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 58 by Divine Insight]

Exactly my point. If that's the case, then there is absolutely no way that you can say that the morality assigned to the God of the Bible is "good".

You've just confessed that you are not in a position to make that assessment.

In other words, you are apparently accepting the morality of the Bible without any personal evaluation of it at all. After all, by your own claim, you are not in a position to even question the morality of the Biblical God.

So you can't say anything at all about what might or might not be moral since you have just openly confessed that you have no opinion on the matter.

One of my favourite segments from the Atheist Experience.

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Is it true that morality is relative to the individual?

Hi EPH2:8. I liked the way you phrased your question here so I am going to put forth my thoughts on it. Understand that I am not necessarily endorsing Bust Nak’s views.

The answer is yes, morality is relative to the individual. However, individuals do not exist in a void. They are defined by their relationships with other people, and moral obligation is determined by these relationships. For instance, we do have a universal moral obligation to our fellow human beings by virtue of being the same species, yet we also have unique moral obligations to our family, nation, friends, community, race, self, tribe, whatever.

So yes, individuals have different moral duties depending on circumstances. Their morality is relative, but that doesn’t mean it’s entirely arbitrary.

It’s easy to seek the good for each of these groups to which the individual is a part, but difficulty arises when there is a conflict of moral interest. For example, do you allow potentially disruptive immigrant refugees into your country? From a humanitarian standpoint the answer is an obvious “yes�, but from a national community standpoint the answer is an obvious “no�. The difficulty is determining the hierarchy of these obligations.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Is it true that morality is relative to the individual?

It isn't true that morality is relative to the individual because the psychological "flaws" are the same whether a torturer of a child is from Vietnam or USA.

The objective morality, i.e. Kantian Ethics, carries weight everywhere in the World and you can't claim a right to do evil in China just because human rights (UDHR) are weaker there. The Evil-doers know they do evil everywhere and they become psychologically afflicted by that whether here or there in the World.

That's PROOF that morality is objective!

[Tcg]

The Evil-doers know they do evil everywhere and they become psychologically afflicted by that whether here or there in the World.

That's PROOF that morality is objective!

This is far from proof. In fact, it is nothing but an unsupported assertion, one which ignores the reality of psychopathy by the way.

[Aetixintro]

The Evil-doers know they do evil everywhere and they become psychologically afflicted by that whether here or there in the World.

That's PROOF that morality is objective!

This is far from proof. In fact, it is nothing but an unsupported assertion, one which ignores the reality of psychopathy by the way.

No, that's not true. The fact is that you make an unfounded claim against my proof for Kantian Objective Ethics that has psychological implications. Of course, the immorality of psychopathy is entailed by that. Which is understood by most people once they are informed.

[EPH2:8]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Is it true that morality is relative to the individual?

Hi EPH2:8. I liked the way you phrased your question here so I am going to put forth my thoughts on it. Understand that I am not necessarily endorsing Bust Nak’s views.

The answer is yes, morality is relative to the individual. However, individuals do not exist in a void. They are defined by their relationships with other people, and moral obligation is determined by these relationships.

I understand what you’re saying, but moral obligation is he opposite of moral relativism.

For instance, we do have a universal moral obligation to our fellow human beings by virtue of being the same species, yet we also have unique moral obligations to our family, nation, friends, community, race, self, tribe, whatever.

Agreed. Again though, a universal moral obligation is not subjective or relative.

So yes, individuals have different moral duties depending on circumstances. Their morality is relative, but that doesn’t mean it’s entirely arbitrary.

It’s easy to seek the good for each of these groups to which the individual is a part, but difficulty arises when there is a conflict of moral interest. For example, do you allow potentially disruptive immigrant refugees into your country? From a humanitarian standpoint the answer is an obvious “yes�, but from a national community standpoint the answer is an obvious “no�. The difficulty is determining the hierarchy of these obligations.

That situation has the same obligation...value of human life. Are we valuing the immigrants life’s / well being from where they may be oppressed or the current residents well being from possibly disruptive immigrants. Either way, human life /well being is the moral obligation no matter which answer you choose.

[Divine Insight]

For instance, we do have a universal moral obligation to our fellow human beings by virtue of being the same species, yet we also have unique moral obligations to our family, nation, friends, community, race, self, tribe, whatever.

Who says that we have a moral obligation to any of those entities you've listed?

That itself is nothing more than a personal opinion.

I certainly don't have a moral obligation to support all other humans just because they are human. There are humans I totally disagree with and do not support.

Same is true for family, nation, friends, community, race, tribe, etc. I certainly have no moral obligation to support my nation if my nation is doing things that I personally consider to be immoral. Same is true for family, community, race, etc.

The only person I have a moral obligation to is myself. Period.

Morality is totally subjective and there is no obligation to support the moral views of any other entities.

Now if you claim that I have a "moral obligation" to treat all those other entities based on my own personal moral compass, then I would agree. But that's my moral compass, not theirs. So that still reduces to me having only a moral obligation to my own personal moral views.

