Forums → WEPR → Secular Morality
| 26 | 5059 |
Secular Morality - Ethics based solely on human faculties such as logic, reason or moral intuition, and not derived from purported supernatural revelation or guidance (which is the source of religious ethics). Secular ethics can be seen as a wide variety of moral and ethical systems drawing heavily on humanism, secularism and freethinking.
The majority of secular moral concepts consist, on the grand scale of the acceptance of social contracts, and on a more individual scale of either some form of attribution of intrinsic value to things, ethical intuitionism or of a logical deduction that establishes a preference for one thing over another, as with Occam's razor. Approaches like utilitarianism and ethical egoism are considered rather more radical. (wikipedia)
-----------------------------------------------
Above we have a general explanation for secular morality. I would like to address the follow:
1. Let's pretend we live in a world without religion. How would we make a set of universal moral law?
2. Would this universal moral law require intersubjectivity?
3. Given that we lived by secular morality how would this change the world? Do you think it would be better or worse?
- 26 Replies
Have you heard of the Butterfly Effect? Rip off the wing of a butterfly and it may somehow cause a tornado to form on the otherside of the world. I will not go as far to say that thats true... not in that sence... but religion! Remove the idea of religion and humanity would not be anything like it is today.
Now people keep on asking what would they do if they asked "How was the Earth created?" and figure out the answers to some of them nearly impossible questions to answer. Now if we started asking those questions we would simply never know and probally never care, not for a long time untill we gained new technology. I doubt we would invent new technologies as fast though without religion.
Lets say somebody did care about one of them nearly impossible questions, then they have an idea and make something up... well now we have an individual thinking in a way not involved with the scenerio of Secular Morality and therefore as soon as that person made that thought, secular morality went away.
When people think that I am crazy for saying there will be peace, the idea that humans could live under Secular Morality is a crazy idea in itself because Religions are created all the time by humans and it is almost as natural for humans to beleive in some form of god as breathing is.
Impression, you keep talking about different races of people and different ethnics and beliefs (not religous), but If everybody thinks through logic, reason, and moral intuition, then the only difference from one group of people from another group of people shall be the way they survive. Other than that, without religion or other spiritual/outworldly beliefs, people would surprisingly learn almost like every single other human in the world and at a simular rate.
Basicly, the only difference you will find from one group of people from another group of people would be skin color, language, and how they live acording to how they survive. People will not think of themselves as better than the others because through secular morality, everyone would understand that they are both just humans. Now I beleive that there would be many territorial battles throughout early civilization but as the world grew and common sence dictated that people would basicly fall under the same rules no matter if they win or lose whatever war they fight and war would become uncommon.
When people fight wars, domination is usualy the reason. If people were to fight for domination... despite how I beleive religion would still have to be involved... then read the following carefully. You must understand that the only reason one nation would dominate another nation is so that it may expand on its own bounderies and gain more materials, but the biggest change would be how people living in the newly controlled areas would live. They would live acording to the laws of whoever took over them which because religion wouldn't be a factor... those laws would hardly be any different from the previous laws they lived under. Because the rules and laws of everyday life would hardly change, the only territory wars would be those that happen when one group of people found their land was not suporting them as good as some one else's land. Though if the world got overpopulated like today, I beleive worldwide treaties would be set. Other than that, through Secular Morality, people would know through common sence that it would be easier to survive by makign peace or finding new land than fighting a battle.
What would drive people to do great things? Happyness and survival. Many people would live a secluded life, no matter how healthy or unhealthy it was nor how fun it was. Without religion we avoid getting people who hate other people for simply being different. With Secular Morality, I believe that many characteristics that seperate one race of people from another would disappear.
<-*->
Basicly, I guess I beleive that if you take away people's human nature of creatng religion and thinking through secular morality... then you would lose not only religous drives but other drives as well like racism and much greed (not all but a lot). As well as losing many negative qualities such as personal many negative personal beleifs and actions, we would probally lose the drive to invent things, what we make would remain basic and only improvements would be made if it made the tool easier to use. Inventions to increase happyness would not go to much further from small things like dolls and simple games because without religion, much jelousy (which always starts out with greed... which I beleive would disappear for the most part) would not exist and drive people to have more fun. Fun would be had in a different way.
I beleive that religion seeps through every thing! From war to simple toys for children... everything is effected. How we look at the world would be different so all reasons to fight would be different. Maybe I am wrong, maybe we would still find reasosn to acuse huge wars... but I know that the reasons would be beyond what we would think. I know I somewhat avoided the question "how would the people decide upon their morals?" Truth be told, I think it would come naturally. Secular Morality would take away almost all individualistic views... and it takes one hell of an individual to even want to take over the world or even smaller territories in the name of power. That is why I beleive wars would hardly ever happen
Noname, you're treating secular morality itself as a form of religion. It's not. People don't live 'under' it. It's simply moral principles not pertaining to religion.
Now people keep on asking what would they do if they asked "How was the Earth created?" and figure out the answers to some of them nearly impossible questions to answer. Now if we started asking those questions we would simply never know and probally never care, not for a long time untill we gained new technology. I doubt we would invent new technologies as fast though without religion.
Lets say somebody did care about one of them nearly impossible questions, then they have an idea and make something up... well now we have an individual thinking in a way not involved with the scenerio of Secular Morality and therefore as soon as that person made that thought, secular morality went away.
This is important. Religion has driven many innovations, true. But why does technological advancement have to have anything to do religion? From what you're saying, as soon as an advancement is made, it means there's religion (broadly speaking). Or rather, as soon as technology rises, morals become less secular and more religious. I don't see any connection there that would support that, unless religion already exists, which we have established that it doesn't.
When people think that I am crazy for saying there will be peace, the idea that humans could live under Secular Morality is a crazy idea in itself because Religions are created all the time by humans and it is almost as natural for humans to beleive in some form of god as breathing is.
Religion, in an unexplained universe, will almost certainly come about naturally to explain the unexplained. But no, that doesn't mean that it's extraordinarily natural. There are certainly hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of humans who are atheists, whether they openly abstain from religion or they don't actually believe in a god but instead believe in the religion.
Impression, you keep talking about different races of people and different ethnics and beliefs (not religous), but If everybody thinks through logic, reason, and moral intuition, then the only difference from one group of people from another group of people shall be the way they survive. Other than that, without religion or other spiritual/outworldly beliefs, people would surprisingly learn almost like every single other human in the world and at a simular rate.
Logic, reason, and moral intuition are a by-product of environment. People do learn similarly, as we all have essentially the same neurological structures. However, that doesn't mean that what will be useful in a desert will also be useful in a rainforest. People adapt to what type of information they need to assimilate, as well as shaping their way of life towards how they need to survive.
For example, our desert tribe will almost certainly spend more of their time finding food and water than our rainforest tribe, shaping how exactly they spend their days. If you look in Cross-Cultural Examination (I think that's what it's called), you'll see that desert tribes often are monotheistic, treat women ass chattel, etc., while the rainforest tribes will be polytheistic, with more distribution among the sexes.
You must understand that the only reason one nation would dominate another nation is so that it may expand on its own bounderies and gain more materials, but the biggest change would be how people living in the newly controlled areas would live. They would live acording to the laws of whoever took over them which because religion wouldn't be a factor... those laws would hardly be any different from the previous laws they lived under. Because the rules and laws of everyday life would hardly change, the only territory wars would be those that happen when one group of people found their land was not suporting them as good as some one else's land.
Of course rules and everyday life would change. A common fate for conquered peoples is slavery (which is not to say that it's the only fate. Nonetheless, the basic idea is sound - conquered people normally become second-class citizens). Humans, or any animals, really, don't respond well to being entirely submissive, which creates more conflict.
Another point - human selfishness is a constant, not directly tied to religion. With selfishness comes the desire for more and for better, and if that more or better belongs to someone else, there will be conflicts.
Other than that, through Secular Morality, people would know through common sence that it would be easier to survive by makign peace or finding new land than fighting a battle.
How? We, today, know through common sense that it's easier to survive by making peace, but we can't. Religion is a factor, but so is simple greed. And finding new land? Chances are that all land will eventually be controlled, so what happens then? Satisfaction and contentment of what one already has? There will always be people who desire more, and who will try to take it.
Without religion we avoid getting people who hate other people for simply being different. With Secular Morality, I believe that many characteristics that seperate one race of people from another would disappear.
Basicly, I guess I beleive that if you take away people's human nature of creatng religion and thinking through secular morality... then you would lose not only religous drives but other drives as well like racism and much greed (not all but a lot.
Religion, as a unify force, can actually promote altruism. However, greed is a genetic effect, not a religious one. If you behave more selfishly, your genes will tend to have a higher rate of survival. Strop brought up Dawkins, and he is a bit extreme, but you should read Selfish Gene to get this point.
Secular Morality would take away almost all individualistic views... and it takes one hell of an individual to even want to take over the world or even smaller territories in the name of power. That is why I beleive wars would hardly ever happen
There are so many chances for individuals with that kind of drive to occur - many billions of chances, in fact, take Caesar, Alexander, Hitler, etc. - that to say there wouldn't be isn't applicable. And how would secular morality take away individualistic views? I'd think that it'd promote them, as religion is indeed a convenient way to transport mass morals, and without it, they would depend on the cultural/familial views of the person in power.
To say that without religion humanity would be one happy family (stretched a bit, but the principle is essentially the same) is ignoring every other difference in favor of an easy way to explain why humans aren't alike.
However, greed is a genetic effect, not a religious one. If you behave more selfishly, your genes will tend to have a higher rate of survival. Strop brought up Dawkins, and he is a bit extreme, but you should read Selfish Gene to get this point.
To clarify on this- cooperation enhances survival, but one also has to work with self-interest within groups and therefore there is a balance between being 'selfish' and 'altruistic'. Either way this is all still subject to 'moral modulation' which is personally motivated by definition.
Religion, in an unexplained universe, will almost certainly come about naturally to explain the unexplained. But no, that doesn't mean that it's extraordinarily natural. There are certainly hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of humans who are atheists, whether they openly abstain from religion or they don't actually believe in a god but instead believe in the religion.
If we are living under secular morality as explained at the beginning of this thread, then you should know what it is. IT is more of a philosophical view on everything. I'm not a philosopher in most senses, but I would take the creation of everything to a scientific view without the slightest thought of unworldly powers or divinities.
Also, you talk about Athiests not believing in a god, but of a religion. Secular is a seperation from every religion, so strike that.
You misinterpreted my comment about atheists; I was simply implying that they had no affiliations to any religion as well as not believing in a god.
As to the rest of your post, Estel, could you re-explain? It doesn't make any sense.
I thought you were talking about Athiests lives in a secular world, and I was saying that they wouldn't be there because if we were secular, than we take everything in our world to philosophical level. Athiesm is in a sense a religion, just no belief in a god. You would be referring to Agnosticity.
I am not treating Secular Morality as a religion but a natural law on earth. That is the only way to treat Secular Morality. You keep actign like it is something were there is only no religion. It is a way of thinking. It is seeing the world for how it works and all beliefs are based off what people see and science.
For example, our desert tribe will almost certainly spend more of their time finding food and water than our rainforest tribe, shaping how exactly they spend their days. If you look in Cross-Cultural Examination (I think that's what it's called), you'll see that desert tribes often are monotheistic, treat women *** chattel, etc., while the rainforest tribes will be polytheistic, with more distribution among the sexes.
That all comes from acts of religion or spiritual beleifs! Nothing more nothing less! Secular Morality, preventign religion, would effect how people lead their lives. Without religion AND some logical thinking, women are hardly any different from men. Secular Morality does not only take religion away but it replaces our thoguhts on religion with logical thinking. Those people in your example treat women the way they do because it is their spititual belief that men are superior to women (or equal). They act the ways they do because of spiritual beliefs. You say religion does not effect this but you could not be any more wrong.
You make valid points but the problems with the points you make is that you take religion away and only religion. You don't take into consideratin that people without religion would begin to think logicly. Logical thinkers tend to be nuetral with rules and guidelines. They beleive that everyone is equil and no one is better (generally). The world you see with Secular Morality is not a world with Secular Morality but a world were major religions do not exist. It takes more than removing major religions to make a world of Secular Morality. You also have to give back logical thinking to the people.
Religion, in an unexplained universe, will almost certainly come about naturally to explain the unexplained. But no, that doesn't mean that it's extraordinarily natural. There are certainly hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of humans who are atheists, whether they openly abstain from religion or they don't actually believe in a god but instead believe in the religion.
There are more people who follow some form of religion than athiests. I am talking about 100% of the population sees the earth as it is. No religion at all. Even athiests tend to beleive in some forms of spiritual power, the most common would be rebirth. Not all athiests beleive you will rot in the ground, only the logical thinking athiests think that. Even at that though, those athiests who do not beleive in spiritual happenings live in a religion run world. Therefore those athiests are still effected by religion!
Of course rules and everyday life would change. A common fate for conquered peoples is slavery (which is not to say that it's the only fate. Nonetheless, the basic idea is sound - conquered people normally become second-class citizens). Humans, or any animals, really, don't respond well to being entirely submissive, which creates more conflict.
Another point - human selfishness is a constant, not directly tied to religion. With selfishness comes the desire for more and for better, and if that more or better belongs to someone else, there will be conflicts.
Human greed would be reduced. Why would we need slaves? People who own slaves and who have owned slaves throughout history have always beleived that they were aloud to own slaves because they were protected by their god. They beleived that anyone not following their god was a traitor.
Also, if you look at slave owners throughout the history of the world, you will find that most, if not all, slave owners were very religous and were usualy not very good logical thinkers (unless they used logical thinking along with religous beleifs which is very common).
You had the Egyptains who beleived that their gods gave them the power to rule over anybody who was different from them. You have the Romans with simular beliefs. You have the Confederate States of America. You may think that they kept slaves for reasons that had nothing to do with religion but the only reason they felt it was right to keep a slave was because God hated every race but whites. That is were you get the KKK.
How? We, today, know through common sense that it's easier to survive by making peace, but we can't. Religion is a factor, but so is simple greed. And finding new land? Chances are that all land will eventually be controlled, so what happens then? Satisfaction and contentment of what one already has? There will always be people who desire more, and who will try to take it.
That is in our world without Secular Morality. Read every single other thing I have written. Enough said right here.
There are so many chances for individuals with that kind of drive to occur - many billions of chances, in fact, take Caesar, Alexander, Hitler, etc. - that to say there wouldn't be isn't applicable. And how would secular morality take away individualistic views?
Ceaser, Alecander, and Hitler were all either driven by religous views, or used religous views as an excuse to gain followers. They were logical thinkers when it came to strategic values (except Hitler, he was just plain lucky... Dont even say he was smart because.. well don't get me started). They were not however logical thinkers when it came to measuring the values of human life, that everyone is human and the only ones worth anything were the lives closest to you.
Religion effects everything. Maybe not directly, but in some way it does. I promise that.
You have to consider that without religous views, you gain logical thinking. With Logical thinking, you bring in a mind of self satisfaction. There is greed so you can survive and greed so you can feel better about yourself. With logical thinking, we would greatly decrease the greed to make you feel better about yourself.
1. Let's pretend we live in a world without religion. How would we make a set of universal moral law?
2. Would this universal moral law require intersubjectivity?
3. Given that we lived by secular morality how would this change the world? Do you think it would be better or worse?
1. Well, I have two thoughts towards this. First of all, I think that by trying to create a universal moral law, it would result in opinions differing, small groups forming, and a type of religion being created despite the fact that there "was none". Religion is here for a purpose.
