Thread 18143526

What is the basis of secular morality?

>>18143526 (OP)
The Tight Toddler Paradox

"The world lies! Thou shalt not commit murder, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not cheat, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife. All of these are lies! Mere illusion, nothing more! They don't want to be killed, they don't want to be robbed. Using the twin lies of justice and morality, the weak endeavor to protect themselves. But the first truth is that the strong devour the weak, so let us feed upon people, upon wealth, upon riches and power! We of Britannia shall feast upon the raw flesh of the world itself! We must crush this deception and bring forth the truth! All Hail Britannia!"

>>18143526 (OP)
You're supposed to be educated with a baseline humanism from smarter people just like every other part of the secular worldview. Atheism without education is amoral, primordial paganism. That's a great reset right there.

high iq or liberal even cannot into children

>>18143526 (OP)
Consequentialism, Categorical imperative. I'm sure there are other bases.

>>18143526 (OP)
The many intuitive moral facts that exist to most rational people.

>>18143526 (OP)
Your "secular morality" is just christiarity with the good parts ripped out. You stole your whole "be nice" schtick from 2000 years of basing it on an objective framework (god).

Without god, "don't murder" is just a feeling. And feelings change. Once society's "feelings" decide a group is subhuman, your "morality" gets thrown in the gas chamber. Atheism has no final answer to "why not?"

>>18143596
Are you retarded enough to believe that Japanese people know they shouldn't steal because they are secular Christians?

>>18143596
it does, just not if you're stupid. God sounds more your speed frankly

>>18143596
>with the good parts ripped out
Stoning people to death for picking up sticks on a saturday? Torturing protestants/catholics to death for "heresy"? If your religious freedoms weren't protected by a secular state you would probably be murdered over some stupid sectarian dispute between the methodists/presbytarians/anglicans/whoever

>>18143526 (OP)
The very simple idea that people living together in society mutually benefit from sharing some baseline idea of what's acceptable behavior towards each other.

>>18143526 (OP)
>What is the basis of secular morality?
Everything that at least moderately benefits the individual AND the group is moral.

Everything that explicitly harms either the individual or the group is immoral.

Everything that benefits one without impacting the other is neither moral nor immoral

>>18143526 (OP)
Without assigning ethics to a higher principle you pretty much immediately guarantee that it becomes mutable. Each change makes progressively less sense but each is justified by it being "what makes sense" in the context of the moment. Eventually you get a hard reset and the people who pick up the pieces afterwards tell stories about what to do and what not to do forming the basis for a tradition that their predecessors abandoned. This whole messy process can be skipped by just assigning what is right and wrong to an immutable higher principle and then letting the game run so to speak.

>>18143526 (OP)
>What is the basis of secular morality?
>"This belief allows me to feel smug for no real reason, and to look down on everybody else from a position of unearned presumed moral superiority"
There you go OP. That's literally the entire thing. There's nothing beyond that.

>>18143884
What do you mean by benefits?

>>18144259
No one cares. Terrible thread and terrible OP.

>>18144259
That heavily depends on the context.
But for instance, education benefits you if you can do things as an educated person that wouldn't have been possible without that education, and said things, in turn, support society.
E.g. you get a job, feed yourself and pay taxes which are then used to keep the roads in good conditions

>>18143881
Why is the "mutally beneficial" what anyone should care about? Why should I care if society accepts my behavior?

>>18144502
because no man is an island

>>18144502
Because you live in society.

>>18143526 (OP)
The enforced emotivism of the currently most powerful group.

>>18143600
They are secularized Buddhists, and East Asian Buddhism is pretty close to Christianity in terms of ethics.

>>18144378
>education benefits you if you can do things as an educated person that wouldn't have been possible without that education,
But why would that be good?

>and said things, in turn, support society.
But what is supporting society?

>E.g. you get a job, feed yourself and pay taxes which are then used to keep the roads in good conditions
Marketers of tobacco companies and of that Fentanil company were able to do that and paid tons of taxes. Did they benefit society?

>>18144710
yes to all
>but they weren't all yes or no questions
Why should I answer you directly, what would that accomplish? Would it convince you? I think not.

