Refuting the Dogmatic Morality of Secularism - How do we do it?

[kch86]

In another thread, I summarised the current dogmatic morality of secularism as follows.

1. “Wrong” is a) something that causes subjective harm or

b) denying someone (2)

1. “Right” is what you want.

I also noted that it is more or less identical to the central doctrine of witchcraft or Satanism: “Do what thou wilt but harm none,” (Witchcraft, Satanism) or, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” (Satanism)

Now, Catholics can argue their points from a secular perspective until they’re blue in the face and they will fail miserably because today’s secularist is different from the pre-Christian atheist, who did not believe in the above dogma. If you bring up Natural Law when talking to a modern secularist, it will be like talking to a brick wall. He only accepts the above premises, consciously or subconsciously, and rejects everything that contradicts them.

Reductio ad absurdum is ineffective too. As we can see, secularists willingly embrace all that the above entails including abortion, euthanasia, and we’ve already heard of the dogma being taken to its logical conclusion in the paper on “after-birth abortion” that appeared in the Journal of Medical Ethics recently.

What this very simple dogma means is that a wrong is only committed when a person experiences subjective harm.

That means it’s okay to harm someone objectively (kill them) if they consent to it, and so we can justify assisted suicide (criteria 1a: consent given = no subjective harm = no wrong; criteria 2: what they want = right).

It also means abortion is okay because even though the baby is harmed objectively, he or she is not sufficiently aware to be able to perceive it, and so is subjectively unharmed (criteria 1a: no subjective harm = no wrong). In fact, outlawing abortion is wrong (criteria 1b denying what she wants = wrong).

I needn’t even mention that in that view homosexuality is right (criteria 1a: consent = no subjective harm = no wrong; criteria 2: what they want = right) and opposition to gay marriage is wrong (criteria 1b: denying what they (gay people) want = wrong)

So, how do you argue with this impenetrable mindset? Any ideas?

 

[Serious]

In another thread, I summarised the current dogmatic morality of secularism as follows.

1. “Wrong” is a) something that causes subjective harm or

b) denying someone (2)

1. “Right” is what you want.

Since this is already sheer nonsense, the rest is irrelevant. The secular morality rests on the two versions of the Golden Rule, especially the inverse one (which is the better way to put it):

“Do NOT do onto others that you would NOT want them do unto you”. Simple translation: “leave other adult people alone. Trust them to know what is best for them. Do not be a busybody, who wants to “help” others even if they don’t want it”. It does not explicitly say but implicitly accepts: "if they come and ask you for help, or if they are not in the position to express their desires, use you best judgement as if you were in their place… and thus go by the direct Golden Rule:

“Do onto others what you would want them to do onto you”. Translation: help others if they ask you, or if you can reasonably assume that they want your help.

That is all. This is the secular “morality” in a nutshell. (The “prayer” is: “Oh Lord, please save me from those people who want to save me from myself”.)

 

[Cat_Herder]

How to prove the existence of objective morality

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

How to prove the existence of objective morality

Now, prove that objective morality is not the morality described in post #1.

 

[kch86]

Since this is already sheer nonsense, the rest is irrelevant. The secular morality rests on the two versions of the Golden Rule, especially the inverse one (which is the better way to put it):

“Do NOT do onto others that you would NOT want them do unto you”

That is false. You would not kill a child if you did not yourself want to be killed. Secular morality permits abortion.

…if they are not in the position to express their desires, use you best judgement as if you were in their place…

Well, no, because the unborn child’s imputed desire to live or not to live does not figure in the reasoning for abortion, but the will of the mother.

 

[kch86]

Now, prove that objective morality is not the morality described in post #1.

Regardless, it’s a simplified characterisation of the logic used by secularists to justify their positions.

e.g.

If consent is given, it’s okay.

If consent cannot be given because of lack of mental faculty, then if no harm is perceived, it’s okay.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Now, prove that objective morality is not the morality described in post #1.

The ancient tribes that all independently developed laws against murder and stealing criminalized murder and stealing, not suicide and greed.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The ancient tribes that all independently developed laws against murder and stealing criminalized murder and stealing, not suicide and greed.

Indeed, that seems consistent with what we would expect of a morality based on the guidelines in post #1.

 

[kch86]

Okay, so let’s see how secular morality deals with the case of voluntary cannibalism, as happened in Germany a few years ago.

First, however, let’s look into homosexuality, because it provides an analogy.

In male homosexuality, you generally have the active/dominant and passive/submissive party. In many gay men, there is a preference for being one of these and not the other, and the opposing option is at best tolerated, if at all.

