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

[Skepdick]

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...

And yet there is... Sounds like your implication doesn't hold to factual scrutiny.

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.

Well, what's moral rightness without any power? Moral impotence?

We're working on it. Have patience.

OK. How much longer do you need?

They can't actually view anything as "immoral," because "moral" cannot actually mean anything real to them.

They can. And they do. It's not real? Ok fine. So what?

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.

That's only a problem for you.

But somehow, he managed to miss that point.

He didn't miss it as much as the point made no difference.

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.

Indeed, they work exactly as well as real moralities. That tells us everything about the "real" vs "fake" distinction, no?

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?

It doesn't matter if they should; or shouldn't. Because they do.

They agree; and disagree with things that nobody (not even themselves) can justify.

Partial consensus emerges either way.

[Immanuel Can]

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...

And yet there is...

Oh, one can imagine, invent, indoctrinate, or even impose by force a code that has no moral justification at all. People do that all the time. But that's just back to Nietzsche: behind all morality is nothing but "the will to power," then.

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.

Well, what's moral rightness without any power? Moral impotence?

Moral rightness always has power. It has first of all, the power of justification...people can understand why they should believe in it, even when they refuse to. More importantly, though, moral rightness always triumphs in the end. It's just that the end isn't yet.

They can't actually view anything as "immoral," because "moral" cannot actually mean anything real to them.

They can. And they do. It's not real? Ok fine. So what?

So they're lying or self-deceived, according to their own theory. And since they have no moral justifications, they can lie, and it's neither right nor wrong, because nothing is. But then again, it's just another form of power, not of rightness.

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.

That's only a problem for you.

No, only for secularism. Others can know what those terms mean.

But somehow, he managed to miss that point.

He didn't miss it as much as the point made no difference.

A big difference, actually. It means that even Nietzsche wasn't a consistent Nietzschean, in the sense that he couldn't figure out how to live out his own worldview consistently.

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.

Indeed, they work exactly as well as real moralities. That tells us everything about the "real" vs "fake" distinction, no?

Not everything. But something. It tells us that people can live by truths, or they can live by lies; but they can't live by nothings. And secularism renders morality a "nothing."

[Skepdick]

Oh, one can imagine, invent, indoctrinate, or even impose by force a code that has no moral justification at all. People do that all the time. But that's just back to Nietzsche: behind all morality is nothing but "the will to power," then.

So like divine law?

Moral rightness always has power. It has first of all, the power of justification...

That's impossible to be true. Since moral justification is impossible.

More importantly, though, moral rightness always triumphs in the end. It's just that the end isn't yet.

So if I murder you I am right in the end? Sounds very triumphal...

So they're lying or self-deceived, according to their own theory. And since they have no moral justifications, they can lie, and it's neither right nor wrong, because nothing is. But then again, it's just another form of power, not of rightness.

Is that what you are doing? Lying/self-deceiving. About having moral justification.

No, only for secularism. Others can know what those terms mean.

They don't mean anything. Not without objective normative semantics. Which is the very thing you are lacking.

Not everything. But something. It tells us that people can live by truths, or they can live by lies; but they can't live by nothings. And secularism renders morality a "nothing."

On secularism morality is simply the justification. Identical to how God's the justification on yours.

Why's murder wrong? Because it's morality/God dictates so.

[Ben JS]

I quote for the purposes of saying they're wrong.
Not to engage in a dialogue with them.
As fool am I the longer I talk with the intentionally deaf.

Oh, one can imagine, invent, indoctrinate, or even impose by force a code that has no moral justification at all.

Secular morality can be founded and rooted within the needs of people.
As soon as a person agrees that what they want is their health,
then we can establish what is conducive to health and their self-interest.

Without a goal/objective, all is neutral.
We are born biased, due to natural selection.
Our structure produces bias.

Morality does not need to some divine justification, simply 'I prefer this.'
It can function in light of the recognition that it's basis are preferences that resulted in survival - and nothing more.
We don't need a sky daddy to figure out how to build mutually beneficial relationships with others.

Morality is all about a code of interaction with others.
As if there were no others, you wouldn't need to justify anything.
You'd do what you want, and you'd need no defense.

But that's just back to Nietzsche: behind all morality is nothing but "the will to power," then.

I understand will to power to be from a place of abundance, not lack.
The will to power, is not to gain power.
It is the will to express the power one already has.
We are like a spring, that wants release.

To express our capacity, is fulfilling to us.

Secular morality does not need to rest on anything to do with will to power.

