Author Topic: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?  (Read 1742 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« on: November 06, 2013, 10:59:31 AM »
For those who have not read Plato's Euthyphro, please visit the below link before contributing to this thread so that you fully understand what the Euthyphro Dilemma is.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Euthyphro_dilemma


For this OP, I would like both sides to discuss why they think their particular understanding and/or version of morality is better/superior. Let's focus on at least two things here:

1. What is morality? What is moral behavior all about? What does it mean to be moral? [we might not even get past this point]

2. Once #1 is established, why is your definition of morality superior to the opposing side? [assuming you are not a nihilist]



REFERENCES FOR STUDY:

http://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/gender/MoralTheories.html
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_watts/secular_morality.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/moral.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/moral.html
« Last Edit: November 06, 2013, 11:16:29 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2013, 11:13:46 AM »
My position on the subject is that it's more important to be consistently moral than to worry about the specific reasons why someone is moral.  Morality isn't all that common even today - people rationalize away immorality all-too-easily.  So if someone is good, then it isn't especially important why they're good.  Whether it's because they believe a god commands them to be moral, or because they want people to look up to them, or because they believe that morality is the best way to maintain an open and positive society, or even if they believe they're cursed so that if they act immorally, some calamity will befall them, the point is whether they are actually acting in a moral manner.

You could probably argue successfully that some ways of being moral are healthier than others.  But I don't think you can argue that any are truly superior, if only because it's human nature to favor what someone themselves does.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2013, 11:20:03 AM »
Here is a video that spells out (quite well) my position on morality. Enjoy!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline G-Roll

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 385
  • Darwins +43/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2013, 11:53:23 AM »
I would love to participate in this thread but I fear I am a nihilist!

I shall go back to lurking now...  :laugh:

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12484
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2013, 02:16:07 PM »
I've read it. I have a book of Plato's works. The Republic being my favorite. Anyway, it's been awhile since I've read the former.  Probably many years.

Quote
1. What is morality? What is moral behavior all about? What does it mean to be moral? [we might not even get past this point]

Morality, for me, is a point-of-view based on a societal standpoint of what is just and/or unjust personally for oneself and collectively amongst society, as a whole. The determination starts from one's personal viewpoint not corrupted by outside interference. The second is the correlation of the personal with general society, as a collective.

Some viewpoints may differ but many viewpoints would be similar and a common ground reached.

Quote
2. Once #1 is established, why is your definition of morality superior to the opposing side? [assuming you are not a nihilist]

It isn't since both rely more on opinion. Mine is my opinion based on my personal viewpoint, and theirs is the same for them, for their own viewpoint. There would be differences in opinion but a commonality somewhere in the middle. I feel that only the nihilist would be excluded since they probably have no conception of what is just or unjust from that point-of-view.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2013, 02:48:45 PM »
Question #1 is more pertaining to the definition of what morality is (what its status is/means) and not necessarily something about how it is applied. For example, religious people often argue that morality is about pleasing/obeying their God. For them morality means mimicking the "creator" (or their interpretation of it) and living in accordance with it's "will". Other philosophical viewpoints differ on this interpretation and define morality in other ways which are contrary to this definition. Thus, the OP is asking: What does it mean to be moral?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12484
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2013, 04:25:01 PM »
Question #1 is more pertaining to the definition of what morality is (what its status is/means) and not necessarily something about how it is applied. For example, religious people often argue that morality is about pleasing/obeying their God. For them morality means mimicking the "creator" (or their interpretation of it) and living in accordance with it's "will". Other philosophical viewpoints differ on this interpretation and define morality in other ways which are contrary to this definition. Thus, the OP is asking: What does it mean to be moral?

Is their a definitive definition of morality?

