Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 20 of 62

Threaded View

  1. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    681
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What about when people don't agree. specifically the minority.
    Your example is yet again quite vague. Are you referring to a political, racial, ethnic, religious, etc. minority?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I am not aware of any moral system that was voted on at all ever.
    Nor did I say one was.

    ---------- Post added at 09:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:19 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Just because an action is accepted does not make it right, morally; it makes it liked or imposed.
    Tell me, is it simply accepted that cutting off your head will harm you, or is it a fact? You seem to miss the point about how SM uses objective assessments to determine whether an action is considered good or bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    The question is why do the thoughts of one relative, subjective individual (who influences others) equal what is 'good'? Is it because of he and the other participants 'liking' his system of thought, or is there a standard that is best that he can appeal to?
    SM relies on rational discourse, the examination of data & facts, and objective assessments, in order to determine which actions serve the goals of the system.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    SM does not have one that is best, nor could it make one up.
    The standards aren't simply made up. The standards are based on what's inherently in the participants' best interests. Your claim that they're just "made up" is a common claim by theists regarding the inherent subjectivity of any society's goals. It's something which no society ever has been able to avoid regardless of where they claim to get their morals, but there's nothing wrong with it. Do you honestly think people are just sitting around, "making up" standards arbitrarily?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    If the Being is all-knowing, then He would know what is best, and He would be the standard that best is derived from by subjective human beings.
    Really? On what basis are you saying that an all-knowing being should have any authority over a society which has the ability to determine for themselves what they think their standards should be? This is the main point behind the authority being external vs. internal.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    People would start calling good as evil and evil as good.
    Would you call punishing someone indefinitely for a finite crime good?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    "Encourage change" would be a problem.
    How so? When an opportunity to change & improve something is identified, a secular system encourages the discussions which would lead to the change. Religious systems, on the other hand, do not encourage change.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    How would the participants ever arrive at a best?
    With reasoned discussion and rational examination of available evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Without a fixed best how could the participants know that what they believed was good? (The idea of best is that there is nothing better and if the participants can't appeal to a best - everything is changing - how can they say their system of thought is any better than any other?)
    Again, by having reasoned discourse and showing that a certain standard meets the goals of their system better than another. When faced with limited options, one can certainly be identified as the best available.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    This type of SM philosophy is what people fight over - a disagreement on what is better or best.
    In SM, armed conflicts only occur when one party is not willing to participate in the reasoned discourse which would resolve the disagreement, or, more commonly, when the party is not SM, but RM and dogmatically asserting their inferior system.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    You throw around words like good and better and best, but what they equate to is what you prefer/like, since your system is ever changing.
    No, they equate to what is demonstrably better at serving our goals. Again, nobody is simply saying "I like this or that" arbitrarily.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Is Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not steal, Thou shall not lie, Thou shall not commit adultery, Thou shall not covet something that belongs to someone else, a bad thing?
    No, but again, what identifies and validates these as bad things is not simply that they're written about in a book, but that they are demonstrably against the goals of our society. These assessments, however, are subject to change. Killing someone, for example, is in some circumstances the best available action to take, in which case it would not be bad to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    The 'Golden Rule' is what most religious beliefs are based upon, although I only defend ONE, the Judeo-Christian system of belief. I will argue with you against any other system of thought and belief.
    Really? So when the Israelites were performing the instructions in Going to War, they were actually operating on the Golden Rule?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Improvements provided that the system has built on what is right, instead of what is thought by the individual and his adherents to be good.
    Again, the system is built on what is demonstrably better at achieving the society's goals, not just one what an individual and their adherents think is good.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Hitler (and other depots) built on a system, that if realized, would have resulted in the extermination of whole classes of human beings, such as the Jews.
    Hitler claimed he was doing the work of God. He dogmatically enforced his religious opinions on Germany by force of the army, and each soldier had "God with us" on their belt buckles. SM allows us to objectively determine that what Hitler did was wrong by examining the available evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Now, if there is no best or ultimate, fixed standard, how do we even get to best, let alone good? Good is whatever works, or whatever one person or group can pressure others to accept.
    Again, it's not pressure, but reasoned discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    So Thou shall not kill, lie, steal, covet, etc., (love your neighbor as yourself) is not providing the most reliable results, results that we should follow?
    Whether a standard can provide results is completely separate to whether the standard is intended to do so, which was the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Adaptation means that best has not been found, followed, or known.
    And this is the situation we find ourselves in. Anything else is just unsupported claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Based on whose skeptical inquiry, whose rationale, whose data, whose demonstratable results.
    The participants'.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Inclusive discussions?
    Yes, inclusive discussions, since the discussions take place between the participants.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I see what is happening on campuses around your country where conservative views are ostracized and squashed. That is what happens when SM is questioned and criticized.
    No, that is what happens when rational discourse breaks down.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    No, not conquest or coercion in the case of Christianity but choice.
    I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. There are numerous examples in history where religions, including Christianity, were forced onto unwilling participants.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    It relies the individual recognizing there is One who has our best interested in mind and it depends upon the obedience of the INDIVIDUAL to doing what is good or best because the revelation of God has changed their whole being.
    Yes, all hail Zeus! No, wait, Allah! Or was it Thor? This is what it means to fail at a rational examination of evidence. In any case, what you describe here is precisely what I referred to in my point which included conversion.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Superior in whose SM view (Kim Jong-un, President Xi's, an oppressive military junta, or Putin's)?
    As previously explained, these regimes are not SM, but RM, since they are all dogmatic and are not based on the best interests of their participants.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Because an individual or group says their changing view is superior to another groups views does not make it so unless there is an ultimate standard that their view can be measured by?
    But we don't have what you are referring to as an ultimate standard - only claims of one. In any case, the measurement is the evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Hitler did not like Jews. Kim Jong-un does not like Americans.
    These are both RM.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    President Xi ... Putin
    These are both RM in their dogmatic approach to the state's involvement in religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    If these atheistic and agnostic regimes achieve their goals, the world will be a radically changes place. Once the Judeo-Christian system of thought is supplanted, anything is possible).
    Again, they are not atheistic or agnostic regimes.

    Thank you for your post, Peter!

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Objective morality vs. subjective morality
    By mican333 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 322
    Last Post: June 1st, 2018, 12:51 PM
  2. Replies: 108
    Last Post: July 29th, 2011, 08:02 PM
  3. Personal Morality vs. Public Morality
    By Xanadu Moo in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: April 7th, 2006, 08:32 PM
  4. Secular Humanism
    By Zenstone in forum Religion
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: August 27th, 2004, 06:38 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •