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

  • Truthseeker
    replied
    Let me review this thread. I may also throw in some criticism now and then.
    "Secular Morality" may mean "morals for atheists." Up to this post, have atheists like Tassman, Jicard, JimL, etc. shown that there exists at least one moral system that is applicable to any atheist's life and which can be derived from what is known about life in general? [Feel free to offer a better statement of the thread than the one just above.]

    Apparently no reader of this thread knows about this definition of a self-evident statement: The opposite of the statement is unthinkable. For one thing, in Mortimer J. Adler's words, we ought to desire what is really good for us and nothing else. Now, is there any reader of this thread who would argue the opposite of that statement, i.e., we ought to desire what is really bad for us?

    Dr. Adler called that sentence the first principle of Moral Philosophy.

    I may have more on how to use that principle next time.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post

    Morality is neither “rational” nor “irrational”; it’s merely a system of rules devised by humans to enable them to function as they evolved to function, namely as cooperative social beings living among others of the species in cohesive, supportive communities.
    So morality is a-rational, which means there is no rationality involved. Sheesh Tass, it is worse than I thought. Our ethical systems are void of all rationality!



    …and I’m sure you think you’re enlightened in your subjective interpretation of the so-called absolute laws of God. What most people like you claim to be the "objective" laws of God usually coincides with what they subjectively feel to be true.
    I'm glad you agree that morality is relative in your world.



    Murder is not just 'killing' others, it is by definition the unlawful taking of life. So its wrongfulness is based upon the rules devised by a given society. And these in turn are governed by the truth of our evolutionary heritage, programmed by genes. None of that is arbitrary. Our feelings and attitudes are rooted in human nature; and "murder" is a common prohibition in all societies.
    Except when it is not. Like with the Nazis, Communists , Hutus, etc... So sometimes murder is very beneficial to those doing the murdering. Like when Chimpanzees kill other Chimpanzees for their females and territories. But like you said this whole process is void of rationality.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Yet in your universe bad men often prosper and good men often suffer unduly.
    Yes. T’was ever thus!

    And no matter how you live all men come to the same end.
    Well all living things die, if that’s what you mean. So…..?

    It makes no difference if you are a Mother Teresa or a Stalin - they both end up as dust.
    Do you have substantive evidence, i.e. apart from religious fables, that some people don’t end up as dust?

    This is why morality is irrational in your world.
    Morality is neither “rational” nor “irrational”; it’s merely a system of rules devised by humans to enable them to function as they evolved to function, namely as cooperative social beings living among others of the species in cohesive, supportive communities.

    But what one considers enlightened is subjective. I'm sure that the Communists and Radical Muslims think that they are enlightened. But I'm glad that you agree that totalitarianism is morally good as long as it promotes social cohesion.
    …and I’m sure you think you’re enlightened in your subjective interpretation of the so-called absolute laws of God. What most people like you claim to be the "objective" laws of God usually coincides with what they subjectively feel to be true.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    But that is not an answer, how is the wrongness of murder wrong a "truth maker?"
    Murder is not just 'killing' others, it is by definition the unlawful taking of life. So its wrongfulness is based upon the rules devised by a given society. And these in turn are governed by the truth of our evolutionary heritage, programmed by genes. None of that is arbitrary. Our feelings and attitudes are rooted in human nature; and "murder" is a common prohibition in all societies.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    Just did. So you can stop pretending otherwise:
    Because the truth-makers don't depend on any mind's views on that matter.

    But that is not an answer, how is the wrongness of murder wrong a "truth maker?"
    Last edited by seer; 07-25-2015, 05:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jichard
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Just stop Jichard, and explain in your own words.
    Just did. So you can stop pretending otherwise:
    Because the truth-makers don't depend on any mind's views on that matter.

    Why for instance is murder objectively wrong?
    Goal-post move. Your original question was a meta-ethical question regarding moral realism. Now you've shifted to a normative ethical question. You've been told before that these aren't the same type of question, and you claimed to understood that. Now you've gone back to dishonestly pretend that they're the same type of question. Please stop the dishonesty.

    Anyway, you asked:I answered. Now free to deal with that answer, instead of dishonestly moving the goalposts to a question of normative ethics.

