Forums → WEPR → Secular Morality

Let me expand on a number 1. I would like you to include HOW we would choose a school of thought (utilitarianism, kant, etc) to base our ethics on?

1.) This will be hardest to answer, because alot of people in recent society base morals on religion. So setting a global "moral law," would be quite difficult, being that most humans differ in opinions on certain matters even if religion isn't brought in. Utilitarianism would probably be the outcome if there had to be a choice.

To answer HOW we would choose this could be explained in the following. No religion, means no afterlife, reincarnation, etc. correct? That means life would be valued sooo much more than what it is today. If someone is what we might call, "a waste of space," then he/she is dragging the rest of us behind, and taking time away from our oh so precious lives. I could expand, but I am quite....tired....zzzzzz

2.) Of course this would require intersubjectivity. We can't base a universal law, without many minds and consciences coming together to create it.

3.) Well, discrimination against religion would not exist, which can only be good. In general, the morality of the world would be somewhat in-sync with everyone, so arguements over things that fall under that category would also be nonexistant. So better, or worse.... Well you'd have to define it, but I am pretty sure we all know what you mean. To be honest, the moral change would definately make this world so much better, but I want to include religion into that, which would be quite difficult...

Imagine

1.Without religion, there would be a much more civilized world in my opinion. The existance of war would nearly cease to exist. There would be no God to fight in the name of. No virgins to die for. There would be no reason to hate the Jews for killing our Lord. America would not be the city on the hill. People would see every stranger as an equal. There would be no excuse to over rule nations.

Bounderies created to seperate one religous group from the other would be non-existant. All crimes would be done on a personal level, not a national level. The rules of the world would be to live in peace so that one may help his neighbors survive. Of course we will always have people to want and to try and cause harm, but every law would be about protecting each individual's rights. Each crime would be punishable by more than a lousy fine. Stealing would become a major crime. The structure of beleif would be to cause nobody any harm, and no harm shall come to you.

Of course there could be complete chaos, but I personaly doubt it.

2.Intersubjectivity would be a requirement for the world to live as I stated in number 1. If not the case, then I beleive chaos would take over. I beleive that if we all thought down to earth, we would find it easy to live by the same rules, worldwide.

3.Refer to number 1 and 2.

All the people, sharing all the world.

Religion is so pervasive as to be one of the pillars of what morals are based on. Speaking in extreme generalities, Muslims consider it morally wrong for a woman to show her face in public, yet (modern) Christians see that oppression as something that no one with morals would consider continuing in today's 'enlightened' world (i.e. One based on Christian morals). Keep in mind that this can be applied to god or gods as well; your god isn't the true one, but mine is, as I believe in it.

NoName isn't entirely correct in his assumption that no religion would mean no war. Religion is a convenient way to start a war, true; it unites people easily towards a goal or a belief, and then can be turned towards defending or attacking others with 'false' beliefs. On the other hand, human greed is certainly not attached to religion, and with greed comes conflict. Discrimination is not attached to religion either; I can be prejudiced against someone because they're different, or because they have more than me, etc.

This also begs a question - without religion, and with explanations for every natural occurrence, would religion emerge? I find it hard to believe that it would be necessary to conjure a being for it's own sake, to say that 'I believe this, therefore I'm right.' Ah, but then where would we have the right type of morals, the 'ethical' ones? And that's where the family grouping comes in. The strongest ties are to family, through genetic similarity. So yes, the morality of the world would be in sync, although not necessarily benefiting peoples outside your family group. There is no species altruism, only genetic altruism.

However, as logically thinking humans, we should be able to overcome that. But with what? Well, cultural ties are also incredibly strong; 'band against the foreigner' and all that. However, anything dependent on either familial or cultural ties would have to consider geography first. What makes sense depending on your environment will determine what your underlying morals are; if you develop in a rain forest your perception about what is right will be much different than if you develop in a desert (take a look at 'A Primate's Memoir' by Sapolsky). We could then expect that whatever set of laws became dominant would be dependent on what type of culture rose to ascendancy first, and hence what we would believe to be moral.

Intersubjectivity would eventually be required as a number of cultures rise, as they will inevitably clash (with 'I'm right,' 'No, I'M right' mentality). This would then mean that morals would stirred together, and in who knows how many years later, a stable conglomeration would be reached when the entire planet is 'homo-normed'. Interplanetary interaction (if there is such a thing) would be interesting because of the distances, and thus the time required for change, involved. Here, religion, if a single state is reached, would unify the various areas, but only up to a point; that point would be when a new idea is reached, and is acted upon.

These are only partial thoughts on this, and I've tried to touch upon without going into too much detail most of what I think.

I said much of this before, but some of what I said bears repeating so I can connect one thing with another.

