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:
Mar '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Stuart Creque
Idi Amin died in a luxury villa in Saudi Arabia. · 35 minutes ago
Most dictators throughout history have died comfortably in their beds. And in the last century, when they were replaced by force, it was more often than not something as bad or worse than they were.
Dec '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Stuart Creque
EThompson
Joseph Stanko
EThompson
Societies are far more prosperous (and thus-yes!-content) when they engage in morally prudent behavior. Let's compare the quality of lives of citizens living under some of the corrupt regimes in Africa with say, Scandinavians.
Moral of the story: It pays to be good. · 4 minutes ago
But what if you are the dictator of a corrupt regime in Africa?
That ultimately doesn't pay. No real job security.
See: Idi Amin, Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, etc. etc. · 3 minutes ago
Idi Amin died in a luxury villa in Saudi Arabia.
He lived a life riddled with syphilis and in fear, isolation and ignorance. No thanks. Not enviable by any Western standards.
May '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Mack The Mike
Tom Lindholtz:
Again, philosophically, you are only demonstrating why we shouldfollow a code, not why we mustfollow a code.
Tom, I find your distinction between "should" and "must" incomprehensible. "Must" either means "emphatically should" or "necessarily will", but you clearly don't mean it in the later sense. The whole point of morality is that we have a choice not to follow it. We can chose to violate the Ten Commandments, but not the Laws of Thermodynamics. So if you don't mean that we necessarily will follow a moral code, are you merely saying that we really, really should follow it? You seem so be relying on the distinction between "should" and "really, really should" to do a lot of work in your analysis.
Superb.
Aug '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Michael Labeit
What is the religious (or in this case, Christian) basis for why we "must" follow a moral code?
Perhaps it could be summed up as, "If ye love me, keep my commandments"?
Just as faithfulness to another human being requires a certain standard of behavior, faithfulness to a personal God requires a certain standard of behavior, specifically keeping the commandments that God gave us out of love for us. To do otherwise would be to spurn that love, to betray the relationship, to commit a breach of faith.
If you accept the premise of a personal God, this attitude isn't so odd. I know that's a big if to you, and I don't expect you to accept it. I'm merely giving my honest explanation of the Christian mindset, whatever you want to make of it.
May '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
My two cents. Critical and reductionist.
Moral codes are composed of prescriptive propositions. Take the prescriptive proposition "Thou shall not steal". Formally, it translates into "No human being should be a person who steals". This is a proposition, so it has a truth-value, i.e., it is either true or false (lets be bivalent please). The scrutineer of this proposition responds with "prove it". A Christian might offer the following argument for this proposition (yes, the dreaded syllogisms again):
1. All human beings should be people who abide by the Word of God
2. No person who abides by the Word of God is a person who steals
3. No human being should be a person who steals
This is a valid argument. The conclusion, a prescription, follows from both premises (#2 is a description, its not disputed).
Now, suppose the scrutineer responds with "prove premise #1)". Where does this end? Unless this back and forth questioning and argumentation ends with a religious argument that rests upon a premise who's correspondence with reality can be known without further argumentation, then whence cometh this unyielding basis for morality provided by religion?
May '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Michael Labeit
What is the religious (or in this case, Christian) basis for why we "must" follow a moral code?
Perhaps it could be summed up as, "If ye love me, keep my commandments"?
Just as faithfulness to another human being requires a certain standard of behavior, faithfulness to a personal God requires a certain standard of behavior, specifically keeping the commandments that God gave us out of love for us. To do otherwise would be to spurn that love, to betray the relationship, to commit a breach of faith.
Ifyou accept the premise of a personal God, this attitude isn't so odd. I know that's a big ifto you, and I don't expect you to accept it. I'm merely giving my honest explanation of the Christian mindset, whatever you want to make of it.
Why should I accept this premise? Why should I love God and not spurn what he has allegedly given to me? Unless the Christian can ultimate provide an answer the truth of which can be known without argument, then this timeless, impenetrable basis for morality posited by Christians is not provided by Christianity.
Edited on March 19, 2012 at 9:55amJun '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
EThompson
Stuart Creque
EThompson
Joseph Stanko
EThompson
Societies are far more prosperous (and thus-yes!-content) when they engage in morally prudent behavior. Let's compare the quality of lives of citizens living under some of the corrupt regimes in Africa with say, Scandinavians.
