The Philosophy Now Forum

it comes down to a question of consequence and enforcement...

what happens if you don't follow the rules of society? you might get arrested and tried in court - possibly incarcerated for a while

what happens if you don't follow the rules of god? you might die and spend eternity in hell

which story does one believe? which crimes are enforceable?

-Imp

Codes and standards

ASME is one of the oldest standards-developing organizations in America. It produces approximately 600 codes and standards covering many technical areas, such as fasteners, plumbing fixtures, elevators, pipelines, and power plant systems and components. ASME's standards are developed by committees of subject matter experts using an open, consensus-based process. Many ASME standards are cited by government agencies as tools to meet their regulatory objectives. ASME standards are therefore voluntary, unless the standards have been incorporated into a legally binding business contract or incorporated into regulations enforced by an authority having jurisdiction, such as a federal, state, or local government agency. ASME's standards are used in more than 100 countries and have been translated into numerous languages.[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... _Engineers

ASME standards are not handed down by God. They are derived from experience.

You are not obligated to follow those standards but following them makes interactions with other people less difficult and more likely for you to succeed.

There are other standards which may be better, worse or similar. You may be in a society with different standards.

Standards are useful. That's why they exist. They are not abandoned simply because God did not set them.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2026 5:39 pm

Sorry IC, but being secular IS justification for discounting supposed evidence that is merely based on belief and faith.

Sorry, Mike; but nobody made this claim. So you're refuting nothing. However, it's false anyway, since "I am secular" is no basis for refusing something that's actual evidence...it's just evidence of willful disbelief. And that's obstinacy.

So you are saying the secularist is being obstinate in rejecting the evidence of al Quran, the word of God as revealed to His chosen prophet Muhammed?

That's willful disbelief of "the evidence"?

I rather think you are NOT meaning to say that. But IN EFFECT it is what you are saying. Imagine two people each arguing with the secularist to "look at the evidence, don't willfully discount the evidence". Two persons, you by belief and faith Christian, and the other by belief and faith Muslim.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2026 6:18 pm That's willful disbelief of "the evidence"?

Produce the evidence that Allah is God. Let's look at it, and see if it adds up to what you say it does. But none of this will save secularism anyway. And that's my point: that while Islamists, Hindus, Jains, pagans, Jews and even Christians can explain WHY morality exists, and what they believe it consists of, a secularist cannot. There's no basis in secularism for ANY morality.

Or, prove me wrong: just give one command that every secularist is morally bound to obey as a consequence of secularism.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2026 6:55 pm Produce the evidence that Allah is God. Let's look at it, and see if it adds up to what you say it does.

<< ignoring your attempt to ignore responding to the question at hand --- which was about EVIDENCE >>

First of all, "produce evidence that "God" is God?" is a silly ask. You speak English, and so say "God" is God. She speaks French and so says "Dieu" is God. He speaks Arabic and so says "Allah" is God.

You were saying the secularist is "willfully ignoring the evidence" (by your belief and faith) but "rightfully/correctly ignoring the evidence" (by his belief and faith)

You can produce evidence for the secularist OUTSIDE (prior to) the sacred texts of your belief/faith (why THOSE are to be the preferred evidence)
OR
You could, as you seemed to do argue that any/all religions equally valid in being able to support morality.

<< I do not believe you are really willing to do the latter. And in any case, not all religions consider God/gods the source of morality >>

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2026 7:24 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2026 6:55 pm Produce the evidence that Allah is God. Let's look at it, and see if it adds up to what you say it does.

<< ignoring your attempt to ignore responding to the question at hand --- which was about EVIDENCE >>

My response was also about evidence. What part of it did you not understand?

First of all, "produce evidence that "God" is God?" is a silly ask. You speak English, and so say "God" is God. She speaks French and so says "Dieu" is God. He speaks Arabic and so says "Allah" is God.

Really? So it's your assumption that there is only one God, so all speakers are referring to the same Entity?

Why would you think Allah was the same as Hashem or all the other "gods" people have proposed? I'd love to see the argument for that assumption.

You can produce evidence for the secularist OUTSIDE (prior to) the sacred texts of your belief/faith

I don't need to. The case for the integrity of the Bible has already been made extensively by others. For example, see https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/resour ... -reliable/.

If you'd ever looked into the question, you'd already know that.

You could, as you seemed to do argue that any/all religions equally valid in being able to support morality.

Ah, now you're starting to understand!

Yes, any religion sponsors some conception of morality. Whatever you say about, for example, Islamic ethics, you can't accuse them of not fitting with the suppositions of Islamists. Whatever you say about Hindu ethics, the problems with them do not include that they fail to coordinate with Hinduism itself. But secularism is different: it cannot fit ANY moral precept. Not even one. In that, morally speaking, secularism is a lame duck that is more lame than even the worst religious ethics, because at least they can say they're being consistent with their own worldview. Secularism only fits with amorality -- moral nihilism. Nietzsche saw that.