Will to power is but one objective.
We can set any objective,
and find others who agree to this objective.
Then between us,
we can evaluate what are more/less effective acts to reach this objective.

Good/Preferred = effective acts at reaching objective.
Bad/Non-preferred = less effective / counter productive acts to reaching objective.

All value assessments are relative to a goal/objective.
'Common sense' morality rests on fairly universally held, sometimes unspoken, goals.
When you break them down, these underlying goals are revealed.

Where do these goals emerge?
From our bias.
Having certain biases in our actions increased our evolutionary fitness.

Being shaped to be effective at survival,
or at least moreso than competing beings that would threaten our survival.

[Immanuel Can]

Moral rightness always has power. It has first of all, the power of justification...

That's impossible to be true. Since moral justification is impossible.

That's your assumption, of course. It doesn't mean it's true.

No, only for secularism. Others can know what those terms mean.

They don't mean anything.

Well, to a secularist, that's true.

[Skepdick]

That's your assumption, of course. It doesn't mean it's true.

It doesn't mean it's false either. Which is the very implication of unjustifiability.

Well, to a secularist, that's true.

It's also true for you. Surely a morality you deem objective precedes semantics.

[Immanuel Can]

That's your assumption, of course. It doesn't mean it's true.

It doesn't mean it's false either. Which is the very implication of unjustifiability.

No, because justification happens with reference to a specific set of beliefs concerning the nature of the universe. That's where I began, with the axiom "ontology precedes ethics." You'll find it's true.

Various religious and ideological views can provide justifications, based on their own assumptions about ontology. Some of those ontologies will be wrong; however, they can still justify a set of ethical deductions for those who believe them to be right. However, Secularism doesn't have anything to work with, on that score. Even if we grant secularism it's entire ontology, it still can't justify any particular ethical precepts at all.

Surely a morality you deem objective precedes semantics.

Ontology precedes ethics. Semantics are just about the words used to express the ideas, not about the justifiability of the concepts themselves.

[Skepdick]

No, because justification happens with reference to a specific set of beliefs concerning the nature of the universe.

The nature of the universe? The nature of nature? Do you also concern yourself with the realness of reality?

That's where I began, with the axiom "ontology precedes ethics." You'll find it's true.

I found it irrelevant. Ontologizing, moralizing. Both begin with the ontologist/moralist.

Various religious and ideological views can provide justifications, based on their own assumptions about ontology.

So assumptions about ontology justify assumptions about morality?

How often do you concern yourself with the circularity of circles?

Some of those ontologies will be wrong

What?!? No way! Some assumptions are wrong?

; however, they can still justify a set of ethical deductions for those who believe them to be right.

Oh! So wrong ontology can justify right morality? And right ontology can justify wrong morality?

Sounds like you have it all figured out!

However, Secularism doesn't have anything to work with, on that score. Even if we grant secularism it's entire ontology, it still can't justify any particular ethical precepts at all.

And neither can you.

Ontology precedes ethics.

Yes, this is the standard idiocy every idiot is committed to.

The belief that facts are more valuable than values.
The belief that ontology precedes axiology.

And then you wonder why you rapidly devolve into incoherence.

Semantics are just about the words used to express the ideas, not about the justifiability of the concepts themselves.

On the scale of 1 to 10 for "stupidity" I rank you at 11 for spending inordinate amounts of time trying to justify the unjustifiable.

[CIN2]

Even if we grant secularism it's entire ontology, it still can't justify any particular ethical precepts at all.

Untrue. You are overlooking ethical naturalism, which has two great advantages over an ethical system based on theism:

1. The theist requires the existence of God, something which no-one has ever been able to show good reason to believe. The ethical naturalist only needs the natural world, whose existence, at least to the extent required by ethics, is self-evident.
2. Unlike the theist, the ethical naturalist does not have to deal with the Euthyphro dilemma.

I commend ethical naturalism to your attention. It is a sounder theory than any religious based ethics.

You can, of course, be both a theist and an ethical naturalist, provided you choose the horn of Euthyphro that does not require God to create moral values. But if you choose the horn where God creates moral values, you are committed to the view that God can create a universe in which rape, torture and murder are morally good, and kindness is morally bad. Perhaps you would like to tell us which horn you prefer.

[Immanuel Can]

That's where I began, with the axiom "ontology precedes ethics." You'll find it's true.

I found it irrelevant.

Then it can only be because you didn't understand it. If you did, you'd know it's true...and rather obvious, actually.

Ontology is the totality of what one thinks exists. It can only be within such a belief framework that any ethics can make sense at all. Whatever one thinks is real provides the list of the "furniture" in the universe, and thus a list of all the things one even potentially can have a moral relationship to.