If another human thinks it's ok to torture babies, I have no moral obligation to support them in that just because they are a human. Therefore only my moral opinions matter to me. So my moral obligation is solely to own subjective morality, not to anyone else.

If I save a baby from another human who is out to harm the baby have I supported the moral values of the human who was out to harm the baby? I think not.

So this idea that we have a "moral obligation" to anyone just because of some relationship we might have with them is totally wrong. I totally reject that proposal.

Even if you are in the army of your nation, and your superior officer commands you to kill innocent civilians, you have no 'moral obligation' to follow that command. To the contrary, if you feel that it is an immoral command you have every right to refuse to obey that directive.

So you only have moral obligation to yourself. To your own subjective moral values. And to no one else.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Is it true that morality is relative to the individual?

Hi EPH2:8. I liked the way you phrased your question here so I am going to put forth my thoughts on it. Understand that I am not necessarily endorsing Bust Nak’s views.

The answer is yes, morality is relative to the individual. However, individuals do not exist in a void. They are defined by their relationships with other people, and moral obligation is determined by these relationships.

I understand what you’re saying, but moral obligation is he opposite of moral relativism.

I am not speaking of "moral relativism" in that sense.

The existence of relationships between people is an objective truth, but the nature of those relationships is not absolute.

For instance, we do have a universal moral obligation to our fellow human beings by virtue of being the same species, yet we also have unique moral obligations to our family, nation, friends, community, race, self, tribe, whatever.

Agreed. Again though, a universal moral obligation is not subjective or relative.

I am saying that humans have both universal obligations AND circumstantial obligations. And that sometimes these obligations conflict with one another.

So yes, individuals have different moral duties depending on circumstances. Their morality is relative, but that doesn’t mean it’s entirely arbitrary.

It’s easy to seek the good for each of these groups to which the individual is a part, but difficulty arises when there is a conflict of moral interest. For example, do you allow potentially disruptive immigrant refugees into your country? From a humanitarian standpoint the answer is an obvious “yes�, but from a national community standpoint the answer is an obvious “no�. The difficulty is determining the hierarchy of these obligations.

That situation has the same obligation...value of human life. Are we valuing the immigrants life’s / well being from where they may be oppressed or the current residents well being from possibly disruptive immigrants. Either way, human life /well being is the moral obligation no matter which answer you choose.

You are only looking at the problem in one moral dimension. Of course human well-being is a factor in ANY moral problem, but there are other moral dimensions as well such as the well-being of family or nation.

Whatever morality you may profess, I would bet you are more generous with members of your own family or own community. That alone betrays that your morality is more complex than simply "human well-being is good".

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 66 by Divine Insight]

To say you only have moral obligation to yourself can actually entail a lot of issues.

So in having a moral obligation to yourself, you may have an interest in supporting others so that they may support you. Agree? So it follows, the net of people with whom you are connected to may see the same for you in you supporting them.

In a sense, therefore, we get to the point of The Golden Rule of the Bible:
Matthew 7:12 ESV
The Golden Rule - 12 "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

And further, let's say that morality reflects a kind of traffic, whether planes, ships, cars, buses, trains, the rest... Only that this "traffic" is that between human beings and all relations to human beings, also nature, that's described by (Kantian) Ethics and the actual actions as (Kantian) Morality.

For the flow of society, in saying you have an interest in you, "but of no other", why should you have a value above others in all of this "traffic" of society?

Can you on behalf of society say that only you are supposed to be valued? No! Everybody must be valued and every "traffic accident" (between human beings and the rest) should be reported on given all people's self-interest.

And still, why live in a society if you only value yourself? Is it not that one lives in a society for the love of life, for the genuine interest in other people and all that takes place in terms of (democratically) lawful behaviour?

Please, reconsider and reword your argument Divine Insight. You can't possibly be this way. Right?

Note: To absurd people complaining about "all the rules of ethical and moral life", you may want to point to the fact they never complain about the traffic regulations for their driver's license.

[FarWanderer]

For instance, we do have a universal moral obligation to our fellow human beings by virtue of being the same species, yet we also have unique moral obligations to our family, nation, friends, community, race, self, tribe, whatever.

If another human thinks it's ok to torture babies, I have no moral obligation to support them in that just because they are a human.

I am not talking about supporting a person's actions. I am talking about a moral obligation to support their well-being. Those are different things.

And you are characterizing my position as one that would for some reason place the torturer's desires above that of the victim's. How on Earth did you get that from what I said????

Even if you are in the army of your nation, and your superior officer commands you to kill innocent civilians, you have no 'moral obligation' to follow that command.

In your example you DO have a moral obligation to follow the command, but you ALSO have a moral obligation not to kill innocent people.

Being an adult means sorting out a healthy, sustainable hierarchy of value on your own. The correct moral path in your example is obvious, but at other times it can be more difficult.

To the contrary, if you feel that it is an immoral command you have every right to refuse to obey that directive.

Why do you use the word "right" if everything is morally subjective?