Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

[futureboy]

I'll try to keep this as short as possible.

For the purposes of this debate, the terms are defined as follows:
Morality: A system of standards & values used to evaluate actions as being good or bad with respect to the standards & values.
Secular Morality (SM): A moral system (morality) which deals with morality outside of religious/theistic/dogmatic traditions and/or claims.
Religious, or Non-secular Morality (RM): A moral system (morality) which is based on religious/theistic/dogmatic traditions and/or claims.

This OP is not concerned with pointless questions or arguments surrounding subjective vs. objective morality - it deals solely with the moral systems which demonstrably/actually exist. Lines of argumentation relying on unsupported claims of subjectivity or objectivity will be disregarded.

In order to determine which moral system is superior, the following criteria will be considered:
1. The applicability of the system and it's standards & values to its participants.
2. The system's ability to improve or be improved by its participants.
3. The system's ability to provide reliable results according to its standards & values.
4. The system's ability to resolve conflicts/disputes about its standards & values.

Additional criteria may be suggested at any time.

The following assessments can be made of each system according to each criteria:
1.
SM:
- The source of the (standards &) values is internal
- The values are based on the views of the participants
- By definition serves the interests of the participants
- Authority comes from a demonstration that the results achieve the goals set by participants
- The authority is accepted by the participants

RM:
- The source of the values is external
- There is no direct link between the values and the participants
- Does not necessarily serve the interests of the participants
- Relies on external authority
- The authority is imposed on the participants

2.
SM:
- Dynamic, permit, and encourage change
- Change is driven by the goal of better serving the participants
- Uses past experience in order to ensure the change best serves the participants

RM:
- Rigid, not conducive to change, and the goal of change is not necessarily to better serve the participants
- If change happens, the source & authority is external & not necessarily applicable to the participants
- Usually changes happen only due to changes in SM, again external

3.
SM:
- Builds on past experience & improvements, therefore there are less new/unknown situations encountered and the system is better at dealing with future situations
- Has the express goal of providing reliable results, with checks & balances to identify whether the system is achieving that goal
- Complex & flexible, ensuring better results by allowing for discussion & modifications when providing results

RM:
- Not necessarily intended to provide reliable results
- Unable to adapt in order to do so

4.
SM:
- Conflict resolution is based on skeptical inquiry, rational justification, data, demonstrable results
- Relies on rational discussion/debate & evaluation of evidence
- Inclusive, discussions take place between the participants

RM:
- Relies on conquest, coercion or conversion
- Rigid & divisive, conflicts aren't actually resolved, but the conflicting parties simply converted

Based on the above criteria, it's clear that secular morality is superior to religious (non-secular) morality.

[MindTrap028]

I would object to 4.
- SM conflict resolution is based on skeptical inquiry. ..etc.

I would say that the millions of dead people from the conquest driven secular social morals of socialists countries would be evidence against this.
Pointing to RM that has the same effect would not answer this objection.

The objection is, that SM is not defined inherently by the traits of #4, and has shown a drastic and repeated tendency to contradict this standard. So it is false and should not be accepted as a true statement.

[futureboy]

I would say that the millions of dead people from the conquest driven secular social morals of socialists countries would be evidence against this.

Unfortunately, those examples are from regimes which wouldn't be recognized as truly SM as defined by the OP since they are all based in dogmatic ideologies. This is more commonly known as the Atheist Atrocities Fallacy. History has already illuminated for us the use by Stalin of the very same dogmatic infrastructure in the form of the pre-existing religious tyranny that proved to be the perfect vehicle for his godless religion of Communism. Hitler expressly confirmed multiple times that he was doing god's work. These were atrocities committed in the name of dogmatic ideologies, not secularism. Nobody in their right mind would say that the problem with Communist Russia or the Holocaust is that there was too much skeptical inquiry going on.

The objection is, that SM is not defined inherently by the traits of #4, and has shown a drastic and repeated tendency to contradict this standard. So it is false and should not be accepted as a true statement.

SM as defined in the OP inherently implies a rejection of dogmatic ideology and therefore indeed does inherently value skeptical inquiry.

