• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Foundation of secular morality and ethics?

csbrown28

csbrown28

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
3,102
Reaction score
1,604
Location
NW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Premise:

Any ethical directive or moral decision made that is based on a false factual statement is wrong.

Thoughts?
 
csbrown28 said:
Premise:

Any ethical directive or moral decision made that is based on a false factual statement is wrong.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Clarification. Are you saying that the directive or decision are positively moral or ethical, negatively so or neutrally so? I'm trying to understand if you are postulating that the end justifies the means or any variation thereof?
 
csbrown28 said:
Premise:

Any ethical directive or moral decision made that is based on a false factual statement is wrong.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I am not at all sure, what you are saying. But secular morality and ethics are always arbitrary, if that is any help.
 
William Rea said:
Clarification. Are you saying that the directive or decision are positively moral or ethical, negatively so or neutrally so? I'm trying to understand if you are postulating that the end justifies the means or any variation thereof?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the questions.

Ok, so really we have to establish what the goals of an ethical and moral system are, agreed?

I'd provisionally presume that it is better to be happy, healthy and in general value well-being (HH&W-B) as things that are "good" and things that cause suffering, sickness and pain (S,S&P) are "bad".

I'd also presume that when attempting to "weigh" HH&W-B vs SS&P, the former is of greater value than the latter.

So my statement is relative to those terms and seeks to maximize HH&W-B and minimize SS&P.
 
Last edited:
csbrown28 said:
Premise:

Any ethical directive or moral decision made that is based on a false factual statement is wrong.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

suppose it could be right for different reasons you have not imagined yet
 
joG said:
I am not at all sure, what you are saying. But secular morality and ethics are always arbitrary, if that is any help.
Click to expand...

Is a preference of HH&W-B over SS&P really arbitrary?

[EDIT: for clarity]I mean, doesn't any person of healthy mind and body seek HH&W-B over SS&P??

I disagree, I don't think that morality is arbitrary.
 
Last edited:
csbrown28 said:
Is a preference of HH&W-B over SS&P really arbitrary?

I mean, does any person of healthy mind and body arbitrarily decide to seek one state over another?

I disagree.
Click to expand...

Even there there can be different utilities and values. But even were that not so, is that enough to build a system of ethics on or a moral code.
 
joG said:
I am not at all sure, what you are saying. But secular morality and ethics are always arbitrary, if that is any help.
Click to expand...

Not 'arbitrary' at all, 'subjective' maybe, just as religious morality and ethics are but, that is another topic.
 
csbrown28 said:
Thanks for the questions.

Ok, so really we have to establish what the goals of an ethical and moral system are, agreed?

I'd provisionally presume that it is better to be happy, healthy and in general value well-being (HH&W-B) as things that are "good" and things that cause suffering, sickness and pain (S,S&P) are "bad".

I'd also presume that when attempting to "weigh" HH&W-B vs SS&P, the former is of greater value than the latter.

So my statement is relative to those terms and seeks to maximize HH&W-B and minimize SS&P.
Click to expand...

I'm ok with working in that framework in order to keep the thread on topic :)
 
joG said:
Even there there can be different utilities and values. But even were that not so, is that enough to build a system of ethics on or a moral code.
Click to expand...

I think the key to the OP, is the statement that " .....based on a false factual statement...."

Since few things are absolute, any statement taken as factual, has to stand upon evidence. A statement like "women are inferior to men" is a statement that may have been considered factual at one time, but if morality hinges upon facts, then new information can displace old ideas and improve upon them.
 
joG said:
Even there there can be different utilities and values. But even were that not so, is that enough to build a system of ethics on or a moral code.
Click to expand...

All values related to HH&W-B and SS&P can be reduced to a set of facts.

If this is true then morality is a sort of calculus.

At any given moment there is always a best way to proceed based on the ideas that I've asserted that we all should value. There may even be a series of "best decisions" for any given situation. The problem is one of information.

Thus morality and ethics isn't necessarily about making the best decision, but the best decision given the known variables in an situation.

Problems arise when the number of variables and conflicting interests on a societal or national level arise.
 
Last edited:
csbrown28 said:
I think the key to the OP, is the statement that " .....based on a false factual statement...."

Since few things are absolute, any statement taken as factual, has to stand upon evidence. A statement like "women are inferior to men" is a statement that may have been considered factual at one time, but if morality hinges upon facts, then new information can displace old ideas and improve upon them.
Click to expand...

Some statements stand on testimony of experience. Some statements stand on a bedrock of reason and logic. Some statements stand on specific criteria rather than allowing a person to make of them whatever they might make of them.

