Secular basis for morality?

Post Reply New Topic

odin:
what you proposed isnt about good and evil anymore but about useful or not useful in regards to the goal minimizing human suffering and maximizing self-actualization.
actually, we do base a big part of the binding normation on needs and wants - law. its just not morals because it cant be (in a strict sense anyway)

misspickwick:
just out of curiosity - do you think that the content of the sentence that is denominated as kants categorical imperative is an actual categorical imperative?
it cant be doubted that only acting in a way that could be the basis for universal law is a very working solution, but a categorical imperative (according to kant) is a normative sentence that applies out of itself - as contrasted to a hypothetical imperative, which only applies in relation to attaining a certain goal.

The word morality is from the Latin meaning manner, character, or proper behavior. Morality does not require any religious belief or religious reference system, although many religious devotees have persuaded each other that this is the case. Notions of good and evil are not essential to morality; right and wrong will suffice.

if you want to argue from a language-based point of view, why do we use the word of morality for one and the same thing, the concept of good and evil exclusively, in all fields where morality comes into play - and why dont we call law, rules for games or accepted behavioural norms (actual mores) cases of morality?
i think its apparent enough that the genealogy of a word doesnt really serve any purpose in the discussion of the concept of morality (which is by far older than roman mores anyway)

The term morality is not used exclusively for good and evil; it is also used for right and wrong. People with a religious inclination are more likely to use it in terms of good and evil because they structure their thinking that way.

What is the distinction between "evil" and "bad"? I'n not seeing any such distnction.

what you labelled as evil/bad, odin, is not morally bad, its just unuseful to attaining a certain goal.

monty: its got nothing to do with religion. when i talk about good and evil, i talk about qualia - whether they radiate from a god or are of my own moral code is irrelevant. good and evil arent theistic/religious terms exclusively.

morally positive or negative - good and bad, good and evil, whatever you name it, is a different concept from being useful or not useful to any kinds of goal (the common hypothetic imperative by kant), or being adequate, relative to a social role or common social behaviour.

Is it still possible to label good/evil as useful/not useful? Why or why not? I know it won't mean that good/evil is useful/not useful to everyone though; just some people. In that same way, you could label good/evil as right/wrong, but it would only apply to some people who believe that, not everyone.

Same here, but there are possible exceptions. If the person did something horrible to deserve to have bad will enacted upon them, it becomes justice. I'm all for an eye for an eye. Another exception would be in a situation where you had to look the other way towards someone else's suffering in order for self preservation, to maintain your own well being. But if helping others does not interfere with my own well being, I consider helping to be the right thing to do.

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

angelus: i guess the problem is that good/evil-scales are so manifold... but there certainly are some that are really useful.
say, the ten commandmends are accepted as objective moral values (good/evil) by a group of people (christians), but on top of that, they might be quite useful for keeping people from killing each other.
were looking at two different facets of the same thing, kind of. a bit like what gwenevyn said (i believe) when she talked about sampling ideas from religion. some religions might be a good source for rationally sound principles. things that seem totally good to you (like, exacting revenge of the murderer of your child, i dont know, but i could imagine that could feel like the right thing to do) could be unuseful practise on society level: if everyone did that, we wouldnt know in our out of all the killing and revenge killing.

i am not sure if i got your point, but if by labelling good/evil as right/wrong, do you mean to imply a bit more relativity? if so, why not - but as i said in my first post in this thread, i dont think there is a chance to have intersubjective or objective moral values on a secular basis.

No, moral principles must be intimately connected to actual human needs, wants, and goals; if they are not they are just meaningless metaphysical nonsense that can be cut with Occam's Razor.

More like it would make a point, he/she who enacts bad will upon another will pay for their crime. If a man kills a man, and it is not out of self defense or self preservation, then he deserves to die. People can cry him a river if they'd like, they can go on and on about his "human rights", but where were the human rights of his victim?
I support the death penalty on the grounds that they've got rock solid indisputable evidence that they've convicted the right person. If there is even a smidget of a doubt that they've got the right person, then I won't support it.

Sure, to knowingly do wrong can be described as evil.



That is a Christian/Gandhian philosophy, and sometimes it may be true. There are cases where tolerance, self-suffering and compassion can cool a situation, or at least stop it from escalating. When something may be caused by a misunderstanding, turning the other cheek may be best.

On the other hand, when dealing with bullying or intentional aggression, tit for tat (or an eye for an eye) is a better policy.

It's very rarely useful, as you said sometimes but not often.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar2gIynxedw[/youtube]

It wouldn't make a point at all, statistics show that. Things aren't as simple as that. And who says the victim has to be the good guy all the time? You act like murders are always the bad guy and always do it for the wrong reasons and that victims are always good and that they deserved to live and so on but that isn't true, it much more complex than "this person should live and this one shouldn't"

There is never "rock solid evidence", not with the Law and not with Science.

And what if the person had some Disorder that caused them to kill the person? Should we just kill them anyway simply because they were off their meds? Teaching people to murder by murding only helps when the person in question has no chance of changing. After all if a person who used to use drugs why can't a person who has commited murder change their ways? You can say that it's "all about morality" or whatever but that's really just an emotional response, it doesn't help with the crime rate at all and is therefore useless.