Where does Secular Morality Come From?

[Purple Knight]

Question for debate: Where does secular morality come from?

Is it just, what is best for all? What if something is good for one person and bad for another? What if two people disagree? What determines who is right? Evidence perhaps? Or are there some things that are just wrong period, no reasons needed?

Here's an example: If someone could show you that a purge society (wherein murder is legal for some or all of the time) actually works really well and solves most or all of society's problems? Would murder then be moral? Or is murder immoral no matter what, no reasons needed?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #8]
You seem to be hung up on this problem of an objective right or wrong, like morals were a universal constant like gravity or the speed of light. I can hear this mantra repeating over and over in the background: "There is an objective morality or there is no morality', and there is a large prop - up hoarding of God labelled 'the basis of objective morals'. This is not the way it works and couldn't possibly be, and that was known from antiquity.
The problem was that we knew we had morals, but nobody knew how or why or whether they were even as valid as we all thought. The answer especially since DNA explained instinct, is now not hard and the argument or apologetic from morality is is passe.

But the god - apologists will not let it go. And we know why; there is this Faith that there is an objective basis and origin for everything from Life, to matter and also for good and evil, and it is a big invisible human saying so. Anything else and it just seems like it's based on nothing, just as Life is based on nothing unless there is a big invisible human there telling us that our life means something.

Once one lets this godfaith go, everything has meaning on its' own terms, even if we can't explain where art and music comes from. It is still valid though few now would propose that it is based on an objective reality and a god had to give it to us.

Morality is the same and the old 'no Morality without God' (this is what it comes down to, no matter how they dress it up as a philosophical conundrum) just doesn't wash now, but we keep getting it presented, jut done up in different wrappers so it doesn't look like godfaith that is being peddled.

[POI]

One thing the video insists is that you need to prove that objective morals exist. I disagree. Morality just is. It is the First Thing, which everything is built upon. Other things are proven using morality. Morality - objective morality even - is a first assumption, and it's a first assumption from anyone who engages in debate about morality, otherwise there would not be a debate. There would not be forums such as these with fairly strict debate rules if the question of morality was subjective and no more answerable than whether a swan or a monarch butterfly is prettier.

I find it interesting that the moral argument seems to (usually) only come up when a doubter raises question regarding parts of the Bible. Likely because both the accuser, as well as the defender, both already agree that such said act(s) sound 'immoral' -- (at face value). Hence, this is when we get to enjoy the vast 'apologetics' of some theists. So even though we cannot ground "morals' as being truly 'objective', this topic seems to rear it's ugly head usually only when the theist is getting ready to defend his/her beloved Bible stories.

So call it what you will -- (subjective, objective, absolute). However, these 'secular morals' look to be "grounded" by the following categories; (and maybe even more):

1) homeostasis (Maslow's hierarchy)
2) consequentialism (presented in the video)
3) cooperation
4) game theory
5) empathy
6) evolution (tribalism)
7) reciprocal altruism
8) humans being extremely altricial
9) elders teaching the younger ones how to co-exist in society, which all keeps the anarchy at bay.

[TRANSPONDER]

Which is why I said morality is on the individual.

Again, plus for honesty about what morality is. I would wager that most people who believe this, actively try to make morality into something objective.

In my scenario, I don't care what's right for everyone, nor do I care what anyone else thinks.

You're not supposed to. If you do it actually ruins the metagame. A fair meta only emerges if everyone really is out for themselves. If people start thinking about others then it just turns into a game of pretend-to-be-selfless and the best pretender wins.

Yes/ But of course God IS the Objective basis of morality that Christians are talking about. God says so, therefore it is.

That fails of course, not only because the existence of God is (as the video said) the proposition that the argument is trying to prove, and not even that even if morals come from 'God', it doesn't tell us which one (1) but God's say so is not objective but God's opinion, it is not objective morality in itself, but dictatorial and like many of a dictator is more what he says to do, rather than what he does himself.

And incidentally, wasn't that Lane -Craig again? He seems to be quite the fellow for coming up with Godfaith -basd syllogisms that are utter trash but are dressed up to sound like sound philosophy, and obviously impress the faithful.