So if we apply the negative Golden Rule of secularism, “Do not do unto others as you wouldn’t have them do unto you,” we find that the homosexual act between two men, one active and one passive, is in some cases not permissible, where the active party would not tolerate being the passive one. The active party would not have what he is doing done to him.

But secularism considers this consensual sexual activity perfectly moral. To permit it, however, we have to rephrase the rule to something like, “Do not do unto others that which they do not want you to do to them.” That brings us back to my characterisation of secular morality in the first post. It’s all about desire and consent.

So in the case of cannibalism, where there was a man in Germany who advertised in a newspaper looking for men who would be willing to be eaten by him, could secular morality condemn these actions?

There is a man who wants to be killed and eaten and there is a man who wants to eat him.
How is that different from there being a man who wants to be the passive party and the man who wants to be the active party in the case of homosexual sex?

If the latter is permissible, so should the former be.

If for some reason the secularist decides that consensual killing is not permissible in this case, euthanasia too should not be permissible.

So logically, voluntary cannibalism is A-OK.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Indeed, that seems consistent with what we would expect of a morality based on the guidelines in post #1.

Objective morality is other-centric and the alternative I mentioned is self-centric. Think of the HHS mandate, which criminalizes the refusal to pay or someone else’s birth control. That is the “morality” that prevails today; it says that people have the right to steal from one another and criminalizes you for not consenting to the robbery. You are punished for not giving people what they want, which is how I interpret the OP.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Objective morality is other-centric and the alternative I mentioned is self-centric. Think of the HHS mandate, which criminalizes the refusal to pay or someone else’s birth control. That is the “morality” that prevails today; it says that people have the right to steal from one another and criminalizes you for not consenting to the robbery. You are punished for not giving people what they want, which is how I interpret the OP.

How the commandments of morality are phrased seems irrelevant.

 

[edwest2]

First, telling your parents, “When I turn 18 I’ll be an adult and I won’t have to listen to you anymore,” does not magically grant maturity or good judgement.

Since recorded history, men saw that some other men will go beyond what is good and proper for their tribe. Basic laws were developed so that people who stole or raped or killed without a need to defend themselves or others would be punished. Those laws became refined over the years.

What we are living through now is just a rephrasing of what I heard in the late 1960s, early 1970s from the hippies: “Do your own thing.” and “Hey man, if it feels good, do it.” or the more recent: “Consent is my favorite word.” If everybody is just doing what they want without commitment or cooperation (except to satisfy some temporary urge), then you are left with anarchy, temporary relationships and satisfying one’s ego. When things get boring or something distracts them, it’s off to do something else.

So people are free to do what they want, but everyone needs to realize that there is right and wrong, good behavior and bad behavior. Questions are OK but opinions don’t matter. Without a definite set of moral principles common to our society, we end up with people who believe anything goes morally. And then there’s nihilism: “Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die.” In other words, this life is all there is. Once again, we just need to go back a little to realize the seeds were planted by people like John Lennon in the song “Whatever gets you through the night”:

“Whatever gets you through your life 'salright, 'salright
Do it wrong or do it right 'salright, 'salright
Don’t need a watch to waste your time oh no, oh no”

Something is dogmatic only if you let it be.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Cat_Herder]

How the commandments of morality are phrased seems irrelevant.

It isn’t. The difference in phrasing has to do with the definition of what a “right” is. A legitimate right, like the right to vote, is nonexclusive. If I go vote it doesn’t impact your right to vote. An illegitimate right (a wrong) is one that is exclusive. If a woman exercises her “right to choose” on her female child, this child loses her own “right to choose.”

Murder violates a right, the right to life. Stealing also violates a right, the right to private property. But criminalizing “selfishness” violates the right to private property as much as stealing would. Criminalizing the failure to pay for someone else’s birth control is one of these wrongs disguised as a right; it violates the right to private property and more importantly, freedom of religion.

 

[gw3961]

In another thread, I summarised the current dogmatic morality of secularism as follows.

1. “Wrong” is a) something that causes subjective harm or

b) denying someone (2)

1. “Right” is what you want.

it seems to me that this is just a reflection of modernity’s idea of the “self” as the highest good. today, society tends to respect the “ability to choose” rather than the choice that is actually made. in other words, someone might be opposed to abortion, but unopposed to others supporting it. therefore, there is no wonder why “wrong” is associated with violating someone else’s subjective “good” and "right is doing what ever one wants.

bottom line is: it is difficult to argue with the modern secular approach to morality because it’s highest appeal is to the subjective will of the individual.