You can't be moral about something you don't even believe exists. You can't be a mountaineer without believing in mountains.

; however, they can still justify a set of ethical deductions for those who believe them to be right.

Oh! So wrong ontology can justify right morality?

No, it can justify only whatever morality follows from its own worldview. But a truthful ontology can present a more exhaustive field, a more complete list of the things that really exist, and can hence issue in a truthful ethics.

So there is such a thing as "Buddhist morality," though I am not a Buddhist and do not accept their ethics. Still, I know that they have one, and one that rationalizes with their ontology. However, secularism does not provide anything in its ontology that requires ethics. This is what Nietzsche realized, and why he opted for his "will to power" alternative; that there was nothing morally necessary that could be deduced from a secular worldview.

The belief that facts are more valuable than values.

Facts are more valuable than values. Values can be arbitrary. Facts refuse to be arbitrary. It's like the old saying, "Facts don't care about your feelings." They also don't "care" about whatever thing one happens to value: it can be right or wrong, and the facts won't move to accommodate it.

If you think I'm wrong, I'll give you the simple and fast way to disprove everything I'm claiming here: give me just one moral precept or ethical axiom that secularism makes necessary.

I'll wait. It will be awhile.

[Skepdick]

Ontology is the totality of what one thinks exists.

OK, and does this totality include or exclude morality?

It can only be within such a belief framework that any ethics can make sense at all.

When did the totality of existence undertake to make sense to anyone?

You can't be moral about something you don't even believe exists. You can't be a mountaineer without believing in mountains.

OK. So morality doesn't exist.

And then?

No, it can justify only whatever morality follows from its own worldview. But a truthful ontology can present a more exhaustive field, a more complete list of the things that really exist, and can hence issue in a truthful ethics.

You have tied yourself into a pretzel. If ontology is the totality of everything which exists; what does the adjective "truthful" in relation to such totality even mean?

Facts are more valuable than values. Values can be arbitrary.

OK... so valuing facts more than values is arbitrary.

Well done.

Facts refuse to be arbitrary.

Arbitrarily valuing non-arbitrary things is still an arbitrary value.

If you think I'm wrong , I'll give you the simple and fast way to disprove everything I'm claiming here: give me just one moral precept or ethical axiom that secularism makes necessary.

v

I don't even think you are right. So what are you waiting for?

[Immanuel Can]

Ontology is the totality of what one thinks exists.

OK, and does this totality include or exclude morality?

It depends. Whatever ontology you propose has to be capable of justifying its own moral precepts. If it cannot, then it has no ability to justify morality at all, even if that ontology were true. So secularism leaves us in the following position: if false, secularism is incapable of telling us anything about whatever morality there might be; and if true, all it can lead us to conclude is that there is no truth to morality at all.

Either way, secularism cannot ground or justify a single moral precept of any kind...and that remains the case, whether secularism itself is true or false.

You can't be moral about something you don't even believe exists. You can't be a mountaineer without believing in mountains.

OK. So morality doesn't exist.

...for secularists. You forgot that bit. It might exist if any view other than secularism is the truth. But if secularism is true, then yes, morality simply does not exist...it's a fake, an imagining, that at best can only serve as a cover for raw "power," just as Nietzsche said.

And then?

And then, if we all lived like secularists, we'd be amoral, and society would shatter. Good thing for us that among their other charms, secularism has the charm of hypocrisy; nobody who believes it ever lives as if they did, except for a few true psychopaths and sociopaths. So society can continue, so long as secularists continue to be hypocrites and live by a morality their own worldview has to tell them is bunk.

Facts are more valuable than values. Values can be arbitrary.

OK... so valuing facts more than values is arbitrary.

Facts don't care what you value. Facts are facts. They don't relent. You can value them, or you can ignore them: they'll still win, every time.

If you think I'm wrong , I'll give you the simple and fast way to disprove everything I'm claiming here: give me just one moral precept or ethical axiom that secularism makes necessary.

I don't even think you are right. So what are you waiting for?

I'm waiting for you to tell me one moral precept or ethical axiom that secularism makes necesssary. Since you can't, you should know I'm right about that. If you don't, you can test it: just come up with one such precept.

"Good luck, Jim."

[Ben JS]

You don't have to listen to 'God'.
Nothing 'God' declares regarding morality is necessary to abide by.

According to your god, you have free will.
You can choose to do whatever you like.

