A Secular Basis for Morality?
I've discussed at length my religious views in the past on Ricochet. To sum it up, I'm a secular agnostic and conservative. I have no hostility towards religion, though cannot bring myself to believe in any particular religion or deity.
On one theoretical issue though, I am torn: Does there exist or can there exist a secular basis for objective morality?
In my own life, I operate under the assumption that there is objective morality. Rape, murder, abuse, are absolutely wrong and must be severely punished. But on a philosophical level, what is the objective basis for believing these things are wrong? I concede that I am incapable of producing one. However, as a secularist, I must act as though there is. Does that make sense?
In other words, good religion has a utilitarian and perhaps even evolutionary purpose. Society can exist fine with non-religious individuals, but a non-religious society with no objective basis for morality is doomed to all sorts of evils.
- Comment (268)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (17)
Comments:
Sep '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
No... It's more about how much the authentication can reasonably climb outside our human personality, the human heart's particularities. I don't think human personality is reducible to caprice or opinion -- or authority.
Human personality isn't reducible to opinion, but any proposition whose truth depended upon the personality of the subject would be a matter of opinion. So I think your definition of 'objective' and mine amount to the same thing for knowable facts. Those fields in which the authentication process is impersonal (meaning not a matter of opinion) are just those in which the truth of of the propositions therein don't depend on opinion. I'm assuming that an authenticated proposition is one that is provisionally accepted as true.
Sep '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Mack The Mike
The existence of unknowable truths cannot possibly make any difference to anyone.
I disagree. There are things none of us could know about my father -- because he refused to talk about them. We are, however, fairly certain that these things he wouldn't talk about made a big difference in how he treated us.
But you could know those things about you father. An old friend of his could knock on your door tomorrow and tell you a story about him. You could discover an old journal of his thoughts.
I understand, of course, that many facts are very difficult to discover. But the authentication criteria for them is still impersonal (in the sense of not being dependent on opinion). If someone says to you "The wind speed at the Northpole of Mars was 182 mph at the exact moment Ceasar was killed in 44 B.c." the fact that his claim is very difficult to check doesn't make it non-objective does it? If the person said "Well that's my opinion and so it's true for me." would you accept that? Of course not.
Aug '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Mack The Mike
Human personality isn'treducibleto opinion, but any proposition whose truth depended upon the personality of the subject would be a matterof opinion.
I'm not so sure of this. The truth of propositions such as "X gets spooked by loud noises" depends very much on X's personality.
I get spooked by loud noises. It's an aspect of my personality, but not, as far as I'm concerned, an opinion. I know of people who disapprove of loud noises far more than I do who aren't nearly as spooked by them.
Edited on March 22, 2012 at 5:56amAug '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Mack The Mike
But you could know those things about you father. An old friend of his could knock on your door tomorrow and tell you a story about him. You could discover an old journal of his thoughts.
Maybe in some other reality. Not this one.
Mack The Mike
I understand, of course, that many facts are very difficult to discover. But the authentication criteria for them is still impersonal (in the sense of not being dependent on opinion). If someone says to you "The wind speed at the Northpole of Mars was 182 mph at the exact moment Ceasar was killed in 44 B.c." the fact that his claim is very difficult to check doesn't make it non-objective does it?
If the only feasible way to test the claim is to make models with a lot of estimations and suppositions and extrapolate back, then there is a sense in which even this statement could be said to be more subjective, and therefore less objective, than a similar statement about a time and place where wind velocity was easier to measure.
May '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
ack The Mike
If someone says to you "The wind speed at the Northpole of Mars was 182 mph at the exact moment Ceasar was killed in 44 B.c." the fact that his claim is very difficult to check doesn't make it non-objective does it?
If the only feasible way to test the claim is to make models with a lot of estimations and suppositions and extrapolate back, then there is a sense in which even this statement could be said to be more subjective, and therefore less objective, than a similar statement about a time and place where wind velocity was easier to measure. ยท 3 hours ago
The wind speed itself would still be an objective fact. But to attempt to judge the accuracy of any particular estimate of that wind speed would be highly subjective. So facts are objective, but (attempted) statements of fact can have varying degrees of subjectivity.
