They claim that religions are immoral- but they have no basis for determining what is and isn't immoral. — Ram

Then what is LAW (or the constitution)?
Also, how about reason?

There are normative criteria to define what constitutes doing philosophy. They are pretty broad and yet what you are doing seems to fall outside their province.

Non-objective morality is no morality. It translates to "I can do whatever I want". — Ram

No it doesn't. Morality doesn't have to be objective, it never has been objective, the basis for non-objective morality is agreement. You will be excluded from the group, or worse, like put into jail if it's against the law also.

You have your framework, I have mine. — Ram

Yours is susceptible to The Torquemada problem, which is not a good thing. :sad:

There is simply no secular basis for morality. — Ram

Such a basis is survival. We're a social species, very few of us could survive on our own. A secular basis for morality is any set of rules which enhance social cohesion.

It is hard to talk about objective morality as a Christian because it really doesn't exist. I would say that objective morality, as a Christian, is simply doing what God wants you to do. In our religion there is sin and not sin. Christians talking about objective morality might say something like "killing, theft, disrespecting your parents, etc. are objectively immoral things." The issues with this argument are that God has told people to do these things in the past. For example, killing is said to be wrong in the Bible, yet God told David to kill Goliath. God even helped David in doing so. The only objective morality in Christianity is doing what God wants you to do. There do tend to be general rules that God would like people to follow in the Bible, but there are times when breaking these rules is not viewed as wrong.

A moral life is the most pleasurable, most enjoyable, contains the greatest longevity, the least likelihood of disease, illness, and depression, the best sex, the tastiest foods, the greatest books and the best of friendships.... and it avoids the necessity for personal self serving God constructs.

The moral life is entirely secular.

M

"Would you happen to be related to the Marquis de Sade?"

Yours is an interesting post, for the brevity of the reply contains a potential profundity, regardless of whether or not it is tongue in cheek.

The Marquis de Sade, was a sensualist pleasure seeker who was cruel and evil. I am indeed a selfish sensualist, but am neither cruel no evil (at least not to the extent) of the Marquis.

The comparison suggests that pleasure and sensuality, contain an immorality. They do not. They are vague terms that are subjectively defined or given meaning by the intellect. If and when they are poorly defined, this is a reflection of a poorly used intellect.

Given the intellectual distance between your proffered comparison between my reply, and the Marquis, you have displayed a greater affinity with the Marquis, in the distance you maintain, from an intellectual comprehension of the true meaning of my words.

If you make the comparison, despite an understanding of my words then you are engaging not only in the ignorance of the Marquis but are participating in His particular brand of immorality.

Now I do accept that the comparison may well be tongue in cheek, and I am in no way perturbed by the comparison, however I do think it illustrates how ostensible morality, very often has an entirely contrary basis.

M

Are'nt we all the incestuous sons and daughters of Adam and eve?

M

Are'nt we all the incestuous sons and daughters of Adam and eve? — Marcus de Brun

No. Read Genesis with bit of care.

"Atheists do not believe in an objective morality"
Me: Correct. So?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-24/prosecutors-appeal-decision-to-acquit-rape-victim-of-abortion/10280896

This is such a wonderful situation.

No. Read Genesis with bit of care. — tim wood

No thanks, in my estimation a lot of problems have arisen when too much care is applied to the reading of Genesis and the other fictions therein.

M

"The soul of sweet delight can never be defil'd."

William Blake

How, then, are you able to determine what 'God' wants you to do, if, importantly, you cannot trust the objective truth of the statements within the Bible?

The soul of sweet delight can never be defil'd." — Blue Lux

Is this a rather prosaic way of re-stating the old adage that: 'ignorance is bliss!"

M

or... the one who is of "sweet delight" can never be told or made to believe anything contradictory.

Agree entirely.

There is no better place than the Bible to quarry for the 'sweet delight' of 'the one who is'.

M

The Bible does not give much sweet delight.

It does give one.. 'the one who is'

and surely that must be a consummate delight, one that Old Philosophy tends to remove rather than sustain.

M

Well, I would say running the course of one's truest feelings is the most firm security. And the source of the greatest delight.

The pride of the peacock is the glory of God.
The lust of the goat is the bounty of God.
The wrath of the lion is the wisdom of God.
The nakedness of woman is the work of God.

William Blake

I've found incredible rhetorical and persuasive success by appealing to NUMVs (nearly universal moral values). To continue living, to be free from oppression, to be free to pursue happiness, etc... Moral agreements between agents with shared moral values are objectively true in the same sense that a good strategy is objectively likely to lead to victory. — VagabondSpectre

I agree, but I also believe we have an innate capacity for morality - one that seems rooted in empathy - and such a capacity is consistent with natural selection.

There is simply no secular basis for morality. — Ram

They claim that religions are immoral- but they have no basis for determining what is and isn't immoral. — Ram

Morality from a secular position is necessarily subjective. — Ram

they lack of a basis for morality and are moral relativists — Ram

You've contradicted yourself.

There is simply no secular basis for morality.
— Ram

They claim that religions are immoral- but they have no basis for determining what is and isn't immoral.
— Ram

Morality from a secular position is necessarily subjective.
— Ram

they lack of a basis for morality and are moral relativists
— Ram


You've contradicted yourself. — S

There is no contradiction.

There are normative criteria to define what constitutes doing philosophy. They are pretty broad and yet what you are doing seems to fall outside their province. — Janus

Normative according to whose norms? You mean according to the norms of the Enlightenment. I don't care about the "Enlightenment".

There is no contradiction. — Ram

Of course there is. If morality from a secular position is necessarily subjective, then that subjectivity is the basis for secular morality. That's the basis for determining what is and isn't immoral. The contradiction arises from you saying, on the one hand, that there is no basis, but then, on the other hand, suggesting that there is a basis.

Moral relativists have a basis for morality, so you can't lack a basis for morality and be a moral relativist.

You're either not saying what you really mean or you can't do basic logic. And you've given me reason to doubt that you know much about what you're actually talking about.

Of course there is. If morality from a secular position is necessarily subjective, then that subjectivity is the basis for secular morality. That's the basis for determining what is and isn't immoral. The contradiction arises from you saying, on the one hand, that there is no basis, but then, on the other hand, suggesting that there is a basis.

Moral relativists have a basis for morality, so you can't lack a basis for morality and be a moral relativist.

You're either not saying what you really mean or you can't do basic logic. And you've given me reason to doubt that you know much about what you're actually talking about. — S

Subjective morality would mean morality is not real- it would be "morality" without basis.

If you want to argue that baselessness is a basis and get into an argument about semantics, you can do that.

"Moral relativists have a basis for morality" is absurd. The perceived contradiction you claim is a semantic dispute, resting upon your assertion that baselessness is a base. If you believe baselessness is a base, you can believe that. I believe otherwise.

"Moral relativists have a basis for morality"- that is one of the craziest things I have read in a while."Moral relativists have a basis for morality". Wow. That's a paradox and contrary to common sense. That is quite the logical gymnastics. I'm amazed at how people can be smug without justification.

Subjective morality would mean morality is not real- it would be "morality" without basis.

If you want to argue that baselessness is a basis and get into an argument about semantics, you can do that.

"Moral relativists have a basis for morality" is absurd. The perceived contradiction you claim is a semantic dispute, resting upon your assertion that baselessness is a base. If you believe baselessness is a base, you can believe that. I believe otherwise.

"Moral relativists have a basis for morality"- that is one of the craziest things I have read in a while."Moral relativists have a basis for morality". Wow. That's a paradox and contrary to common sense. That is quite the logical gymnastics. I'm amazed at how people can be smug without justification. — Ram

Almost everything you just said is completely wrong.

Subjective morality wouldn't mean that morality isn't real, it would just mean that it's subjective. If you are going by the hidden premise that only objective morality is real, then that would follow, but you should be explicit about that, especially as others might not agree with that premise.

I am not arguing that baselessness is a basis. On the contrary, you are inadvertently arguing that a basis is no basis.

The clue is in the name. The basis for subjective morality is... drum roll... subjectivity!

You have made no attempt whatsoever to explain why subjectivity would not be the basis for subjective morality, so your dismissals aren't worth jack. Subjectivity as the basis for determining what is right or wrong is what defines subjective morality and sets it apart from objective morality.

And it's a similar thing with moral relativism. Again, the clue is in the name. It's hard to miss. The basis for moral relativism is that what is right or wrong is relative to this or that culture, or this or that subject, or this or that group.

How much do you actually know about these positions? Because what I have said is far from absurd. It's not even controversial. It shows that I at least have a basic understanding of these positions - something which you apparently lack.

The classification is more nuanced than you perhaps realise. For example, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following:

Moral relativism is sometimes thought of as a version of anti-realism, but (short of stipulating usage) there is no basis for this classification; it is better to say that some versions of relativism may be anti-realist and others may be realist.

But one thing's for sure, there certainly is a basis, even if you refuse to acknowledge it as such, perhaps because it doesn't suit your agenda, which appears to be to discredit these positions by any means.

Subjective morality wouldn't mean that morality isn't real, it would just mean that it's subjective — S

Okay, if you want to argue about semantics, you can argue about semantics.

The clue is in the name. The basis for subjective morality is... drum roll... subjectivity! — S

Lots of snark, no substance. How often atheists are condescending without actually having any sort of justification for their condescension. They rely on that gimmick because they lack actual substance and need a smokescreen.

But one thing's for sure, there certainly is a basis, even if you refuse to acknowledge it as such, perhaps because it doesn't suit your agenda, which appears to be to discredit these positions by any means. — S

So I'm out to discredit a position by any means necessary? And... pointing out the blatantly obvious- that moral relativism is not a basis for morality is by any means necessary??????

I mean if you want to deny the blatantly obvious and play a game about semantics, you can do that. If you want to consider moral relativism as a "basis" for morality... if your view of the word "basis" means that one can say "do whatever you want, there is no right or wrong" is a "basis" for morality.... it is what it is.... you're arguing about semantics rather than content. Your argument has no actual substance and you're not addressing any real issue, just harping on semantics like that's a substitute for real content. You are engaging in distraction from real substance rather than engaging in actual substance.

So far your arguments have been 'bad shit crazy'. You are implying that it's ok for your arguments to be bad when others' arguments are also bad, hence, through some ***magical*** ###alchemical### transformation, that makes it logical???!!!

If there was no secular basis for morality then the science of ethics would be flawed. All laws (constitutions) would be fundamentally and explicitly dependent on religious edicts. The FACT that it is not the case PROVES your statement wrong. Your statement is proved wrong by the practical reality of our lives.