Moral of the story: It pays to be good. · 4 minutes ago
But what if you are the dictator of a corrupt regime in Africa?
That ultimately doesn't pay. No real job security.
See: Idi Amin, Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, etc. etc. · 3 minutes ago
Idi Amin died in a luxury villa in Saudi Arabia.
He lived a life riddled with syphilis and in fear, isolation and ignorance. No thanks. Not enviable by any Western standards. · 2 hours ago
But that's the wrong standard. Idi Amin did not have the option to be born a middle-class Scandinavian. The question is, growing up in Uganda, serving in the army, would he have been happier had he not seized power in a coup in 1971?
And more to the point: should his own happiness have been his ultimate criteria in making that decision?
Jun '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Michael Labeit
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Perhaps it could be summed up as, "If ye love me, keep my commandments"?
Why should I accept this premise? Why should I love God and not spurn what he has allegedly given to me? Unless the Christian can ultimate provide something an answer the truth of which can be known with argument, then this timeless, impenetrable basis for morality posited by Christians is not provided by Christianity.
Except it's not stated as a premise, it's stated as a conditional: if you love me.
If you do not love Him, you have no reason to keep His commandments. Your decision.
That then brings us back around to Byron's original question: Does there exist or can there exist a secular basis for objective morality?
How do you answer his question?
May '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Last post had errors, sorry. Its fixed now.
Nov '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
10 cent cup of coffee
Basic answer to your question is yes. Of course I would not use the "invisible magic man in the sky" phrasing.
Many years back during a painful emotional time of life there were thoughts of ending my life. It seemed like a rational way to end the pain. As irrational as it may be the Christian prohibition against it precluded any serious thoughts on the subject. Life went on and the pain subsided.
I am ignorant. Is there an atheistic way to help in a similar situation? · 11 hours ago
I don't know the specifics of your situation, nor am I a psychologist. It is entirely possible that you would've come to the exact same result (not killing yourself) in the absence of a Christian prohibition on it and your acceptance of that prohibition.
My own system of morality finds suicide unthinkable. It's not as if there's Christianity and [atheism] and that the [atheism] is a uniform system. There's many different types of atheists. James Randi, Karl Marx, Ayn Rand and the Marquis de Sod all believed different things.
Nov '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Joseph Stanko
Suppose someone reads Marx and "freely chooses" to make "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" the centerpiece of his own moral code.
Since his code and yours were both freely chosen, does that make them both equally valid?
Suppose someone reads the Bible and concludes Marx was right and advocates communism. Would he then be correct?
The validity doesn't come from it being freely chosen, it comes from the code, if it is valid or not. But these are evaluations taking place within individuals singularly.
Dec '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Existentialism is the one of the few real attempts to create a philisophic system of right and wrong absent a god figure. So the answer to your question is basically any written criticism of existentialism. The problem with moral systems absent a god is that there lacks real consequences. There is no accountability to go along with the existentialist moral obligation to take responsibility. Taking responsibility being the worst thing they could think of and the only reason they could find to engage in social behavior.
Absent a god the following is true
Social behavior = oblivion and ongoing entropy
Anti-Social behavior = oblivion and ongoing entropy
Social Behavior = Anti-Social Behavior
Fudge it all, lets get high, have sex and commit suicide.
Moral and social behavior requires permanent and enduring consequence both positive and negative. Consider what the value of religion would be if you were going to heaven and hell regardless of your behavior.
The last paragraph in the OP is absolutely true. Moral and social athiesm requires clear and common cultural definitions of moral and social behavior.
Edited on March 19, 2012 at 1:39pmNov '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Stuart Creque
Can you tell me whyTed Bundy or John Wayne Gacy were wrong to indulge their sexual sadomasochism and lust for murder? Given that they and their victims are now all in the same state of nothingness, what difference would it have made to themif they'd decided not to torture, rape and kill? · 8 hours ago
I sure can tell you why. Because they violated the Non-Aggression Principle. They agressed against and violated the rights of others.
It basis is in the natural law tradition. I came across it via Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. And it makes no convenient exceptions for when a god or a pope or a king or a president or a talking dog says it's okay to hurt someone and take their stuff.
Oct '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
EThompson
Severely Ltd.