Need is relative to a goal - you don't need to do anything, even if you're religious.
If one is prepared to face the consequences, one can freely disobey.

We don't need to eat or drink water - if we're prepared to starve, become dehydrated and die.
We don't need to listen to the 'will of God', if we're prepared to face whatever outcome that leads to.

There's ample evidence of religious people acting against their religious principles.
They'll then either say their soul is damned, or try to make amends / seek forgiveness.

In a world of free will,
there is no necessary act or behaviour.

We're all here in the mud and mire together.

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.

This is a descriptive rather than normative view, since it only makes claims about how things are, not how they "ought to be" according to some.

Our choice to listen or not listen to a religious morality,
is on the same footing as a choice to listen to a secular morality.
Each is rooted in our own being -
since it is us who makes the decision what listen to,
what to abide by, how to act, what we value/prefer.
At the core, we're always listening to ourselves.
This is our structure.

One can easily say,
'Yeah, I believe in God. Screw that bastard, though. I'm going to do X instead.'

All morality is a choice.

However, we're all living beings.
We have plenty in common,
our preferences are often aligned.
And plenty of acts that can be mutually rewarding to these preferences.

Here's one:
Society doesn't respect any system of ethics that entails seeking the death of all it's adherents.
Thus, intentionally causing the death of others is pretty universally treated as wrong - with few exceptions.
This behaviour is considered 'unhealthy'.
Why?
One of the primary things we have in common,
is our adaption for survival.
Seeking the death of all, completely runs against that -
which explains why it's so universally criticized.

The only difference between Judeo-Christian ethics,
and secular ethics - is the source of the yardstick.
The religious use the 'word of God' as the ultimate yardstick,
whilst typically the yardstick of the secular is rooted within themselves.

But it's all still a choice.
Still a person, looking within,
and asking what they want to do.
This is the foundation -
a person's preference.

==
==

And secularism renders morality a "nothing."

Not at all.
We are born with preferences/bias.
We develop our own purpose,
through these preferences/bias.

We can evaluate the world through these preferences.

One of the things we typically have is compassion / empathy.
It developed for a very self serving reason, but it is present nonetheless.
From this, we can be motivated to build a morality and act in a moral way.

Even in the absence of compassion / empathy,
we can recognize the utility of acting in accord with societal ethics.
Not because it is thought to be a fundamental truth of existence,
but because we decide it is in our interest to do so.

When we have common goals,
we can develop agreed upon norms.
Differentiate between that which supports or hinders our goals.
Evaluate and apply values to things, relative to their affect on our goal realization.

This is not nothing.
It is a tool that provides utility.
A very fulfilling one -
fulfillment being a typically rewarding/preferred experience.

it's a fake, an imagining, that at best can only serve as a cover for raw "power," just as Nietzsche said.

Morality is a construct.
A useful construct.
It is not fake.

Language is a construct.
A useful construct.
It is not fake.

Neither morality nor language are an inherent aspect of reality.
Each are constructed and their meanings created,
as a means to express the will of the one utilizing them.


Will to Power is but one goal a person could adopt and build morality / system of ethics / code of conduct around.
We have a will, regardless of whether that entails the acquisition of power.
We have preferences.
Perhaps one's primary goal could be alleviating the suffering of others.
In secular morality, this is perfectly sound and reasonable.
No self contradiction, and not fake.

Here's Chat GPT giving a refresher on Will to Power and it's implications:

At its core, the Will to Power refers to the fundamental driving force in human beings and all life—a desire to assert, enhance, and express one's power and influence over the world. [...] not merely the desire for power or domination in a conventional sense, but a broader, more fundamental striving for growth, achievement, and the assertion of one's own potential.

1. Basic Definition:

The Will to Power is not simply a desire for political power or control over others, though those aspects can be part of it. Instead, it is a more fundamental, existential force within all life that drives growth, creativity, and self-overcoming.

Nietzsche viewed this "will" as the primary motivating force behind human behavior, not just survival or pleasure (as Darwinian evolution suggests), but the drive to dominate, to shape one’s environment, and to become the best version of oneself.

2. Psychological Implications:

Nietzsche believed that individuals are not simply driven by instincts or rationality, but by a deeper, unconscious urge to affirm their existence and enhance their power.

This can lead to individuals pursuing personal growth, mastery, and self-actualization. For Nietzsche, becoming one's true self (what he called the "Übermensch" or "Overman") is a manifestation of the Will to Power—an individual transcending traditional values and limitations imposed by society.

3. Metaphysical Implications:

Everything in nature, including human beings, struggles to exert and increase its power and influence. Life itself is a constant process of overcoming challenges, evolving, and asserting power.

