Superiority of Secular Morality over Religious Systems

[Damian]

All reference points are subjective then based on that point, including your subjective choice to reference a deity. But once everyone has agreed on a point of reference, you can have moral absolutes.

 

[Damian]

Ugg have to get up and be an adult today.

 

[steve-b]

Yes we do this with any data that helps us to make decisions in the future.

Point being, THOSE people aren’t interested in truth. Only what THEY want.

Damien:

Tradition implies to me that the tradition is more important than the results. Thats all I indicated there.

And all I’m saying, there ARE people who want their conclusion to be true regardless of evidence, history or tradition that point away from their wanted conclusion

 

[po18guy]

Rather, secular morality is malleable. It is both determined by the self (autocrat) or group of selves, (Politburo) as well as modified to suit what are perceived as changing needs.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I disagree. It is YOUR system that is too simplistic and the theistic system that is only deceptively simple but really quite difficult to practice. That is why each of the commandments–the two basic ones, love G-d, love each other, the Ten Commandments, and the 613 Torah commandments–are explained more fully, and even here the Oral Torah based on Tradition is necessary to interpret them further according to changes in society. (If the word “commandment” is off-putting, you can think of them as “statements” or “words,” which are better translations of the Hebrew anyway.) I say your system is the simplistic one because it is based only on the perceived and immediate human needs of the individual and the society, WITHOUT taking into consideration the long-term effects of pursuing and either achieving or not achieving those needs. The religious system does take into consideration long-term consequences. It appeals to our better angels and is not content to allow us to plead that we are only human and cannot do the impossible. It states that what we might view as impossible is not so if we exert a little more effort and have a little more forethought before we leap to a potentially dangerous solution to our immediate problems. It requires us to stretch our bodies and minds a little more, and ultimately offers us a more refined and enlightened understanding of what it means to be a human being.

 

[Escabrosa]

Interesting view. Tell me, who are the secular authorities for this system? Who are these people sitting around the table deciding what is wrong? How do you encourage and influence informal social controls? Is it just the trends in universities and government that define and influence what the current norms will be? How will you enforce these frequent changes, through coercion?

Also, if a person believes morality is objective, why would you want to make frequent changes to a proven system?

I recall my Russian teachers telling us how the Soviets attempted to destroy the Orthodox Church and incorporated and enforced their version of secular morality.

 

[po18guy]

That is because we assume a Creator. Yet, love sees no “demand” as love willingly complies.

 

[Benadam]

Since the goal of just being human is Human Well-Being, that by default is the goal of secular moral systems.

Human well being. Being human well. I think secualr morality puts the cart before the horse. Secular experience isn’t where well being is exemplified or is it an environment that can normally perfect. Not that it can’t but it won’t if it throws out the morality that already knows what you seek. The Traditions and religions you exclude is where the states of well being you seek have already happened.

This includes our emotional well-being and physical well-being.

There is a more sublime experience of joy and happiness that can run counter to emotional and physical well being. That isn’t accounted for in secular morality. It doesn’t address the true nature of our humanity.
That’s what Ive been driving at with my question " to what end"

 

[Annie]

I have read only about 1/2 of the responses but I’m listening to the video and it is fascinating! A d so far, easily refjted by Catholicism! I just wantex to thank you for sharing this and I am looking forward to when I have the time later on or tomorrow to really dive in! So interesting!

 

[Damian]

I agree there are some people like that. I find zealots to be far and few between the majority of people though.

 

[Damian]

Perceived reasons for addressing change is just what you have been convinced of. So its a valid reason to come to the table and discuss. But the group can help point out good ideas and bad ideas regardless if they are perceived good or not. Are you arguing for solipsism? No one can solve the problem of being in the matrix or not. We can inly deal with teality as we inderstand it to be, regardless if it is only perceived or actual reality.

 

[Damian]

Cool thats the point, to get a perspective from different world views. Hope you don’t have to ‘Adult’ too much today.

 

[Damian]

WITHOUT taking into consideration the long-term effects of pursuing and either achieving or not achieving those needs.

Disagree, one purpose of governments are to look at the longevity of the society over the short term benefits of current social desires. The basic expansion of the conflict of self vs group needs. Investment to the group leads to longer advantages over short term self power.
But that is getting ahead of the point between Secular systems and non-secular systems. Secular Systems have an internal reference point for the good and the bad assessments of our goal of human well-being. Non-secular systems have an impossed external source for their reference point of good and bad and that reference point may actual not be in reference to human well-beung but something else entirely.
You seems to be bypassing that point and arguing over different strategies to reach the goal/reference point.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Correct!

One of the requirements in joining the Nazi Party was a rejection of all religion.

Jim

 

[Damian]

It states that what we might view as impossible is not so if we exert a little more effort and have a little more forethought before we leap to a potentially dangerous solution to our immediate problems. It requires us to stretch our bodies and minds a little more, and ultimately offers us a more refined and enlightened understanding of what it means to be a human being.

This is exactly the the same thing as reading political history and applying game theory to not make the mistakes of the past. The people involved in the discussion are only as affective as their education in history, game theory, and anthropolgy. Which is why education is key to not making the same mistakes of the past.
You seem to be arguing the point that we need superman to save us from ourselves since you believe we will always fail at this because of just being designed by your superman to be the way we are. We are designed to be more selfish than work as a group. Well not our problem since your superman made us this way. Can’t be held responsible for failing to jump over a bar when we were never built to jump that high in the first place.

 

[Damian]

Interesting view. Tell me, who are the secular authorities for this system?

The people involved in the discussion are the authorities for the system simce the game we are all playing is humanity with the goal being Human well-being. Just like playing chess, the allowed moves of each piece is analogous to the commonalities of humanity, prefer life over death, peace over suffering, socialization, etc. Now what strategies we should use to move towards the goal of Human Well-Being is what is being discussed. Some ideas are blatantly bad such as slavery from the reference point of human well being.

 

[Damian]

Who are these people sitting around the table deciding what is wrong?

The people participating in the discussion. This is why the system must allow everyone to the table but not every opinion is up for consideration or to be entertained.

 

[Damian]

How do you encourage and influence informal social controls?

Secualr Systems have the people involved in the discussion to set an agreed form of enforcement of the system. The regulatory force come internally from tje secular system. Nonsecular systems have this enforcement impossed from outside the system where no one has a say in the enforcement or how it is applied to them.

 

[Damian]

Also, if a person believes morality is objective, why would you want to make frequent changes to a proven system?

Morality is objective once you have picked your reference point or goal to strive to. Every reference point is subjective but not without reason and debate and evidence based conclusions. So not every reference point is to be entertained. Such as poick a religious deity as a reference point. It is no more reasonable to pick that reference point than any other comic book superhero as a reference point. Human Well-Being is the most universal reference point that all humans can use as a refereference point since it is evidence based that we thrive when that is the goal, regardless of an individual using it or a group.

 

[Damian]

How will you enforce these frequent changes, through coercion?

Same way we started the initial process. Why would the process change? The strategy can change, but the goal/game does not. Just like how you can oick different strategies in chess, but the goal to mot lose doesn’t change.