>>18144737
>yes to all
Ah, I see.
According to Atheistic Ethics, someone who studied in university to help Purdue Pharma sell OxyContin benefited society.

>>18144704
except for the God part
>>18144754
That's right. They also caused harm, but most individuals like you described didn't cause much harm themselves. Corporations are not people.

>>18144502
Because you aren't a retard (debatable) and see the benefit of "playing along" with the rest of society.

>>18144710
Fentanyl makers pay taxes?

>>18143966
Can this higher principle be secular?
Also ethics are still mutable even with this higher principle. Take Slavery, for example. It was avowed by religions worldwide until a few centuries ago.

>>18144773
I messed up. I meant Purdue Pharma and Oxycontin.
I'm not a specialist in this kind of thing, sorry.

>>18144710
>But why would that be good?
Because the more choices you have in life and the more freedom you have.
Freedom is better than non-freedom

>But what is supporting society?
Pro-social behaviour, by definition

atheist here to address this question, I'm familiar with the arguments used and probably most people who aren't aware about metaethics will be caught off guard about it.

however, one can do an internal critique of your worldview and find contradictions if we just grant you your ethical system, from the holy books, to the theologians, to the historical cultures that adopted the belief system.

now, to answer your question: ethics are a human invention, so yes, they don't exist. society defines what it's acceptable or not. "so if tomorrow pedophilia was made legal and ok, would you be in favor?" the answer yes, because I would belong to that society, to that culture, to that context. we're made of electrons, and electrons don't care if they are helping someone cross the street, or raping an old lady.

>>18144754
They did, yes. Oxycontin (no weird capitalization, you flyover Freddie) is a powerful analgesic that is used to treat chronic pain that is unmanageable by other pharmaceuticals. Just because stupid people abuse it doesn't mean it's not a good thing.

But you know what, I'll tell you this: I will agree with you that the manufacturers of Oxycontin are responsible for ALL the deaths from the opioid epidemic IF you agree that gun manufacturers are responsible for ALL the deaths from gun violence; and that both guns and oxycontin should be discontinued from production.

>>18144780
oxy is an incredibly important medical painkiller, so is fent incidentally

>>18144785
fuck off retard

>>18144783
>Because the more choices you have in life and the more freedom you have.
>Freedom is better than non-freedom
Why would freedom be better than non-freedom?

>Pro-social behaviour, by definition
What is pro-social behavior?

>>18143526 (OP)
There is no single answer. But this is one attempt by the Jesus Mythicism dude https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/16/8/1061
>>18144785
Tbh you did not answer his question. Anti-realists need not apply.

>>18144790
>They did, yes. Oxycontin (no weird capitalization, you flyover Freddie) is a powerful analgesic that is used to treat chronic pain that is unmanageable by other pharmaceuticals. Just because stupid people abuse it doesn't mean it's not a good thing.

Did Purdue Pharma and its marketing team market it for its proper usage or would you say their marketing strategy is polemical because they market it for it to be overprescribed, minimizing its harms?

>But you know what, I'll tell you this: I will agree with you that the manufacturers of Oxycontin are responsible for ALL the deaths from the opioid epidemic IF you agree that gun manufacturers are responsible for ALL the deaths from gun violence; and that both guns and oxycontin should be discontinued from production.
Uh? I don't get what this has to do with our subject here. Do you suppose I'm your Republican boogeyman?

>>18144803
It doesn't matter. Sin does not exist in secular morality. If you're able to save the lives of hundreds it's permissible to take one life especially if it's accidental or negligent instead of deliberate. Even if it were deliberate the only reason society takes a stand is to prevent further bad behavior, not because the moral balance was equalized.

>>18144808
>If you're able to save the lives of hundreds it's permissible to take one life especially if it's accidental or negligent instead of deliberate.
The issue here is that they downplayed addiction risks and said the effects lasted longer than it did.
In atheistic morality, you would say getting an education to do this is benefiting society?


>Even if it were deliberate the only reason society takes a stand is to prevent further bad behavior, not because the moral balance was equalized

What is bad behavior?

