Secular Morality?

[seer]

Because the truth-makers don't depend on any mind's views on that matter.

Just stop Jichard, and explain in your own words. Why for instance is murder objectively wrong? How do you know that, and how is it wrongness not subjective. If you can't actually articulate your position, without depending on quotes from others then I'm done.

Nothing in the definition of "moral system" implies that life is like seer's fantasy / movie-world, where the consequences are such that the good guys all get rewarded and the bad guys all get punished. Instead, a moral system is basically just a system of moral statements, etc. And whether the moral systems statements are true or false (or whether it's rational to think that it's statements are true or false) does not depend on whether or not it has the positive consequences you so wish for. To say otherwise is the fallacy of appeal to consequences.

Here is true moral statement: justice does not exist in the moral realism theory. Doesn't get any more true than that.

[Jichard]

Just stop Jichard, and explain in your own words.

Just did. So you can stop pretending otherwise:

Because the truth-makers don't depend on any mind's views on that matter.

Why for instance is murder objectively wrong?

Goal-post move. Your original question was a meta-ethical question regarding moral realism. Now you've shifted to a normative ethical question. You've been told before that these aren't the same type of question, and you claimed to understood that. Now you've gone back to dishonestly pretend that they're the same type of question. Please stop the dishonesty.

Anyway, you asked:

"And how is any of this objective or mind independent?"

I answered. Now free to deal with that answer, instead of dishonestly moving the goalposts to a question of normative ethics.

How do you know that, and how is it wrongness not subjective. If you can't actually articulate your position, without depending on quotes from others then I'm done.

Already answered. Stop dishonestly pretending otherwise:

Because the truth-makers don't depend on any mind's views on that matter.

In know you'll never address that answer, because you never, ever address anything that's inconvenient for your pet position, even when it's explained to you over and over and over and...

Here is true moral statement: justice does not exist in the moral realism theory. Doesn't get any more true than that.

That isn't a moral statement, and it's a claim you simply fabricated. But I get it; you aren't a moral realist, don't understand the position, and just make up false claims about it based on your appear to consequences. Enjoy being a moral subjectivist.

And feel free to finally muster an honest response to what was written:

"Nothing in the definition of "moral system" implies that life is like seer's fantasy / movie-world, where the consequences are such that the good guys all get rewarded and the bad guys all get punished. Instead, a moral system is basically just a system of moral statements, etc. And whether the moral systems statements are true or false (or whether it's rational to think that it's statements are true or false) does not depend on whether or not it has the positive consequences you so wish for. To say otherwise is the fallacy of appeal to consequences."

[seer]

Just did. So you can stop pretending otherwise:

Because the truth-makers don't depend on any mind's views on that matter.

But that is not an answer, how is the wrongness of murder wrong a "truth maker?"

[Tassman]

Yet in your universe bad men often prosper and good men often suffer unduly.

Yes. T’was ever thus!

And no matter how you live all men come to the same end.

Well all living things die, if that’s what you mean. So…..?

It makes no difference if you are a Mother Teresa or a Stalin - they both end up as dust.

Do you have substantive evidence, i.e. apart from religious fables, that some people don’t end up as dust?

This is why morality is irrational in your world.

Morality is neither “rational” nor “irrational”; it’s merely a system of rules devised by humans to enable them to function as they evolved to function, namely as cooperative social beings living among others of the species in cohesive, supportive communities.

But what one considers enlightened is subjective. I'm sure that the Communists and Radical Muslims think that they are enlightened. But I'm glad that you agree that totalitarianism is morally good as long as it promotes social cohesion.

…and I’m sure you think you’re enlightened in your subjective interpretation of the so-called absolute laws of God. What most people like you claim to be the "objective" laws of God usually coincides with what they subjectively feel to be true.

But that is not an answer, how is the wrongness of murder wrong a "truth maker?"

Murder is not just 'killing' others, it is by definition the unlawful taking of life. So its wrongfulness is based upon the rules devised by a given society. And these in turn are governed by the truth of our evolutionary heritage, programmed by genes. None of that is arbitrary. Our feelings and attitudes are rooted in human nature; and "murder" is a common prohibition in all societies.

[seer]

Morality is neither “rational” nor “irrational”; it’s merely a system of rules devised by humans to enable them to function as they evolved to function, namely as cooperative social beings living among others of the species in cohesive, supportive communities.

So morality is a-rational, which means there is no rationality involved. Sheesh Tass, it is worse than I thought. Our ethical systems are void of all rationality!