4. Ethical Implications:

The Will to Power suggests a morality based on strength, self-assertion, and creativity. Nietzsche advocated for a reevaluation of values, encouraging individuals to live authentically and to embrace their desires and impulses, but in a way that promotes growth and flourishing rather than mere hedonism or domination.

5. Political Implications:

The idea of the Will to Power has been misinterpreted by some as advocating for authoritarianism or the domination of others. However, Nietzsche's view is more nuanced. He was deeply critical of state power and the way institutions often suppress individuality and creativity.


In summary, the Will to Power is a multi-faceted and deeply influential idea in Nietzsche's thought. It represents the drive for self-overcoming, personal growth, and the expression of one's potential, both on a personal and societal level. Its implications are vast and range from the psychological and ethical to the political and metaphysical, challenging individuals to embrace their inner strength and creative force while also critiquing conventional values.

[Immanuel Can]

And secularism renders morality a "nothing."

Not at all.
We are born with preferences/bias.

That's part of the problem, not the solution. If we all have different moral "biases," how are we to prove to anybody else that what we think is right is right, when they don't "have a bias" for the same conclusion? We need to be able to answer the "why" question with a rational "because."

Islamists believe that beating women and owning slaves are good things to do. How do you and I argue rationally against their "biases"? And if we have no rational argument against their "biases," then which laws should our single polity establish -- the right to own slaves, or the obligation NOT to own slaves? Or the right and duty to beat your various wives, or the obligation to have only one wife at a time, and never to hit her?

You and I know the answer. But HOW do we know the answer, is the important question. What basis do we have for believing that our "biases" (if that's all they are) are better than those of the Islamist?

Here's Chat GPT...

Don't outsource your mind. Think it through for yourself. ChatGPT is not only not God, it's not even a reliable substitute for thinking. It's a program, and one programmed by other men. Unless you think you can trust every person and every programmer on this planet, don't trust ChatGPT without checking its pronouncements by way of your own intelligence and logic.

[Ben JS]

That's part of the problem, not the solution. If we all have different moral "biases," how are we to prove to anybody else that what we think is right is right, when they don't "have a bias" for the same conclusion? We need to be able to answer the "why" question with a rational "because."

I consider it the origin.
If no one had bias, there's no reason to suspect morality to emerge.

-

The rational "because", would be if we could make the case for why their current behaviour is not in their best interest, and why an alternate approach is better suited to them. To demonstrate that there's a greater goal that is being undermined by their current behaviour. A more rewarding outcome that is being sacrificed.

And there's many angles this can be tackled from.

I'm an idiot who believes in reincarnation,
and the possibility we'll experience every single life endlessly.
If this is the case, trying to find the best outcome for everyone,
is in one's self interest.

In the absence of this,
cooperation is rewarding.
Compassion is rewarding.
Society is rewarding.

What is most conducive to one's wellbeing / fulfillment?

You and I know the answer. But HOW do we know the answer, is the important question. What basis do we have for believing that our "biases" (if that's all they are) are better than those of the Islamist?

If we can make the case that the sum of our goals / preferences are greater realized via a strategy not aligned with the Islamist's current approach, then we can make the case why it would be in the interests of the Islamist to change their current approach.

The measure by which I evaluate better, is maximally rewarding / preferable.

If an act takes us further away from our ideal, when their are acts that get us closer, then it is not in our interest to act this way.
Our ideal is a complicated thing.
But I believe the ideal scenario for all life is far more closely aligned than most realize.

A life in harmony with it's environment,
where the presence of others is mutually rewarding,
appears far greater than a life in disharmony and suffering.

We're all part of the world.
All part of existence.
The pleasure of contributing to something greater than ourselves,
far outweighs anything that could be found through narrow self-interest [or so I believe.]

Don't outsource your mind. Think it through for yourself.

I'm outsourcing the definition and explanation.
Why?
Explaining and typing takes time / effort.

Alternatively I could have copy and pasted my own interpretation and explanation that I have shared before, including before Chat GPT was publicly available, but getting the basic definition / implications from Chat GPT is faster than searching through my past posts.

Also, earlier in this thread I did give an extremely brief interpretation of Will to Power:

I understand will to power to be from a place of abundance, not lack.
The will to power, is not to gain power.
It is the will to express the power one already has.
We are like a spring, that wants release.

To express our capacity, is fulfilling to us.

I've elaborated on the concept in far more depth before, but there's a limit to how much old ground I want to tread in any given moment.