>Atheist
>Morality

The states monopoly on violence.
Its stupid and naive to believe that murder and theft by non-state actors is illegal because of religion and not the desire of the state to have a monopoly on said activities.
One does not need to be a zealot to see the shortcomings of anarchy

>>18144803
I don't need to assume, I know that you are. Why aren't you condemning guns as much as you are condemning this pain medication? Guns have no other purpose other than to kill/injure things, whereas Oxycontin has other benefits.

And yes, Purdue actually said multiple times back in the late 90s (it got FDA approval in '95) that you shouldn't overprescribe it, that it should be used on a 12-hour dosing cycle, not an 8-hour one.

>>18144828
Likewise, Purdue targeted doctors that were already prone to overprescribing opioids.

>>18144850
Well, so we can all agree that according to Atheistic morality, Purdue Pharma and its marketing executives did nothing wrong.

Now, let's go to another example. As a good American left-winger, you seem to be opposed to guns and to feel strongly against conservatives and those who support guns.

Let's say someone studied law and was good enough at that to work for a gun company so that in your country, people could buy guns over the counter. This would not fit your ideological prejudices, but would fit your definition of benefits

After all, someone doing this
>you get a job, feed yourself and pay taxes which are then used to keep the roads in good conditions

>>18144897
>Well, so we can all agree that according to Atheistic morality
NTA but there is no such thing, atheism does not have an official codified moral doctrine.

>>18143596
Humanists did to christianity what christians did to pagan religions:they took the part of what they wanted and threw the rest into the trash

>>18143596
>Without god, "don't murder" is just a feeling. And feelings change. Once society's "feelings" decide a group is subhuman, your "morality" gets thrown in the gas chamber.
You mean when Jews or heretics get pogromed for the 999th time or when Christian launch slave raids into the Baltics but its alright because they're Pagan?

>>18143526 (OP)
I just like being nice to people and think doing good is a good thing to do. I never understood why that requires religion or some inherent threat.

>>18143596
Yes, secular morality is what happens if you take the good, rational parts of religion and culture and discard the other stupid retard shit in it.

>>18144777
A secular higher principle isn't really a "higher" principle. It should also be noted that from the very genesis of Christianity there were strong anti-slavery sentiments and Christendom outlawed slavery back in the first millennium. We had a temporary lapse during the 17th century but by the 19th century pretty much everyone had agreed, on the basis of Christian teachings, to outlaw the practice again.

>>18143596
Things like "don't murder" and "don't steal" predate both christianity and judaism though. And christians/jews already pick and choose which laws and rules to follow. Christians completely ignored mosaic law when it suited them and even now the vast majority of christians ignore inconvenient parts of the bible and Jews have special settings on their appliances so they can trick god on the sabbath.

>If you kill someone the state will lock you up forever or execute you.
versus
>If you kill someone and don't repent sincerely then a being you can't see or detect will throw you into magic minecraft lava forever and ever when you die. But no one can confirm this actually happens and you just have to take my word for it that you'll be punished later.
Gee, I wonder which threat people will take more seriously.

Atheists don't even know what morality is >>18145229

>>18144764
So morality is just mob rule by the most vicious mob.

>>18143526 (OP)
In theory? Human rights. In practice? Human emotions.

>>18143526 (OP)
Vibes

>>18143596
>Without god, "don't murder" is just a feeling.
Even the morality of the Bible is determined by the feelings of the readers. Slavery, marital rape, and genocides, for example. The writers of the Bible would disagree morally with Modern Christians in a lot of different ways.

>>18145603
Disagreement doesn't imply it's feelings-driven.

>>18143596
God is subjective.

>>18145606
Describe how disagreement on cases of "don't murder" in secular settings differ with cases of disagreements of "don't enslave or commit marital rape" in the Christian setting. Why is one "feelings" based and not the other? They both rely on prioritizing a different set of premises. How is the manner in which the secular and Christian moralities decide on these premises any different? You can't say God or the Bible because this doesn't address the disagreements in Christianity.

>>18145603
Where does the Bible condone slavery, rape, or genocide?