(1) cue 'Christian morality is better than the morality of any other religion'.

1. Without God, objective morality wouldn't exist
2. Objective morality exists
________________________
∴ God therefore exists.

All that syllogism does is define God as "the thing morality is based upon" so it could be one of those asymmetrical flatfish with the two eyeballs on one side for all we know. If morality stood on that, then that would be God - according to that syllogism which I actually think is valid. It just says so little about what God is that it's rendered non-useful.

I may have done you an injustice here - I tend to react to the post, rather than check a mental list of 'Whose side is this poster on?'.

1. Without God, objective morality wouldn't exist
2. Objective morality exists
________________________
∴ God therefore exists."

Is of course dreadful logic as it makes an assumption without good reason 'Objective morality exists'. Quite clearly it doesn't, because morality varies and changes. But (they say) the basics are there, common to humanity, and the local variants can be put down to man's hardness of heart, Stan being Lord of this World, or Adam's fall,

That's why Morality was considered a surefire apologetic for God back in the days before DNA showing how instinct worked. Now evolutionary biology (and social evolution) is much the better hypothesis than God writing anything on our hearts, which is just 'big invisible human to explain the unexplained' repackaged, and, when we have an explanation, God is no longer needed.

So the basic parameter of an objective morality is gone, even apart from God really not being logically a sound basis of objective morality, but a Command Theory diktat, which some Theist bullet -biters attempt to resolve, essentially with the 'Job apologetic' ('where were you when I made everything?' - essentially, I'm the boss; I can smash you, worship me or else!' I just love bullying dictators )

Then of course the second false parameter, that objective morality is down to a god. Never mind which god (cue: Bible is morally best) and rather than 'Don't know' which would be impatiently dismissed: "Random particles do not make moral law -codes, a Big invisible human is the only possible answer..."

So it appears that you saw through that terrible god apologetic, and i probably misunderstood you if I thought that you were arguing for it. I'm always happy to be put straight.

[ManicSprite]

Question for debate: Where does secular morality come from?

I think it comes from empathy and is a matter of in-groups vs out-groups, or us vs them. We empathize most with those we consider as one of us and so we don't want to cause them harm. If we can make someone 'other' it is easier to mistreat them.

Early in our development as societies it was ok to kill, rape, or enslave another tribe (the out-group) but not one of our own. In other words, we justify mistreatment of others because we don’t empathize with them as one of us. They are the other. As we mature as societies, we begin to include more people into our in-group. From our tribe to our nation to our race and eventually to all humanity. So the more people you include in your in-group the more moral you are.

Is it just, what is best for all? What if something is good for one person and bad for another? What if two people disagree? What determines who is right? Evidence perhaps?
Or are there some things that are just wrong period, no reasons needed?

Here's an example: If someone could show you that a purge society (wherein murder is legal for some or all of the time) actually works really well and solves most or all of society's problems? Would murder then be moral? Or is murder immoral no matter what, no reasons needed?

I would turn this around and rather than what's best for all, I would say what causes the least harm. In your example, it may solve some problems but it would cause a great deal of harm. So the moral thing to do is find solutions that may not have as dramatic results but cause less harm. For example, placing heavy taxes on the super-rich and using the money to pay for things like mental health, drug addiction, after-school programs, etc. It may take much longer and may not be as successful, but the worst harm would maybe be that Jeff Bezos might have to give up the helicopter-pad support yacht that he uses to get to his other yacht. So I think if 2 people disagree on what is moral you just need to look at what will do the most good AND will cause the least harm.

And I do think some things are immoral no matter what but I think they always have been. It all depends on who you see as 'one of us'.

[AgnosticBoy]

Question for debate: Where does secular morality come from?

Is it just, what is best for all? What if something is good for one person and bad for another? What if two people disagree? What determines who is right? Evidence perhaps? Or are there some things that are just wrong period, no reasons needed?

Here's an example: If someone could show you that a purge society (wherein murder is legal for some or all of the time) actually works really well and solves most or all of society's problems? Would murder then be moral? Or is murder immoral no matter what, no reasons needed?