[MindTrap028]

Unfortunately, those examples are from regimes which wouldn't be recognized as truly SM as defined by the OP since they are all based in dogmatic ideologies. This is more commonly known as the Atheist Atrocities Fallacy. History has already illuminated for us the use by Stalin of the very same dogmatic infrastructure in the form of the pre-existing religious tyranny that proved to be the perfect vehicle for his godless religion of Communism. Hitler expressly confirmed multiple times that he was doing god's work. These were atrocities committed in the name of dogmatic ideologies, not secularism. Nobody in their right mind would say that the problem with Communist Russia or the Holocaust is that there was too much skeptical inquiry going on.

They were not Religious atrocities, they were "state" atrocities. Atrocities done in the name of the state, not in the name of a religion.
So it doesn't fall under RM.

Or else SM doen't exist in reality.

SM as defined in the OP inherently implies a rejection of dogmatic ideology and therefore indeed does inherently value skeptical inquiry.

How is the OP different than a dogmatic ideology?

[futureboy]

They were not Religious atrocities, they were "state" atrocities. Atrocities done in the name of the state, not in the name of a religion.
So it doesn't fall under RM.

The definition is quite clear:
SM: A moral system (morality) which deals with morality outside of religious/theistic/dogmatic traditions and/or claims.

Therefore, such dogmatic regimes are not considered truly secular, not in their ideologies, nor in their actions. Again, all this has already been illuminated for us by history. There are many reasons why the Stalinistic regime is not considered to be secular, the simplest being their dogmatic enforcement of state atheism, which, by definition, is a violation of the core principle of secularism. Do you honestly think that the differences between non-dogmatic secularism and repulsive and cultish regimes such as Stalinism, or the similarities between Stalinism and other dogmatic religions have not already been considered ad nauseam?

[MindTrap028]

Again, how is the op not dogmatic in regards to SM?

Therefore, such dogmatic regimes are not considered truly secular, not in their ideologies, nor in their actions. Again, all this has already been illuminated for us by history. There are many reasons why the Stalinistic regime is not considered to be secular, the simplest being their dogmatic enforcement of state atheism, which, by definition, is a violation of the core principle of secularism. Do you honestly think that the differences between non-dogmatic secularism and repulsive and cultish regimes such as Stalinism, or the similarities between Stalinism and other dogmatic religions have not already been considered ad nauseam?

First I'm completely willing to accept your rejection of the counter example I gave. My problem is that I don't see the OP as then internally coherent so as to apply it to reality in a meaningful way.
By lumping atheism in with religion, you basically have covered the gambit of beliefs under "RM". Leaving nothing for SM to include except that which you cherry pick.

For example the way you have answered the Atheist atrocities appears to be an appeal to how it hurt the "non participants". Same with Nazies. Which simply pushes them in the RM when they just as well could have been called SM effects.

Given your definition, what weight is given to those in the SM society that don't adhere to SM? What happens if such morality is conductive of putting people like Stalin and others in power (hypothetical)?

What are some actual examples of SM as you describe at work? (A question to help direct your explanation).

[futureboy]

MT, I provided a clear explanation of why your counter examples (which weren't at all specific, btw, you'd have to be less vague for them to be considered seriously) aren't considered secular according to the definition. If you have a problem with the definition, that's fine, but really, the fact that a regime which dogmatically enforces any kind of belief (or lack thereof, in the case of Stalinism) by definition violates the core principle of secularism is nothing complicated.
Of course, many do call those examples (which ones, btw?) secular, but as explained, this is incorrect, if only for the above-stated reason, but there are others.

As for examples of SM, these are literally everywhere (another indication of SM's superiority). Don't tell me you can't think of one place in the world where the society makes moral decisions based on facts and evidence instead of dogma. But more importantly, this isn't really the point, and there's no value in nitpicking every single example we have of SM in the world and trying to show something bad about them in order to win some pointless points. The point is that, when considering the moral systems we have available to us, secular morality is by far superior to any religious morality, based on the criteria provided.

[Freund]

As for examples of SM, these are literally everywhere (another indication of SM's superiority). Don't tell me you can't think of one place in the world where the society makes moral decisions based on facts and evidence instead of dogma.

If they were literally everywhere then it should be fairly easy to just answer the question, no?

