Establishing Secular Morality

[o_mlly]

We're not designed for monogamy.

Interesting that the above statement implies humans are designed and not evolved. Those who believe in an Intelligent Designer also largely believe that marriage is a lifelong commitment.

The link provided to your citation is down for maintenance so could not be scrutinized.

However, Murdoch admits that his Ethnographic Atlas does not represent a statistically valid sampling from which generalized conclusion are warranted:

Full text of "Ethnographic Atlas"

Although such studies have been appearing of late at a geometrically increasing rate, all of them have exhibited one or more of five serious methodological errors, any one of which is sufficient to call into question the validity of the results. ... ​

After all, the revised tables incorporate nearly 50,000 distinct items of information, and the writer is by no means an authority on all the ethnographic areas of the world. Since errors reduce the dependability of any use made of the tabulated data, it is important that they be reduced to a minimum.​

So, leaping to the conclusion that we are not designed for monogamy seems invalid. Using similar logic, given obesity stats, one could conclude we are not designed to be healthy.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So if you need someone to blame... blame people... they're crazy. Now I can understand why mother nature would make crazy people, but why would God make crazy people?

But then we are back where we started. Why are people crazy? What contributes to their moral decline?

 

[Bradskii]

Interesting that the above statement implies humans are designed and not evolved.

Gee, maybe we are designed after all.

However, Murdoch admits that his Ethnographic Atlas does not represent a statistically valid sampling from which generalized conclusion are warranted:

Well, I'm not hanging my hat on the figures. If the number of societies that are not monogamous are somewhat lower then I'm sure we could discuss the relevance of whatever figure you consider to be more accurate.

I was going to link to a couple of articles that discuss this matter - because there are certainly some disagreements about it. Mostly as regards the difference between the influences of evolution and society. I don't want to be rude, but that type of discussion excludes you. But feel free to argue the morality of it.

 

[o_mlly]

Well, I'm not hanging my hat on the figures. If the number of societies that are not monogamous are somewhat lower then I'm sure we could discuss the relevance of whatever figure you consider to be more accurate.

That's good; you'd likely lose your hat hanging your conclusion on that citation as your source.

The better studies about societies that permit or restrict marriage arrangements would be designed as a multivariate analysis. Societies that flourish must promote and protect children otherwise they are doomed. See if you could find a study on the correlation between societies that permit infanticide and non-monogamous relationships.

I don't want to be rude, but that type of discussion excludes you.

?

But feel free to argue the morality of it.

Uhm? Perhaps you have forgotten where you are:

• Discussion and Debate
• Ethics & Morality

The thread's title is "Establishing a Secular Morality". What else would I debate if not the secular morality of monogamy?

 

[Bradskii]

Societies that flourish must promote and protect children otherwise they are doomed.

That depends on any number of factors. Including the number of children born within each family. My great great grandparents had 8. Four died in childhood. Because of any number of factors they could not protect those four. The family flourished.

?

You can't discuss evolutionary arguments if you don't believe in the process. Especially as it needs millions of years and you don't consider that millions of years are available for that process.

Uhm? Perhaps you have forgotten where you are...

No. It's a discussion on morality. From a secular viewpoint. You are of course free to discuss it. But any evolutionary evidence presented by myself or anyone else won't be directed at you. Feel free to ignore it.

 

[o_mlly]

That depends on any number of factors. Including the number of children born within each family. My great great grandparents had 8. Four died in childhood. Because of any number of factors they could not protect those four. The family flourished.

? You make my point. I presume those children who died were not victims of infanticide. And your great great grandparents protected all 8 children as well as they could. Knowing the survival rate of children, they promoted childbirth such that as at their death, they left 2x their number on the planet so as to allow their society to flourish.

You can't discuss evolutionary arguments if you don't believe in the process. Especially as it needs millions of years and you don't consider that millions of years are available for that process.

Where did you come up with that claim? All evolutionists claim to just need more time. I give them all the time they need. What the theory lacks is convincing evidence. Just one macroevolution observation would be helpful.

It's a discussion on morality. From a secular viewpoint. You are of course free to discuss it. But any evolutionary evidence presented by myself or anyone else won't be directed at you.

Well, not much of a debate if only one-side gets to present their argument. So far, your evolutionist's "do no harm" argument hasn't passed muster.

 

[ChurchBuilder]

Without a religious rule all those things are no longer "sinful". That is something no on e can agree on anyway. While divorce is unfortunate and painful, it no longer has the stigma of sinful as well.

If current religions want to escape their current status and reputation of being corrupt- government-enabling war-mongering institions, they need to Lead by example, Lead people, and not "rule"people.

 

[Bradskii]

I give them all the time they need. What the theory lacks is convincing evidence.