Impression, the reason why I think there would be almsot no war (almost...) is because almost everything is based off religion. Most wars are based off religion and the few wars that are not based off religion would also most likely cease to exist. One man may want to fight a war but how does he encourage other people to fight the war? Most soldiers fighting for the invading country fight either because they were brainwashed into thinking there was a religous purpose or thinking that there was a god waiting for them. Without the purpose to fight for religion, or the comfort of knowing a god will help you if you die will pursuade most people to not fight. There would be a few who still would fight but their numbers would be low and maybe there would be a very small battle. Small battles lasting a month at most would take place of those long 5 year (and up) wars.

You say that people would find a reason to fight because everyone would have a different cultural tie. What is the number one thing that seperate cultures? Religion! I dont know of any wars fought, just because one culture did not agree with another culture without religion being part of the arguement.

There would be less bounderies, so instead of having many small countries, we would have a few big countries. No country will have the ability to pursuade theri men to fight because they will find no reason in dieing. The comfort of death comes from religion most of the time.

Now, this is all with Secular Morality in effect throughout the life span of humanity. Of course people would eventually make up religions as time passed on without it, its already happened. We are talking about with Secular Morality always being in effect.

As I said before, war would be less of a problem because the only way you can make men fight other men would be too reasure them they are fighting for their god and they shall have an afterlife. Because there would most likely be far less cultural differences and far less bounderies, creating an army big enough to take over someone else would be next to impossible.

Of course all this would require Intersubjectivity. Without it, then I beleive everything I said would be over in a heartbeat.

America polices the world and hardly anybody would ever guess that America does that because of religion. We do it because we Americans beleive we are the city on the hill which was started by puritans who lived life for God more than just about anybody else. So if religion impacts the way America polices the world, then I am sure it is the backbone of all wars lasting over a year.

Another of the number one things that separate cultures are the rulers. As a person or family or group gains power, they exert that power on others and expand until they come up against other groups with different rulers, at which point they can ignore, ally, fight, what have you. There doesn't need to be a religious reason for someone to say "I'm stronger than you, so obey me." Fear is a useful way to bound people together. Just because religion accomplishes that doesn't mean that that's the only way.

When I read that wars would be short, I immediately thought of the 100 years' war. The primary conflict in that was who would rule England and France, not whose religion was right.

How would there be less boundaries? You could say that without the large unification effect of religion, there would be nothing to unify the small groups scattered about the planet besides strong individuals. Of course, as civilizations rise, there might eventually be one group led by one person, government, whatever, but that's also true in a world with religion.

Of course there's reason to fight. Do animals have religion? I'd hesitate to say that non-human primates do, yet there's a complex dance involving combat to determine social hierarchy. Take it one step further - your fighting determines not just your social status but also your group's land and ideals, as well as your one. Will you sit back and peacefully co-exist with a rival who is trying to take what you have? I'd think not.

Saying that because religion impacts American politics the way it does, and thus it must be true of all political conflicts, is like saying that because pollen affects me the way it does everyone must have an allergic reaction. There are too many variables (attitudes toward selves, foreigners, cultural unity) to say that because I do something this way, everyone does.

I beleive the only thing seperating what you beleive is right, and what I beleive is right is intersubjectivity.

I beleive that with it, we would have world peace... or close to it (local conflics would replace national and worldwide conflicts).

Without intersubjectivity, then I beleive that everything you said would happen. I beleive the world would be doomed extremely quickly without intersubjectivity.

I still stand strong on my opnion that religion effects almost everything from war to the different cultures. You strongly underestimate how much leaders depend on religion to rule over other people.

My commentary on the significance of religion boils down to one caveat: contingencies in hypotheticals.

If you wish to debate about whether one would be going to war with or without religion present, one has to reflect on how relevant religion is to people. And that in itself is a controversial question- ranging from spiritualists and religions leaders who say it is central due to their ontological stance, to atheist activists such as Dawkins, who can't believe that people would be so deluded as to believe in their self-created fictions.

As for this 'intersubjectivity', I think we can transcend discussion of morality as law (more properly ethics in my mind)- there is a way to really separate morality and ethics into process and interpretation:

Morality as a process would be the description of our reactions and judgments to actions. We perform an action (brushing past the determinism objection for now) and from the result our reaction determines whether we were rewarded or punished for such, and therefore have been informed by our morality. This is a process. What people tend to like to discuss as morality is our conscious, metaphysical ponderances upon exactly how this should work. I think it's more appropriate to erase that should.

This requires making a fairly basic (but tricky) assumption: That every action is personally motivated. This is not to say that everybody is 'selfish' as opposed to 'altruistic' but rather that regardless of whether we perceive that we are helping somebody else or ourselves, how we choose to act is based on our judgment whether that act will, simply, make us feel good.

To make an example, the difference between my manner of talking about morality and the layperson's discussion of morality would be the difference between the above, and ethical egoism: that one ought to act in their own interests (read: not to act selfishly but to specifically consider their own interests...but I'm saying why is there an 'ought to' here when this is what we do by default, see?)

The best part is that this seems to be a very strong definition- it can be applied pretty much without exception. I challenge you to find another basis of discussing morality with this level of consistency.

@ NoName, how would you choose this set of universal moral laws? (I think this is the biggest issue for me.

@Impression, you wrote:

Intersubjectivity would eventually be required as a number of cultures rise, as they will inevitably clash (with 'I'm right,' 'No, I'M right' mentality). This would then mean that morals would stirred together, and in who knows how many years later, a stable conglomeration would be reached when the entire planet is 'homo-normed'.

This requires making a fairly basic (but tricky) assumption: That every action is personally motivated. This is not to say that everybody is 'selfish' as opposed to 'altruistic' but rather that regardless of whether we perceive that we are helping somebody else or ourselves, how we choose to act is based on our judgment whether that act will, simply, make us feel good.

Hm, it's kind of a nice romantic (or quaint image...I think Neanderthal projector, hehe), but I have *issues* with the thrust of the cave allegory. I think it'd be reaching a quantum step too far to say that the collective commonality in our interpretation justifies the creation of some objective ideal. That seems to be, after all, the kind of root of the issue of morality.

@Asherlee:

As various groups spread, they will eventually collide with other spreading groups, especially as technological advances make it easier to go farther and faster. At some point, there will boundaries, as land is one of the primary motivators of people, and what land belongs to who will be incredibly important. There will be interaction between various groups, which will (on average) grow more involved, and cultures will eventually start to merge, as they are doing now in our world.

A stable point being reached is pure speculation; however, I think it likely because I see interstellar travel as a distant-future possibility, and cultural mixing happens on the order of decades, not centuries. Take a look at America, an random mishmash of different ideals and perceptions. I'm predicting that as various areas become more advanced, this planet will reach a point where there is free mixing of people who have so many of the same ways of life that national identity will become a thing of the past. We can see this as languages begin to break down, and relatively few are being commonly utilized by billions of people to communicate.


Strop, tell me if this is correct: You're saying that morality is not a conscious decision, but rather how we've been influenced and our reactions, which then establish a pattern of what's right or wrong for that specific individual/family/whatever. If you are saying that, then I think a point that's missed is that conscious thought will be inevitable, as others' ethics (and I do mean ethics, not morals) will prompt consideration as to whose is the 'best', or most effective, or so on. Once there are various points of view, it will then become something to be considered, rather than an automatic process.

@Asherlee (again):

You could say that logic and reasoning would be inevitable given a lack of religion, but there are just so many other opportunities for conflict that it would be too highly optimistic to assume that. In a selfish society, those with the most ambition will be those driven to assume as much power as they can, limited by their effective range (proximity to others, problems of distance... ), and there might indeed be a peaceful society, but only once there is are common rulers/morals/ideals.

The big challenge for me here is dealing with (as Strop mentioned) the unknowable hypotheticals. Let's just say that we develop a society without "religion"; what does this mean? Which part(s) of this large body of rituals, practices, ideas, and beliefs would you eliminate in order to only isolate religion. The problem is that religious ideas and notions have become ingrained so much in society that it is very hard to separate the secular from the non-secular - at least in the context of social evolution and circles of influence.
Your main question as to how morality would develop in a "godless" society would really depend on exactly how the society developed... erm, that's a bit awkward. What I mean is that if it formed as very small family units that were primarily concerned with their own survival, then I don't see how a universal normative ethical standard could ever be developed.
I don't believe in any real kind of universal morality, so the question seems a bit moot to me once you try to extrapolate beyond the sort of beginning scenarios. If a universal morality were to be established, it would seem reasonable that this universal morality would have to exist in some way - I mean be legitimately "true." But what would motivate a person to do something they simply don't want to do, or refrain them from doing something that they do? We can use a lot of factors that would maybe influence a person's decision, but these are incredibly individualistic and so are, by definition, anything but normative.
Perhaps "ethical anarchy" really is the only solution here, which I think is precisely what we already have in modern society.

I think that if you're going to talk about what individuals actually think there will never be universal morality - there are so many neurological and environmental differences between people that perspectives will never be exactly the same. On the other hand, a society can have a set of morals that is the agreed-upon average, which is what I think the question here is.

Moegreche, one of the things that I've been trying to say is that large societies will exist without religion, that is to say, through power distribution. Of course, family units are the first small societal group, but it's not limited to genetic relationships, but rather to relationships determined by power.

Well, if you remove the metaphysical commitments from religion, I think you'll find it hard to separate religious practices from the fundamental behaviors of humans, hence the difficulty. Power distribution is not distinct from religious practice.

Strop, tell me if this is correct: You're saying that morality is not a conscious decision, but rather how we've been influenced and our reactions, which then establish a pattern of what's right or wrong for that specific individual/family/whatever.

Well, if you remove the metaphysical commitments from religion, I think you'll find it hard to separate religious practices from the fundamental behaviors of humans, hence the difficulty. Power distribution is not distinct from religious practice.