[MindTrap028]

MT, I provided a clear explanation of why your counter examples (which weren't at all specific, btw, you'd have to be less vague for them to be considered seriously) aren't considered secular according to the definition. If you have a problem with the definition, that's fine, but really, the fact that a regime which dogmatically enforces any kind of belief (or lack thereof, in the case of Stalinism) by definition violates the core principle of secularism is nothing complicated.
Of course, many do call those examples (which ones, btw?) secular, but as explained, this is incorrect, if only for the above-stated reason, but there are others.

Yes, and I said I was willing to accept that the counter examples don't fall into SM as you have defined it.
My objection has moved then to the second point.

As for examples of SM, these are literally everywhere (another indication of SM's superiority). Don't tell me you can't think of one place in the world where the society makes moral decisions based on facts and evidence instead of dogma. But more importantly, this isn't really the point, and there's no value in nitpicking every single example we have of SM in the world and trying to show something bad about them in order to win some pointless points. The point is that, when considering the moral systems we have available to us, secular morality is by far superior to any religious morality, based on the criteria provided.

No, I can't think of any. Especially any that are not applied "dogmatically". I think you definition is logically incoherent, and self defeating.

[futureboy]

No, I can't think of any. Especially any that are not applied "dogmatically". I think you definition is logically incoherent, and self defeating.

Have it your way, dude. If you want to play games and pretend that you don't know what it means when even your very own government bases its morality on principles such as rational examination of evidence instead of dogmatic ideologies, then I don't see any point in continuing a discussion with you.

---------- Post added at 02:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:42 PM ----------

If they were literally everywhere then it should be fairly easy to just answer the question, no?

Again, that's not the point, as already explained.

[Freund]

Again, that's not the point, as already explained.

So you won't provide an example of a SM even though you stated that they are "literally everywhere". It sounds like you can't actually provide an example and are trying to avoid supporting your point.

I you to support your claim that "As for examples of SM, these are literally everywhere". If it's as easy as you make it out to be, then you should have no trouble.

[futureboy]

So you won't provide an example of a SM even though you stated that they are "literally everywhere". It sounds like you can't actually provide an example and are trying to avoid supporting your point.
I you to support your claim that "As for examples of SM, these are literally everywhere". If it's as easy as you make it out to be, then you should have no trouble.

Again, regardless of the fact that one was already provided, this is, as already explained, irrelevant to the point of the discussion. My "trying to avoid" it is because I have no desire to engage in gotcha games. The topic is that, when considering the moral systems we have available to us, secular morality is by far superior to any religious morality, based on the criteria provided. Either address the topic or move along.

[MindTrap028]

Have it your way, dude. If you want to play games and pretend that you don't know what it means when even your very own government bases its morality on principles such as rational examination of evidence instead of dogmatic ideologies, then I don't see any point in continuing a discussion with you.

As I generally consider my gov to be based on moral principles of a Dogmatic religious base, I don't see how that supports your point.
I see the ideology of communism as an official form of "secularism". They are certainly dogmatic, but I think that is where your OP fails, in that any form of gov is going to be Dogmatic, and any form of morality is going to be dogmatic in nature.
Which makes your definition exclusion of dogmatic, logical impossible.

I appreciate your time, and if you feel you have explained it to the best of your ability, then thanks for your effort.

[futureboy]

As I generally consider my gov to be based on moral principles of a Dogmatic religious base, I don't see how that supports your point.

That's unfortunate, but understandable. With regard to the usual and incorrect theistic claim that the country was built on religious principles, whether it was or wasn't is completely irrelevant to the principles which govern (and should govern) it today.

But since you brought it up, we need only look to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who both explicitly explained that the country is definitely not founded on religion. The Declaration of Independence itself proclaims that the source of authority is internal (SM), not external (RM) with: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". Further, the way in which the declaration (and other documents before it after which it was fashioned) refers to natural laws again coincides with the SM principle of rational inquiry and discussion or evidence.

I see the ideology of communism as an official form of "secularism".

To repeat again once for another time, dogmatically enforcing any kind of belief (including a lack thereof) is by definition a violation of the core principle of secularism, and therefore any regime guilty of such conduct cannot (and indeed is not) considered to be secular.

They are certainly dogmatic, but I think that is where your OP fails, in that any form of gov is going to be Dogmatic, and any form of morality is going to be dogmatic in nature.

You are obviously confused about what it means to be dogmatic, which is to enforce something incontrovertibly. This is the exact opposite of how democratic governments work.

