Haven’t those who reject morality just because of its religious roots ended up constructing another belief system

[Immanuel Can]

Are going to ask inane questions and ignore the primary substance of my response?

"Has merit"? Who is doling out this "merit"?

Has merit is an alternate way to saying has value.

Who determines what has "value"? In an Islamic society, beating your woman into line has "value." In a Nazi society, eliminating Jews has "value." So saying that things "have value" just because somebody claims it "has value" is not informative of WHY something has any intrinsic value, or should be valued. People "value" many things you may find immoral.

In this context of my post, it was to say has value to the person acting.

But the actor could be an Islamists or a Nazi. And what if it does NOT "have value" to the recipient of the action?

Let me repeat the statement:

If a person cares about the welfare of another [which is healthy],
and is aware their actions are causing the suffering of the other,
then altering one's behaviour to reduce the suffering of the other has merit.

I still have exactly the same question: where is this "merit" coming from? Who determines what has "merit" and what does not?

...because they CARE about the other -

Some people don't. And they may "care" for some people, while being uncaring to others. The Nazis "cared" about their "master race" and did not care about Jews, Gypsies, the disabled, Slavs, spies, etc.

empathy & compassion

These are different. "Empathy" is a fake virtue: "compassion" is only good if properly rational. Read Paul Bloom's book, "Against Empathy."

Causing the suffering of the other, in my scenario, would cause the suffering of the self.

For some people, it does not. What about them? If, for example, they are a sadist, or a sociopath, or a Nazi, they might actually feel pleasure, not suffering, at the suffering of others. But given secularism, what makes being a sadist, a sociopath or a Nazi "wrong" in a moral sense?

If one recognizes that one's own health, is tied to the health of their community -

It's not, of course.

Closed minded, fool.

No, I asked a reasonable question, and explained why it was necessary to ask it.

If an individual can find a way to get advantage from being the exception, why shouldn't he?

He very well can.

If he can, and yet you say he shouldn't, then how does secularism inform us that it's wrong for him to do it?

I believe the life of maximum fulfillment does not entail taking advantage of others.

And lots of people believe otherwise: Stalin, Mao, Nietzsche, Rand...and a whole lot of less renowned folks who do it every day.

[Ben JS]

I stopped at your first sentence.

I don't think you understand how conditions of a hypothetical scenario work.
If you provide an alternate hypothetical, we're not talking about the same thing.
Evaluating the premises of a scenario in absence of the set conditions, is foolishness.

Are you being purposefully dense?
Or does it come naturally to you?

What can be established is you avoiding having to genuinely speak to the issue at hand.

I hope to never have the pleasure of interacting with you again.

-

For anyone else:

But what is a secular moralist going to say? If he believes that our universe is a giant cosmic accident that proceeds on no particular moral imperatives and with a view to no particular purpose or telos, what can he say "morality" is? It can be no more than a contingent artifact of human invention, that no person is rationally obligated to pay attention to longer than he wishes to.

If a person cares about the welfare of another [which is healthy],
and is aware their actions are causing the suffering of the other,
then altering one's behaviour to reduce the suffering of the other has merit. EDIT: has value to the individual.

If one recognizes that one's own health, is tied to the health of their community -
then behaving in a way that supports the health of the community has personal merit. EDIT: has value to the individual.

There's a rational reason to behave morally -
but there is no ultimate obligation to do so.
Though it's likely very much in our interests.

It's rational to avoid retaliation.
If you kill someone,
you'll risk direct harm upon yourself.

"Psychological egoism is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest and selfishness, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. It claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or indirectly, from doing so."

Everything we do is rooted in preferences that evolved because they improved survivability.
If you step beyond our preferences, all is neutral.
We want things, but our wants are biases which have no merit other than that they are indeed there.
If we remove our preferences, there's no reason to act in any way.
If we don't act in any way, it'll lead to our deaths.

If we're going to act,
it might as well be in accord with what's going to make us feel well.
And hey, what do you know -
treating others well can make us feel well and enable our health.
That's fortunate for society.

