Attention secular progressives:

[anonymoususer]

Has anyone engaged a SP in a conversation regarding source of moral conduct? In other words, if the secularists want faith out of everything, what would they say if I asked them “is murder wrong?” If they said “yes, murder is wrong,” why is it wrong? Are they going to say, “well, it just is,” or what?

Just for the record, as a Catholic, if someone asked me why murder is wrong, I would say my faith strictly forbids it.

Very curious!

 

[BillP]

anonymoususer:

Has anyone engaged a SP in a conversation regarding source of moral conduct? In other words, if the secularists want faith out of everything, what would they say if I asked them “is murder wrong?” If they said “yes, murder is wrong,” why is it wrong? Are they going to say, “well, it just is,” or what?

Just for the record, as a Catholic, if someone asked me why murder is wrong, I would say my faith strictly forbids it.

Very curious!

Well, I expect that they would say that murder inevitably violates the rights of the victim. OTOH, I am a Catholic and I would say that too.

 

[anonymoususer]

ok, but where does the inalienable / inevitable right to life derive from? Where does it say that I have this right?

 

[BillP]

anonymoususer:

ok, but where does the inalienable / inevitable right to life derive from? Where does it say that I have this right?

Beats me. But certain individual rights and freedoms have been almost universally honored to one degree or another since long before the advent of Judeo-Christian religion.

The Code of Hammurabi respects the rights of life and property dating back to 1780 BC, at least hundred years before Abraham and 400 to 500 years before Moses formulated the Decalouge.

Similarly Chinese Law developed along very similar lines with no Judeo-Christian influence at all

 

[vern_humphrey]

anonymoususer:

ok, but where does the inalienable / inevitable right to life derive from? Where does it say that I have this right?

They would say, “Society agrees you have a right to life.”

The response to that is, “Then Society can agree that some people – Blacks, Catholics, Jews – do not have a right to life.”

When one rejects that rights are granted by a power higher than man, one rejects the whole concept of human rights.

 

[steveandersen]

anonymoususer:

ok, but where does the inalienable / inevitable right to life derive from? Where does it say that I have this right?

IIRC Common law and Modern Liberalism both have their roots in the concept of Natural law and were teleological in outlook. It doesn’t have to say that you have those rights anywhere for you to have them…we hold them to be self-evident …if I may paraphrase Mr. Jefferson

 

[BillP]

vern humphrey:

They would say, “Society agrees you have a right to life.”

The response to that is, “Then Society can agree that some people – Blacks, Catholics, Jews – do not have a right to life.”

When one rejects that rights are granted by a power higher than man, one rejects the whole concept of human rights.

Is that anything like burning people whose religion you disagree with?

 

[vern_humphrey]

BillP:

Is that anything like burning people whose religion you disagree with?

I assume you have a point you’re trying to make. Would you please explain to the rest of us what it is?

 

[Maranatha]

anonymoususer:

Has anyone engaged a SP in a conversation regarding source of moral conduct? In other words, if the secularists want faith out of everything, what would they say if I asked them “is murder wrong?” If they said “yes, murder is wrong,” why is it wrong? Are they going to say, “well, it just is,” or what?

Just for the record, as a Catholic, if someone asked me why murder is wrong, I would say my faith strictly forbids it.

Very curious!

One answer they may give for the origin of morals is that they evolved through societies that were successful. Societies that allowed murder declined and became extinct.

 

[BillP]

vern humphrey:

I assume you have a point you’re trying to make. Would you please explain to the rest of us what it is?

That organized religion most certainly is NOT the source of the nearly universal conception of morality or law in the human experience.

 

[DreadVandal]

The origin of morality is reason. The first principle of practical reason, as annunciated by St. Thomas Aquinas, is to “pursue good and avoid evil.” Anyone who has some semblence of functional reason knows what things are beneficial to human existence and what things are harmful to human existence. An atheist can easily say that murder is wrong because it is in my self interest to have a regulation against random killing for any private reason. Why? because I value being alive. No appeal to God or the transcendent is necessary. This is the problem with most moral arguments for God’s existence.

 

[Ham1]

DreadVandal:

The origin of morality is reason. The first principle of practical reason, as annunciated by St. Thomas Aquinas, is to “pursue good and avoid evil.” Anyone who has some semblence of functional reason knows what things are beneficial to human existence and what things are harmful to human existence. An atheist can easily say that murder is wrong because it is in my self interest to have a regulation against random killing for any private reason. Why? because I value being alive. No appeal to God or the transcendent is necessary. This is the problem with most moral arguments for God’s existence.

What if the atheist doesn’t value being alive, then is it okay to murder?

 

[DreadVandal]

Ham1:

What if the atheist doesn’t value being alive, then is it okay to murder?

If the atheist doesn’t value being alive, then the atheist is irrational. And if the atheist acts on such a lack of values, then life in prison or capital punishment is the appropriate response

 

[Benedictus]

anonymoususer:

Has anyone engaged a SP in a conversation regarding source of moral conduct? In other words, if the secularists want faith out of everything, what would they say if I asked them “is murder wrong?” If they said “yes, murder is wrong,” why is it wrong? Are they going to say, “well, it just is,” or what?

There are a number of systems of ethics that don’t rely on belief in God. Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics are two of the more popular.

Utilitarianism, as explained by J.S. Mill, is based on the idea that one should do what results in the greatest good for the society. This ‘good’ is generally explained as happiness or sometimes pleasure.

The idea is that when you consider various courses of action, for each course of action, you add up the increase in happiness that each member of society would experience (consider unhappiness to be “negative happiness”). The course of action that results in the greatest overall happiness is the action you should follow.

Under Utilitarianism, murder is wrong because it decreases happiness in the society. When someone is murdered, any happiness experienced by the murder is outweighed by the grief experienced by the family and friends of the victim. Additionally, other members of society live in fear of being murdered.

Utilitarianism is successful in some ways, but it has some serious flaws too. Read about Peter Singer’s beliefs and you’ll know why.

Immanuel Kant also proposed a system of ethics that has a following. It has several formulations that Kant considered to be equivalent:

1. (Universalizability Principle) “Act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature.” (Only do things that you would want everyone else to do).
2. (Human Dignity Principle) “Act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.” (Don’t use yourself or others merely as a means of achieving an end).

Under Kantian ethics, murder violates the first law because you couldn’t possibly want to let everyone else become murders. Murder would also violated the second law because you would be violating the victim’s human dignity.

 

[Ortho]

I have an instinct for self preservation. I don’t know where it comes from but I recognize it and act on it for my own welfare. I don’t want to be killed by someone else.

Others share my instinct. They do not want to be killed by someone else.

We bind together in an alliance of mutual benefit and support. I agree I will not kill others, and they agree they will not kill me.

We agree to enforce our compact on each other, and we agree to protect the group against outsiders who want to kill our members.

We invent a word - “wrong.” We say killing others is wrong.