The Dangers of Secularism

You've introduced a very thorny problem, Rock4JC, which Holmes can address probably more intelligently than me, but I will say this: You are right in the sense that secular morality is ungrounded, since it is based on no absolute.So what happens is that we continually beg the question in this matter of whether a given action is right or wrong. Should I kill this person? NO, you should not. Why not? It's not right. Why isn't it right? It's not right to take another life. Why not? Because you wouldn't want somebody to take your life. So who cares? Nobody's taking my life. But you should care. Why should I care? Because it's not right not to care. Why not? etc., etc.

How about the following?We can say that humans are endowed with moral intuition or what we can call the faculty for moral reasoning just as we have a faculty for mathematical reasoning. We intuit that 2 + 2= 4. Now when we examine this proposition, we realize that it is merely a definition, or even a tautology. We are just saying that something is something else, but at bottom it's the same proposition as 4=4, a tautology. Nonetheless, these mathematical definitions are very useful, and 2 + 2=4 is an absolute, true anywhere, anytime, for anybody.We can say that moral reasoning produces intuitive propositions which are on a level with mathematical reasoning. So we intuit, "Thou shalt not commit murder." If we analyze this, we might ask, what do you mean by murder? I mean unjustifiable homicide. Ah, but what do you mean by "unjustifiable"? Well, I mean "for no good reason." So the proposition is really "It is wrong to kill for no good reason" or "it is wrong to kill wrongly." Just a tautology. But as we saw above with mathematical statements, these tautologies are very useful.How do we know that "It is wrong to kill wrongly" is an absolute? We know because everyone but a few cranks agree with it. We can dismiss the few cranks as not being endowed with the proper faculty for moral reasoning in the same way that some people are not endowed with the faculty for mathematical reasoning.One might say, but we still have not solved the problem of what "unjustifiable" means. But we don't have to solve that question. That will be solved on a case by case basis. It does not disturb our standing Absolute, "Thou shalt not commit murder." It remains as an absolute.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-17-2005 08:13 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-17-2005 08:20 AM

Thanks, Holmes. I figured you would tear it apart.

I would like to change my argument. I've decided that there are no "cranks." It's impossible.No one could disagree with the following rule: "If a homicide is unjustified, it is murder, and therefore absolutely wrong."There's our absolute rule.For consider: Suppose I kill someone. There are two ways I could feel about that: (1)what I did was justified and (2)what I did was wrong.In both cases, I am not outside the code. If I think what I did was wrong, then I am a believer in the code, even though I violated it. If I think it was justified, then I am still a believer in the code, because I think I did not violate it.Suppose there's a group who thinks that the only way to save life on Earth is to kill randomly many people, because there are too many people. All the people are using up the oxygen so fast that there is no way to save the human race and all other life on Earth except by killing a lot of people.Suppose they are wrong. Scientists have determined that we will survive and there are not too many people.Is this line of reasoning outside the code? (Notice a distinction between "violating" and being amoral) No, as long as they believe that the homicide is justified, they remain within the bounds of our Absolute rule. If they kill many people and find out later they were wrong, and feel guilty, they are within the code. They will feel guilty if they sincerely believed their mistaken theory, which is what we are assuming.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-17-2005 05:04 PM

Thanks, Holmes, for the thorough and, as always, superior reponse. Actually, I think the absolute rule I came up with is tautological in nature, as are all moral rules, because they lack an ultimate ground."If a killing is unjustified, it is murder, and therefore absolutely wrong" is just another way of saying "immoral killing is immoral."No one can logically disagree with the fact that immoral killing is immoral.The question is whether it means anything or not. But I would argue that "immoral killing is immoral" is to "4=4" as "If a killing is unjustified, it is murder, and therefore absolutely wrong" is to "2+2=4."Now we all know that "2+2=4" is far from meaningless, and this leads me to believe that the tautological moral rule is not meaningless.Where did the wrong come from? It came from our moral intuition. That's the only place it can come from, assuming no God. Building a secular moral structure is like building a house with no foundation. It just collapses UNLESS there is some hidden foundation in the very nature of definitional moral expressions. And perhaps there is.Obviously my Absolute is based on variable applications of the word "unjustified." "Justification" means to provide a good reason for some act performed. But in what sense "good reason"? Do we mean good in the sense of morally good? Can reasons be morally good or bad in the same way that acts can be morally good or bad?Let's take your example of the soldier in Iraq, which is rather complicated because we are dealing with various issues: the justness or unjustness of the war as a whole; the justness or unjustness of the tactical situation you speak of (location, weaponry); and the soldier's own views of both of the above.According to my rule, immoral killing is immoral. But whether a killing is immoral or not depends on the reason it is done. In my example, a group of people kill people randomly to save the human race. In your example, the soldier might kill people "randomly" (carelessly) to save his country. But his country does not need saving, and from your description of his state of mind it sounds like he knows this (if he did not know it, he would be innocent). So it is wrong for him to go through with the attack, if he knows that reasons for doing so are unjust. However, there are complications, such as the safety of his fellow soldiers. So one has to decide if the justness of protecting his fellow soldiers overrides the unjustness of the war as a whole. If he thinks it does override the unjustness of the war, then he is justified in performing the act. In my example, it was not wrong for the group of people to kill randomly because their cause was just, though mistaken.So we conclude that reasons for performing some act are moral and immoral just as acts themselves are. Our judgement of reasons is no different from our judgement of acts: both are intuitive.But what is this underlying foundation that makes a tautological moral statement meaningful? Perhaps it's in the idea of the conditonal: the situation of "if." IF the killing is unjustified, it must follow, as the night the day, that the act is immoral.The "conditional" doesn't exist except potentially and so does not apply to any particular reason or act. This is what makes it absolute. So no particular reason or act is either moral or immoral
in and of itself, but the combination of the two are always either moral, immoral, or neutral (not dealing with morality).This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-18-2005 03:10 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-18-2005 04:10 PM

