to what end do we flourish?
Actually, we just had 8 years of that.
I agree, we can’t come up with a good moral system in just one generation. We simply don’t have the ability to see how a changes will affect society as a whole, there are too many factors to consider. Lessons learned and shown to work over generations are critical. Tradition matters.
When the maximized amount of people involved have their basic needs met, physically and emotionally. To reach Human Well Being for everyone involved in the process. It like trying to nail down what nutrition is and when you’ve met it. We can argue over eating apples or pears, but no one argues that eating fruit is bad or drinking battery acid is good towards the goal of nutition.
I need a wall chart to make any sense (if indeed any is to be made) of this mish-mash of ideas cribbed seemingly from primarily Judeo-Christian morals and ethics, but with God extracted and cast aside.
Such a contorted description which employs pretzel logic when all that is required is…
- Love of God
- Love of neighbor
Both being foundational and guiding principles.
History matters, evidence matters. tradition can be thrown out if the results fail to meet the mark.
Yes, when we achieve maximum contentment then what? To what end are we experiencing contentment? That can be very unfulfilling.
I can love superman too. But my ability to practice love towards someone is what matters, regardless of the person.
Demanding love from someone is not something to respect though. Love is earned, not demanded. Its like demanding sex from someone. Its just as distasteful and morally wrong.
I can treat my neighbor as I would any other neutral person. But I will always love my wife more than them and despise my neighbor if their character shows I should. This is what it is to be human. Both of these religious edicts are too simplistic and the first one is immoral.
Don’t really know what you’re getting at here. Take the example of playing chess, the goal is to not lose. If this is unfulfilling for you, okay. But we’re all stuck playing the game of chess because of just being human. We are stuck with the goal of Human Flurishment as the goal of playing the game of Humanity simply because we are human.
Secular morality only addresses the need to survive. But human life is more and is not content to just get along being well content. Look at the all the celebrities that commit suicide. Howard Hughes couldn’t figure out what was missing but there was something missing. Material well being can only be a means and as evidence shows it isn’t the true end of human life.
Okay, so it is an external souces of morality that is impossed on us that we can not free ourselves from if we are not convinced that it is a source to reference as the good or bad. That is the problem.
Master Slave language here. Yes the master will treat you better if you follow its commandments. Not discussed and mutually agreed upon best method, but a commandment. Now, if the religious can’t understand why the commandment is correct, you have to paint the bulls eye around that arrow instead of tossing out the commandment.
We all do this, just for being human since we all struggle with our needs of the individual and our needs of the group since we are social creatures as well as individuals.
Don’t people also do that with History and evidence if it doesn’t meet their mark?
Every highly evolved social creature does this. It is their nature to look after the group while struggling with their individuality as well. Just like in chess, the rules of chess is the same as the natural tendency of what it is to be human. We can create strategies within that structure of maximizing the goal of himanity, Human Well-Being and make good and bad judgements on the tesults of thoughs strategies. Just like in chess how you assess strategies to maximize the goal of not losing.
“Demanding”? Where did this come from? It seems that your use of that term reveals nothing about my thoughts, and everything about yours.
I see that you are declaring things to be “immoral” What is your authority for saying this?
Two things about love:
- It desires the good of the other.
- Love does not count the cost.
Rather, the Christian faith teaches that love, a conscious decision, is the greatest power and guiding principle on earth.
Mr. Dillahunty cannot claim to have developed any of this in a vacuum. His thoughts and beliefs are often reflective of the surrounding Judeo-Christian ethic in which he and his ancestors have been raised.
He simply wants to exclude God - and works very hard to do just that. Just as the cobbled-together “Mindfulness” movement is simply the Serenity Prayer with God expunged.
These “concepts”, these teachings, this agenda is a pale imitation of, and flattery of God - but with its proponents being unaware of the fact.
Absolutely! God Bless That Kenyan Muslim!!
Secular Morality is only different from Religious Morality in the reference point of what to measure good and bad towards the goal. Religion has an external source that impossed a goal on humanity that may or may not be to benefit humanity. Secular Morality uses an internal reference point mutually agreed upon by everyone involved in the discussion. Since the goal of just being human is Human Well-Being, that by default is the goal of secular moral systems. This includes our emotional well-being and physical well-being. You sir are have removed the emotional well-being in your response that secular morality accounts for.
Commandments are by definition a demand.
This is where we disagree. Yes, history and evidence matter, but it’s arrogant and dangerous to think we can fully understand the intricacies and influences of well established traditions, not to mention the adverse consequences of scrapping them. Throwing them out because of superficial understanding can cause more harm than good.
Yes we do this with any data that helps us to make decisions in the future. Tradition implies to me that the tradition is more important than the results. Thats all I indicated there.