[MindTrap028]

But since you brought it up, we need only look to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who both explicitly explained that the country is definitely not founded on religion. The Declaration of Independence itself proclaims that the source of authority is internal (SM), not external (RM) with: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". Further, the way in which the declaration (and other documents before it after which it was fashioned) refers to natural laws again coincides with the SM principle of rational inquiry and discussion or evidence.

Is that forwarded dogmatically?

To repeat again once for another time, dogmatically enforcing any kind of belief (including a lack thereof) is by definition a violation of the core principle of secularism, and therefore any regime guilty of such conduct cannot (and indeed is not) considered to be secular.

So then SM can't be enforced at all?

You are obviously confused about what it means to be dogmatic, which is to enforce something incontrovertibly. This is the exact opposite of how democratic governments work.

the end result seems the same. Be it by democratic agreement by the majority onto the minority, or by dictatorship. The end is a rule applied dogmatically.

[futureboy]

Is that forwarded dogmatically?

No, it's forwarded as fact. I guess you're trying to make a clever gotcha here, but you obviously misunderstand what it means for something to be asserted incontrovertibly, as would be required for something to be dogmatic, compared to facts which are offered to support a conclusion. You have every right to try and dispute the conclusion with your own facts, which is precisely opposite to something being incontrovertible.

So then SM can't be enforced at all?

Enforcing something is not dogmatic. If we agree that the use of force is acceptable in certain circumstances (criteria which are subject to change, and often do change - the exact opposite of something being incontrovertible), there's nothing wrong with that.

the end result seems the same. Be it by democratic agreement by the majority onto the minority, or by dictatorship. The end is a rule applied dogmatically.

Again, you misunderstand then, what it means for something to be dogmatic. A rule which is applied by authority granted democratically, a rule which is determined based on facts and reasoned evidence and agreed upon as a result of rational discourse, is the furthest thing from dogma which is asserted incontrovertibly. I'm sure you've experienced laws being changed in your lifetime, and legal definitions being updated or improved upon - this is literally the antithesis of incontrovertible dogma. The SM processes behind those changes, by definition, are not incontrovertible, and therefore not dogmatic.

[MindTrap028]

Enforcing something is not dogmatic. If we agree that the use of force is acceptable in certain circumstances (criteria which are subject to change, and often do change - the exact opposite of something being incontrovertible), there's nothing wrong with that.

What about when people don't agree. specifically the minority.

Again, you misunderstand then, what it means for something to be dogmatic. A rule which is applied by authority granted democratically, a rule which is determined based on facts and reasoned evidence and agreed upon as a result of rational discourse, is the furthest thing from dogma which is asserted incontrovertibly. I'm sure you've experienced laws being changed in your lifetime, and legal definitions being updated or improved upon - this is literally the antithesis of incontrovertible dogma. The SM processes behind those changes, by definition, are not incontrovertible, and therefore not dogmatic.

Two things. First, I have seen religion do this in regards to us law. So religion is not inherently opposed to this.
Second, you seem to have switched from morals to legality. Those are two different things. I am not aware of any moral system that was voted on at all ever. Much less applied to those who disagreed in a non dogmatic way.

[Freund]

Again, regardless of the fact that one was already provided, this is, as already explained, irrelevant to the point of the discussion.

Which one was already provided? I can't seem to find it.

[PGA2]

I'll try to keep this as short as possible.

For the purposes of this debate, the terms are defined as follows:
Morality: A system of standards & values used to evaluate actions as being good or bad with respect to the standards & values.
Secular Morality (SM): A moral system (morality) which deals with morality outside of religious/theistic/dogmatic traditions and/or claims.
Religious, or Non-secular Morality (RM): A moral system (morality) which is based on religious/theistic/dogmatic traditions and/or claims.

This OP is not concerned with pointless questions or arguments surrounding subjective vs. objective morality - it deals solely with the moral systems which demonstrably/actually exist. Lines of argumentation relying on unsupported claims of subjectivity or objectivity will be disregarded.

In order to determine which moral system is superior, the following criteria will be considered:
1. The applicability of the system and it's standards & values to its participants.
2. The system's ability to improve or be improved by its participants.
3. The system's ability to provide reliable results according to its standards & values.
4. The system's ability to resolve conflicts/disputes about its standards & values.

Additional criteria may be suggested at any time.