    How do you know that, and how is it wrongness not subjective. If you can't actually articulate your position, without depending on quotes from others then I'm done.
    Already answered. Stop dishonestly pretending otherwise:
    Because the truth-makers don't depend on any mind's views on that matter.

    In know you'll never address that answer, because you never, ever address anything that's inconvenient for your pet position, even when it's explained to you over and over and over and...

    Here is true moral statement: justice does not exist in the moral realism theory. Doesn't get any more true than that.
    That isn't a moral statement, and it's a claim you simply fabricated. But I get it; you aren't a moral realist, don't understand the position, and just make up false claims about it based on your appear to consequences. Enjoy being a moral subjectivist.

    And feel free to finally muster an honest response to what was written:
    "Nothing in the definition of "moral system" implies that life is like seer's fantasy / movie-world, where the consequences are such that the good guys all get rewarded and the bad guys all get punished. Instead, a moral system is basically just a system of moral statements, etc. And whether the moral systems statements are true or false (or whether it's rational to think that it's statements are true or false) does not depend on whether or not it has the positive consequences you so wish for. To say otherwise is the fallacy of appeal to consequences."

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    Because the truth-makers don't depend on any mind's views on that matter.
    Just stop Jichard, and explain in your own words. Why for instance is murder objectively wrong? How do you know that, and how is it wrongness not subjective. If you can't actually articulate your position, without depending on quotes from others then I'm done.

    Nothing in the definition of "moral system" implies that life is like seer's fantasy / movie-world, where the consequences are such that the good guys all get rewarded and the bad guys all get punished. Instead, a moral system is basically just a system of moral statements, etc. And whether the moral systems statements are true or false (or whether it's rational to think that it's statements are true or false) does not depend on whether or not it has the positive consequences you so wish for. To say otherwise is the fallacy of appeal to consequences.
    Here is true moral statement: justice does not exist in the moral realism theory. Doesn't get any more true than that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jichard
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    And how is any of this objective or mind independent?
    Because the truth-makers don't depend on any mind's views on that matter.

    Anyway, same silly mistake on your part:
    You're making the same mistake on "subjective" that I've dealt with before, where you pretend that if minds made a given position, question, etc., that makes the question, position, etc. subjectivist. If you had a shred of honesty, you'd deal with my response, instead of just repeating the same mistake:
    Nonsense, and another instance of your committing the use/mention mistake, even though you've been called on this before. The "objective/subjective" issue is not about whether minds make the theory or whether one likes the theory or whatever ever other nonsensical stuff you're going on about. Otherwise, every position would be subjective, since minds make the position or someone likes the position or whatever. Instead, the "objective/subjective" distinction is about in virtue of what are the theory's claims true or false. Thus, for example, evolutionary theory is objectively true, since it's true in virtue of mind-independent stuff. It would therefore be silly to say that evolutionary theory is subjective because it's made by humans or because it expresses an idea that people like. Those have nothing to do with whether or not it's subjective. Parallel points for what you've said. You've had this explained to you before. Please stop pretending otherwise.

    And your response was particularly ridiculous, since you contradicted your own OP, which acknowledges that moral realism is an objectivist position, not a subjectivist one. You're apparently so desperate to say whatever you deem necessary for your apologetic position, that you don't even check if you're being consistent with yourself. As I predicted.


    How exactly does having moral reasons for acting lead to moral obligations?
    Already explained:

    Stop cutting and pasting other peoples work and answer yourself.
    Stop being a hypocrite, since you regularly quote-mine sources, and misrepresent what they say. Youve gone so far as to try and deceive me about what one of your sources said. So I'm not interested in your hypocrisy now. And its not my fault if you don't have the wherewithal to address what's posted.

    Time to put up Jichard, give us a moral fact that is mind independent and how you came by that information - how your opinion is not culturally driven. Take us all out of our subjective world and show us a glittering objective moral truth. And try using your own words.
    Same silly mistake on your part:
    You're making the same mistake on "subjective" that I've dealt with before, where you pretend that if minds made a given position, question, etc., that makes the question, position, etc. subjectivist. If you had a shred of honesty, you'd deal with my response, instead of just repeating the same mistake:
    Nonsense, and another instance of your committing the use/mention mistake, even though you've been called on this before. The "objective/subjective" issue is not about whether minds make the theory or whether one likes the theory or whatever ever other nonsensical stuff you're going on about. Otherwise, every position would be subjective, since minds make the position or someone likes the position or whatever. Instead, the "objective/subjective" distinction is about in virtue of what are the theory's claims true or false. Thus, for example, evolutionary theory is objectively true, since it's true in virtue of mind-independent stuff. It would therefore be silly to say that evolutionary theory is subjective because it's made by humans or because it expresses an idea that people like. Those have nothing to do with whether or not it's subjective. Parallel points for what you've said. You've had this explained to you before. Please stop pretending otherwise.

    And your response was particularly ridiculous, since you contradicted your own OP, which acknowledges that moral realism is an objectivist position, not a subjectivist one. You're apparently so desperate to say whatever you deem necessary for your apologetic position, that you don't even check if you're being consistent with yourself. As I predicted.

    Really Jichard, is there something wrong with you? I don't agree that moral realism is either true or based in reality. And I haven't. I agree that you believe it.
    Is moral realism an objectivist position?

    And don't dishonestly pretend that I'm asking you what I'm claiming. I'm asking what you accept.

    Yes moral realism, a theory or system, is void of justice. Which makes it ethically irrational.
    Another instance of you committing the fallacy of appeal to consequences. Try some intellectual honesty, for once, and address what was written:

    You didn't address a word of what was written. Feel free to try again:
    Nothing in the definition of "moral system" implies that life is like seer's fantasy / movie-world, where the consequences are such that the good guys all get rewarded and the bad guys all get punished. Instead, a moral system is basically just a system of moral statements, etc. And whether the moral systems statements are true or false (or whether it's rational to think that it's statements are true or false) does not depend on whether or not it has the positive consequences you so wish for. To say otherwise is the fallacy of appeal to consequences.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    A moral system requires justice to enforce it within communities; this is why we have a legal system and courts. It does not require ultimate justice as per “heaven" or "hell" ...that’s just make-believe designed to scare the children and make them behave.
    Yet in your universe bad men often prosper and good men often suffer unduly. And no matter how you live all men come to the same end. It makes no difference if you are a Mother Teresa or a Stalin - they both end up as dust. This is why morality is irrational in your world.



    For perhaps the millionth time, social cohesion is necessary for the survival of social creatures such as us...even if it’s achieved via a totalitarian ideology like religion or a dictatorship. But there are better, more enlightened ways to achieve social cohesion, as can be seen in many democratic secular states worldwide...my country of Australia for one.
    But what one considers enlightened is subjective. I'm sure that the Communists and Radical Muslims think that they are enlightened. But I'm glad that you agree that totalitarianism is morally good as long as it promotes social cohesion.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    It's pretty dishonest of a person to pretend that questions have not been answered, when they've been answered multiple times.
    The general analysis: we have moral obligations because there are moral reasons for actions, developing certain character traits, and so on. That's the standard analysis: obligations arise from reasons. And moral reasons are constituted by the properties/features discussed in welfare utilitarianism (ex: effects of well-being) and virtue ethics (ex: character traits like compassion).
    And how is any of this objective or mind independent? How exactly does having moral reasons for acting lead to moral obligations? Stop cutting and pasting other peoples work and answer yourself. Time to put up Jichard, give us a moral fact that is mind independent and how you came by that information - how your opinion is not culturally driven. Take us all out of our subjective world and show us a glittering objective moral truth. And try using your own words.

    And your response was particularly ridiculous, since you contradicted your own OP, which acknowledges that moral realism is an objectivist position, not a subjectivist one. You're apparently so desperate to say whatever you deem necessary for your apologetic position, that you don't even check if you're being consistent with yourself.
    Really Jichard, is there something wrong with you? I don't agree that moral realism is either true or based in reality. And I haven't. I agree that you believe it.

    Of course, it would be rational to think that a moral system makes true claims. After all, I'm not fool enough to think that definition of "moral system" implies that life is like seer's fantasy / movie-world, where the consequences are such that the good guys all get rewarded and the bad guys all get punished. Instead, a moral system is basically just a system of moral statements, etc. Nor am I fool enough to think that whether the moral systems statements are true or false (or whether it's rational to think that it's statements are true or false) depends on whether or not it has the positive consequences you so wish for. To say otherwise is the fallacy of appeal to consequences.
    Yes moral realism, a theory or system, is void of justice. Which makes it ethically irrational.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
    Oh, wow, you think that you and your fellow atheists are 100% in accord regarding what is right behavior.
    That’s not what I said. I said that a moral code based upon faith, dogma, and revelation, as per Christianity, leads to incorrect, untestable, and conflicting conclusions. Whereas the secular view is that human morality emerged from primate sociality (we are primates after all) and enables humans to function as we evolved to function…namely as cooperative social beings living among others of the species in cohesive, supportive communities.

    Maybe Stalin was atheist, too, when he ruled the Soviet empire. You agree with him 100% based on what you seem to think, see above. From my view, that is horrible
    Do you agree 100% with everything Christian leaders have done throughout history? From my view the Crusaders, Inquisitors and racist slave-owners (as per the Southern Baptist Convention) et al were ALL horrible. But, of course, they had God on their side so that’s OK.

    Oh, wow, so someone came up with a procedure for measuring the goodness of any action, and people fell in love with that procedure. So captivating is it that in time the whole world will use it. Rising before our own eyes is the possibility that in time all actions will be ethical or moral from then and on, ever and forever. Oh, what hath science wrought! Or is making
    Oh wow, the Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy.

    http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/i...al-to-ridicule

    Is mockery the only defence you theists have? Pathetic!

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Right, so a moral system would not be rational without justice. And you can imply what you like - your idea of morality is just as irrational as moral realism.
    A moral system requires justice to enforce it within communities; this is why we have a legal system and courts. It does not require ultimate justice as per “heaven" or "hell" ...that’s just make-believe designed to scare the children and make them behave.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Right, and if we have totalitarian rule by a small group of alpha males, or the 1%, that maintain social cohesion then that is morally good.
    For perhaps the millionth time, social cohesion is necessary for the survival of social creatures such as us...even if it’s achieved via a totalitarian ideology like religion or a dictatorship. But there are better, more enlightened ways to achieve social cohesion, as can be seen in many democratic secular states worldwide...my country of Australia for one.
    Last edited by Tassman; 07-24-2015, 11:55 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jichard
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    OK, I'll bite - what facts is morality based on, if not physical facts. I mean in the end, you are basing moral realism on something - correct? What is that something. Human behavior? Astrology? Divination? Intuition? What?
    It's pretty dishonest of a person to pretend that questions have not been answered, when they've been answered multiple times.
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    The general analysis: we have moral obligations because there are moral reasons for actions, developing certain character traits, and so on. That's the standard analysis: obligations arise from reasons. And moral reasons are constituted by the properties/features discussed in welfare utilitarianism (ex: effects of well-being) and virtue ethics (ex: character traits like compassion).

    Talk about being disingenuous. I agreed that you made made up a theory and called it objective.
    Try to stop being disingenuous. I didn't ask you whether I claimed the position was objectivist. Instead, the issue was whether the position was objectivist. You have this dishonest habit of pretending that when someone asks you "is X the case?", they're actually asking you "did I claim that X was the case?" Please stop it.

    Now, as I told you:
    "And your response was particularly ridiculous, since you contradicted your own OP, which acknowledges that moral realism is an objectivist position, not a subjectivist one."

    Originally posted by seer
    Originally posted by Jichard
    Thus, for example, evolutionary theory is objectively true, since it's true in virtue of mind-independent stuff.
    OK, but how does that make moral facts objectively true? How are values actually mind-independent?
    Goal-post move and a quote-mine. The portion of my post that you quote-mined, was explaining to you a mistake you'd made in your use of the term "subjective". Instead of acknowledge that mistake. you've decided to move the goalposts. Sorry, but I'm not stupid enough to fall for that.

    Please actually address the mistake I pointed out, without your usual dishonest evasions. Here's my explanation of the mistake again:
    You're making the same mistake on "subjective" that I've dealt with before, where you pretend that if minds made a given position, question, etc., that makes the question, position, etc. subjectivist. If you had a shred of honesty, you'd deal with my response, instead of just repeating the same mistake:
    Nonsense, and another instance of your committing the use/mention mistake, even though you've been called on this before. The "objective/subjective" issue is not about whether minds make the theory or whether one likes the theory or whatever ever other nonsensical stuff you're going on about. Otherwise, every position would be subjective, since minds make the position or someone likes the position or whatever. Instead, the "objective/subjective" distinction is about in virtue of what are the theory's claims true or false. Thus, for example, evolutionary theory is objectively true, since it's true in virtue of mind-independent stuff. It would therefore be silly to say that evolutionary theory is subjective because it's made by humans or because it expresses an idea that people like. Those have nothing to do with whether or not it's subjective. Parallel points for what you've said. You've had this explained to you before. Please stop pretending otherwise.

    And your response was particularly ridiculous, since you contradicted your own OP, which acknowledges that moral realism is an objectivist position, not a subjectivist one. You're apparently so desperate to say whatever you deem necessary for your apologetic position, that you don't even check if you're being consistent with yourself. As I predicted.

    Tell me, would any human system of laws be rational without justice Jichard? I think every one here knows the answer.
    Of course, it would be rational to think that a moral system makes true claims. After all, I'm not fool enough to think that definition of "moral system" implies that life is like seer's fantasy / movie-world, where the consequences are such that the good guys all get rewarded and the bad guys all get punished. Instead, a moral system is basically just a system of moral statements, etc. Nor am I fool enough to think that whether the moral systems statements are true or false (or whether it's rational to think that it's statements are true or false) depends on whether or not it has the positive consequences you so wish for. To say otherwise is the fallacy of appeal to consequences.

    Leave a comment:


  • Truthseeker
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Christianity is irrelevant. Faith, dogma, and revelation lead to incorrect, untestable, or conflicting conclusions…as evidenced by the disagreement among Christians about right and wrong behaviour.
    Oh, wow, you think that you and your fellow atheists are 100% in accord regarding what is right behavior. Maybe Stalin was atheist, too, when he ruled the Soviet empire. You agree with him 100% based on what you seem to think, see above. From my view, that is horrible.



    What’s “morally good” is the behaviour which enables the human ‘machine’ to function as nature intended it to function via evolution, namely as cooperative social beings living among others of the species in cohesive, supportive communities. It is science that provides these facts, not religion, and it is the application of this knowledge via inductive inference that enables the formulation of rules of behaviour.



    “From the perspective of neuroscience and brain evolution, the routine rejection of scientific approaches to moral behavior based on Hume’s warning against deriving 'ought from is' seems unfortunate, especially as the warning is limited to deductive inferences..."- Patricia Churchland. Cited Wiki.
    Oh, wow, so someone came up with a procedure for measuring the goodness of any action, and people fell in love with that procedure. So captivating is it that in time the whole world will use it. Rising before our own eyes is the possibility that in time all actions will be ethical or moral from then and on, ever and forever. Oh, what hath science wrought! Or is making.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    What’s “morally good” is the behaviour which enables the human ‘machine’ to function as nature intended it to function via evolution, namely as cooperative social beings living among others of the species in cohesive, supportive communities. It is science that provides these facts, not religion, and it is the application of this knowledge via inductive inference that enables the formulation of rules of behaviour.
    Right, and if we have totalitarian rule by a small group of alpha males, or the 1%, that maintain social cohesion then that is morally good.
    Last edited by seer; 07-24-2015, 06:37 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    The only rationale required for any human system of laws is that they attain the goal for which they're intended, namely social cohesion. "Justice" is dispensed for the sole reason of maintaining this function. Justice does not imply an ultimate system of rewards and punishments in the sky when we die and there's no credible evidence for this fantasy notion in any event.
    Right, so a moral system would not be rational without justice. And you can imply what you like - your idea of morality is just as irrational as moral realism.

    Leave a 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