Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[SirRumpole]

I am a human and want to live an enjoyable life, and to live an enjoyable life I need to live in a moral society (not religious morality, but real world secular morality based on human well being)

That depends on your concept of morality. Wholly amoral people can live an enjoyable life by their own standards, but at least you have a concept of morality which is good but I don't think that you can ignore the fact that it has religious roots.

 

[Value Collector]

Morality is a consequence of the existence of purpose! Morality is therefore impossible in the accidental existence to which the secularist subscribes!

So you keep saying, but what makes you think that? where is evidence to support that claim?

What is stopping morality from being an emergent property of an intelligent species?

 

[Value Collector]

That depends on your concept of morality. Wholly amoral people can live an enjoyable life by their own standards, but at least you have a concept of morality which is good but I don't think that you can ignore the fact that it has religious roots.

I think morality existed before religions, and despite religions.

If anything religions tend to corrupt morality by trying to reduce it down to absolute rules, they totally ignore that morality is situational and what is immoral in one situation can be moral in another.

-----------

I am not sure you answered my earlier questions.

1, is there any immoral act that you think can only be shown to be immoral with religion?

2, Do you think Adultery is immoral? if so why?

 

[SirRumpole]

I think morality existed before religions, and despite religions.

If anything religions tend to corrupt morality by trying to reduce it down to absolute rules, they totally ignore that morality is situational and what is immoral in one situation can be moral in another.

-----------

I am not sure you answered my earlier questions.

1, is there any immoral act that you think can only be shown to be immoral with religion?

2, Do you think Adultery is immoral? if so why?

1. Don't know.

2. Yes if it hurts someone who means something to me.

I'm not going into an argument about secular and religious morality, all I'm saying is that religious morality is woven into our culture and can't be undone from our moral and legal codes.

 

[Value Collector]

I'm not going into an argument about secular and religious morality, all I'm saying is that religious morality is woven into our culture and can't be undone from our moral and legal codes.

If you only argument is that religions have historically influenced our culture then I agree with you, of course they have, I don't doubt that.

What I do doubt is the claims that they offer the best morality, or are the only sources of morality.

 

[Value Collector]

Wholly amoral people can live an enjoyable life by their own standards,

The church are proof of that, most religions don't preach morality, they preach amorality, they want participants to avoid using logic to work out what is moral, but to instead follow absolute rules.

Following absolute rules doesn't make you moral, it makes you an unthinking robot only concerned with following the rules without thought as to whether the rule is justified, and thats Amoral eg neither moral non immoral, just a robot.

 

[cynic]

So you keep saying, but what makes you think that? where is evidence to support that claim?

From the very definition of the word morality, it is evident that morality cannot be defined without reference to purpose.

What is stopping morality from being an emergent property of an intelligent species?

In the case of the secular account for intelligent existence, the absence of a purpose for that existence, removes any possibility of objectively defining morality.

 

[Value Collector]

From the very definition of the word morality, it is evident that morality cannot be defined without reference to purpose.

What definition are you using?

As I said before the reference point can simply be the well being of human and other thinking creatures, why does it need to be more than that?

In the case of the secular account for intelligent existence, the absence of a purpose for that existence, removes any possibility of objectively defining morality.

I don't see that it does, the things that will either increase or decrease our well being are objective things, we can use these to define morality.

Why can morality not be an emergent property/evolved trait of intelligent existence of a social species?

 

[cynic]

VC, I have already posted the answers to your recent questions:

What you are talking about here is not morality!

Morality is defined as "the practice of what is right".

How can anything, that any human does to another, be deemed to be right, or not right, when the secular belief, is that, all life originated from an unintended event, and is therefore devoid of any purpose against which rightness and wrongness of behaviour, may be measured?

Objective morality cannot be defined from within the purely secular viewpoint.

As such "secular morality" cannot truly exist!

 

[Value Collector]

How can anything, that any human does to another, be deemed to be right, or not right, when the secular belief, is that, all life originated from an unintended event, and is therefore devoid of any purpose against which rightness and wrongness of behaviour, may be measured?/QUOTE]

It can be deemed to be right or not right based on the outcomes of the action and how they affect the well being of those involved.

If you think the well being of humans has nothing to do with morality, how do you decide what is moral and what is not?

 

[bellenuit]

The Law of ancient Israel which had harsh penalties was designed for a people that lacked morality. We're talking about people who killed their parents, had intercourse with animals, traded slaves. I suppose without it, in there time there would have been chaos everywhere. Side comment: with less and less sexual values , we'd expect more raping and violence to occur (it won't get better).

I am not talking about the harsh penalties outlawed in the OT. I am talking about the God of the OT exhorting and commanding followers to ravage and murder others, many innocent, including children. To capture virgins from another tribe and rape them. Plus lots more.

This is God demanding of his believers that they carry out despicable immoral acts that even ISIS might find repugnant. So your harsh penalties for people who lacked morality is nothing but bull. Your God, the one and only God according to your theology, demanded his people to act immorally. You do not stop a people acting immorally by requiring them to act immorally.

Your perfect and absolute morality is just a nonsense.

 

[SirRumpole]

If you think the well being of humans has nothing to do with morality, how do you decide what is moral and what is not?

Well, we can consider a lot of things as immoral on the grounds of people's well being - pornography which leads to promiscuity, teenage pregnancy and possibly neglected children for example. Are you going to go on a crusade against the immorality of pornography because by your standards it affects the well being of other people ?

Not to mention the immorality of alcohol abuse that ruins so many lives. Going to turn teetotal ?

 

[cynic]

It can be deemed to be right or not right based on the outcomes of the action and how they affect the well being of those involved.

No! Objective morality cannot be determined that way.

How did you determine that "the well being of those involved" was a correct outcome or goal, against which to measure correctness of behaviour, in an accidental existence?

If you think the well being of humans has nothing to do with morality, how do you decide what is moral and what is not?

No! I do not think that.
As stated in an earlier post:

One point that I believe needs to be clarified, is that I do not personally believe, survival of our species, to be the true objective morality, but rather one outcome, of the true objective morality.

I believe there is, at least one, important need, that required the creation of life, as part (if not all) of that need's remedy. It is from the existence of that underlying need, that life as (at least part of) the remedy, derives its purpose, thereby acquiring importance and value.

Without the objective morality, to which I allude, survival of our species would be rendered irrelevant, due to the absence of any meaningful purpose. Life would be needless, devoid of any useful meaning, and morality could not exist in any true sense of the word.

 

[Value Collector]

Are you going to go on a crusade against the immorality of pornography because by your standards it affects the well being of other people ?

Well it would have to be proven that pornography with consenting actors and willing viewers is negative enough to outweigh the positives people find in it before you take away peoples freedom to make it and view it.

Personal freedom is a big part of well being.

If people want to be promiscuous they have that right, it is not necessarily a bad thing.

the best way to combat teenage pregnancy is with sex education.

 

[Value Collector]

How did you determine that "the well being of those involved" was a correct outcome or goal, against which to measure correctness of behaviour, in an accidental existence?

:

Can you think of anything that is immoral that doesn't have something to do with the wellbeing of humans or other thinking creatures?

how does Cynic decide what is moral and what is not?

Whether or not we were accidental is irrelevant, we are here now and that is what counts, and the only reason to have morality at all is if you do care about the well being of other people," Morality is for us by us " so to speak

 

[cynic]

Can you think of anything that is immoral that doesn't have something to do with the wellbeing of humans or other thinking creatures?

how does Cynic decide what is moral and what is not?

Whether or not we were accidental is irrelevant, we are here now and that is what counts, and the only reason to have morality at all is if you do care about the well being of other people," Morality is for us by us " so to speak

Again, you are totally missing the point that was made. How I do, or do not determine morally correct behaviour, has no bearing on what I am highlighting - namely, that the existence of objective morality is logically incompatible with the contemporary secular viewpoint!

I know that this revelation happens to be decidedly inconvenient, particularly for those anti theists so eagerly proclaiming their philosophy to be the superior choice. But, like it or lump it, it is what it is!

 

[Value Collector]

Again, you are totally missing the point that was made. How I do, or do not determine morally correct behaviour, has no bearing on what I am highlighting - namely, that the existence of objective morality is logically incompatible with the contemporary secular viewpoint!

I know that this revelation happens to be decidedly inconvenient, particularly for those anti theists so eagerly proclaiming their philosophy to be the superior choice. But, like it or lump it, it is what it is!

Every one here has agreed, including you, wellbeing is at least a major component of morality, you are just adding a god into it and saying only a god can give it purpose, because for some reason the well being of humans isn't a good enough reason in your opinion.

you keep repeating yourself saying morals can't exist without the purpose or design given by a god, I just think that is totally bunk, and there is probably no need for me to continue discussing it with you unless you can prove that

a) this god exists
b) he is needed for morality

I think you need to provide an example of something which is immoral, that has no secularly reasoning behind it before you can say secular morality doesn't exist, eg something that can only be shown to be immoral by non secular standards.

any way, if morals rely on a god, but no one can talk to this god and his thoughts are unknowable, what is the point?

 

[cynic]

Every one here has agreed, including you, wellbeing is at least a major component of morality, you are just adding a god into it and saying only a god can give it purpose, because for some reason the well being of humans isn't a good enough reason in your opinion.

you keep repeating yourself saying morals can't exist without the purpose or design given by a god, I just think that is totally bunk, and there is probably no need for me to continue discussing it with you unless you can prove that

a) this god exists
b) he is needed for morality

I think you need to provide an example of something which is immoral, that has no secularly reasoning behind it before you can say secular morality doesn't exist, eg something that can only be shown to be immoral by non secular standards.

any way, if morals rely on a god, but no one can talk to this god and his thoughts are unknowable, what is the point?

Please desist from misconstruing what I have been saying on this matter.

Again you are misunderstanding what I am saying! Deities and/or scriptural writings about same, needn't be referenced in this argument.

(i)Morality, by its very definition, cannot exist in the absence of purpose, intent or design!
(ii)Hence, if the secular viewpoint is correct, there can be no morality!

Now where in the above two statements (i)-(ii), can one find reference to deities,or scriptures of same?

From the very definition of the word morality, it is evident that morality cannot be defined without reference to purpose.

In the case of the secular account for intelligent existence, the absence of a purpose for that existence, removes any possibility of objectively defining morality.

Furthermore, despite your misrepresentation of my argument, I fail to recognise any need, on my part, to do any of the things that you suggest!

"Secular morality" for reasons already stated, numerous times now, cannot logically exist.

 

[grah33]

Well it would have to be proven that pornography with consenting actors and willing viewers is negative enough to outweigh the positives people find in it before you take away peoples freedom to make it and view it.

Personal freedom is a big part of well being.

If people want to be promiscuous they have that right, it is not necessarily a bad thing.

the best way to combat teenage pregnancy is with sex education.

These kinds of sexual things are also against that objective morality, imv. They represent a misuse of sexuality, since it isn't open to life (part of God's purpose for it). And they tend to go against nature. Also, I believe they take away that inner tranquility we're meant to feel within.

 

[grah33]

I am not talking about the harsh penalties outlawed in the OT. I am talking about the God of the OT exhorting and commanding followers to ravage and murder others, many innocent, including children. To capture virgins from another tribe and rape them. Plus lots more.

This is God demanding of his believers that they carry out despicable immoral acts that even ISIS might find repugnant. So your harsh penalties for people who lacked morality is nothing but bull. Your God, the one and only God according to your theology, demanded his people to act immorally. You do not stop a people acting immorally by requiring them to act immorally.

Your perfect and absolute morality is just a nonsense.

I don't recall instruction where God tells them to rape. But regards the 'genocides', technically they're not genocides. I'm not going to try to explain why God did that since I don't know everything, but they were highly evil.

If you need another take on it:



Anyway, my morality is based on Jesus's teachings. They do seem perfect, and reveal the greatness of human dignity, in contrast to being an animal.