The following assessments can be made of each system according to each criteria:
1.
SM:
- The source of the (standards &) values is internal
- The values are based on the views of the participants
- By definition serves the interests of the participants
- Authority comes from a demonstration that the results achieve the goals set by participants

- The authority is accepted by the participants

Just because an action is accepted does not make it right, morally; it makes it liked or imposed.

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 does not have one that is best, nor could it make one up.

RM:
- The source of the values is external
- There is no direct link between the values and the participants
- Does not necessarily serve the interests of the participants
- Relies on external authority
- The authority is imposed on the participants

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.
By revealing that standard human beings would know what is best. Having given them a volition, they would be able to submit to that standard or reject it to their detriment. When they rejected that omniscient standard, all hell would break out. People would start calling good as evil and evil as good.

2.
SM:
- Dynamic, permit, and encourage change
- Change is driven by the goal of better serving the participants
- Uses past experience in order to ensure the change best serves the participants

"Encourage change" would be a problem.

How would the participants ever arrive at a best?
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?)

This type of SM philosophy is what people fight over - a disagreement on what is better or best.

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.

RM:
- Rigid, not conducive to change, and the goal of change is not necessarily to better serve the participants
- If change happens, the source & authority is external & not necessarily applicable to the participants
- Usually changes happen only due to changes in SM, again external

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?

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.

3.
SM:
- Builds on past experience & improvements, therefore there are less new/unknown situations encountered and the system is better at dealing with future situations
- Has the express goal of providing reliable results, with checks & balances to identify whether the system is achieving that goal
- Complex & flexible, ensuring better results by allowing for discussion & modifications when providing results

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. 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.

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.

RM:
- Not necessarily intended to provide reliable results
- Unable to adapt in order to do so

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?

The opposite is to kill those who oppose you, lie, steal from them, take what you want from them for only you and those you like to count. You can only live by that standard until someone else applies it to you. Then your moral indignation is shown if you are still alive.

Adaptation means that best has not been found, followed, or known.

4.
SM:
- Conflict resolution is based on skeptical inquiry, rational justification, data, demonstrable results
- Relies on rational discussion/debate & evaluation of evidence
- Inclusive, discussions take place between the participants

Based on whose skeptical inquiry, whose rationale, whose data, whose demonstratable results.

Inclusive discussions?

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. It is all a power game, without an ultimate standard. Everyone wants their liberal position as the relevant position (on the road to either anarchy or dictatorship).

RM:
- Relies on conquest, coercion or conversion
- Rigid & divisive, conflicts aren't actually resolved, but the conflicting parties simply converted

No, not conquest or coercion in the case of Christianity but choice. 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.

Based on the above criteria, it's clear that secular morality is superior to religious (non-secular) morality.

Now for my rant:

Superior in whose SM view (Kim Jong-un, President Xi's, an oppressive military junta, or Putin's)? 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? Otherwise, they are just imposing their likes. Hitler did not like Jews. Kim Jong-un does not like Americans. He sees America as evil, not good; it opposes his self-rule. President Xi sees America as an undesirable because it impedes his view of China being the world power that dictates to others. Putin has ideas of Russian expansion (good for them, bad for the rest because of the very methods in which he may use to achieve his aims). 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).

The fight between Republicans and Democrats in the US is a fight for the future. If liberal leftwing Democrats win out heaven help America. The Democrats are on the way to a socialist, big government State, just like China, just like Russia, just like North Korea, where the government has comprehensive control over the people.

How did Hitler control the masses? By controlling the mass media, the institutions of higher learning, and also monitoring and conforming the gatekeepers of that society to their ideology.

Peter

[Squatch347]

As for examples of SM, these are literally everywhere (another indication of SM's superiority). Don't tell me you can't think of one place in the world where the society makes moral decisions based on facts and evidence instead of dogma.

Future, you were challenged to support this claim and provide an example that meets the definition you provided in the OP. According to the rules you can either support this claim or formally retract it.

---------- Post added at 06:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:33 AM ----------

Secular Morality (SM): A moral system (morality) which deals with morality outside of religious/theistic/dogmatic traditions and/or claims.

Would you say that the standards and values laid out in the SM are true for the person who holds that SM?

If so, how is it not dogmatic?

If not, how can it provide a guide for whether actions or moral or immoral?