I apologize, my wording was a bit of a cheap shot. However, I don't think that if your basis of acting morally isself-interest,that it is much more noble or accurate than easy. If an immoral act were in your long term self-interest, would that justify it? Self-interest doesn't hold up as a 'source', in the sense that Raycon used.
Apology accepted! My point is thatnobility of purpose (aka religion) must share the stage with socio-economic demographics. Societies are far more prosperous (and thus-yes!-content) when they engage in morally prudent behavior. Let's compare the quality of lives of citizens living under some of the corrupt regimes in Africa with say, Scandinavians.
Moral of the story: It pays to be good. · 8 hours ago
I can't argue with this, but (beating a dead horse) I don't think this kind of pragmatism serves as a solid basis. No form of pragmatism does. J. Gawron can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think it was Kant who maintained that anything you do knowing that it's to your benefit has no moral worth.
Dec '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Fred Cole
Stuart Creque
Can you tell me whyTed Bundy or John Wayne Gacy were wrong to indulge their sexual sadomasochism and lust for murder? Given that they and their victims are now all in the same state of nothingness, what difference would it have made to themif they'd decided not to torture, rape and kill? · 8 hours ago
I sure can tell you why. Because they violated the Non-Aggression Principle. They agressed against and violated the rights of others.
It basis is in the natural law tradition. I came across it via Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. And it makes no convenient exceptions for when a god or a pope or a king or a president or a talking dog says it's okay to hurt someone and take their stuff. · 19 minutes ago
There is no rational basis for aggression to be wrong in and of itself. What makes you different from anything else I consume? You're just food that complains about it. (I dont actually think you are food that complains, I am just using rhetorical flourish)
Edited on March 19, 2012 at 2:28pmFeb '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
EThompson
With all due respect, history proves this assumption to be false. Without strong socialcodes, there is anarchy, chaos, and lawlessness. See: urban communities in which there are many churches yet little or no respect for property rights or even worse, for human life. · 13 hours ago
I'd submit to you, that although anarchy, chaos, and lawlessness are unappealing to you, some people actually thrive in those conditions - they can impose their will with superior strength and lack of scruples.
Nov '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Guruforhire
There is no rational basis for aggression to be wrong in and of itself. What makes you different from anything else I consume? You're just food that complains about it. (I dont actually think you are food that complains, I am just using rhetorical flourish) · 30 minutes ago
Well, I assume the other things you consume don't have the capacity for reason. But I'll leave it to you to explore the NAP in your own way.
Jan '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Byron Horatio:
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 thereisobjective 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.
Excellent, excellent post, Byron.
I struggle with the same question as well: the conviction that there is an objective morality, but an inability to describe their origin and nature in a way that doesn't sound either flaky or reductivist. I find that while faith in the Judeo-Christian God would solve this particular philosophical problem, it creates too many others.
Dec '11
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Fred Cole
Guruforhire
There is no rational basis for aggression to be wrong in and of itself. What makes you different from anything else I consume? You're just food that complains about it. (I dont actually think you are food that complains, I am just using rhetorical flourish) · 30 minutes ago
Well, I assume the other things you consume don't have the capacity for reason. But I'll leave it to you to explore the NAP in your own way. · 1 hour ago
I dont disagree that it is probably one of the soundest moral principles out there, its just unnatural, and probably irrational. Nothing else in the natural world operates off of NAP, self-interested cooperation sure, but not NAP.
I dont think its possible to derive morality from an amoral existence.
Edited on March 19, 2012 at 4:03pmJun '10
Re: A Secular Basis for Morality?
Just a quick response. I think the term "secularism" has been stretched and expanded beyond its original meaning. The discussion seems to center around morality emanating from non-belief rather than secularism. Secularism essentially means separation of specific religious institutions and the workings of the state/government. In this sense, the Constitution is a secular document and our form of government is secular. Do our laws borrow heavily or are influenced from Judeo-Christian ethics. Of course. In this context, the question "Is there a secular basis for morality?"might be rephrased, 'Can a secular construct, or form of government provide a basis for morality?'. I would argue it can in as much as our form of government provides the framework for men and women to conduct themselves morally or risk the punishment of the state which derives its authority from the consent of the governed. We have constructed a non-theocratic social contract where we prefer not to have overbearing or specific doctrinal influence from any given religion or orthodoxy that allows for the most possible individual freedom without infringing on the freedom of other individuals including the freedom to practice religion within the bounds of law.