|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 8, 2019 2:41:53 GMT
Religious morality is the position of having a fixed set of declarations which are unchanging, and handed down from a moral authority thousands of years ago, who declares the difference between "right" and "wrong", so that we may please God.
Secular humanist morality is the position of being willing to consider and apply new evidence, and grow based on what we've learned from past mistakes, so that we may determine the difference between "good" and "bad", in order to benefit mankind.
Anyone want to challenge either of these definitions?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 8, 2019 4:08:28 GMT
Religious morality is the position of having a fixed set of declarations which are unchanging, and handed down from a moral authority thousands of years ago, who declares the difference between "right" and "wrong", so that we may please God. Secular humanist morality is the position of being willing to consider and apply new evidence, and grow based on what we've learned from past mistakes, so that we may determine the difference between "good" and "bad", in order to benefit mankind. Anyone want to challenge either of these definitions? ...are they yours? and is the 'we' the personal or individual, or as a society, in both cases? Not that it would make any difference to my answer. |
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Feb 8, 2019 4:13:37 GMT
I'm an atheist but be honest. I've heard moral relativists argue that you can't absolutely say a serial killer like Ted Bundy was unethical. It's for him to decide according to your secular humanism. I see a problem with that and understand why an absolute religious morality may be superior and creates a better society.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 8, 2019 4:16:10 GMT
Religious morality is the position of having a fixed set of declarations which are unchanging, and handed down from a moral authority thousands of years ago, who declares the difference between "right" and "wrong", so that we may please God. Secular humanist morality is the position of being willing to consider and apply new evidence, and grow based on what we've learned from past mistakes, so that we may determine the difference between "good" and "bad", in order to benefit mankind. Anyone want to challenge either of these definitions? ...are they yours? and is the 'we' the personal or individual, or as a society, in both cases? Not that it would make any difference to my answer. The "we" refers to society in the broad sense, and those individuals who subscribe to theism or secular humanism in the more narrow sense. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 8, 2019 4:23:20 GMT
I'm an atheist but be honest. I've heard moral relativists argue that you can't absolutely say a serial killer like Ted Bundy was unethical. It's for him to decide according to your secular humanism. I see a problem with that and understand why an absolute religious morality may be superior and creates a better society. Well first of all, it depends on what you mean by moral relativist (which in many ways is determined by what you consider morals to be based on). In one sense, I am a moral relativist in that I recognize that people have different ideas about what is moral and what isn't. But in the other sense, I believe that morals are based on "well-being", which is an established, objective standard of morality. So if morality is based on well-being, then it isn't for Ted Bundy to decide whether his actions are moral or not. They are objectively immoral because the result of his actions are detrimental to well-being as opposed to being beneficial to well being. Secondly, morals and ethics are different in that morals are determined by personal values (in my case well-being), whereas ethics are defined by what society deems right and wrong. Ted Bundy WAS demonstrably unethical because regardless of what any individual's moral system is based on, society collectively declares that serial killing is a violation of human rights and a threat to society. Therefore it's unethical! |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 8, 2019 4:24:25 GMT
I'm an atheist but be honest. I've heard moral relativists argue that you can't absolutely say a serial killer like Ted Bundy was unethical. It's for him to decide according to your secular humanism. I see a problem with that and understand why an absolute religious morality may be superior and creates a better society. I just wrote this on another thread WWIIW. Therefore I don't see the difference materially between an absolute religious morality which people don't and can't adhere to, and a secular humanist view of reality in modern life and the knowledge we now have about human behaviour, complex as it is and the flexibility to make wise decisions that actually work in this society ( and every one is different). |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 8, 2019 4:31:14 GMT