>>18143526 (OP)
doggos are always good bois except for shitbulls that need to be euthanized on sight

>>18145935
Nta but my favourite fun fact is that according to the Bible, the royal Davidic line only exists because god got mad at Saul for engaging in only a partial genocide rather than a complete one.

>>18143634
kek that's true
gaytheists will never admit it but morality in the civilized world is based on Christianity

>>18145963
>morality in the civilized world is based on Christianity
Greek philosophy actually. For example, Christian anti-slavery arguments only were formulated under Greek philosophical frameworks, which many other Christians disagreed with until it became the popular stance at a time where the concept of human rights was coincidently popular as well.

>>18145975
Didn't Greeks own slaves?

>>18145983
Yes. Ancient Greek societies are not a monolith where everyone agrees. Who could've guessed?

Christianity was only anti slavery when anti monarchy movements were starting to spread all over Europe. sorry you are on the wrong side of history once again.

>>18145988
Why didn't the Greeks outlaw slavery if it was so easy?

>>18146007
I think you're misunderstanding.
Ancient Greek societies did not all agree with the philosophers. Obviously. They're not a monolith.

>>18146021
Which Greek philosophers wanted to outlaw slavery?

>>18146025
Greek philosophical frameworks were used to create anti-slavery arguments. From the sources we have, most ancient Greek philosophers don't ever make this conclusion. Dio Chrysostom is one who does, citing the Stoics and Diogenes. Greek philosophical ideas paved the way for future philosophies to create human rights arguments and allow reinterpretation of the Bible based on such frameworks. That's why Christians back then had slavery while nowadays are completely against them.

>>18146025
Dio Chrysostom might be your boy.
Other philosophers pointed out that slavery was not a natural state, but allowed that servitude could be meted out as a punishment or for payment of debts (this was the 'obed system in the Bible).

Whats the basis for christian morality? Christians have done evil shit in the name of righteousness for a long ass time.

>>18146045
All Christians back then owned slaves? They were a monolith?

>>18146062
No. The ones who could likely did, with some exception from individual to individual as is the case with practically any society. You already know that.

>>18145711
Too much think anon. This is a spam thread.

>>18145935
>Slavery
Picrel. Ironically the Bible was both used to justify and oppose slavery in the US.
>Rape
When talking about Assyria in Isaiah
>Howl ye; for the day of the Lord is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.
...
>15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
>16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.
I guess you could say "God is warning the assyrians", but isn't actually slaughtering them himself (or commanding others to do it in his name) but later, after the destruction is done
>And the nations will take them and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel will possess the nations[a] as male and female slaves in the Lord’s land
>genocide
God commands the Israelites to conduct genocide against the canaanites and performs a miracle (toppling their city's walls) to accomplish this
>Joshua said unto the people, Shout; for the Lord hath given you the city.
...
>So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.
>21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword

>>18143526 (OP)
Not having low IQ. The low IQ people need to be told by sky daddy not to act like a retard.

>>18143526 (OP)
consent.

prove me wrong.

>>18143533
how is that a paradox, tranny?

>>18143557
doesn't make sense

>>18143526 (OP)
survival of the people I care about

>>18146700
that is a thinly veiled statement of "might makes right". try again.

Here is some statistics on black cock spam, the favorite activity of his, a retard board used by Americans.
Desuarchive results for "Africa iq" by year period Jan 1-nov 1:
2025: 127
2024: 198
2022: 335
As you can see this websites absolutely insatiable appetite for black cock has run into a challenge of the users being retards and dying of meth.
It's been falling at a consistent rate of 68 posts per year. At this rate the amount hits zero in 2027.
His is a massively retarded board and cannot stop spamming black cock threads daily.

>>18146704
t. spammer

>>18146702
what is wrong with that, mr. globohomo?

>>18146726
A fair question. What is "is"? This thread is really getting deep.

>>18146739
Yes, lets pilpul till morning, dear model.

>>18146739
Yes, lets pilpul till morning, dear mohel.

>>18146744
That is (debatably) what OP has been doing all thread. Do you want to debate it?

>>18143526 (OP)
Power.

utilitarianism

>>18147602
>>18148763
DURRR LE BUMP
fuck off you subhuman