…and I’m sure you think you’re enlightened in your subjective interpretation of the so-called absolute laws of God. What most people like you claim to be the "objective" laws of God usually coincides with what they subjectively feel to be true.

I'm glad you agree that morality is relative in your world.

Murder is not just 'killing' others, it is by definition the unlawful taking of life. So its wrongfulness is based upon the rules devised by a given society. And these in turn are governed by the truth of our evolutionary heritage, programmed by genes. None of that is arbitrary. Our feelings and attitudes are rooted in human nature; and "murder" is a common prohibition in all societies.

Except when it is not. Like with the Nazis, Communists , Hutus, etc... So sometimes murder is very beneficial to those doing the murdering. Like when Chimpanzees kill other Chimpanzees for their females and territories. But like you said this whole process is void of rationality.

[Truthseeker]

Let me review this thread. I may also throw in some criticism now and then.
"Secular Morality" may mean "morals for atheists." Up to this post, have atheists like Tassman, Jicard, JimL, etc. shown that there exists at least one moral system that is applicable to any atheist's life and which can be derived from what is known about life in general? [Feel free to offer a better statement of the thread than the one just above.]

Apparently no reader of this thread knows about this definition of a self-evident statement: The opposite of the statement is unthinkable. For one thing, in Mortimer J. Adler's words, we ought to desire what is really good for us and nothing else. Now, is there any reader of this thread who would argue the opposite of that statement, i.e., we ought to desire what is really bad for us?

Dr. Adler called that sentence the first principle of Moral Philosophy.

I may have more on how to use that principle next time.

[seer]

Let me review this thread. I may also throw in some criticism now and then.
"Secular Morality" may mean "morals for atheists." Up to this post, have atheists like Tassman, Jicard, JimL, etc. shown that there exists at least one moral system that is applicable to any atheist's life and which can be derived from what is known about life in general? [Feel free to offer a better statement of the thread than the one just above.]

Apparently no reader of this thread knows about this definition of a self-evident statement: The opposite of the statement is unthinkable. For one thing, in Mortimer J. Adler's words, we ought to desire what is really good for us and nothing else. Now, is there any reader of this thread who would argue the opposite of that statement, i.e., we ought to desire what is really bad for us?

Dr. Adler called that sentence the first principle of Moral Philosophy.

I may have more on how to use that principle next time.

So selfishness is basically the first principle of Moral Philosophy?

[Truthseeker]

So selfishness is basically the first principle of Moral Philosophy?

Please, first, let me see if you think that everyone is selfish in his-her own way.

[Tassman]

So morality is a-rational, which means there is no rationality involved. Sheesh Tass, it is worse than I thought. Our ethical systems are void of all rationality!

I was disagreeing with your version of rational morality. You seem to think that a moral system can only be rational if there are post-mortem rewards and punishments for the likes of Mother Teresa or a Stalin. Otherwise, in your view, it’s unfair because “they both end up as dust”. In short, your “rational morality” is based upon wishful thinking.

I'm glad you agree that morality is relative in your world.

Where did I say that?

Except when it is not. Like with the Nazis, Communists , Hutus, etc... So sometimes murder is very beneficial to those doing the murdering.

“Murder” is by definition “unlawful killing”; even if the laws permitting killing are bad laws.

Like when Chimpanzees kill other Chimpanzees for their females and territories.

Humans can behave similarly towards those not within the same tribe. Check out Moses’ violent slaughter of rival tribes for their females and territories.

But like you said this whole process is void of rationality.

I didn’t say that. I disputed your equating of rational morality with rewards and punishments…extending even into an imagined afterlife.

[seer]

Please, first, let me see if you think that everyone is selfish in his-her own way.

Of course. But we are all sinners. I mean if your first principle is correct why would a mother sacrifice herself for her child? Or why would a soldier jump on a grenade to save his buddies?

[seer]

I was disagreeing with your version of rational morality. You seem to think that a moral system can only be rational if there are post-mortem rewards and punishments for the likes of Mother Teresa or a Stalin. Otherwise, in your view, it’s unfair because “they both end up as dust”. In short, your “rational morality” is based upon wishful thinking.

But you just said that your view of morality was a-rational. That means without rationality. So it is obvious that my moral view that includes full and exact justice is rational, and your view were the bad man often prospers and the good man often suffers unduly is not. Your universe, your moral system, is both unjust and non-rational.

Where did I say that?

You agreed what whatever promoted social cohesion was "good." There is where the relative consideration comes it - since a number of different things could promote said cohesion. Totalitarianism, shared religious beliefs, share political beliefs, etc... Or if killing a minority of dissenters helped social cohesion then that would be good too.

