Featured Does secularism provide any objective moral systems? If not, is that a problem?

[AgnosticBoy]

Theistic systems of morality tend to be viewed as objective and universal. I'm doubtful that there are any secular systems of morality that can be taken the same way, but I'll leave that up for debate.

For Debate...
1. Can secularism produce an objective moral system?
2. If not, is it a problem for mankind?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

1. Can secularism produce an objective moral system?

To date, there is nothing to show for an objective system of morality in secularism. When I bring this point up, the usual response is explain how evolution is a basis for morality, but even that is questionable in terms of ontology and epistemology. When it comes to ontology, I question why does one part of nature (human evolution) give us objective morality while the rest of nature (the Universe beyond humans) doesn't. I would think that an objective moral system could only work if the entire Universe was configured to work with it. All of mankind can be on the same page in terms of morality but then be wiped out by a huge asteroid.

This next point might be a mix between ontology and epistemology, but I question the purpose of objective moral norms if there's no objective way of knowing all them. I would've expected a moral system that is innate, instead of one where we have to deduce a morality from trial and error (with no guarantee of progress since we can go backwards by repeating history) or from scientists telling us what the evolutionary principles are. The absence of an objective means of knowing about morality would obviously lead to different conclusions among individuals and societies. We could never tell each other whose really right or wrong if our moral judgements boiled down to opinion or sociocultural conditioning.

2. If not, is it a problem for mankind?

Not having an objective morality is a problem for mankind because then we can't be certain that we are right, especially when deciding between two opposing moral claims. But mankind does have a work around, and that is we are able to live life believing whatever we want. In some social situations, we can block out reality with our beliefs, and in this case we do so by living life believing that we have free-will and objective morality even when we don't. I also believe that when people lack firm moral convictions, like not believing that morality is objectively binding, then they will be less likely to act on morality or they'll have loose standards.

One of the most important ways that attitudes rooted in moral conviction theoretically differ from other attitudes is that people perceive their moral beliefs to be objectively and universally true. In other words, people do not accept or expect that their conceptions of morality are or should be contextually contingent or situationally variable, and they are offended at the very idea that morality could be relative (e.g., Darwell, 1998; Pope, 2013; Simpson, 1974; Smith, 1994). Even philosophers who reject the idea of moral objectivism (e.g., Mackie, 1977) nonetheless accept that people’s commitment to the idea that there are objective moral truths is absolutely central to folk metaethics (i.e., the way real people in the real world experience morality).
...
Moral conviction is certainly implicated in and motivates people’s willingness to fight for a more just and humane society, even when it is costly to do so (e.g., when it requires going against majority opinion or current law) and otherwise facilitates political and civic engagement.

Source: The Social and Political Implications of Moral Conviction by Dr. Linda J. Skitka and Dr. G. Scott Morgan (both psychologists)

 

[2Dbunk1]

To date, there is nothing to show for an objective system of morality in secularism. When I bring this point up, the usual response is explain how evolution is a basis for morality, but even that is questionable in terms of ontology and epistemology. When it comes to ontology, I question why does one part of nature (human evolution) give us objective morality while the rest of nature (the Universe beyond humans) doesn't. I would think that an objective moral system could only work if the entire Universe was configured to work with it.

Yes there is -- our judicial system (as lame as it is). There is nothing in evolution that dictates that human evolution will somehow spill over to other species.

 

[2Dbunk1]

I would've expected a moral system that is innate, instead of one where we have to deduce a morality from trial and error (with no guarantee of progress since we can go backwards by repeating history) or from scientists telling us what the evolutionary principles are

It has been and will continue to be a trial and error process -- there is nothing innate about it. Understand, our existence is a fortuitous accident of the Cosmos, as yet nowhere else to be found in the universe. How can we intelligently assume an innate (given) morality state otherwise?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Some more issues that come to mind is how do we resolve moral differences?

If something is objective, we expect to discover things about it or dispute on it just as we would with other facts. Are agreed upon point of reference is reality or how the Universe operates. There doesn't seem to be an agreed upon point of reference for morality, and so we have no point of reference to check our claims against OR we're left with many different points of references which is consistent with different people making it up or sociocultural influences.