I'm likely to use evolution in any proposals I make for the genesis of morality. But I won't be spending any time in trying to explain the process to you.

Well, not much of a debate if only one-side gets to present their argument. So far, your evolutionist's "do no harm" argument hasn't passed muster.

Then you are free to present another secular argument. Bear in mind that you don't have to agree with it. Just as I can put forward a religious one for morality. Playing the devil's advocate is a great way to understand someone else's position. This isn't an argument that is a saying 'our basis is right and yours is wrong'. It's an investigation of where 'our basis' comes from.

 

[o_mlly]

It's an investigation of where 'our basis' comes from.

My proposal for establishing a secular morality did not appeal to any authority, transcendent or otherwise, but was based rather on a rational understanding of human nature. As such, the common ground of reason could be employed to criticize the proposal.

If your proposal appeals to evolution theory as if the theory is an established fact, then your proposal is no more than your personal opinion. Go for it. However, if any proposal lacks internal consistency or is irrational in any aspect then you should expect criticism.

 

[Bradskii]

My proposal for establishing a secular morality did not appeal to any authority, transcendent or otherwise, but was based rather on a rational understanding of human nature.

Then you're on solid footing.

 

[stevevw]

I agree. secular morality today seems be driven by movies and television shows.

Movies and TV shows are powerful influencers. Hollywood and celebs including some music celebs have been slipping moral or should I say Woke messages into media in recent years. But audiences began to turn off they they didn't want to be preached to.

But I think social media is the biggest influence now as it gives anyone a platform to promote their views and morals especially when it comes to young people who can be easily influenced by the celeb status.

But ironically most people believe morality is subjective and yet we have seen an increase in moral judgement, shaming and condemning of other peoples behaviour even their thinking which seems the opposite of subjective morality and more an objective judgement that applies to everyone.

Even to the point of a witch hunt to punish those who mispeak or don't meet the new Woke morality. Which seems to change every 5 minutes.

 

[Bradskii]

Even to the point of a witch hunt to punish those who mispeak or don't meet the new Woke morality. Which seems to change every 5 minutes.

Almost a classic definition of subjective.

 

[stevevw]

Almost a classic definition of subjective.

Its the complete opposite. Carrying on a witch hunt and publically shaming and condemning certain langage and behaviour is taking an objective moral position. Its declaring certain language and behaviour is wrong and must be eradictated from society rather than allowing all subjective views to be tolerated because there is no objective basis.

The fact that morals change every 5 minutes doesn't matter because each time it changes the new moral standard is objectively applied in that the Woke arbiters of that moral standard are still the judge, jury and executioner of morals.

 

[Bradskii]

The fact that morals change every 5 minutes doesn't matter because each time it changes the new moral standard is objectively applied...

Nuff said.

 

[FredVB]

When any deaden their conscience any morality held is arbitrary.

 

[Bradskii]

When any deaden their conscience any morality held is arbitrary.

What if my conscience tells you something other than yours tells you?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What if my conscience tells you something other than yours tells you?

That's when we report you to the authorities, Bradskii ... (Yes, I've just made a cheap attempt at humor.)

 

[FireDragon76]

If current religions want to escape their current status and reputation of being corrupt- government-enabling war-mongering institions, they need to Lead by example, Lead people, and not "rule"people.

The need to use coercive force against people to get them to see things your way (and not follow their own conscience), has deep roots in certain forms of Christianity.

I've been reading about Tolstoy, the Dukhobortsi, and Christian Anarchism lately.

 

[FredVB]

What if my conscience tells you something other than yours tells you?

I see no reason to answer to your conscience while I should answer to mine, which shows me I would answer to God. Your conscience is for you and not for imposing it on others.

The need to use coercive force against people to get them to see things your way (and not follow their own conscience), has deep roots in certain forms of Christianity.

I've been reading about Tolstoy, the Dukhobortsi, and Christian Anarchism lately.

What Christ spoke for corresponds well to Christian anarchism, Christ spoke of being answerable to God and was not endorsing the government being over everything for us. It is God who is, rightly.

 

[Estrid]

I see no reason to answer to your conscience while I should answer to mine, which shows me I would answer to God. Your conscience is for you and not for imposing it on others.



What Christ spoke for corresponds well to Christian anarchism, Christ spoke of being answerable to God and was not endorsing the government being over everything for us. It is God who is, rightly.

"It's is god who is, rightly. "

Assuming that there is a god, that it's
concerned with " morality", which shows
great evidence of being a concept of purely
human origin.

And assuming, too, that any human
can be demonstrated to have the capacity
to figure out what is "moral" by bible-god's
i'll stated and highly variable example.

In practice morals are set by social,consensus.
Going ones own way is very questionable, far
more likely for the worse than the better.