I'm an atheist but be honest. I've heard moral relativists argue that you can't absolutely say a serial killer like Ted Bundy was unethical. It's for him to decide according to your secular humanism. I see a problem with that and understand why an absolute religious morality may be superior and creates a better society. I just wrote this on another thread WWIIW. Therefore I don't see the difference materially between an absolute religious morality which people don't and can't adhere to, and a secular humanist view of reality in modern life and the knowledge we now have about human behaviour, complex as it is and the flexibility to make wise decisions that actually work in this society ( and every one is different). I'm not sure I'm completely following you here. I know for sure that I disagree with your first premise (that there are no bad people). I hold the position that there are absolutely bad people, and I think this can be objectively demonstrated. But I'm confused on your last point about how there is no difference between an absolute religious morality and a secular humanist view. They are almost the polar opposite! Religious morality is based on "authority" (because God said so), whereas secular humanism is based on well-being (because it's beneficial to us). Religious morality comes in the form of unchanging declarations, whereas secular humanism is learned and progresses from experience. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 8, 2019 4:36:16 GMT
I just wrote this on another thread WWIIW. Therefore I don't see the difference materially between an absolute religious morality which people don't and can't adhere to, and a secular humanist view of reality in modern life and the knowledge we now have about human behaviour, complex as it is and the flexibility to make wise decisions that actually work in this society ( and every one is different). I'm not sure I'm completely following you here. I know for sure that I disagree with your first premise (that there are no bad people). I hold the position that there are absolutely bad people, and I think this can be objectively demonstrated. But I'm confused on your last point about how there is no difference between an absolute religious morality and a secular humanist view. They are almost the polar opposite! Religious morality is based on "authority" (because God said so), whereas secular humanism is based on well-being (because it's beneficial to us). Religious morality comes in the form of unchanging declarations, whereas secular humanism is learned and progresses from experience. OK. Please define a 'bad person'. Is it a person who does bad things? ONLY does bad things, NEVER does good things? I am sorry I phrased that badly. I meant that people who hold the absolutist view, don't get a better (?) outcome if people with the absolute view think that their adherents are going to uphold those values ( so they think that they have a higher moral ground) THAN a more secular humanist view that is more flexible to begin with. Does that make more sense? ( I know what I mean) |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 8, 2019 4:58:52 GMT
I'm not sure I'm completely following you here. I know for sure that I disagree with your first premise (that there are no bad people). I hold the position that there are absolutely bad people, and I think this can be objectively demonstrated. But I'm confused on your last point about how there is no difference between an absolute religious morality and a secular humanist view. They are almost the polar opposite! Religious morality is based on "authority" (because God said so), whereas secular humanism is based on well-being (because it's beneficial to us). Religious morality comes in the form of unchanging declarations, whereas secular humanism is learned and progresses from experience. OK. Please define a 'bad person'. Is it a person who does bad things? ONLY does bad things, NEVER does good things? I would consider a bad person to be a person who intentionally does bad things for selfish reasons. Someone who knowingly commits actions that cause harm to individuals or society because they care more about themselves than the well being of others. Or an unempathetic person who has no regard for the well being of others, as demonstrated by their action or inaction. I think any of those definitions work to classify someone as a "bad person". I am sorry I phrased that badly. I meant that people who hold the absolutist view, don't get a better (?) outcome if people with the absolute view think that their adherents are going to uphold those values ( so they think that they have a higher moral ground) THAN a more secular humanist view that is more flexible to begin with. Does that make more sense? ( I know what I mean)  Maybe if you give me an example? By the way, I'm not certain that the secular humanist view is necessarily more flexible at any given time. I just think it's capable of evolving (changing over time) and that it is therefore not static like the religious view. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 8, 2019 5:03:52 GMT
lol
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 8, 2019 5:21:22 GMT
OK. Please define a 'bad person'. Is it a person who does bad things? ONLY does bad things, NEVER does good things? I would consider a bad person to be a person who intentionally does bad things for selfish reasons. Someone who knowingly commits actions that cause harm to individuals or society because they care more about themselves than the well being of others. Or an unempathetic person who has no regard for the well being of others, as demonstrated by their action or inaction. I think any of those definitions work to classify someone as a "bad person". I am sorry I phrased that badly. I meant that people who hold the absolutist view, don't get a better (?) outcome if people with the absolute view think that their adherents are going to uphold those values ( so they think that they have a higher moral ground) THAN a more secular humanist view that is more flexible to begin with. Does that make more sense? ( I