But if you're going to a deeper extent, where religion is taken away as well as opinions/beliefs, then I think that a universal moral law would have to be made by having one person (or few people) be the "leader(s)" to stand up and take the action of organization. There always has to be some form of leadership to create a law. But anyway, I think this whole communism idea would evolve into a dictatorship (sound familiar?). I was kind of confused by this question, so I'm not sure if I answered it right..
2. As I said before, "I think that a universal moral law would have to be made by having one person (or few people) be the "leader(s)." So yes.
3. I personally think it would be about equal if not slightly worse. I believe that the whole "freethinking" concept would be reckless and cause our world to be uncivilized. Basically, it would be every man for himself, you know? But comparing it to the world today, we are living in a undercover dictatorship which I believe is just as worse.
So, those are my thoughts.
I tried my best to understand the questions
and not stray off topic which some people seem to be doing..
I thought you were talking about Athiests lives in a secular world, and I was saying that they wouldn't be there because if we were secular, than we take everything in our world to philosophical level. Athiesm is in a sense a religion, just no belief in a god. You would be referring to Agnosticity.
Atheism is in no sense a religion. Atheism is lack of belief in a god, and to be a religion, there would have to be some sort of supernatural element. Atheism doesnât mean you donât believe in a moral code. In addition, the definition of an agnostic would be referring to someone who couldnât decide whether or not there is a god. Iâm not exactly sure what youâre trying to do with the rest of your post, as it makes no sense.
I am not treating Secular Morality as a religion but a natural law on earth. That is the only way to treat Secular Morality. You keep actign like it is something were there is only no religion. It is a way of thinking. It is seeing the world for how it works and all beliefs are based off what people see and science.
You previously said that without religion there would be no science. A logical extension would be that there are therefore no beliefs and no moral code. Thereâs also something that youâre not getting. Even without religion, people have essential differences. There will be no unifying morals without similarity, which wouldnât rise for centuries after the emergence of intelligence.
You don't take into consideratin that people without religion would begin to think logicly. Logical thinkers tend to be nuetral with rules and guidelines. They beleive that everyone is equil and no one is better (generally).
What I donât like about your argument is that youâre assuming that religion is the antithesis of logic. There are plenty of logical thinkers who are also religious, as well as many who are atheistic. Thinking logically doesnât mean that you donât show biases. Logical thinkers will still associate with their cultural identity, and will support their own people over others.
No religion at all. Even athiests tend to beleive in some forms of spiritual power, the most common would be rebirth. Not all athiests beleive you will rot in the ground, only the logical thinking athiests think that.
Atheists donât believe in any supernatural occurrences. People who believe in rebirth without god(s) tend to be Buddhist.
Even at that though, those athiests who do not beleive in spiritual happenings live in a religion run world. Therefore those athiests are still effected by religion!
Atheists choose not to take into account the principles of the religion that dominates their society. They will still be affected by religion, but are certainly not dependent upon it.
Human greed would be reduced.
You keep saying this, and yet you offer no concrete support. Greed is genetic, and as such is not exclusively influenced by religion.
You have the Confederate States of America. You may think that they kept slaves for reasons that had nothing to do with religion but the only reason they felt it was right to keep a slave was because God hated every race but whites. That is were you get the KKK.
No, the original reason they accepted it was because Africans werenât thought of as people, they needed labor, and slaves were convenient. The accusation that god hated every race but whites isnât just untrue â" itâs got a false supposition. At the initiation of slavery, and as mentioned above, Africans werenât human, and god created animals to serve man.
Ceaser, Alecander, and Hitler were all either driven by religous views, or used religous views as an excuse to gain followers. They were logical thinkers when it came to strategic values (except Hitler, he was just plain lucky... Dont even say he was smart because.. well don't get me started). They were not however logical thinkers when it came to measuring the values of human life, that everyone is human and the only ones worth anything were the lives closest to you.
