Secular Values: Arbitrary?

Pointless Posts, Raves n Rants, Obscure Opinions

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Vaikuntha Dham
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 89 times

Secular Values: Arbitrary?

Post #1

Post by Dimmesdale »

I was reading a book by Tim Keller recently, and in one section he talks about morality and God and how you can't justify the former without the latter.

He talked about Western secular democracies, and how we value tolerance and the individual and his/her rights more than at any other time in history. And yet, in also a unique way, we have no way to justify them. We cannot appeal to anything other than the laws we have made. There is no rationale for things like "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but rather we take them for granted and see them as self-authenticating, without any appeal to God or religion or other values.

In the past societies also held up morality as good, but they appealed to things like scriptures, ancient wisdom, or the moral order inherent in the universe. We modern seculars, again, see things like what I outlined above as good, but we stop at there, and don't go into particulars.

One might say: so what? Values like these should appear obvious to people. Why bother with a justification for them?

And yet there are certain societies now where Western values do not seem obvious. They may seem byproducts of Western dominion, but otherwise seem arbitrary and imperious. So how do we say to others "my values are better than yours" without simply imposing them by force and fiat? We seem to be only able to coerce, not persuade.

So there is the appeal to objective morality, and apologists think the only sensible worldview to offer a grounding for morality is in God, otherwise, morality is simply subjective, arbitrary and by fiat only.

I actually disagree that one need only have recourse to this solution however. I will get to that in my next post.

User avatar
Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Vaikuntha Dham
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 89 times

Re: Secular Values: Arbitrary?

Post #2

Post by Dimmesdale »

[Replying to post 1 by Dimmesdale]

The idea that one needs to appeal to an anthropomorphic personal God in order to ground morality, may appeal to many or most people, but it is an unnecessary leap in my view to save things like Western moral values. This is because such an approach does not do justice to the complexities and nuances found in morality itself.

For example, the idea that morality is either "subjective" or "objective" is a very dumbed down and simplistic way to talk about ethics and values. There is quite a lot of granularity hiding behind these labels, and much subtlety is missed as long as these terms are bandied about like bronze swords. Not to say that these terms do not have value, only that they are inadequate for philosophically settling moral issues. There is, for instance, the idea that morality is neither subjective or objective, but intersubjective.

Let's tackle subjectivity first, since it is the most heavily criticized and also, I think, misunderstood.

When we say something is subjective, we typically mean something like opinion or preference, and we often stop at that. But this goes only skin deep. If we look more closely we may refer to things like natural predilection or conditioning. Thus, something like an acquired taste is not wholly arbitrary, but is the outcome of being habituated to something (like beer or coffee) in such a way that one forms a predilection that is steered, not by one's random will alone, but by influences, good and bad, which create a certain disposition or taste, and is thus, in some sense determined by the outside.

Thus when people say or criticize that a person's morality is simply "subjective" this often is not a fully thought out accusation in that it misses the mark of what the term may entail. As with the example of an acquired taste, there are factors which must be taken into consideration when regarding the "why" or "how" of an individual's position on morality. Things like feelings may come into play, but one needs to go further afield and examine the nature of such feelings and how they interrelate with other concepts and things.

Consider the idea of conscience. A person may have a strong apprehension regarding a certain moral action, like robbing a bank. By their emotional disposition, they may find even the idea of their doing something like that as repugnant in the extreme. The person then may find his emotional state, and his position on morality, to be in large part equivalent. However, one might say that, had they been taught to steal by their parents, their emotional life might be different now, and so to go by their emotions alone is something arbitrary. Subjective feelings are then reduced to meaningless signposts that only happen to coincide with "objective" facts.

But is this genealogy of moral feelings really adequate to account for their invalidity, or is this to not deprive them of something essential? Is it not natural to assume that what is bad should be looked at with bad feelings, just as good things should be looked at with good feelings? Isn't this in itself a very valid litmus test regarding countless other realities we see in practical life? To say that such emotions are meaningless is then to deprive them of a great deal of force and meaning and render them moot when, in truth, they should be taken seriously. It may be regarded that, to paraphrase Hume, we are not good because it is moral, we are moral because it is good. In other words, we are moral (at least partly) because there is a subjective aspect in morality which causes it to be attractive, and immorality for the same reason is unattractive.
Last edited by Dimmesdale on Tue Mar 17, 2020 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Vaikuntha Dham
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 89 times

Re: Secular Values: Arbitrary?

Post #3

Post by Dimmesdale »

[Replying to post 2 by Dimmesdale]

Going along with the counter-claim that, had the person been raised differently, he or she might view robbery with different feelings, it may be pointed out that, though this may be possible in some sense, it is not nearly as malleable a reality as one might expect, because one is dealing with human nature, and that human nature is not something which can be shaped into anything absolutely. In other words, one's nature may impede any unconditioned fiat.