The statement that women are inferior to men requires qualification. Is it a universal truth regarding everything? Or is there a specific concept in mind? Most women are inferior to most men when it comes to physical speed, strength, and stamina. The usual consequence of this is that men and women generally do not compete against each other when it comes to events requiring speed, strength, and stamina and qualifications for women will generally be reduced in such categories in the work place too. Women are inferior to men if the criteria is the ability to make sperm or testosterone.

But are women inferior to men when it comes to the ability conceive, bear, and rear children? To sing? To make music? To teach? To entertain? To understand? To reason? To be compassionate? To engage in any occupation that does not require superior speed, strength, or stamina? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Conclusion: The statement in itself may or may not be correct and, given that we have no practical ability to test every woman against every man, it must be evaluated by reason and logic rather than 'proof'. And as often or not, it must be qualified with more specifics.

Also a truth is a truth despite that faulty logic may be utilized to get to it.
 
csbrown28 said:
Premise:

Any ethical directive or moral decision made that is based on a false factual statement is wrong.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

"It's wrong to kill Jews because they're the ones making all the money in the world and without them, we'd all be broke."

Does your premise mean that it would be OK to kill Jews?
 
William Rea said:
Not 'arbitrary' at all, 'subjective' maybe, just as religious morality and ethics are but, that is another topic.
Click to expand...

While true that the codes of groups always mutate over time there is a difference between change that occurs over centuries and a code that shifts fundamental positions within a decade or two. It is quite unclear how societies deal with extended periods of totally relative values.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Some statements stand on testimony of experience.

Some statements stand on a bedrock of reason and logic. Some statements stand on specific criteria rather than allowing a person to make of them whatever they might make of them.
Click to expand...

Since we know that personal testimony is unreliable, it would not constitute a reasonable basis of morality.

Again, all statements can be evaluated for "truthiness" based on evidence.

AlbqOwl said:
The statement that women are inferior to men requires qualification. Is it a universal truth regarding everything? Or is there a specific concept in mind? Most women are inferior to most men when it comes to physical speed, strength, and stamina. The usual consequence of this is that men and women generally do not compete against each other when it comes to events requiring speed, strength, and stamina and qualifications for women will generally be reduced in such categories in the work place too. Women are inferior to men if the criteria is the ability to make sperm or testosterone.

But are women inferior to men when it comes to the ability conceive, bear, and rear children? To sing? To make music? To teach? To entertain? To understand? To reason? To be compassionate? To engage in any occupation that does not require superior speed, strength, or stamina? Etc. Etc. Etc.
Click to expand...

Again, you're proving my point. We can evaluate the statement "Most women are inferior to most men when it comes to physical speed, strength, and stamina." and all the other statements you've made when the statements apply to ethical or moral questions. Then we apply it to some context and evaluate it in light of the evidence for the statement you made.


AlbqOwl said:
Conclusion: The statement in itself may or may not be correct and, given that we have no practical ability to test every woman against every man, it must be evaluated by reason and logic rather than 'proof'. And as often or not, it must be qualified with more specifics.

Also a truth is a truth despite that faulty logic may be utilized to get to it.
Click to expand...

Morality rarely has to evaluate everyone simultaneously, and I would agree that the statement "women are inferior to men" lacks information. Context (information) is necessary to understand the ethics or morality of any statement.

Reaon and Logic are necessary to evaluate a proposition for evidence. I don't think I used the word proof, just evidence.
 
faithful_servant said:
"It's wrong to kill Jews because they're the ones making all the money in the world and without them, we'd all be broke."

Does your premise mean that it would be OK to kill Jews?
Click to expand...

No, on multiple levels.
 
csbrown28 said:
All values related to HH&W-B and SS&P can be reduced to a set of facts.

If this is true then morality is a sort of calculus.

At any given moment there is always a best way to proceed based on the ideas that I've asserted that we all should value. There may even be a series of "best decisions" for any given situation. The problem is one of information.

Thus morality and ethics isn't necessarily about making the best decision, but the best decision given the known variables in an situation.

Problems arise when the number of variables and conflicting interests on a societal or national level arise.
Click to expand...

I do not really see how a relatively homogenous experience of pain and pleasuredefines a system of how to behave. Though, you might be right if rationality is a non determining factor.
 
csbrown28 said:
Since we know that personal testimony is unreliable, it would not constitute a reasonable basis of morality.

Again, all statements can be evaluated for "truthiness" based on evidence.