 

[2Dbunk1]

Some more issues that come to mind is how do we resolve moral differences?

In the various nations' constitutions. In their various ethical and judicial courts of law (which in theocracies are a mixed bag with "the one and only true" religion).

Theocratic justice systems are much different than Western systems. That is why the World Court cannot fully function as a mediator for all.

The latter half of the Ten Commandments would be a good start but even some world leaders (even in the West) find them too confining.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

In the various nations' constitutions. In their various ethical and judicial courts of law (which in theocracies are a mixed bag with "the one and only true" religion).

Theocratic justice systems are much different than Western systems. That is why the World Court cannot fully function as a mediator for all.

The latter half of the Ten Commandments would be a good start but even some world leaders (even in the West) find them too confining.

I see your point. Our laws serve as a point of reference that everyone can follow. In that sense, they are also good for society. But my question is if it is true or does it reflect reality beyond what we think? To answer that, I think you'd need an objective ontology and epistemology. In terms of ontology, it would be having an objective foundation, like morality existing as part of the laws of nature. When you bring up a nation's laws, that is subjective in the sense that it's based on what or how we think things should be (somewhat collectively, of course, assuming it's a democracy), and those in power, get to impose it on others. In terms of epistemology, this would require reliable ways of knowing about such laws. Sure, we can know about our nation's laws by reading the Constitution, then we have experts that can interpret and apply the law for us. But that doesn't answer if the Constitution is true, any more than being able to rely on experts to interpret the Bible, doesn't make the Bible's message true or objective.

So in terms of an objective ontology, I'd be looking for how or where do they exist. In terms of an objective epistemology, I'm looking scientific ways (or similar level of certainty) to find out about them.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

One of my classmates that is not used to philosophy told me that I'm going to deep to find the answer. Basically, I shouldn't be questioning morality on that level. I respectfully disagreed and told them that such questions are common in philosophical debates. I also think they are relevant to the real world, and perhaps my friend meant to say that they wouldn't apply to day-to-day living.

If I can explain my view another way I would say that our laws are the very basic level are just goal-oriented behavior. We've made laws around such goals. For instance, the Biblical writers wanted marriage to be hetero and lifelong. So at that point, someone thought that was good goal (and I would ask how would they know it's good starting with the goal), and subsequently made laws to reinforce such behavior, and to have punishments for deviations from it.

 

[2Dbunk1]

So in terms of an objective ontology, I'd be looking for how or where do they exist. In terms of an objective epistemology, I'm looking scientific ways (or similar level of certainty) to find out about them.

Since ontology is that part of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being, why does it have to have the adjective 'objective' to describe it? Of course, one can be objective about ontology or not. It seems to me that ontology is a very personal entity -- much akin to opinion, which brings us around to epistemology. Again, epistemology draws a very fine line, differentiating between justified belief and opinion. Perhaps objective means justified belief (in the commonsense of proven natural phenomena).

Not having taken a philosophy course, am I missing something in what you're asking?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Existing outside of the mind. It's not just an epistemological status or process.

Since ontology is that part of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being, why does it have to have the adjective 'objective' to describe it? Of course, one can be objective about ontology or not. It seems to me that ontology is a very personal entity -- much akin to opinion, which brings us around to epistemology. Again, epistemology draws a very fine line, differentiating between justified belief and opinion. Perhaps objective means justified belief (in the commonsense of proven natural phenomena).

Not having taken a philosophy course, am I missing something in what you're asking?

The word 'objective' is not limited to being an epistemic process or classification, but it can also be used to describe how something exists. For instance, objective reality would refer to reality beyond our minds. That refers to a type of existence, and ontology deals with the nature of existence.

When I bring up moral ontology, I am referring to the way that morality exists (i.e. where does it come from, how does it exist, is it a human invention which would make a product of the mind, etc). Again, what I'm bringing up in this post deal with aspects of existence and not aspects of knowing.

I'm sure I can gather up some sources if you're still skeptical. Either way, what you're describing in Law, does not answer for the type of objectivity I'm referring to, at least, not when it comes to ontology.