For instance, one may say that, in a family of thieves, the person who was raised may have originally had affections which were common to all healthy human beings, but that, given conditioning and circumstances, these healthy emotions were distorted or destroyed by indoctrination and the force-feeding of an ideology that was counter to a healthy view of morality. Our subjective feelings then, may be seen to correspond in a healthy way to moral facts. It is only due to their disruption and dysfunction that they become meaningless and not a valid moral compass. In a truer light, they are a benevolent and at times crucial guide.

User avatar
Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Vaikuntha Dham
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 89 times

Re: Secular Values: Arbitrary?

Post #4

Post by Dimmesdale »

[Replying to post 3 by Dimmesdale]

So subjectivity is not, in other words, an absolute entity, but originates through nature and is in large part conditioned by nature. Subjectivity in some sense can be argued, I think, to emerge from nature and so is not wholly arbitrary, but is the offspring of the objective, and refers back to it. If this is so, then subjectivity I think has a place in determining what is real and what is not. It is a key ingredient in determining what is normative, because it is not ultimately separate from the objective. The subjective and the objective go hand in hand, seen in the right light.

What does this mean for things like Western values? It means, at the least I think, that they can be discerned by some persons, not only through emotions but among other things, as in large part right, because subjectivity itself is a guide for discernment, because it is common to human nature. How this should be mapped out, I don't know, but it seems to be a solid starting point.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Secular Values: Arbitrary?

Post #5

Post by Divine Insight »

Dimmesdale wrote: I was reading a book by Tim Keller recently, and in one section he talks about morality and God and how you can't justify the former without the latter.
Why should anyone feel a need to justify their moral values? :-k

The very argument that moral values need to be justified is a totally meaningless argument as far as I'm concerned.

I'll tell you want my moral values are. You tell me what your moral values are. And that's all we need to do.

If we want to we can have discussions about why we have the values we have.

However, if your justification is nothing more than you got your moral values from some ancient book of superstitions then I'm not going to be impressed.

Your appeal to a mythological God as "justification" for your choice of moral values is not going to impress me in the slightest. To the contrary I would be far more impressed by a secularist who actually offered up their own personal reasons for holding the moral values they choose to hold.

So the idea that a God somehow justifies morality is meaningless. Especially when the God in question can't even be produced.

If all you're going to do is point to the Hebrew Bible, then all I have to say about that is that the Hebrew Bible represents some of the worse moral values I've ever personally seen, IMHO.

And yes, that would indeed by my opinion. But until you can produce an actual God behind those myths then those moral values can't be said to be anything other than the values that the authors of those ancient fables wrote.

For example, I'm not going to support stoning to death a young woman on her wedding night just because some ancient book says that if she's discovered to not be a virgin this is what is to be done to her. :roll:

We can argue till the cows come home on that one. But trying to claim that some imagined God "justifies" such utter nonsense isn't going to fly with me.

So no, this whole approach to morality was lost before it was even suggested.

No imaginary Gods of mythology justify the moral values written in ancient books of fables and legends that can't even be shown to be true.

Now if you can produce the actual God you might have an argument. But until then, there's nothing to it. Gods of ancient mythology do not justify terrible ethics and moral values. They aren't any better than personal opinion, and are often times clearly far worse.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Vaikuntha Dham
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 89 times

Re: Secular Values: Arbitrary?

Post #6

Post by Dimmesdale »

Divine Insight wrote:
Why should anyone feel a need to justify their moral values? :-k
In a sense I think you are right that morality is ultimately self-authenticating. We believe what is right is right because it so rings true to our moral sense, and hardly any more can be said after that. However, there are situations in which we must "argue" for morality in terms of which individuals or group of people is right, and the other wrong. If there is a religious group which rises up, and thinks it is perfectly OK to practice genital mutilation, and that they even have divine warrant for doing so, we have to take that into consideration. If we have no other response than "that's wrong simply because we think that's wrong" you're not going to persuade a lot of people on the other side who think they have better reasons then you do. It may come to the point where coercion in the form of violence is necessary to oppose those who think genital mutilation is something that should be practiced on young children. Now, if we had an actual reason or set of reasons demonstrating that genital mutilation is wrong (say, because we are made in the image of a Creator - and hence we have dignity which eschews such practice) then that is a reason with which we can parley with the other group. Otherwise, we may have to resort to coercion only.
Divine Insight wrote: The very argument that moral values need to be justified is a totally meaningless argument as far as I'm concerned.
If we can persuade others using reasons, and thus avoid war and conflict, then it is not completely meaningless, as I've illustrated above.

User avatar
Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Vaikuntha Dham
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 89 times

Re: Secular Values: Arbitrary?

Post #7

Post by Dimmesdale »

Divine Insight wrote: If all you're going to do is point to the Hebrew Bible, then all I have to say about that is that the Hebrew Bible represents some of the worse moral values I've ever personally seen, IMHO.
Actually throughout this thread I've been arguing that we DON'T have to smuggle in a God to justify morality. That if we look at the nature of morality more closely, we see that things like human nature, subjectivity, reflection and the like offer reasons which show that we ground morality in a different way.... At least, I think so....

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Secular Values: Arbitrary?