I do not believe you are really willing to do the latter.

Aren't you surprised, then? I am. Every worldview except secularism can sponsor some conception of morality, merely by remaining consistent with its own assumptions. In most cases, it will probably end up being a false morality, of course, but at least not an irrational stance with regard to morality itself.

Not so with secularism. Secularism can sponsor no moral concepts at all. It's not even in the game. Its attempts to moralize do not even rationalize with secularism itself.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2026 7:49 pm Yes, any religion sponsors some conception of morality. Whatever you say about, for example, Islamic ethics, you can't accuse them of not fitting with the suppositions of Islamists. Whatever you say about Hindu ethics, the problems with them do not include that they fail to coordinate with Hinduism itself. But secularism is different: it cannot fit ANY moral precept. Not even one.

A) No, it is NOT the case that every religion sponsors some conception of morality. Not in the sense you appear to mean. Not even necessarily true for all monotheisms.
I suspect the reason you see it that way is that your understanding of God includes a deity interested in our personal behavior. Let us consider another possibility that will have a result (basis for morality) not unrelated to what a secularist of the "humanist" sort might say. Suppose the religion believed the Creator made all, the Earth, all the plants and animals, with all the attributes necessary to be what they were.

Religious observance in this case simply to give thanks to the Creator for this wonderful world, all that has been given to us. We ought to express thanks for what we have been give; we ought not to ask for anything more (rude). In other words, we have been created as humans, given (contained within us) all that is necessary to be human. Morality is part of us as humans. Part of being human.
<< and no, I am NOT making this up out of whole cloth but intentionally not identifying the religion >>

B) Yes, in that description there was a creator God involved, who made us human. But is that REALLY so terribly different from a secular humanist who tells you that we evolved to be human. That we evolved to be moral animals.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2026 9:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2026 7:49 pm Yes, any religion sponsors some conception of morality. Whatever you say about, for example, Islamic ethics, you can't accuse them of not fitting with the suppositions of Islamists. Whatever you say about Hindu ethics, the problems with them do not include that they fail to coordinate with Hinduism itself. But secularism is different: it cannot fit ANY moral precept. Not even one.

A) No, it is NOT the case that every religion sponsors some conception of morality.

Well, not Deism, of course, since Deism essentially makes the existence of God irrelevant. As an "absentee landlord," he is assumed, in Deism, to have no particular interests in our morality, and no consequence for us really flows from his existence. So I take your point about that.

Deism's an odd one. It's actually more like secularism, in that it has no rational connection to moral claims. But you can certainly see that the religions I listed, which are the major ones in this world, do.

But not secularism. It's got nothing. And that's the point.

...we evolved to be moral animals.

You keep saying this, but it keeps merely being a case of the genetic fallacy. However, let me give you a chance to prove it's not.

What moral obligation can be deduced from the belief that we evolved from animals and now have a bunch of different beliefs we call "morality"? How do we get from that supposition to a particular moral stance on anything? I'll let you pick the moral precept, whatever you think you can best defend.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2026 9:27 pm What moral obligation can be deduced from the belief that we evolved from animals and now have a bunch of different beliefs we call "morality"? How do we get from that supposition to a particular moral stance on anything? I'll let you pick the moral precept, whatever you think you can best defend.

A) What do you mean FROM animals? We still ARE animals. However, at the moment no need to worry your head about that.

B) Having "morality", believe the categories "right" and "wrong" exist, appear to be inherent with us, part of us. Obviously the explanation WHY is going to depend on whether believing "as created" or "as evolved" << look at the TOPIC of this forum section >>. I have intentionally chosen a religious example were a Creator created the Earth, the plants, the animals (including us) each fully equipped to thrive. I chose THIS example because I think hard to distinguish from what evolution would do.

C) That has NOTHING to do with how choices/actions end up assigned to the categories "right" and "wrong". There is only one OUGHT to be justified, you ought do the right thing and ought not do the wrong thing. You appear to be asking a different question, what is the moral reason A is assigned to "right" and B to "wrong".

if morality is inherent, why must behaviors have to be taught and reinforced?

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2026 4:13 pm if morality is inherent, why must behaviors have to be taught and reinforced?

-Imp

Inherency is a primary condition that exists as potential.
Potential must be activated by a secondary condition(s) in order to manifest.

For instance, inherent tallness can be stunted with poor nutrition in childhood.

Inherent kindness sometimes needs to be activated in little children curious about bugs.
Anthropomorphizing is a method of activation.

"if morality is inherent, why must behaviors have to be taught and reinforced?"

Don't fall victim to aksing the same non-questions and suffering the same confusion as those others, Impetus Impenitentius. You're thinking of morality as a set of categorical goods and bads that human behavior corresponds to when there is no such thing. In fact, the question "Was he acting morally or not" is not a coherent question. Here's why. ALL human behavior is moral behavior, and one would have to be unconscious to be immoral... so the question makes no sense. Even shitting in the woods a hundred miles from the nearest Burger King is a moral behavior because it is value-laden like any other conscious behavior.