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2013, 05:20:46 PM »
Question #1 is more pertaining to the definition of what morality is (what its status is/means) and not necessarily something about how it is applied. For example, religious people often argue that morality is about pleasing/obeying their God. For them morality means mimicking the "creator" (or their interpretation of it) and living in accordance with it's "will". Other philosophical viewpoints differ on this interpretation and define morality in other ways which are contrary to this definition. Thus, the OP is asking: What does it mean to be moral?

Is their a definitive definition of morality?

-Nam

No, that is part of the point of this exercise. Both language and definitions are arbitrary and/or subjective. They are tools we use to get through life and accomplish goals. Ones definition of morality cannot be "right" or "wrong". It can only be rational/irrational, coherent/incoherent, meaningful/non-meaningful, useful/useless. My intention is to show that the Christian definition of morality is both irrational and non-useful as it doesn't assist us in accomplishing anything that is valuable to human life and builds in a hypocritical (and tautological) assumption about what it means to be moral.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4616
  • Darwins +105/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #8 on: November 06, 2013, 07:47:44 PM »
I don't know how much you guys know about North American native culture,it made Christianity look barbaric in comparison. There were rules for retaliation (war if you wish to call it that) that would puzzle the death loving Christian armies.

 Columbus landed on the shores in 1492,saw paradise and quickly fucked it up with Christian "morality".
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline kindred

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1116
  • Darwins +10/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #9 on: November 06, 2013, 10:21:10 PM »
Morality is flimsy. Integrity is much easier to measure and implement. What one considers moral, another might not and since there is no absolute moral standard, judging someone by how moral they are goes out the window. Integrity on the other hand can be easily defined.  What does a person believe to be right & moral, does he follow that which he believes to be right and whether his beliefs do not contradict each other is something that we can actually asses.
"Keep calm and carry on"

"I trust you are not in too much distress"

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2013, 11:33:07 AM »
Morality is flimsy. Integrity is much easier to measure and implement. What one considers moral, another might not and since there is no absolute moral standard, judging someone by how moral they are goes out the window. Integrity on the other hand can be easily defined.  What does a person believe to be right & moral, does he follow that which he believes to be right and whether his beliefs do not contradict each other is something that we can actually asses.

The trouble with this is that many religious people will shift the definitions of terms mid-stream in order to avoid realizing that they are not living with integrity. They will often make rationalizations/false justifications (sub-consciously) to 'stay-in' integrity. This is of course all a defense mechanism to keep the faith but it happens quite often.

I actually maintain that morality (as I define it) can be measured and/or generally quantified. Since my definition of morality has to do with human well-being and the minimization of harm it is not a stretch to say that (in general) we can quantify varying levels of what that means for people (aka - kind of like sickness and health) and this will help us, and has, to continue a functional society for more.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #11 on: November 07, 2013, 12:12:14 PM »
People have evolved to live in communities. They have feelings for each other partly evolved and partly learned from the culture. The accepted way that people behave towards each other in a community based on their individual emotions is what is called morality in that community. A moral action can be measured by the proportion of people who agree with it.

Extreme Indoctrination such as religion can overcome the inherited feelings which people have for each other. Luckily no one type of extreme indoctrination can cover the whole world permanently so there are always people who can see the nature of other people's indoctrination.

Morality is neither subjective nor objective. It is a group consensus. Some people might argue that the inherited emotion which people have for each other is an objective basis for morality, but other species have inherited different moralities to suit their lifestyles. Should you judge other animals by human morality?
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1793
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #12 on: November 07, 2013, 12:24:36 PM »
I'm more or less with you on this median. I think in broad strokes morality can be objectively quantified (I'm far from the person to state the parameters though). What I bang up against is that the instant you don't have a rigidly structured rulebook to match the bible, you must be wrong.

There's no recognition of degree or circumstances. There's no room for flexibility, no matter how they actually behave themselves. If you can't draw a line that applies equally and always in all situations then it can't possibly be moral. There's just no reasoning with that kind of ...subjective objectivity? I mean like "you don't have an instant pat answer to this situation, taken out of any context whatsoever, so my morals are better than yours."