Post #8

Post by Purple Knight »

Divine Insight wrote:Why should anyone feel a need to justify their moral values? :-k
Because there are some moral values like racism that are objectively wrong.

Sorry for rattling a bronze sword but it's true.

Yes, there is a lot of territory under the opposite - subjective - and it's not simply reduced to taste. There's subtlety to it.

But some things are objectively wrong. I only know of one, and that's racism. However, there might be more.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Secular Values: Arbitrary?

Post #9

Post by Divine Insight »

Purple Knight wrote:
Divine Insight wrote:Why should anyone feel a need to justify their moral values? :-k
Because there are some moral values like racism that are objectively wrong.

Sorry for rattling a bronze sword but it's true.

Yes, there is a lot of territory under the opposite - subjective - and it's not simply reduced to taste. There's subtlety to it.

But some things are objectively wrong. I only know of one, and that's racism. However, there might be more.
But how can you say that this is objectively wrong? :-k

This wasn't always the case. In fact Biblical theology contains extreme racism, even having the Biblical God himself engaging in extreme racism. For example, favoring the Jews over the Egyptians, or the Canaanites over the Israelites, etc.

So you then saying that the Biblical God is objectively wrong?

I would never say that racism is objectively wrong. Instead, I would simply suggest that any intelligence educated person should conclude that it's not a wise behavior to embrace.

Why even bother trying to make it into an absolute? What purpose does that serve.

Why can't humans decide for themselves what they accept as "right or wrong" behavior?

After all, it wasn't very long ago at all that many people used the Bible to justify racism. In fact, some people still do today!

And if we go back even further in history racism was fairly commonplace throughout the world. In fact, there are even evolutionary arguments for why "tribes" saw each other as threats. No doubt this very mentality was the source of the racism that the Hebrew authors attributed to their fabricated God.

You can certainly support that racism is wrong today, and you'll obtain a very high decree of consensus. However, to claim that it is "objectively" wrong loses sight of the very essence of human moral values.

Face it. There is nothing in the universe that you can point to that would back up your claim that anything is "objectively" immoral. All you can do is argue that, in your opinion, you would like to think that it should be objectively immoral.

The very concept of morality (i.e. right and wrong) is a human created concept. Clearly the universe has no concept of morality at all. It's entirely a human invented concept.

The universe will kill your baby in the most horrific manner possible. There is no such thing as objective morality. It simply doesn't exist outside of the minds of humans.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Secular Values: Arbitrary?

Post #10

Post by Divine Insight »

Dimmesdale wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: If all you're going to do is point to the Hebrew Bible, then all I have to say about that is that the Hebrew Bible represents some of the worse moral values I've ever personally seen, IMHO.
Actually throughout this thread I've been arguing that we DON'T have to smuggle in a God to justify morality. That if we look at the nature of morality more closely, we see that things like human nature, subjectivity, reflection and the like offer reasons which show that we ground morality in a different way.... At least, I think so....
This is true. And we often do come to a consensus on concepts of morality. However, there are also many concepts that we cannot come to a consensus on.

What do we do then? All we can do is argued our own personal opinions on whether we think something should be branded as "moral" or "immoral".

But what good does any of this do anyone? :-k Especially on topics that we can't even agree on.

There's also the fact that some of us would consider some things to be "amoral" (i.e. not even qualifying for a need to be judged to be right or wrong)

Take homosexuality and same sex marriage for example. I would argue that there is simply no need to even judge these things to be moral or immoral. They are neither right or wrong. They are just harmless activities like whether we choose vanilla or chocolate ice cream. What's the difference? Neither choice is right or wrong. Just chose whichever favor you like, no need to pass moral judgements on it at all.

On the other hand, if we are basing "morality" on whether or not someone is being harmed (an arbitrary definition created by us), then we can judge things to be moral or immoral.

For example, Purple Knight, as suggested that Racism is "objectively" wrong.

Well, if we embrace the idea that it is "objectively wrong" to harm someone, then of course we can say that Racism is objectively wrong, because we have already defined that if someone is being harmed that's "wrong". And racism definitely harms those who are the victim of racism.

But then we have decided that "harm" is what constitute "wrong". In that case, there's no need to even speak about "morality" why not just speak to the issue of what causes harm?

And going back to my previous example about same sex marriage. Where is the "harm" in that. And when people try to find ways to claim that same sex marriage is "harmful" all they are trying to do is force same sex marriage to be branded as "immoral".

We then have to wonder whether the people who are naturally inclined toward same sex relationships aren't then being "harmed' by this accusation that their natural desire is immoral? And then we need to ask if homophobia is actually bigotry toward those who are attracted to same sex marriage?

It can quickly become a nightmare of moral proclamations, that may in and of themselves, be the cause of unnecessary harm to others.

I say the quicker we drop the whole concept of "morality" and just stick with more practical ideas of trying to find the least harm to others, the better off we'll all be.

Bringing in the very concept of "morality" only serves to muddy the water.


It's simply a concept that isn't even needed. The very concept of morality probably creates more harm than good. So if causing harm is immoral then the very concept of morality is itself an immoral concept.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Post Reply