Even if you believe in 'God', you're not obligated to listen.
'He' just threatens you with retaliation if you don't - 'hell'.

And if we have 'free will', and are choosing whether to obey 'God's' commandments,
then it's still us making a choice based on our own preferences.

And what are the origins of our preferences.. let us wonder.

[popeye1945]

All meaning is the product of life/organisms. Morality is a biological extension, just as the structures of ancient religions are biological extensions of our ancestors. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things; it is the creator and maintainer of civilization and its structures. Humanity is not in need of religion; religion is in need of humanity. Take away all religions, and humanity would recreate them, somewhat differently. Moralities' roots are in the psyches of the human mind; other creatures have a sense of morality, and it is not particular to one species. All meanings are experiences of biology, and its judgments, there is no other source, repeat, no other source of meanings. As Carl Sagan once replied to the question. What would we do without God? Answer: "We'd be on our own!" As indeed we are, God itself is a biological extension of the human psyche. The only way mankind will acquire self-control will be when it embraces the fact that it is the creator of all meanings, there is no other source, repeat, NO OTHER SOURCE.

[Skepdick]

Your wisdom on the subject will be complete when you realize it means that it also means that morality has no warrant at all, of any kind.

OK, then morality has no warrant. So what?

Then there is no such thing. Then all "moralizing" is what Nietzsche said it is: a fake, a mere power move by the weak, and nothing that the "better men" (or ubermenschen) have any obligation to take seriously at all.

OK. Then don't take it seriously. Or do.

Neither choice has any normative weight beyond you choosing to take it one way or the other.

That's what Nietzsche said. And without "warrant" means that it's arbitrary, without authorization or basis, and thus not requisite for you and me to follow at all. We have no duty to care about anybody's moralizing...even our own.

OK. Then it's arbitrary; and without basis; and without requisite to follow. Even without duty to care about anyone's moralizing (even your own) you still do so.

And then?

[Immanuel Can]

OK, then morality has no warrant. So what?

Then there is no such thing. Then all "moralizing" is what Nietzsche said it is: a fake, a mere power move by the weak, and nothing that the "better men" (or ubermenschen) have any obligation to take seriously at all.

OK. Then don't take it seriously. Or do. Neither choice has any normative weight beyond you choosing to take it one way or the other.

If there's no justification for taking one moral principle more seriously than another, then there's no such thing as information about what is actually moral...and we're at Nihilism. We can go there, of course...we just won't last very long if we all do. We certainly won't have a society, because societies are based on mutual consent, and mutual consent without common goals, common senses of what's the "right" objective, are impossible.

That's what Nietzsche said. And without "warrant" means that it's arbitrary, without authorization or basis, and thus not requisite for you and me to follow at all. We have no duty to care about anybody's moralizing...even our own.

OK. Then it's arbitrary; and without basis; and without requisite to follow. Even without duty to care about anyone's moralizing (even your own) you still do so.

And then?

And then it's not wrong to have slaves, or to rape, or to murder; and it's not right to give to charity, or campaign for justice for the oppressed, or to cure cancer. "Right" and "wrong" are terms with no meaning or application. And we're at moral Nihilism again.

[Immanuel Can]

Morality is a biological extension

Then it is not obligatory to anybody. We can ignore it completely.

[Impenitent]

Autumn has a colorful be leaf system

-Imp

[Skepdick]

If there's no justification for taking one moral principle more seriously than another, then there's no such thing as information about what is actually moral...and we're at Nihilism.

OK. Then we are at Nihilism. And then?

We can go there, of course...we just won't last very long if we all do.

OK. Then it won't last long. And then?

We certainly won't have a society, because societies are based on mutual consent, and mutual consent without common goals, common senses of what's the "right" objective, are impossible.

Then we'll manufacture new consensus. That will either last longer than the last one; or it won't.

And then it's not wrong to have slaves, or to rape, or to murder; and it's not right to give to charity, or campaign for justice for the oppressed, or to cure cancer. "Right" and "wrong" are terms with no meaning or application. And we're at moral Nihilism again.