I was on a different board a few months back, with an article about a veteran who came home from deployment to find that the friend with whom he had left his dog no longer had it. It was clear from the article that there was no information available about WHY the dog was not with the friend, just that it wasn't.

I was astounded by the number of people talking about how they would KILL the friend for "giving away/letting it die/losing it/lying about it's whereabouts" all over the comments - people were quite proudly advocating for the murder of a person over a missing dog. So I commented that based on the available information there was no way yet to know what had actually happened, and that calls for someone's death might be premature. One woman absolutely flipped her lid and went off on a tirade about what a horrible animal abusing b!tch I must be, and a sh!tty parent besides. Several comments worth in fact - she just went nuts. And OF COURSE she talked about loving all of God's creatures.

People can be really bizarre. Myself included I'm sure.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #13 on: November 07, 2013, 12:52:16 PM »
I'm more or less with you on this median. I think in broad strokes morality can be objectively quantified (I'm far from the person to state the parameters though). What I bang up against is that the instant you don't have a rigidly structured rulebook to match the bible, you must be wrong.

There's no recognition of degree or circumstances. There's no room for flexibility, no matter how they actually behave themselves. If you can't draw a line that applies equally and always in all situations then it can't possibly be moral. There's just no reasoning with that kind of ...subjective objectivity? I mean like "you don't have an instant pat answer to this situation, taken out of any context whatsoever, so my morals are better than yours."

I was on a different board a few months back, with an article about a veteran who came home from deployment to find that the friend with whom he had left his dog no longer had it. It was clear from the article that there was no information available about WHY the dog was not with the friend, just that it wasn't.

I was astounded by the number of people talking about how they would KILL the friend for "giving away/letting it die/losing it/lying about it's whereabouts" all over the comments - people were quite proudly advocating for the murder of a person over a missing dog. So I commented that based on the available information there was no way yet to know what had actually happened, and that calls for someone's death might be premature. One woman absolutely flipped her lid and went off on a tirade about what a horrible animal abusing b!tch I must be, and a sh!tty parent besides. Several comments worth in fact - she just went nuts. And OF COURSE she talked about loving all of God's creatures.

People can be really bizarre. Myself included I'm sure.

I think minimizing unnecessary harm is a fairly easy thing to do (for most people - educated or uneducated). It's really a part of us. Religious people just want to call it 'Goddidit' (via their bible assumption from Romans ch 1) but human dignity and solidarity (to paraphrase Christopher Hitchens) is not derived from religion. It precedes it, and this includes the willingness and need to minimize unnecessary harm. I think the general lines that we can draw between what is harmful and what is not are (on one level) as simple as determining (in most cases) the difference between sickness and health.

The missing dog story seems a very interesting and telling story of how people often jump to conclusions in order to pacify their credulity, gullibility, or assumed worldview. I see it happen all the time of Facebook. People are generally not prone to being open minded. We very often operate upon baseline assumptions and we don't want anything to conflict with those assumptions. So we rationalize, spin, or twist the incoming stimuli in order to 'fit' our pre-committed mold.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1793
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #14 on: November 07, 2013, 01:17:04 PM »
I think minimizing unnecessary harm is a fairly easy thing to do (for most people - educated or uneducated). It's really a part of us.
All that's generally required is to remember that the other side of the question is a person too. Seriously, once a human face is attached and is seen as another human, people's perception of a situation generally changes to be somewhat more hospitable toward the person impacted by the outcome. You just have to get past that mental barrier, which is no easy task. We all struggle with it.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2101
  • Darwins +375/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2013, 03:34:48 PM »
All that's generally required is to remember that the other side of the question is a person too. Seriously, once a human face is attached and is seen as another human, people's perception of a situation generally changes to be somewhat more hospitable toward the person impacted by the outcome. You just have to get past that mental barrier, which is no easy task. We all struggle with it.
This right here.