Again, you're proving my point. We can evaluate the statement "Most women are inferior to most men when it comes to physical speed, strength, and stamina." and all the other statements you've made when the statements apply to ethical or moral questions. Then we apply it to some context and evaluate it in light of the evidence for the statement you made.

Morality rarely has to evaluate everyone simultaneously, and I would agree that the statement "women are inferior to men" lacks information. Context (information) is necessary to understand the ethics or morality of any statement.

Reaon and Logic are necessary to evaluate a proposition for evidence. I don't think I used the word proof, just evidence.
Click to expand...

But see? Your very first line in the quoted post is in itself false. You say, without any qualification whatsoever, that personal testimony is unreliable.

If that is true then everything in the entire universe that is safe to believe must be experienced. There is no point in reading books or watching videos or asking anybody's opinion because none of it will be reliable unless we see it, touch it, experience it for ourselves. But if nobody's testimony is reliable and each of us has to experience something in order for it to be believable, we've sure all got our work cut out for us.
 
joG said:
I do not really see how a relatively homogeneous experience of pain and pleasuredefines a system of how to behave. Though, you might be right if rationality is a non determining factor.
Click to expand...

The what is the goal of an ethical and moral system if not to avoid suffering, sickness and pain and maximize health, happiness and well-being? Can't all ethical and moral behavior be framed in these terms?

Is there something else we should consider when deciding when something is right or wrong?
 
csbrown28 said:
No, on multiple levels.
Click to expand...

It was a false factual statement - correct?? By the premise given, that would make not killing Jews a wrong moral choice. My point is that your premise is flawed at a very deep level. A statement can be wrong and still lead to a moral decision. Using a lie to manipulate people into doing something that you could get them to do using the truth is an immoral act, but not every wrong statement leads to an immoral choice.
 
AlbqOwl said:
But see? Your very first line in the quoted post is in itself false. You say, without any qualification whatsoever, that personal testimony is unreliable.
Click to expand...

My apologies, I didn't think it was necessary to qualify. I figured that you and others would understand what i meant.

AlbqOwl said:
If that is true then everything in the entire universe that is safe to believe must be experienced.
Click to expand...

When determining the ethics and morality of a situation one has to value something over something else. When reducing the values to a set of facts, then facts based only on non-verifiable personal testimony will be weak, but not necessarily wrong. The evidence of all competing positions must be weighed. Those positions evaluated in the light of verifiable evidence that demonstrate a lesser propensity to cause SS&P would be superior.

AlbqOwl said:
There is no point in reading books or watching videos or asking anybody's opinion because none of it will be reliable unless we see it, touch it, experience it for ourselves. But if nobody's testimony is reliable and each of us has to experience something in order for it to be believable, we've sure all got our work cut out for us.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's what I said.
 
csbrown28 said:
The what is the goal of an ethical and moral system if not to avoid suffering, sickness and pain and maximize health, happiness and well-being? Can't all ethical and moral behavior be framed in these terms?

Is there something else we should consider when deciding when something is right or wrong?
Click to expand...

It probably can, but it probably needn't necessarily. An ethics can value future over present satisfaction or vice versa. That alone will construct totally differing sets of desirable behavior.
 
csbrown28 said:
The what is the goal of an ethical and moral system if not to avoid suffering, sickness and pain and maximize health, happiness and well-being? Can't all ethical and moral behavior be framed in these terms?

Is there something else we should consider when deciding when something is right or wrong?
Click to expand...

Going back to the OP, I will put something out there for people to shoot down.

I think that it is possible to act on a false statement and still be right. For example, Someone advises me that 1 person is in danger and I have to risk my own life to save him, I risk my life and actually save 3 women. I acted on a false statement because 3 people were actually in danger and they were all female, none of them male. The person who made the statement that provoked me to make the decision was factually incorrect.
 
csbrown28 said:
Premise:

Any ethical directive or moral decision made that is based on a false factual statement is wrong.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Disagree. Religious morals are based on the factual statement that there is a god(s). That is wrong, but many, not all, religious morals are worth keeping even if the alleged original source of the moral is wrong.
 
faithful_servant said:
It was a false factual statement - correct?? By the premise given, that would make not killing Jews a wrong moral choice. My point is that your premise is flawed at a very deep level. A statement can be wrong and still lead to a moral decision. Using a lie to manipulate people into doing something that you could get them to do using the truth is an immoral act, but not every wrong statement leads to an immoral choice.
Click to expand...

Excellent question.....

You didn't phrase the sentence as a moral directive, you made a moral statement that when phrased as a directive is clearly wrong.

The question would be "We should kill Jews because they're the ones making all the money in the world and without them, we'd all be broke."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom