Warrenton:
Of course you are correc…s out there like a big question mark?
To me, the modern secularists are at best re-hashed Romans, at worst, like that Gervaise, Unitarians with dumb jokes.
None can offer me any reason to forogoe my own desires, really, other than avoiding punishment. If I refuse to worship God, I am darned if I will worship my local sheriff (even though he may be bigger).
These rehashes of stoicism, or epicureanism (communism is too sci-fi even to address) also tend to overlook the human fact of “drift.” Unlike deer, racoons, or flying squirrels, human conduct drifts. It is always becoming something else. In the Catholic society, when it works, people are bad, often very bad, but they are becoming better.
In the atheist society, people may be good, but there is that realization that all things, really, are licit, if you can get away with it, if you want it enough. When we are all in on that little secret, society will tend to get worse.
Well, what is ‘good enough’? Obviously no variant of religious morality is perfect, and saying secular morality isn’t good enough seems…well, I agree with you, but I don’t see it as a relevant point since we’re trying to find something workable, not something perfect.
So, what are the goals? If the goal something like low crime/violence, low mortality and high levels of personal happiness then I would point to the fact that the societies that best meet those needs are the most secular nations in existence. That would be in opposition to your assumption that secular morality always leads to moral degeneration.
The reason you have to forgo your immediate desires (as you point out above, and I agree, desire is still selfish) is that by doing so you are far more likely to meet your ultimate objective, if those objectives are something objective and of this life.
If people needed religion or religious morality be moral, I would expect religion to positively correlate with something like low crime rates, but it doesn’t correlate, not at all, in fact it has some reveres correlation.
So again, what are the goals? Religion is necessarily superior
if your goal is meeting ‘objective’ moral standards that grant access into an immaterial, supernatural reward, or the avoidance of similar punishment. But you need to assume or believe that such a thing exists before religious morality makes the most sense.
Empirically, human life on this planet, in the modern day, seems better served by secular morality that adapts with the culture it serves.
That doesn’t mean all secular morality is ‘good’. I think some of it is horrible, just like you probably think some religious morality is horrible. Again, it all depends on your goals. If your goal is heaven, then religion. If your goal is temporal human life, then secular.
I’m not dogmatic though, I give religious thinkers full credit for many advances in moral thinking. I just think we’re at a place where it isn’t necessary.
A final point, the Romans were a religious society who had religious morality, so I’m not sure what it is about them that would warrant the comparison to secular ethicists. Maybe there is an assumption that most Romans were blind hedonists, and so are moder secular ethicists? If so, I don’t think that lines up with reality in either case…
Warrenton:
Because they maxed it out and escaped the consequences. No one knows who is happy, really. I personally think they were happy as clams, (why not?) even though it offends justice to think so.
OK. Call it personal preference. Research seems to show that the happiest people are those who devote their lives to a cause, so based on that maybe they were happy people. I don’t know if it is true, but I’ll assume so for the sake of argument: Which is more likely to bring happiness over the course of a life A) aiming for being a ruthless dictator who brutally suppresses and kills people at whim B) aiming for being a member of the peace corp who provides humanitarian aid to the needy C) aiming for being a good spouse and taking pride in a job well done, children well raised, and a life lives peacefully D) aiming to be a priest who lives to save souls E) aiming to build a high functioning secular society where everyone, including yourself, can life the life most suited to personal and social harmony?
To me, B, C, D, E probably all have parity. A is going to be…what, one chance in ten million to die having led a full and happy life? Less? One in 100 million? It just seems like very bad planning, even if you grant the possibility.
Picture two, idealized, hypothetical societies.
Planet 1) Everyone lives for their immediate gain. Neighbors betray each other any time they feel they can get away with it. Societies brutally suppress whomever is unfortunate enough to be less powerful. The powerful and able live and die in bliss, the weak and less able live in abject misery. The guiding principle is might makes right.
Planet 2) Everyone lives for in accordance to rules that benefit society first, and the environment that creates allows the greatest possible number of humans to be as happy as possible. Societies and individuals support each other, the weak and powerless are protected by the strong and privileged. The guiding principle is do not do unto others what you would not have done unto yourself.
Now, you’re a ‘soul’ on the verge of becoming material and living a random life from one of the two planets. Your only choice is which planet you get to pick. Which would you choose? That’s my long winded way of explaining why the enlightened hedonist would choose to act for the benefit of others.