If I were to evaluate whether a religious moral framework is superior/inferior to a secular moral framework, I always start at one initial starting point:
If this moral framework allows for moral evaluation to occur outside of a feedback loop containing moral agents, or rather, entities capable of being subject to questions of morality (i.e. ability to feel suffering or joy), then it is an inferior moral framework relative to one that necessarily incorporates such a feedback loop.

This is why I have a problem with concepts like 'objective morality', at least when the definition is stretched to 'morality without regard to subjective entities'.  If you think you can label an action 'good' or 'bad' without having to make any considerations for the effect that action has on subjective entities affected by said action, then you have forfeited any claim to moral superiority.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #16 on: November 07, 2013, 05:06:58 PM »
Quote
1. What is morality? What is moral behavior all about? What does it mean to be moral?


Morality is a concept that arises when peers co-exist. This concept helps devise basic guidelines for what behaviors are acceptable in relation to how each individual peer can treat themselves, their property, the property of others, as well as how they treat their peers both individually and collectively.

In my opinion, religious-based morality is just a subset of secular morality in that the religion doesn't create it as much as it is co-opted from existing mores, etc. and then codified and made into a religious tradition in an attempt to make it seem as if the suddenly religious based morality is more authoritive than normal morality.

Morality is somewhat fluid and varies based on the norms and values of the society where the morals exist. Much overlap can be found from society to society no matter what period of time those societies existed because a main premise of morality is: "don't do stuff to other folks that if done to you would cause you to consider whipping some ass." The disparities we can see in morals in my opinion has a lot to with the fact that all cultures do not view all of its individuals as peers. Some individuals are thought to have more rights than others and whenever that is the case then some form of oppression will be born and as long as the society doesn't view all individuals as equal peers, then it will endorse prejudice, discrimination, etc. so much so that those acts are considered moral.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #17 on: November 07, 2013, 07:07:49 PM »
I originally created this thread b/c I was hoping Christians (such as "Skeptic45768") would chime in and answer the challenge. Yet, they don't seem to be around. Hmmmm...
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #18 on: November 08, 2013, 12:03:14 AM »
I don't know how much you guys know about North American native culture,it made Christianity look barbaric in comparison. There were rules for retaliation (war if you wish to call it that) that would puzzle the death loving Christian armies.

 Columbus landed on the shores in 1492,saw paradise and quickly fucked it up with Christian "morality".

Whenever I hear people keep repeating this, I wonder if they ever really LISTEN to what we are saying.

For the millionth time, those people were not true Christians. NOWHERE in the Bible does Jesus say, "Convert people via threatening their lives." All you will find in the Bible is Jesus saying to love each other and love God.

Why can't you guys grasp the point that if they are killing, they are not following Jesus?

This constant strawman about this topic has got to stop. It is really frustrating.

You guys pride yourselves on logic and reason.
For God's sake, please use it.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #19 on: November 08, 2013, 12:06:02 AM »
I originally created this thread b/c I was hoping Christians (such as "Skeptic45768") would chime in and answer the challenge. Yet, they don't seem to be around. Hmmmm...

What challenge?

There is no objective right/wrong if God isn't real.
It's all subjective, such as vanilla vs chocolate ice cream.

I said countless times that it's OK for an atheist to want to love one another like one big hippie community.
You just can't yell at Mao/Pol/Stalin about their morality.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #20 on: November 08, 2013, 12:09:29 AM »
Morality is somewhat fluid and varies based on the norms and values of the society where the morals exist. Much overlap can be found from society to society no matter what period of time those societies existed because a main premise of morality is: "don't do stuff to other folks that if done to you would cause you to consider whipping some ass." The disparities we can see in morals in my opinion has a lot to with the fact that all cultures do not view all of its individuals as peers. Some individuals are thought to have more rights than others and whenever that is the case then some form of oppression will be born and as long as the society doesn't view all individuals as equal peers, then it will endorse prejudice, discrimination, etc. so much so that those acts are considered moral.

OK, let's start with the bold statement.

How do you know that is the moral thing to do?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #21 on: November 08, 2013, 12:14:23 AM »
For those who have not read Plato's Euthyphro, please visit the below link before contributing to this thread so that you fully understand what the Euthyphro Dilemma is.

Median,

You must realize that it is a false dilemma. There are more than 2 options.

Goodness is simply God's nature. He doesn't make it up, nor is it given to God by an outside source. Goodness is simply part of God's nature and it flows out of Him.

You must be on the lookout for fallacies such as false dilemma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #22 on: November 08, 2013, 12:35:00 AM »
... "don't do stuff to other folks that if done to you would cause you to consider whipping some ass." ...

How do you know that is the moral thing to do?


It's a philosophical maxim. It can be easily reasoned by considering the wellbeing and happiness of other people.
It was articulated independently in Ancient Egypt: ""Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you." ....
.... and by Confucius: "Here certainly is the golden maxim: Do not do to others that which we do not want them to do to us."

But most of all it just feels right  :)  It accords with our feelings of empathy and sense of fairness - hard-wired in mirror neurons - quite well described in monkeys and apes.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2013, 12:37:43 AM by William »
Git mit uns

Online skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2647
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #23 on: November 08, 2013, 12:41:12 AM »
It's a philosophical maxim. It can be easily reasoned by considering the wellbeing and happiness of other people.
It was articulated independently in Ancient Egypt: ""Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you." ....
.... and by Confucius: "Here certainly is the golden maxim: Do not do to others that which we do not want them to do to us."

How do you know promoting the well-being and happiness of others is moral? What if someone disagrees with that?

But most of all it just feels right  :)  It accords with our feelings of empathy and sense of fairness - hard-wired in mirror neurons - quite well described in monkeys and apes.

It just "feels right?" May I remind you that it "felt right" to Mao/Pol/Stalin to do what they did.

And about empathy and fairness:

What if someone only has empathy for their own family?
Or if Hitler only has empathy for Nazi's?

Heck, even notorious serial killers had empathy for their moms.

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #24 on: November 08, 2013, 01:19:24 AM »
For those who have not read Plato's Euthyphro, please visit the below link before contributing to this thread so that you fully understand what the Euthyphro Dilemma is.

Median,

You must realize that it is a false dilemma. There are more than 2 options.

Goodness is simply God's nature. He doesn't make it up, nor is it given to God by an outside source. Goodness is simply part of God's nature and it flows out of Him.

You must be on the lookout for fallacies such as false dilemma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

And YOU must stop Bearing False Witness by continually and deliberately misrepresenting my position (trying to put words in my mouth - which you have done over and over here). I did NOT make an argument in the OP regarding the Euthyphro Dilemma (you dumb-ass) and I did NOT state anything regarding it. I simply mentioned that those who do not know it should look it up.

Regarding your mere assertion that God's nature is "good" I'll leave it to you to demonstrate how you think you know that and how it is, exactly, that you have made that judgment. I've heard that argument before and it's utterly bankrupt. Watch the video and see:




Claiming "God's nature" solves the Euthyphro Dilemma does not solve the dilemma, namely b/c you have no reliable way of determining that your God is "good" (and this is b/c your alleged deity violates it's own rules/standards throughout that book quite regularly). Thus, it's "nature" cannot be the standard of what is good.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2013, 01:24:47 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #25 on: November 08, 2013, 01:24:36 AM »
How do you know promoting the well-being and happiness of others is moral? What if someone disagrees with that?

Well it's a maxim - which basically means it's fucking obvious to a normal person who thinks about it ;)  Of course some people will disagree - because some people are stupid, or insensitive, or screwed up.  Fortunately the idea is obvious enough to have made its way into societal norms, cultures, many religions, and legal systems.  So it gets reinforced at many levels and people who don't behave in accordance with it tend to get counselled, ostracized, into fights, or punished.

It just "feels right?" May I remind you that it "felt right" to Mao/Pol/Stalin to do what they did.

What's with the "May I remind you..." tone of voice? &)  Do you think I'm an idiot living under a rock?  And that you are somehow superior at remembering stuff?  &)  How is history treating Mao/Pol/Stalin?  Many of their ideas were socially defective and unsustainable.  They've been corrected and condemned by the very societies they were hurting, and the rest of the world.  That's exactly what you'd expect when a maxim such as the global ethic of reciprocity is violated.

And about empathy and fairness:

What if someone only has empathy for their own family?
Or if Hitler only has empathy for Nazi's?

Did you notice how it didn't work out for Hitler?  &)  Do you have a point?


Heck, even notorious serial killers had empathy for their moms.
Well anything biological, such as mirror neurons, will vary in its exprerssion.  Like some people have big noses, others small ... a few people are born completely without noses.  So it is also with our hard wired empathy.  And then overlayed on that is the cumulative psychological effects of life's experiences.  Some people get fucked up by nature, some by life, and some by both.  When that happens society eventually has to step in.  What's your point?
« Last Edit: November 08, 2013, 02:10:38 AM by William »
Git mit uns

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #26 on: November 08, 2013, 01:33:27 AM »

How do you know promoting the well-being and happiness of others is moral? What if someone disagrees with that?

You are making the mistake of thinking that language is absolute, but it's not. Language and definitions are arbitrary and I define morality (roughly) as having to do with the well-being of human beings and the general minimization of harm. If you choose to attempt to define morality differently then we will compare the two and (by use of valid/sound reasoning) determine if your definition is rational, useful, coherent, etc.

If someone chooses to disagree that morality is about the well-being of others and the minimization of unnecessary harm, then I can choose to say they aren't talking about morality but something else. I can then challenge them to attempt to define morality as they see it and we can go from there.

It just "feels right?" May I remind you that it "felt right" to Mao/Pol/Stalin to do what they did.

And about empathy and fairness:

What if someone only has empathy for their own family?
Or if Hitler only has empathy for Nazi's?

Heck, even notorious serial killers had empathy for their moms.

Then they will suffer the consequences of what others around them will do to them (depending upon their effect on others). These "what if, what if..." games don't accomplish the job you are attempting to do.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #27 on: November 08, 2013, 03:20:55 AM »

There is no objective right/wrong if God isn't real.
It's all subjective, such as vanilla vs chocolate ice cream.

I said countless times that it's OK for an atheist to want to love one another like one big hippie community.
You just can't yell at Mao/Pol/Stalin about their morality.

Morality is not your strongpoint, is it Shep? You admit you are the lawless one and you would not know if you were "acting badly" because morality would only be subjective.

By anyone's standard you are already acting and thinking badly. Why not make some more of your statements about how it is not cruel to kill children?
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Religious VS. Secular Morality: Which Is Superior?
« Reply #28 on: November 08, 2013, 03:30:27 AM »
I don't know how much you guys know about North American native culture,it made Christianity look barbaric in comparison. There were rules for retaliation (war if you wish to call it that) that would puzzle the death loving Christian armies.

 Columbus landed on the shores in 1492,saw paradise and quickly fucked it up with Christian "morality".

Whenever I hear people keep repeating this, I wonder if they ever really LISTEN to what we are saying.

For the millionth time, those people were not true Christians. NOWHERE in the Bible does Jesus say, "Convert people via threatening their lives." All you will find in the Bible is Jesus saying to love each other and love God.

Why can't you guys grasp the point that if they are killing, they are not following Jesus?

This constant strawman about this topic has got to stop. It is really frustrating.

You guys pride yourselves on logic and reason.
For God's sake, please use it.

http://www.openbible.info/topics/conversion

Try again skeptic, maybe if you ACTUALLY read the darn thing you'll actually sound halfway intelligent on matters of biblical text.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.