It's only when it is presupposed that there are ethical qualities 'right' and 'wrong' that exist independently of human judgment and preference to which behavior corresponds that there is even a problem here at all.

Let's say we call a parent's protection of its offspring an inherently good moral behavior. It checks out with both Spencer and Christianity. The former, it's a survival strategy that works. The latter, it's following the big man's instructions (I'm sure protecting ones childrens is in the bible somewhere).

But now wait. What makes 'surviving' and 'following big man's instructions' the right thing to do? What if you don't wanna survive or take care of the childrens? Who said you had to? 'Course if you wanna survive and appease the big man you'd do these things... but this makes them only hypothetical imperatives, and nothing about either is a categorical good.

We could just say moral behavior is value-laden behavior... which is pretty much all behavior. Yes, man is a moral creature, but he makes the whole shit up as he goes and divides behaviors into groups called 'right' and 'wrong' and 'good' and 'bad' depending on their correspondence to the valuer's values and their use as a means to hypothetical imperatives.

I'll spare the more severe Nietzschean perspective in this matter because of our virgin audience. This means i won't say that moral condemnation of any form is nothing more than a weaker one trying to burden a stronger one with guilt and shame. Oh, hells no, i would never even suggest that. Can you imagine the fantastic orgy of chaos that would result?

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2026 4:18 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2026 4:13 pm if morality is inherent, why must behaviors have to be taught and reinforced?

Inherency is a primary condition that exists as potential.
Potential must be activated by a secondary condition(s) in order to manifest.

Inherent would be JUST the ability/tendency to learn/be taught.

Another example (not morality) would be language. The human child is born equipped to learn a language, several at the same time, in fact*). But the human child isn't born WITH any language.

When you say behaviors have to be taught/learned, you are discussing which behaviors assigned to which category, "right" or "wrong". The assignment to category is NOT BUILT IN. It takes a long time (many generations) to evolve an "instinct". That's the whole point of obligatory social animals having "culture", much quicker.


* To the child learning, several at once is like learning a language with complicated rules.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2026 3:55 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2026 9:27 pm What moral obligation can be deduced from the belief that we evolved from animals and now have a bunch of different beliefs we call "morality"? How do we get from that supposition to a particular moral stance on anything? I'll let you pick the moral precept, whatever you think you can best defend.

A) What do you mean FROM animals? We still ARE animals.

And why does this particular 'animal' have some kind of moral obligation, whereas no others do? What kind of moral obligation would that even be?

B) Having "morality", believe the categories "right" and "wrong" exist, appear to be inherent with us, part of us.

So is belief in ghosts, belief that the earth is flat, and refusal to accept mortality. All are very widespread, and clearly false. So you have to do more than reiterate the genetic fallacy for the third time -- you need to show that the "inherent" impulse to morality is correct, true, and justified.

Hume was so clear about this. And he was right. If all we have is a (presumed) factoid like "human beings evolved," it does not form any first premise of a value judgment that can be warranted.

There is only one OUGHT to be justified, you ought do the right thing and ought not do the wrong thing.

You can't even get that much from secularism. Why is it that every secularist "ought" to do the things you expect? Secularism itself does not imply any such verb as "ought." And what makes your passion for being nice to little girls better than the Islamists desire to "purify" them by way of female genital mutilation? You're going to need to show that your "right" is right, and his "right" is wrong.

But if you could, somehow, get the demand, "You ought to do the right thing" out of secularism, it would still be utterly informative of right and wrong...what you'd need to do is show that you know exactly WHAT is right and WHAT is wrong, and then that we have an "ought" duty toward the former and away from the latter.

I'm not seeing anything from you that comes close to achieving that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2026 6:10 pm

A) What do you mean FROM animals? We still ARE animals. [/quote]
And why does this particular 'animal' have some kind of moral obligation, whereas no others do? What kind of moral obligation would that even be?
[/quote]

That's YOU, not me. I expect all obligatory social animals to have "morality". << that is NOT a claim that the "morality" of their species has much in common with that of humans >>

You think if a moral precept has a practical result then not morality? Let's take an example. Rather common (pretty universal) amoun hunter-gatherers something like this rule:

If you catch/kill some small animal, you may cook/eat it on the spot. But if you kill a large animal, you must bring it back to camp to be shared out.

Now I can explain WHY we find this rule (and don't find a rule, if you catch/kill an animal, large or small, it's yours to ea, no need to share). Societies with this moral rule have a huge advantage* over societies that do not and so in the competition between societies, they are "fitter, they are the societies that survived. But before you say "practical, not moral" remember the person is not a society. The hunter is not thinking "this is for the practical good of the society" but "this is the right thing to do".

* Since the hunter CAN'T consume the large animal before it goes by, food is being wasted. If you assume both societies with and without sharing of large kills are equally good at making such kills, the societies with the sharing rule have more food (less is wasted).