For somebody who insists to be at "Nihilism" you seem desperate to differentiate "right" from "wrong".

Surely a moral Nihilist wouldn't give a shit about such distinctions?

[Immanuel Can]

If there's no justification for taking one moral principle more seriously than another, then there's no such thing as information about what is actually moral...and we're at Nihilism.

OK. Then we are at Nihilism. And then?

Try it. Try being a moral Nihlist for a day. And invite your neighbour to operate on that basis, too...and all the people in your neighbourhood. And see what happens.

We certainly won't have a society, because societies are based on mutual consent, and mutual consent without common goals, common senses of what's the "right" objective, are impossible.

Then we'll manufacture new consensus.

Great. On what will the new "consensus" be predicated? How will you convince others to buy into a consensus, since they know there are no objective truths upon which to agree on one? And on what basis of compulsion will it endure, when the first incentive to break it appears?

And then it's not wrong to have slaves, or to rape, or to murder; and it's not right to give to charity, or campaign for justice for the oppressed, or to cure cancer. "Right" and "wrong" are terms with no meaning or application. And we're at moral Nihilism again.

For somebody who insists to be at "Nihilism" you seem desperate to differentiate "right" from "wrong".

I'm not a moral Nihilist. I'm just handing you the map of the landscape in which moral Nihilists have to attempt to live.

Surely a moral Nihilist wouldn't give a shit about such distinctions?

Let's find out. Try living without any concept of defensible morality at all, and let your neighbours do likewise. Let's see what happens.

It won't last long, I promise you.

[Immanuel Can]

Autumn has a colorful be leaf system

-Imp

Be leaf means going out on a limb.

[Skepdick]

Try it. Try being a moral Nihlist for a day. And invite your neighbour to operate on that basis, too...and all the people in your neighbourhood. And see what happens.

So it's impossible to be a moral Nihilist? Guess your "warning" was safe to ignore then?

Great. On what will the new "consensus" be predicated?

Does it have to be predicated on anything? What's the current consensus predicated upon?
Does a consensus even exist?

How will you convince others to buy into a consensus, since they know there are no objective truths upon which to agree on one? And on what basis of compulsion will it endure, when the first incentive to break it appears?

The same way you convinced them to buy into the current consensus they are displeased with?

I'm not a moral Nihilist. I'm just handing you the map of the landscape in which moral Nihilists have to attempt to live.

They are living exactly the same way you are living. Pretending that their moral theory is true.

It won't last long, I promise you.

How long is long?

[Immanuel Can]

Try it. Try being a moral Nihlist for a day. And invite your neighbour to operate on that basis, too...and all the people in your neighbourhood. And see what happens.

So it's impossible to be a moral Nihilist?

It's possible to try to be one. It gets hard when your neighbour starts to take your property, your family or your life.

Great. On what will the new "consensus" be predicated?

Does it have to be predicated on anything?

By definition, a "consensus" means an agreed-upon position. But in order to get one, you have to be able to convince others that your position is the one worth having a "consensus" about, or they have to be able to convince you that their position is worth your agreement.

How will you convince others to buy into a consensus, since they know there are no objective truths upon which to agree on one? And on what basis of compulsion will it endure, when the first incentive to break it appears?

The same way you convinced them to buy into the current consensus they are displeased with?

The current consensus, which is presently declining, is based on a former commitment to Judaic and Christian moral basics. It's declining as people abandon that former worldview, preciselly because the justifications underlying it are no longer believed by too many of the populace. You can't mean that a secularist wants to return to that, can you?

I'm not a moral Nihilist. I'm just handing you the map of the landscape in which moral Nihilists have to attempt to live.

They are living exactly the same way you are living. Pretending that their moral theory is true.

Nihilists, by definition, don't have any particular theory of morality. Of course, they just inevitably find that's an unliveable position. That's why there are almost none of them around, and the few that remain to attempt it seem to be in jail. To truly believe that there is no justification for any moral values, and actually to live that way, is to live in a completely destructive (of both others and self) and socially-unliveable way.

[Skepdick]

It's possible to try to be one. It gets hard when your neighbour starts to take your property, your family or your life.

So how do you propose we prevent this from happening?

By definition, a "consensus" means an agreed-upon position.

There's no consensus on this definition; is there? Why do you presuppose it?

But in order to get one, you have to be able to convince others that your position is the one worth having a "consensus" about, or they have to be able to convince you that their position is worth your agreement.

OK. Convince me.

The current consensus, which is presently declining, is based on a former commitment to Judaic and Christian moral basics.

OK. So people don't agree with your presuppositions. Have you tried changing them?

It's declining as people abandon that former worldview, preciselly because the justifications underlying it are no longer believed by too many of the populace. You can't mean that a secularist wants to return to that, can you?

I think secularists don't want to return to what they view as immoral.

Nihilists, by definition, don't have any particular theory of morality.

Of course they do. Their theory is that nothing has inherent moral worth.

Which doesn't stop them from recognizing non-inherent moral worths. Just like you.

Of course, they just inevitably find that's an unliveable position.

No more; or less unlivable than a position which recognizes inherent moral worth that isn't there.

That's why there are almost none of them around, and the few that remain to attempt it seem to be in jail. To truly believe that there is no justification for any moral values, and actually to live that way, is to live in a completely destructive (of both others and self) and socially-unliveable way.

Consensus doesn't require any justification. It's a normative force unto itself.

That's how mobs operate, no? Otherwise you'd then have to justify why your justification is legitimate.

And whether the legitimacy of your justification is valid.
And whether the validity of the legitimacy of the justification is true...

[Immanuel Can]

It's possible to try to be one. It gets hard when your neighbour starts to take your property, your family or your life.

So how do you propose we prevent this from happening?

That's what I'm asking the Nihilist and the secularist. Given secularism, there can be no code, no law enforcement, no agreement on rights and responsibilities...so you're thrown back on what Nietzsche said was the deep truth about morality -- it's about force, not rightness. Raw power is all there is.

But in order to get one, you have to be able to convince others that your position is the one worth having a "consensus" about, or they have to be able to convince you that their position is worth your agreement.

OK. Convince me.

We're working on it. Have patience.

It's declining as people abandon that former worldview, preciselly because the justifications underlying it are no longer believed by too many of the populace. You can't mean that a secularist wants to return to that, can you?

I think secularists don't want to return to what they view as immoral.

They can't actually view anything as "immoral," because "moral" cannot actually mean anything real to them. They would have to think that being religious was just as "good" or as "bad" as to be a secularist...which is to say, not "good" or "bad" at all, because no definitions of those words are objectively justifiable.

Nihilists, by definition, don't have any particular theory of morality.

Of course they do. Their theory is that nothing has inherent moral worth.

You are correct on that point. Even Nietzsche could not manage to be consistent on that: he had to think that being one of his amoral "overmen" was a "good" thing, and being a "slave" to morality was "bad." That's implicity in his valourization of the former and his denigration of the latter. But somehow, he managed to miss that point.

Of course, they just inevitably find that's an unliveable position.

No more; or less unlivable than a position which recognizes inherent moral worth that isn't there.

Actually, fake moralities work pretty well. There's quite a few societies that have been built and sustained around such things. But there's never been any society that's been able to constellate around amorality or Nihilism. That fact might tell us something.

That's why there are almost none of them around, and the few that remain to attempt it seem to be in jail. To truly believe that there is no justification for any moral values, and actually to live that way, is to live in a completely destructive (of both others and self) and socially-unliveable way.

Consensus doesn't require any justification.

Sure it does. Because people believe in moral precepts only for reasons they actually believe in. They're not going to hand you a consensus you can't justify. Why should they?

[Impenitent]

Autumn has a colorful be leaf system

-Imp

Be leaf means going out on a limb.

patience, all colorful leaves find the Earth on their own

-Imp