Holmes, what I've been trying to argue for is an Absolute for a secular moral system, since without such the system collapses. It doesn't collapse in a practical sense, of course, only in a theoretical sense.An absolute in a secular system is obviously impossible unless you can move beyond specific acts (such as killing) and specific reasons for acts (serve my country) to some more general level.My motives are based upon the belief (without proof) that there really is a universal morality that will accomodate many different cultures. I feel that there are many similarities, for example, in the moral ideas of different ancient religions. There are differences in the details, of course, and these details are what often are most obvious. Some cultural traditions which we might find obnoxious in the act become a little less unreasonable when we investigate the reasons for them, the beliefs that created them-i.e, given this belief the reaons for the action, apart from the act itself, seems moral. But the similarities are not always apparent.So that suggests to me that there is a more general level upon which moral intuition operates, beyond particular acts and reasons.Perhaps it is a logical level, an empty form, into which we pour moral content, and because it is purely "formal," it is remindful of mathematical statements. So what would seem to be a tautology maybe is not a tautology ultimately, or is in some way meaningful.Taste is something subjective and intuition is not supposed to be, although our intuition is not pristine. The intuition is blunted and warped by our tribulations, just like our other faculties can be, but for most people (hopefully) remains reasonably intact. If our moral preferences are just that, just personal preferences, then of course there is no extra-general level of moral reasoning that one taps.I enjoyed this discussion.

I don't understand this (I'm referring not only to the post I'm responding to but to the thread generally).Can somebody give me a definition of "religion" by which we can lump under one category Fascism, Communism, nationalistic fervor, and hero worship--and call it "religion"?I look in my dictionary and I find that the primary definition is "the service or worship of God or the supernatural."Perhaps a secondary definition is being used?here's one: "scrupulous conformity"--but the dictionary says that definition is "archaic."finally we get to this: "a cause, principle, or system held to with ardor and faith."Is that the definition being used here? Isn't that rather vague? Couldn't any fervently held belief be called "religious" by that definition?Enlighten me, somebody.

Yes, I noticed you used the term (in an earlier post),"secular religion" when referring to Marxism.Considering I was thinking "secular" meant "not religious," I think you can see that the terms being used in such a way are rather confusing to me.I thought "secular" and "religious" were mutually exclusive.So in order to discuss this subject we have to figure out what "religion" means, or what we agree that it will mean, for the purposes of this discussion.You say that Marxism includes a belief in an "unrational supernatural
explanatary force." Do you agree that in order for a belief system to be a religion, it must believe in something supernatural, like a force or a being, and that this supernatural thing must not be merely an add-on but something that is a guide to life, either individually or in a communal sense?

I'm not sure that putting up some URL's, in itself, is an appropriate post on this forum, unless somebody asks you for them.But I will leave that up to the Admins.

Who or what are the Buddhists praying to?

Buddhism is complicated because there is a popular version and an educated version. The educated version might be described as psychological therapy rather than a religion, although even in this version you have concepts of the Absolute and soul. But perhaps Absolute just means reality and soul just means mind. The popular version is most definitely a religion, I think.

In that case, ProfessorR, give me a definition of "religion."

What I figured was that an experience is either psychological or religious. You can't have a "philosophical" experience.I'm familiar with Huxley's book. The perennial philosophy is mysticism.

Ifen it's been a long time since I read the book also. So I might be wrong.Most of your comments you've made in the last few posts I agree with, and your knowledge of Eastern "religions" is far above mine.But what I am trying to do here is pin down a definition of religion.Did not mean to be snippy.

"anomie"?Dictionary: a state of society in which normative standards of conduct are weak or lacking.I guess you mean that religious based societies would have very little anomie.Now that is interesting.A lack of normative standards would mean chaos, would it not?This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-22-2005 06:49 PM