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.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 61 to 62 of 62
  1. #61
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I offered you an objective basis for making moral assessments, and you chose to go off on an emotional abortion tangent. Care to address the point?
    No, you did not. You offered a subjective opinion and statement that you claim has an objectivity to it. Whatever is thought of as "Beneficial" for your society may not be considered the same for another. Then there is the problem of finding out that what was thought of as beneficial is now no longer considered so.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    There is no best to apply any value to so your opinion becomes no BETTER than mine in SM.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, the objective assessments upon which morals are based in an SM system avoids this issue. This is the point you have repeatedly failed to address.
    Let's get specific:

    Define beneficial in regard to abortion? How is it beneficial to take another human life on the whim of the female? A large percentage of abortions are because of inconvenience or doesn't want the responsibility.

    unready for responsibility -> 21%
    woman's parents want her to have an abortion -> <0.5%
    has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood -> 12%
    husband or partner wants her to have an abortion -> 1%
    has all the children she wanted or all children are grown -> 8%
    can't afford baby now -> 21%
    concerned about how having baby would change her life -> 16%

    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...abreasons.html

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    This means you are living inconsistently, if your worldview were true. You keep borrowing from the Christian worldview that can give what is necessary to make sense of morality.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Ironically, I can only ask that you rephrase these statements, since I'm not able to make sense of them.
    Simply, you have Christian assumptions built into your morality.

    "Beneficial", in a humanistic worldview, would be whatever it takes to survive. For Kim Jong-Un it is whatever keeps him in power and living as he has grown accustom. There is no lasting meaning in a secular, humanistic worldview. Once you're dead there is no more meaning for you. Throughout the course of evolution the "strong" survive. The rest perish. It is beneficial for you to survive for the human is driven to it (in an evolutionary worldview). It is just the way it is. If survival is doing whatever is necessary (and producing offspring to survive) then if it means killing someone else for you and/or your progeny so be it (the selfish gene - passing your genes on to your offspring).

    Beneficial in a Christian worldview would be because there is intrinsic value in every human being. Life is sacred. Meaning would not cease at death but find its ultimate fulfillment.

    The Golden Rule in a secular worldview is a means to your end. If it is beneficial to you then it pays off. If it is not then you need not apply it. The Golden Rule in the Christian worldview is not only benefical to your end, it is benefical to the other person's end and sometimes at the determent of your immediate physical survival.

    Peter

  2. #62
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    571
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    No, you did not. You offered a subjective opinion and statement that you claim has an objectivity to it.
    Again, here's my statement:
    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.
    Your answer to that was to accept it as fact, but divert into the red herring abortion territory. Since you accept the factual basis for the assessment, your only problem must be with the assessment itself. Again, this is not an issue for SM, since it, by definition, is intended to minimize unnecessary suffering, the assessment logically follows from the fact which you already accept. That you fail to grasp this and instead desperately need to rely on some claimed - and more importantly, not demonstrated - external objective moral authority only indicates that you have a very shallow understanding of morality in general and how it actually works.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Whatever is thought of as "Beneficial" for your society may not be considered the same for another. Then there is the problem of finding out that what was thought of as beneficial is now no longer considered so.
    This is not an issue for SM, and is not much more than a straw-man misrepresentation of it which I have already addressed.

    It's interesting to note that, like so many of Craig's videos, the comments have been disabled. I urge you to find one where they aren't so that you could see how easily they are debunked. In any case, the only flaw one needs to point out is that all Craig has done is claimed the existence of the objective reference point, and not demonstrated it. As such, it's not an actual objective reference point, merely an asserted one.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Define beneficial in regard to abortion? How is it beneficial to take another human life on the whim of the female? A large percentage of abortions are because of inconvenience or doesn't want the responsibility.
    Again, the discussion on abortion needs to stay in the abortion threads. How secular societies justify their positions on abortion is completely irrelevant to the SM vs. RM debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    "Beneficial", in a humanistic worldview, would be whatever it takes to survive. For Kim Jong-Un it is whatever keeps him in power and living as he has grown accustom. There is no lasting meaning in a secular, humanistic worldview. Once you're dead there is no more meaning for you. Throughout the course of evolution the "strong" survive. The rest perish. It is beneficial for you to survive for the human is driven to it (in an evolutionary worldview). It is just the way it is. If survival is doing whatever is necessary (and producing offspring to survive) then if it means killing someone else for you and/or your progeny so be it (the selfish gene - passing your genes on to your offspring).
    This is all just one big straw-man misrepresentation of SM. I'll simply re-direct you to the OP's definitions and leave it at that.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Beneficial in a Christian worldview would be because there is intrinsic value in every human being. Life is sacred. Meaning would not cease at death but find its ultimate fulfillment.
    This is not a concept invented, nor owned, by Xtianity.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    The Golden Rule in a secular worldview is a means to your end. If it is beneficial to you then it pays off.
    So it was beneficial to Abraham to obey what he thought his deity ordered him to do and murder his son? You see, when you get down to brass tacks of the moral system you support and its inherent unsupported claims, it invariably leads to absurdity. That's why we stick to facts within SM, and base our moral assessments on that.

    ---------- Post added at 09:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Assuming morality is secular, it's reasonable to posit that morality is an evolutionary trait and therefore "correct" morality is that which helps a species survive and therefore people being morally against murder is due to people murdering each other hampers a species ability to survive and procreate.
    Mican, while I appreciate your responses to Peter, I have to again point out the danger of making statements which imply that there is one morality and it is one or the other ("assuming morality is secular", "correct morality", "which is correct"). Being agnostic to whether "morality is secular" and "which is correct" makes no sense in this thread. Secular morality is secular. It exists, and it is secular. Religious, or non-secular, morality is not secular. It also exists, and is not secular. The OP clearly defines the criteria in use when determining which is superior, and therefore questions of the correctness of SM/RM or whether morality is subjective/objective are explicitly addressed in the OP and are inherently irrelevant red herrings in this debate.

 

 
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

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
  •