Your questions may as well be rhetorical ones because it shows the weaknesses of a secular moral system. Not only has it proven difficult to discover objective morality, but we also have to figure out where do we even get our morality from. In secularism, that is an open question because there are so many different systems. Talking to some young people, it seems a lot of their values comes from whatever is trending on Tik tok (or whatever other popular outlet). It's no wonder that plenty of them are willing to act out whatever they see on there whether it be relationship advice or some challenge.

Can anyone prove to me why open marriages are wrong? How do you know? What makes you an authority? It's not illegal so why even worry about it? (I bring this up because I've heard even non-religious people opposing it, esp. when it's their spouse that wants it).

At least with a religious moral system, it would be easier to answer these questions. You have one point of reference, but the problem is that the point of reference (God, religious Scriptures, etc) has not been proven to exist. It is perhaps another man-made system trying to disguise itself as god in order to control the populace. I would think if anyone or group claims to have found a secular objective moral system, I'd also accuse them of trying to control my life unless they can prove otherwise, and beyond a reasonable doubt.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #15]

Not even close.

Morality doesn't have to objective to be valid; nomore than art, music or the rules of chess or football.

Biological and social evolution (since the understanding of DNA as the mechanism of instinct) has rebuffed 'morality' as a god - apologetic since the 80's.

Religion was not a very good option even when morality was a persuasive gap for god (which religion?, and religion doesn't have a clean sheet on morality, by any means).

Time to stop flogging that particular very dead horse.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #15]
Morality doesn't have to objective to be valid; nomore than art, music or the rules of chess or football.

Biological and social evolution (since the understanding of DNA as the mechanism of instinct) has rebuffed 'morality' as a god - apologetic since the 80's.

Religion was not a very good option even when morality was a persuasive gap for god (which religion?, and religion doesn't have a clean sheet on morality, by any means).

You didn't back any of your claims with evidence.

You claimed that morality doesn't have to be objective to be valid. What is the point of bringing up validity then?
If there are two moral claims that oppose each other, are both true or valid - and I mean true or valid as in right or good to follow? Is there one that we're supposed to or ought to follow?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #15]
Morality doesn't have to objective to be valid; nomore than art, music or the rules of chess or football.

Biological and social evolution (since the understanding of DNA as the mechanism of instinct) has rebuffed 'morality' as a god - apologetic since the 80's.

Religion was not a very good option even when morality was a persuasive gap for god (which religion?, and religion doesn't have a clean sheet on morality, by any means).

You didn't back any of your claims with evidence.

You claimed that morality doesn't have to be objective to be valid. What is the point of bringing up validity then?
If there are two moral claims that oppose each other, are both true or valid - and I mean true or valid as in right or good to follow? Is there one that we're supposed to or ought to follow?

True, I left a lot out; just as I would in claiming that palaeontology supports an evolutionary origin rather than Genesis; the heap of evidence would take too long for one thread.

So it is research into how Consciousness evolved through animal instinct and DNA tells us how instinct works, and archaeology indicates how the pack instinct (primitive empathy and reciprocity) developed into society, and social evolution led to moral codes. The mechanism is there but goddunnit explains nothing, especially how gods do not look very moral.

Your attempt to undermine 'secular' morality fails because it does not claim to be god -perfect but some rules that humans try to devise to keep society fair and best for all. It isn't perfect, but that does not do a solitary thing to make a God -given morality (never mind a religious one) any better in practical terms or as validated by evidence.

Back, as I say, to the drawing - board.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #15]
Morality doesn't have to objective to be valid; nomore than art, music or the rules of chess or football.

Biological and social evolution (since the understanding of DNA as the mechanism of instinct) has rebuffed 'morality' as a god - apologetic since the 80's.

Religion was not a very good option even when morality was a persuasive gap for god (which religion?, and religion doesn't have a clean sheet on morality, by any means).

You didn't back any of your claims with evidence.

You claimed that morality doesn't have to be objective to be valid. What is the point of bringing up validity then?
If there are two moral claims that oppose each other, are both true or valid - and I mean true or valid as in right or good to follow? Is there one that we're supposed to or ought to follow?