“Murder” is by definition “unlawful killing”; even if the laws permitting killing are bad laws.

Bad according to whom? You? The Nazis, the Hutus? The Communists? Why is your opinion more correct or valid than theirs?

Humans can behave similarly towards those not within the same tribe. Check out Moses’ violent slaughter of rival tribes for their females and territories.

Right so there is nothing wrong here - just nature doing what nature does.

I didn’t say that. I disputed your equating of rational morality with rewards and punishments…extending even into an imagined afterlife.

No you said: Morality is neither “rational” nor “irrational” I take you at your word Tass bro.

[Truthseeker]

So selfishness is basically the first principle of Moral Philosophy?

(second response). Why do you think so? It seems as though you read this sentence, "We ought to desire what is really good for us and nothing else" as, "I ought to do whatever is really good for me and nothing else."

[seer]

(second response). Why do you think so? It seems as though you read this sentence, "We ought to desire what is really good for us and nothing else" as, "I ought to do whatever is really good for me and nothing else."

Doesn't one follow the other? Did Christ desire what was good for Himself and nothing else?

[Tassman]

But you just said that your view of morality was a-rational. That means without rationality. So it is obvious that my moral view that includes full and exact justice is rational, and your view were the bad man often prospers and the good man often suffers unduly is not. Your universe, your moral system, is both unjust and non-rational.

Your notion of “rational morality” is a nonsensical “happy-ending” fantasy, which includes post mortem rewards and punishments in the best Hollywood tradition. In short, it's wishful thinking. Hence, as I said, in your context morality is neither “rational” nor “irrational” it just “is”...rational only means exercising “sound judgement”…no more than that.

You agreed what whatever promoted social cohesion was "good." There is where the relative consideration comes it - since a number of different things could promote said cohesion. Totalitarianism, shared religious beliefs, share political beliefs, etc.

Social cohesion is “good” only in the sense that it’s an evolved survival mechanism for a social species like us. Achieving it via religious totalitarianism is the least desirable means of attaining it because it’s based upon faith, dogma, and revelation and consequently results in conflicting, untestable conclusions...as we've seen throughout history.

Or if killing a minority of dissenters helped social cohesion then that would be good too.

It helped Moses to kill off rival tribes, take their territory, women and slaves. Was that “good” or was it merely human morality typical of an earlier era? I suggest the latter. What do you say?

Bad according to whom? You? The Nazis, the Hutus? The Communists? Why is your opinion more correct or valid than theirs?

By the lawmakers! Who do you think, God? Evidence please.

Right so there is nothing wrong here - just nature doing what nature does.

…and the alternative to nature is what?

No you said: Morality is neither “rational” nor “irrational” I take you at your word Tass bro.

Context, seer, context!

[seer]

Your notion of “rational morality” is a nonsensical “happy-ending” fantasy, which includes post mortem rewards and punishments in the best Hollywood tradition. In short, it's wishful thinking. Hence, as I said, in your context morality is neither “rational” nor “irrational” it just “is”...rational only means exercising “sound judgement”…no more than that.

Oh, now you are talking about "sound judgement?" Whose sound judgement would that be - yours? You are changing your tune, you never said "in your context morality..." You made the claim that morality was neither rational or irrational. Don't blame me because you are now hedging. And the fact is Tass a moral system void of justice is irrational. How could it be otherwise?

Social cohesion is “good” only in the sense that it’s an evolved survival mechanism for a social species like us. Achieving it via religious totalitarianism is the least desirable means of attaining it because it’s based upon faith, dogma, and revelation and consequently results in conflicting, untestable conclusions...as we've seen throughout history.

But that is not the point, it wouldn't matter what is least or most desirable (that may be too complicated to really understand anyway) it only matters what works - and what works can be quite relative.

It helped Moses to kill off rival tribes, take their territory, women and slaves. Was that “good” or was it merely human morality typical of an earlier era? I suggest the latter. What do you say?

It doesn't matter what I say. What the Europeans did in the Americas, or even in your country, to the natives, was good for the Europeans. Evolution in motion.

By the lawmakers! Who do you think, God? Evidence please.

What lawmakers? Who were the lawmakers when the Europeans came to the Americas? That's right - the Europeans.

…and the alternative to nature is what?

No you just need to admit that the bottom line is about survival and passing on ones genes. And that all your high talk about ethics is at worse meaningless or at best ancillary.

Context, seer, context!

Tass, you made the point that morality was neither rational or irrational - and you did it of your own free will!