantage for a theistic system of morality? You may have an objective, ontologicaly-grounded law that is evil.

[NormATive]

Whose secular morality is superior Homer? Cuba's? North Korea's? China's?

Of those three? Probably Cuba. What about the other hundred secular nations I listed? Why not ask about them?

What's with your fascination with Homer? I'm not Greek, although I enjoy his poetry. The Iliad is an engaging story of gods, redemption and sacrifice - kind of like your favorite book.

NORM

[NormATive]

Again Enjolras, the point of this thread is to show that by definition secular morality is no more valuable than theistic morality when deciding which behaviors are actually right or wrong.

Exactly right, Seer. You said it yourself: theistic morality is similar to secular morality in deciding right and wrong at the basic level, all things remaining the same.

The benefit of secular morality, however, is that it is malleable and easier to adapt to new information (the wider acceptance of Gay marriage among secularists is a perfect, modern example). Theistic morality is more concerned with being ecclesiastically correct than being morally right. It is frequently rigid, immobile and resistant to new knowledge, as we can see in their resistance to equal protection laws for Gay marriage advocates. We all can think of many other examples. Here's just one:

If you visit St. Cuthbert Chapel in Durham, England - just outside the chapel doors, a little way inside the nave of the main cathedral building, you will see a line of black marble in the floor. It marked the point beyond which women could not pass. Even Queen Philippa, wife of Edward III, in 1300s was forbidden access during the coronation of her husband (at least, that's what it says on the plaque inside the little side chapel).

NORM

[seer]

All the theist can do is have an ontological existence of a law, but that does not mean that law is necessarily good. The Hutus were Christians and thought they were doing God's will. Maybe they were- God's ways are mysterious after all. How is that any advantage for a theistic system of morality? You may have an objective, ontologicaly-grounded law that is evil.

Do you see how silly this is Enjolras? Your sense of morality could no more rise above God's than a stream could rise about its source. By definition what God does is good because He is good by nature. You calling any of His acts evil is completely meaningless and without any moral or rational grounding.

[Enjolras]

Do you see how silly this is Enjolras? Your sense of morality could no more rise above God's than a stream could rise about its source. By definition what God does is good because He is good by nature. You calling any of His acts evil is completely meaningless and without any moral or rational grounding.

There is no reason whatsoever to assume your god is good. Defining him as good doesn't help you either, because then the word loses any meaning. We went over this before. It tells us nothing because you have to already know what good means before 'God is good' tells you anything. For my part, I could just as easily define Satan as good. How would you differentiate?

[Tassman]

Your god ordered genocide, so I'm not sure how you think you have the moral high ground here.

Inter-tribal genocide was useful in acquiring land for the tribe and obviously their tribal God thought this was a good thing. Tribal gods were, after all, made in the image of the tribe.

[Tassman]

Do you see how silly this is Enjolras? Your sense of morality could no more rise above God's than a stream could rise about its source. By definition what God does is good because He is good by nature. You calling any of His acts evil is completely meaningless and without any moral or rational grounding.

Indeed He is. This is a form of Orwellian Doublethink, because it represents an active reversing of the meaning of words. Thus "blackwhite" in Doublethink is explained as "the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary". Hence, in Doublethink, genocides ordered by God are "good' and one must forget one has ever believed the contrary." Simple!

[seer]

There is no reason whatsoever to assume your god is good. Defining him as good doesn't help you either, because then the word loses any meaning. We went over this before. It tells us nothing because you have to already know what good means before 'God is good' tells you anything. For my part, I could just as easily define Satan as good. How would you differentiate?

The question is Enjolras, if you disagree with an act of God, if you think that act is immoral, on what basis do you make that judgment? Is that judgment based on your personal or cultural preference? Why should we consider that a valid rule or standard?

[seer]

Indeed He is. This is a form of Orwellian Doublethink, because it represents an active reversing of the meaning of words. Thus "blackwhite" in Doublethink is explained as "the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary". Hence, in Doublethink, genocides ordered by God are "good' and one must forget one has ever believed the contrary." Simple!

You are joking right Tass? If there is no God there can be no objective definition for good, just personal or cultural preference. And those preference and completely subjective and rather meaningless.

[Enjolras]

The question is Enjolras, if you disagree with an act of God, if you think that act is immoral, on what basis do you make that judgment? Is that judgment based on your personal or cultural preference? Why should we consider that a valid rule or standard?

It is based upon my understanding that murdering babies is wrong.

How do you know God is good? Because he tells you? How do you escape the circularity?

[lilpixieofterror]

It is based upon my understanding that murdering babies is wrong.

How do you know God is good? Because he tells you? How do you escape the circularity?

Eojolras, where did you get the idea that murdering babies is wrong? Many of the ancients had no problems with killing babies and in fact... the idea that life is precious (aka the sanity of life) is actually an ideal developed from Christian doctrine that became a standard of western culture and morality. How do you escape the circularity that your own moral opinions are based upon the very things you condemn as being wrong and/or immoral? IE Christian doctrines and values.

[seer]

It is based upon my understanding that murdering babies is wrong.

How do you know God is good? Because he tells you? How do you escape the circularity?

But again Enjolras why is your understanding correct? I mean talk about circular. Heck, in the US we kill over a million unborn babies a year.

[Enjolras]

But again Enjolras why is your understanding correct? I mean talk about circular. Heck, in the US we kill over a million unborn babies a year.

At some point, we all reach a point of explanatory bedrock when it comes justifying our moral views or our views on just about anything else. I can't give a further reason why harming others is wrong if you don't accept that as a fundamental truth. But neither can you give a further reason as to why one should think God is to be obeyed. The advantage of secular morality, as has been pointed out already, is that you don't have to add additional considerations that must also be accepted as fundamental. There is a principle of parsimony at work in secular reasoning which theism cannot provide.