So it is research into how Consciousness evolved through animal instinct and DNA tells us how instinct works, and archaeology indicates how the pack instinct (primitive empathy and reciprocity) developed into society, and social evolution led to moral codes. The mechanism is there but goddunnit explains nothing, especially how gods do not look very moral.

Okay, I get where you're coming from, but that doesn't disprove my points about the problem of secular morality. It does NOT answer which moral code that we're supposed to follow or even if there are any objective morals in the first place. If two people have differing moral codes, then that has the potential to lead to problems ranging from simple disagreements all the way up to wars. No point in trying to convince another nation that they are "wrong" or that there is a path that should be followed.

Also even if your point was supported by evidence, it doesn't account for all moral standards seeing that new moral standards are being made almost everyday, and yes, some of them coming from social media. Therefore, society plays a role and not just biology as you are suggesting. This is also evidence that morality can come from MULTIPLE sources and God might be another option.

Your attempt to undermine 'secular' morality fails because it does not claim to be god -perfect but some rules that humans try to devise to keep society fair and best for all. It isn't perfect, but that does not do a solitary thing to make a God -given morality (never mind a religious one) any better in practical terms or as validated by evidence.

I got it. According to you, it doesn't have to be objective nor perfect. So in deciding between two opposing moral claims, we have nothing more than just human opinion. No objective way of knowing nor is there an objective moral code - as in not just morals simply existing (which answers what is but not the ought), but also the ones that we are supposed/ought to follow.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #15]
Morality doesn't have to objective to be valid; nomore than art, music or the rules of chess or football.

Biological and social evolution (since the understanding of DNA as the mechanism of instinct) has rebuffed 'morality' as a god - apologetic since the 80's.

Religion was not a very good option even when morality was a persuasive gap for god (which religion?, and religion doesn't have a clean sheet on morality, by any means).

You didn't back any of your claims with evidence.

You claimed that morality doesn't have to be objective to be valid. What is the point of bringing up validity then?
If there are two moral claims that oppose each other, are both true or valid - and I mean true or valid as in right or good to follow? Is there one that we're supposed to or ought to follow?

So it is research into how Consciousness evolved through animal instinct and DNA tells us how instinct works, and archaeology indicates how the pack instinct (primitive empathy and reciprocity) developed into society, and social evolution led to moral codes. The mechanism is there but goddunnit explains nothing, especially how gods do not look very moral.

Okay, I get where you're coming from, but that doesn't disprove my points about the problem of secular morality. It does NOT answer which moral code that we're supposed to follow or even if there are any objective morals in the first place. If two people have differing moral codes, then that has the potential to lead to problems ranging from simple disagreements all the way up to wars. No point in trying to convince another nation that they are "wrong" or that there is a path that should be followed.

Also even if your point was supported by evidence, it doesn't account for all moral standards seeing that new moral standards are being made almost everyday, and yes, some of them coming from social media. Therefore, society plays a role and not just biology as you are suggesting. This is also evidence that morality can come from MULTIPLE sources and God might be another option.

Your attempt to undermine 'secular' morality fails because it does not claim to be god -perfect but some rules that humans try to devise to keep society fair and best for all. It isn't perfect, but that does not do a solitary thing to make a God -given morality (never mind a religious one) any better in practical terms or as validated by evidence.

I got it. According to you, it doesn't have to be objective nor perfect. So in deciding between two opposing moral claims, we have nothing more than just human opinion. No objective way of knowing nor is there an objective moral code - as in not just morals simply existing (which answers what is but not the ought), but also the ones that we are supposed/ought to follow.

It does answer it if you think about it. Let me put it this way. Which laws do we follow? Those in our own country or do we look around for a better system abroad? We try to work out the best system in our own social entity. Nobody expects it to be anything else and we are aware of the flaws. Pointing them out is valid,updating them is necessary, but that does not mean that we have to scrap it and go to the Bible.

Cue, 'You do not advocate Bible'. If that were so, what alternative do we have other than the best job we can make of secular ethics, morality and law-making? Am I far wrong if I suspect the idea is not to propose an alternative method of lawmaking (or at least I hope not) but to try to play the 'human methods are not perfect, therefore God' argument. Mr. Agnostic?