 

[sw85]

I have a feeling this will turn into another “What?! You can’t drop everything you’re doing and quickly summarize 2400 years of natural theology I can’t be bothered to familiarize myself with?! Everything you believe must be silly nonsense!” kind of thread.

 

[Serious]

That is false. You would not kill a child if you did not yourself want to be killed. Secular morality permits abortion.

Sure. A freshly impregnated egg is not a child, it is a zygote. The fetus is not a child. Just like an egg is not a chicken. Are you under the impression that you just consumed a fried chicken when you only had an omlette? (And in the countryside the egg may very well have been impregnated).

Well, no, because the unborn child’s imputed desire to live or not to live does not figure in the reasoning for abortion, but the will of the mother.

There is no desire without a working brain. Most abortions happen in the first trimester, when there is no brain yet. Try again.

Okay, so let’s see how secular morality deals with the case of voluntary cannibalism, as happened in Germany a few years ago.

So logically, voluntary cannibalism is A-OK.

Yes, of course it is OK. Consensual activity is neither moral nor immoral, it is simply amoral. Which part of: “It is none of your business” don’t you understand? (And please do not try to change the subject by saying: “what if it affects others?”. By definiton we talk about a setup where there are no third parties.)

 

[Serious]

The ancient tribes that all independently developed laws against murder and stealing criminalized murder and stealing, not suicide and greed.

Of course those laws were applicable when the acts were committed against the members of the tribe. The members and the property of other tribes were fair game.

 

[kch86]

Cat Herder:

Objective morality is other-centric and the alternative I mentioned is self-centric.

That’s a good point. Secularists that do not have a philosophy of what is good that is separate from the self will therefore not measure right and wrong against any external standard.

gw3961:

bottom line is: it is difficult to argue with the modern secular approach to morality because it’s highest appeal is to the subjective will of the individual.

edwest2:

Without a definite set of moral principles common to our society, we end up with people who believe anything goes morally. And then there’s nihilism: “Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die.” In other words, this life is all there is. Once again, we just need to go back a little to realize the seeds were planted by people like John Lennon in the song “Whatever gets you through the night”:

That’s true. It’s difficult to argue against secular morality because it views as its highest value an individual’s will. However, this ideology will produce rotten fruit, and it would be good if some secularists could see that and change their minds before the consequences become insufferable.

 

[kch86]

Sure. A freshly impregnated egg is not a child, it is a zygote.

You are in one sense correct. A zygote, a blastocyst or an old age pensioner is not a child. However, they are all human. The zygote is a human zygote and not a marsupial just as much the old age pensioner is a human OAP and not a withering dolphin on social security entitlements. And they each have a father and a mother, and in that sense, all of them are children of their parents.

There is no desire without a working brain. Most abortions happen in the first trimester, when there is no brain yet. Try again.

Precisely. Secular morality views as permissible any desire or act of the will, provided it doesn’t interfere with the desire or the will of another. As a result, any human being that should find himself in a situation where he is deprived of desire or will becomes fair game to those who wish to further deprive him of his life.

Yes, of course it is OK. Consensual activity is neither moral nor immoral, it is simply amoral. Which part of: “It is none of your business” don’t you understand? (And please do not try to change the subject by saying: “what if it affects others?”. By definiton we talk about a setup where there are no third parties.)

I had no intention of changing the subject. It does amply demonstrate my point that secular morality has elevated the individual’s will to the status of absolute value, and that inevitably leads an individual who espouses that particular set of secular values to accept acts of depravity as being merely “amoral,” as you yourself show.

Of course, in the example of cannibalistic killing, you and I both instinctively feel a distaste for the act in question. However, whereas the Catholic sees the act as clearly immoral, as in addition to abusing the body of another, it involves wilfully depriving him of his life and is murder, the secularist sees it as a fulfilment of will, which nobody may interfere with; it’s nobody else’s business.

Unlike you, I do not believe that the maximum fulfilment of wills is necessarily good, and I believe that the depravity such a mindset permits will have grave consequences for society and humanity in the long run and, paradoxically, not lead to something people, including secularists, actually want. Of course, I would be delighted if I could show you that because I believe that all people, including secularists and those of other faiths, should strive to live in a better world than one where libertine freedom is the only value.

Your mindset, however, views libertinism as a positive good, and so I guess the question I wanted to ask my fellow Christians is how we could reason with intelligent secularists like yourself on your terms, without reference to God, and still show them that while their defence of freedom is certainly a good thing, the belief in absolute freedom in all spheres, including morality, isn’t.

 

[Cat_Herder]

There is no desire without a working brain. Most abortions happen in the first trimester, when there is no brain yet.

A heart disconnected from the nervous system continues to beat. Try again.