Is secular morality superior?

[historia]

In a recent discussion with Jordan Peterson, atheist advocate Matt Dillahunty spelled out some of his ideas for a secular moral system:

However we are going to define well being, I say you can start with a couple of foundations . . .

If you start with (1) life is generally preferable to death, (2) health is generally preferable to sickness, (3) happiness is generally preferable to sadness . . .

You can start with any three that you found. You could pick three arbitrary foundations.

And the one aspect that makes this secular moral system distinct from religious pronouncements, divine command theory, and those types of things, is that the secular moral system has as its goal, the object of getting better at getting better.

Which means that, if you found out that one of your foundations is wrong, or in conflict with something else, you can now change that.

I find the idea that one can arbitrarily change the foundations of their moral system to be rather odd, and perhaps self-defeating. But perhaps I haven't fully understood his argument here. (Click on his name in the quote for the full video.)

Questions for debate:

Is Dillahunty's secular moral system coherent?

Is Dillahunty's system superior to potential alternatives?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by historia]

Strange. Two men whom I highly respect (although I disagree with both in certain areas) and yet...I haven't watched this. I've heard other people talking about it, have read what Dillahunty said on Twitter or Facebook in the aftermath, but the actual discussion? Nope. Don't ask me why I have yet to do it, I don't know myself.
Anyhoo, thanks historia for reminding me of this. I've now got something to do for the next couple of hours. I'll have some thoughts to give sometime tomorrow evening.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 1 by historia]

Is Dillahunty's secular moral system coherent?

To me, it is coherent. He's just saying that his moral system should be altered as needed.

Is Dillahunty's system superior to potential alternatives?

What alternatives are you referring to? It is obviously better than what the Bible commands. If we followed the Bible, then we would just be making the same mistakes.

[Divine Insight]

I have to agree with Jagella. When you ask whether Dillahunty's system is superior you need to specify exactly what you are comparing it with.

Is Dillahunty's secular moral system coherent?

It allows for both the recognition that it may not be perfect, and it allows for improvement. What's not coherent about that?

Is Dillahunty's system superior to potential alternatives?

As I stated above, you would need to specify an alternative before that question could be assessed. As Jagella suggests, having a system of morality that allows for improvement and reevaluation is certainly superior to something like blinding following the Bible without questioning whether it actually makes any moral sense.

The Bible clearly contains many highly questionable moral directives.

Besides, shouldn't humans be responsible for coming up with their own system of morality. Why are religious people so obsessed with having morality handed to them on a silver platter where to merely question it is itself considered to be an immoral act?

So if Dillahunty takes the position that we should closely question our moral values and continually reevaluate them, and if Peterson rejects that idea, then I feel that Peterson is the one who has an incoherent system of morality. We certainly can't get any absolute moral guidance from something like the Bible. Even the most devout Biblical believers cannot agree on what morality the Bible teaches anyway. So there clearly isn't anything coherent there to follow.

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by historia]


When the word "generally" is used, as in:


(1) life is generally preferable to death, (2) health is generally preferable to sickness, (3) happiness is generally preferable to sadness . . .


one has already built in loopholes. By killing, occasionally, one is not contravening the supposed axiom. It would be interesting to see what is meant by ignoring the guideline.

[Divine Insight]

Personally I feel that secular morality is the only truly responsible morality. At least with secular morality we are taking full responsibility for the moral values we hold.

When we take on moral values that are handed to us by some religious doctrine, then we have no need to take responsibility for those moral values.

In fact, people use religious morality to cop out from having to take responsibility for their moral values all the time.

As an example, "It's God who hates gays, not me!"

That's a cop out. Of course this is just single example that is quite popular in today's world. But the same principle holds for any moral values that have been handed to someone by a religious doctrine.

"It's Jesus who hates those who don't recognize him as the Son of God, not me."

Religion allows people to become bigots in the name of a God, instead of owning responsibility for their own moral values.

Secular morality is the only morality that any human can truly own responsibility for.

Pretending to have a "God-given morality" is just a way of getting out from having to take responsibility for the moral positions a person takes.

I totally respect people who take responsible for their own moral values, even if I don't agree with those moral values. At least they own the fact that it's their moral values, and not some God's.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]


"Pretending to have a "God-given morality" is just a way of getting out from having to take responsibility for the moral positions a person takes.

"I totally respect people who take responsible for their own moral values, even if I don't agree with those moral values. At least they own the fact that it's their moral values, and not some God's."

The question is, is it superior and the answer is it is not.
God's morality is perfect justice hardly found with any man on earth.

Thousand people will give you thousand answers.
I have never heard of God given morality.

[1213]

....

...

If you start with (1) life is generally preferable to death, (2) health is generally preferable to sickness, (3) happiness is generally preferable to sadness . . .

....

...
Is Dillahunty's system superior to potential alternatives?

I think it is not superior. It can lead to many problems. For example, what if my health and life could be expanded on the expense of another people’s life? All kind of evil ideas can be supported with that moral principle, for example Nazism.

[Bust Nak]

Is Dillahunty's secular moral system coherent?

It's okay as it stands, the problem is he goes further and claim objectivity. How could one justify a system that is grounded on freely choosen arbitrary foundation, as objective?

Is Dillahunty's system superior to potential alternatives?

Superior to some sure, but there are better ones. Mine is superior.

[EPH2:8]

I have to agree with Jagella. When you ask whether Dillahunty's system is superior you need to specify exactly what you are comparing it with.

Is Dillahunty's secular moral system coherent?

It allows for both the recognition that it may not be perfect, and it allows for improvement. What's not coherent about that?

Is Dillahunty's system superior to potential alternatives?

As I stated above, you would need to specify an alternative before that question could be assessed. As Jagella suggests, having a system of morality that allows for improvement and reevaluation is certainly superior to something like blinding following the Bible without questioning whether it actually makes any moral sense.

The Bible clearly contains many highly questionable moral directives.

Besides, shouldn't humans be responsible for coming up with their own system of morality. Why are religious people so obsessed with having morality handed to them on a silver platter where to merely question it is itself considered to be an immoral act?

So if Dillahunty takes the position that we should closely question our moral values and continually reevaluate them, and if Peterson rejects that idea, then I feel that Peterson is the one who has an incoherent system of morality. We certainly can't get any absolute moral guidance from something like the Bible. Even the most devout Biblical believers cannot agree on what morality the Bible teaches anyway. So there clearly isn't anything coherent there to follow.

What humans? Hitler? The Columbine shooters? What would you say to a child molester who states molesting a child is not immoral to him?