How is that not logical? It appears extraordinarily logical when viewed from a genetic standpoint. Also, Hitler was brilliant, at least in his understanding of human reaction. He understood that a common enemy will unite people effectively. If you really want some good reasons for unity other than religion, read The True Believer by Eric Hoffer, which although it does deal primarily with religious drives also delves into other effective ways to manipulate and unite people.
Essentially what Iâm saying is that there are so many factors other than religion (culture, race, language, technological differences⦠that to say humans living in vastly different environments would be essentially similar is itself illogical.
@InhaleToExhale:
We are on topic; weâre clarifying exactly how this moral law would be defined and applied.
You previously said that without religion there would be no science. A logical extension would be that there are therefore no beliefs and no moral code. Thereâ??s also something that youâ??re not getting. Even without religion, people have essential differences. There will be no unifying morals without similarity, which wouldnâ??t rise for centuries after the emergence of intelligence.
Impression, I never said once that there would be no science without religion. You keep at looking at religion as only effecting things that are obvious. You do not understand that religion effects everythign as long as most of the world follows a form of religion.
Logical thinkers will still associate with their cultural identity, and will support their own people over others.
That is true, I never denied that but what defines one culture from another culture is religion. Of course people will suport those closest to them before everyone else, but they will be much less tempted to screw over other people. You have to do what you have to do to live.
This one is my favorite
No, the original reason they accepted it was because Africans werenâ??t thought of as people, they needed labor, and slaves were convenient. The accusation that god hated every race but whites isnâ??t just untrue â?" itâ??s got a false supposition. At the initiation of slavery, and as mentioned above, Africans werenâ??t human, and god created animals to serve man.
You claim that slavery was was NOT influenced by god. That people did not think of slaves as lower creatures of God but instead slaves were just animals who were made by God to work for man (basicly you just contradicted yourself).
How is that not logical? It appears extraordinarily logical when viewed from a genetic standpoint. Also, Hitler was brilliant, at least in his understanding of human reaction. He understood that a common enemy will unite people effectively.
Everything is related to religion, directly or indirectly. If you read a book about war you won't read so much about religion, but talk to a soldier and you will hear that many soldiers are influenced/comforted a little by religion. Those who do not fight in any war are ALWAYS told that the soldiers fighting the war shall be blessed by their god. If you don't get people at home to suport the war, you can't get soldiers to suport you to fight the war.
Hitler was a damn moron. You know those guys who feel lonely so they hand a prostitute a twenty. Those guys are desperate. Just like Germany. The Germans were very desperate people because they were in their own depression. They were desperate, Hitler was lucky taht France and Britain gave him his demands (they were tryign to avoid war... that sure did fail.)
Also if Germany was not in debt, then they would not have been desperate to get back everything they lost. This means that they would have looked at Hitler and spit in his face because they did not want to go to war, they wanted to gain back what they lost.
Also you failed to prove how Ceaser, Alecander, and Hitler all did NOT use religion to their advantage.
You have to think of it like this, if we started out as naked hairy people, with only rocks and stones, we would evolve like we have now. Within a certain point of time, people began questioning things and they would find answers for most of them. It is here that Secular Morality starts. You get people makign up stories to answer the unanswerable and reasons to not fear death. I think that if people would just move on without making up stories about religion and such, that most people would not have grown up in as much a greedy manner as you think. In fact I beleive religion would prevent many different characteristics from becoming strong. Of course you will have greed, but not something worth being killed over.
You seem to be talking as if Secular Morality just suddenly happened in today, and that tomorow everyone would be exactly the same as they are now minus religion. In this case everything you said would be right. Sadly we are talking about Secular Morality as if it happened from the begening. Of course people are still going to be racist and such if we sudenly all gave up religion at once... the process has already started! The process would never start without religion, or at least if it did, it would be very very short lived.
You must be logged in to post a reply!