know what I mean) Maybe if you give me an example? By the way, I'm not certain that the secular humanist view is necessarily more flexible at any given time. I just think it's capable of evolving (changing over time) and that it is therefore not static like the religious view. We are actually covering two topics here I will do my best. Topic 1. I look at people being born as babies ( NOT like religious people do butt similar in that they have a combination of nature and nurture...a baby does not do bad things ) What happens to them is a delicate and intricate balance of nature and nurture. ie a psychiatric potential maniac, with careful upbringing might be able to be deflected from such behaviours as could a completely fucked up person with a horrendous childhood, end up being an amazing person doing good. There is NO rule here. Even the worst criminals who may have ALL kinds of psychiatric issues, sometimes do 'good' things. ie No-one is ALL bad. Topic 2. An absolutist view would say 'God says you can't use birth control or a condom. It is a mortal/moral sin. AS recently discussed with kls, Catholics ( who typically hold this view or should according to the Papal encyclicals) don't adhere to this 'absolute'. A secular humanist would say, that many women die in childbirth or don't have the resources to have more children or 'let's NOT spread AIDS' which is a more flexible viewpoint with a better outcome. I am proposing that the second choice is preferable to the first BOTH in outcome and lack of hypocrisy and guilt for those involved. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 8, 2019 10:11:29 GMT
I would consider a bad person to be a person who intentionally does bad things for selfish reasons. Someone who knowingly commits actions that cause harm to individuals or society because they care more about themselves than the well being of others. Or an unempathetic person who has no regard for the well being of others, as demonstrated by their action or inaction. I think any of those definitions work to classify someone as a "bad person". Maybe if you give me an example? By the way, I'm not certain that the secular humanist view is necessarily more flexible at any given time. I just think it's capable of evolving (changing over time) and that it is therefore not static like the religious view. We are actually covering two topics here I will do my best. Topic 1. I look at people being born as babies ( NOT like religious people do butt similar in that they have a combination of nature and nurture...a baby does not do bad things ) What happens to them is a delicate and intricate balance of nature and nurture. ie a psychiatric potential maniac, with careful upbringing might be able to be deflected from such behaviours as could a completely fucked up person with a horrendous childhood, end up being an amazing person doing good. There is NO rule here. Even the worst criminals who may have ALL kinds of psychiatric issues, sometimes do 'good' things. ie No-one is ALL bad. Topic 2. An absolutist view would say 'God says you can't use birth control or a condom. It is a mortal/moral sin. AS recently discussed with kls , Catholics ( who typically hold this view or should according to the Papal encyclicals) don't adhere to this 'absolute'. A secular humanist would say, that many women die in childbirth or don't have the resources to have more children or 'let's NOT spread AIDS' which is a more flexible viewpoint with a better outcome. I am proposing that the second choice is preferable to the first BOTH in outcome and lack of hypocrisy and guilt for those involved. When did God say using a condom or birth control is a mortal sin? |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Feb 8, 2019 16:43:16 GMT
We are actually covering two topics here I will do my best. Topic 1. I look at people being born as babies ( NOT like religious people do butt similar in that they have a combination of nature and nurture...a baby does not do bad things ) What happens to them is a delicate and intricate balance of nature and nurture. ie a psychiatric potential maniac, with careful upbringing might be able to be deflected from such behaviours as could a completely fucked up person with a horrendous childhood, end up being an amazing person doing good. There is NO rule here. Even the worst criminals who may have ALL kinds of psychiatric issues, sometimes do 'good' things. ie No-one is ALL bad. Topic 2. An absolutist view would say 'God says you can't use birth control or a condom. It is a mortal/moral sin. AS recently discussed with kls , Catholics ( who typically hold this view or should according to the Papal encyclicals) don't adhere to this 'absolute'. A secular humanist would say, that many women die in childbirth or don't have the resources to have more children or 'let's NOT spread AIDS' which is a more flexible viewpoint with a better outcome. I am proposing that the second choice is preferable to the first BOTH in outcome and lack of hypocrisy and guilt for those involved. When did God say using a condom or birth control is a mortal sin? If he didn't, then why do the Catholics teach it? |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Feb 8, 2019 16:54:00 GMT
I would consider a bad person to be a person who intentionally does bad things for selfish reasons. Someone who knowingly commits actions that cause harm to individuals or society because they care more about themselves than the well being of others. Or an unempathetic person who has no regard for the well being of others, as demonstrated by their action or inaction. I think any of those definitions work to classify someone as a "bad person". Maybe if you give me an example? By the way, I'm not certain that the secular humanist view is necessarily more flexible at any given time. I just think it's capable of evolving (changing over time) and that it is therefore not static like the religious view. We are actually covering two topics here I will do my best. Topic 1. I look at people being born as babies ( NOT like religious people do butt similar in that they have a combination of nature and nurture...a baby does not do bad things ) What happens to them is a delicate and intricate balance of nature and nurture. ie a psychiatric potential maniac, with careful upbringing might be able to be deflected from such behaviours as could a completely fucked up person with a horrendous childhood, end up being an amazing person doing good. There is NO rule here. Even the worst criminals who may have ALL kinds of psychiatric issues, sometimes do 'good' things. ie No-one is ALL bad. Topic 2. An absolutist view would say 'God says you can't use birth control or a condom. It is a mortal/moral sin. AS recently discussed with kls , Catholics ( who typically hold this view or should according to the Papal encyclicals) don't adhere to this 'absolute'. A secular humanist would say, that many women die in childbirth or don't have the resources to have more children or 'let's NOT spread AIDS' which is a more flexible viewpoint with a better outcome. I am proposing that the second choice is preferable to the first BOTH in outcome and lack of hypocrisy and guilt for those involved. My late husband fit that description. His childhood was beyond horrendous, yet he made a conscious (and completely secular) choice at age 17 1/2, to stop the criminal behavior and be a productive member of society. I credit his intellect (IQ 165) and a mentor at the last juvenile facility he was locked up in. He still had psychological scars, but became a generous person, helping others who had had a bad start like him. And if it had not been at his insistence, I would not have treated my cancer. I'm alive because he said, "you will do chemo and surgery because I want you here with me." Sadly, he was diagnosed and found to be terminal just a few years later. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 8, 2019 16:56:35 GMT
When did God say using a condom or birth control is a mortal sin? If he didn't, then why do the Catholics teach it? lol question. I wish I could figure out a theophobiac thought process. It’s gotta be more fun than a roller coaster |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Feb 8, 2019 17:14:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Feb 8, 2019 18:40:56 GMT
I just wrote this on another thread WWIIW. Therefore I don't see the difference materially between an absolute religious morality which people don't and can't adhere to, and a secular humanist view of reality in modern life and the knowledge we now have about human behaviour, complex as it is and the flexibility to make wise decisions that actually work in this society ( and every one is different). I'm not sure I'm completely following you here. I know for sure that I disagree with your first premise (that there are no bad people). I hold the position that there are absolutely bad people, and I think this can be objectively demonstrated. But I'm confused on your last point about how there is no difference between an absolute religious morality and a secular humanist view. They are almost the polar opposite! Religious morality is based on "authority" (because God said so), whereas secular humanism is based on well-being (because it's beneficial to us).
Religious morality comes in the form of unchanging declarations, whereas secular humanism is learned and progresses from experience.
Just wanted to highlight that... |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 8, 2019 19:01:39 GMT
Religious morality is the position of having a fixed set of declarations which are unchanging, and handed down from a moral authority thousands of years ago, who declares the difference between "right" and "wrong", so that we may please God. Secular humanist morality is the position of being willing to consider and apply new evidence, and grow based on what we've learned from past mistakes, so that we may determine the difference between "good" and "bad", in order to benefit mankind. Anyone want to challenge either of these definitions? Nah, Cap'n. I don't wish to challenge your definitions. I was a secular humanist from about age 15 to age 45, and my memories of it are surprisingly clear, almost as if it happened yesterday.  |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 8, 2019 20:59:29 GMT
If he didn't, then why do the Catholics teach it? lol question. I wish I could figure out a theophobiac thought process. It’s gotta be more fun than a roller coaster I know you are not Catholic and don't appear to like speaking for others and vice versa, even 'theophobiacs' however is it possible for you to expand a little on exactly what is wrong with this statement? With your alleged and self touted total knowledge of the Bible maybe you can put us and the whole Catholic Church right on this point? |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 8, 2019 22:12:06 GMT
When did God say using a condom or birth control is a mortal sin? If he didn't, then why do the Catholics teach it? No clue. Not something I or the vast majority of American Catholics subscribe to. |
|