Is that the same thing you're saying?
May '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
I have been following your conversation for a while but I got lost a ways back. Could one of you be so kind as you explain the proposition that moral truths be objective in order to have coherent thoughts about them? Why is this so? Aren't taste in music or food or hobbies counterexamples?
Apr '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Waaaay too late, I know, but please indulge a few quick thoughts:
1. Byron, what a perfect post. I have wondered the exact same thing(s) for years. I agree with every jot and tittle that you have written, both in describing your own views and in formulating your question.
2. I find it curious that a thread generating nearly 200 comments that was promoted to the Main Feed attracted not even a cursory moment of participation or interest from a Contributor.
3. How cute is Brian Watts's dog?!
Sep '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Mack The Mike
Human personality isn't reducible to opinion, but any proposition whose truth depended upon the personality of the subject would be a matter of opinion.
I'm not so sure of this. The truth of propositions such as "X gets spooked by loud noises" depends very much on X's personality.
I get spooked by loud noises. It's an aspect of my personality, but not, as far as I'm concerned, an opinion.
The 'subject' in 'subjective opinion' is the person having the opinion, not the person the opinion is about. If you believe that X gets spooked by loud noises, then X is the object of the belief and you are the subject doing the believing. The truth or falsehood of your belief about X's proclivity to get spooked depends in no way on your personality.
Sep '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
If the only feasible way to test the claim is to make models with a lot of estimations and suppositions and extrapolate back, then there is a sense in which even this statement could be said to be more subjective, and therefore less objective, than a similar statement about a time and place where wind velocity was easier to measure.
While there may be a sense in which the Martian polar wind speed in 44BC is subjective, it certainly isn't in the sense that we've been discussing, namely the sense of being the sort of proposition for which the appropriate method of authentication is impersonal. Your feelings about polar Martian wind have no relevance to their speed.
You seem now to be using 'objective' to mean 'reliably established' or even 'certain'. This is not consonant with your impersonal authentication criterion for the simple reason that you have to know what authentication criteria to use before the investigation whilst the reliability of its outcome can only be known after the fact.
Sep '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
No. The experience of enjoying a great piece of music is not something that can be expressed. You can talk about the music of course -- what key its in, the rhythm, etc.-- but not about the enjoyment itself. Sure you can say you like the syncopation (or whatever) but not why. If someone else says they hate it, there's no argument you can make.
Anything that can be reasoned about is objective. That's why arguments about matters of taste can be so pointless. "Van Hagar sucked." "No, they rocked! David Lee Roth's a wuss." "Nah-aah" "Yah-huuh" etc. etc. Thats not reasoning. It's all bare assertion.
Aug '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Mark Wilson
The wind speed itself would still be an objective fact. But to attempt to judge the accuracy of any particular estimate of that wind speed would be highly subjective. So facts are objective, but (attempted) statements of fact can have varying degrees of subjectivity.
Is that the same thing you're saying?
I think so.
Aug '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Mack The Mike
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
If the only feasible way to test the claim is to make models with a lot of estimations and suppositions and extrapolate back, then there is a sense in which even this statement could be said to be more subjective, and therefore less objective, than a similar statement about a time and place where wind velocity was easier to measure.
...Your feelings about polar Martian wind have no relevance to their speed.
Where did I mention my feelings about polar Martian wind? I mentioned estimations, suppositions, and extrapolating.
Now, estimations and suppositions for the purpose of extrapolation typically have a component of personal judgment, relying on intuition about the data developed by experience. I wouldn't call this component just "feelings". Particularly not my feelings, since I have no expertise in anemometry.
However, let me try to play along: let's call those personal judgments "feelings". A person who is an expert on anemometry should have "feelings" about polar Martian wind that have some relevance to the actual properties of Martian wind, since this person has trained his thought (including his intuition, or "feelings") to better reflect reality when it comes to wind measurement.
Edited on March 23, 2012 at 4:29amAug '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Mack The Mike
You seem now to be using 'objective' to mean 'reliably established' or even 'certain'. This is not consonant with your impersonal authentication criterion...
I do not see why it's not consonant:
Things that are harder to establish reliably, or harder to be certain about, are also usually harder to authenticate impersonally.
Moreover, people tend to hope that what's established more impersonally has also been established more reliably or more certainly. I doubt this hope is a mere symptom of delusion: my guess is that the hope reflects something true about human nature, external reality, or both.
So yes, I'm overloading the term "objective", but in a way that accords with common sense.
Sep '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
I do not see why it's not consonant:
Things that are harder to establish reliably, or harder to be certain about, are also usually harder to authenticate impersonally.
True but irrelevant. The question before us is whether the correct process of authentication for certain hard questions (right vs. wrong, polar martian climate, etc.) is impersonal or not. The fact that the questions are hard doesn't change the criteria. In golf a shot from a sand trap might be harder and the results less consistent than a put from the green but the critri0n for success is the same in either case, get the little white ball in the cup.
Aug '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Mack The Mike
The 'subject' in 'subjective opinion' is the person having the opinion, not the person the opinion is about.
I thought you were using "subject" in the sense of an Aristotelian proposition. (As in, "All men are mortal," where the subject is "all men".)
But the subject could also be the one making the statement.
I was actually torn about which interpretation you meant, and I guessed the wrong one. Oops :-P
Mack The Mike
The truth or falsehood of your belief about X's proclivity to get spooked depends in no way on yourpersonality.
Not in the sense that my personality changes the truth. Obviously.
But the truth or falsehood of my belief about X does depend on my personality in the sense that my personality influences how I perceive the truth.
I may have a personality unusually deficient in perceiving truth, and therefore be more likely to have beliefs which are wrong.
Or I may have a personality better equipped to perceive some truths than others, in which case my beliefs about some truths are more likely to be correct than my beliefs about other truths.
Sep '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Mack The Mike
...Your feelings about polar Martian wind have no relevance to their speed.
Where did I mentionmy feelings about polar Martian wind? I mentioned estimations, suppositions, and extrapolating.
I was trying to interpret your comment #184 in a way consistent with your impersonal-authentication definition from comment #174. Estimates, explicit suppositions, and extrapolations are all impersonal, and thus they meet your definition of 'objective'.
Sep '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Midge, let me try to go at this question from the other direction. We've been discussing whether the consideration of certain hard questions should be approached objectively, meaning using an impersonal authentication process. Let me ask you this: for questions that you don't consider objective, what's the proper process of authentication. When you set out to consider a question how do you know which process to use?
Sep '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Not in the sense that my personality changes the truth. Obviously.
But the truth or falsehood of my belief about X does depend on my personality in the sense that my personality influences how I perceive the truth.
This makes no sense to me. It's like saying "That man is tall in the sense that his dog is a terrier" The two things are seperate. One's perceptions and the real truth are two different things.
Aug '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Mack The Mike
No. The experience of enjoying a great piece of music is not something that can be expressed. You can talk about the music of course -- what key its in, the rhythm, etc.-- but not about the enjoyment itself. Sure you can say you like the syncopation (or whatever) but not why.
That is not entirely true, as anyone who's done music can attest. We cannot give the ultimate cause for the enjoyment of music (we cannot give the ultimate cause for anything, really, unless we say "God"). But we can identify proximate causes that tend to make music more enjoyable.
I don't feel too confident expounding on rhythm, but I would venture to guess that, like cadential structure or musical dissonance, syncopation plays with our sense of expectation by deviating from a straightforward pattern without obliterating that pattern. It's empirical that anticipation and delay are a big part of enjoyable music.
We cannot fully express the experience of music, I agree. We always know more than we can tell, and with music, attempts to express what we experience fall notoriously short. But that is not to say partial expression is impossible, or invalid.
Edited on March 23, 2012 at 5:26amAug '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Mack The Mike
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
I do not see why it's not consonant:
Things that are harder to establish reliably, or harder to be certain about, are also usually harder to authenticate impersonally.
True but irrelevant.
Maybe this is the essence of our failure to understand each other. You think this is irrelevant. I don't.
Edited on March 23, 2012 at 5:15am