>Secular morality

>Secular morality

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >American history

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Kant proved definitely you don't need religion to have a coherent moral framework.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is it moral to lie to save the life of your family?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Considering the guiding principle of stealing can't be applied universally, no. Whether or not you agree with that is irrelevant. Kant still cultivated an internally consistent framework for approaching morality that doesn't necessitate faith in some existential figurehead, despite him being a devout Christian himself. That means that "secular morality" is just as, if not more, valid as any other kind.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Is it moral to lie to save the life of your family?
          >no
          Secular morality, everyone.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure only the Quran permits its followers to lie out of self-preservation. The Judeo-Christian Old Testament makes it pretty clear lying is always wrong regardless of the circumstances:
            >Leviticus 19:11: "You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another"
            So why is it an issue with Kant's secular morality but not the Bible's religious variety?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What makes you think I'm religious? Religious morality is a joke, but secular morality is a bad joke.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The Judeo-Christian Old Testament makes it pretty clear lying is always wrong regardless of the circumstances:
            Pretty sure somewhere in the Thora is ok for israelite to lie to non israelite. I am sure It's ok to forget that israelite ownes to non israelite money if non israelite doesn't ask about this debt.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >The Judeo-Christian Old Testament makes it pretty clear lying is always wrong regardless of the circumstances
            No it doesn't lol. God rewarded the midwives for lying to Pharaoh to save Israelite babies at the beginning of Exodus, to name one example.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Then the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, “When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live.” But the midwives feared God and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live. So the king of Egypt called the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this, and let the male children live?” The midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them.” So God dealt well with the midwives. And the people multiplied and grew very strong. And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families. Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, “Every son that is born to the Hebrews you shall cast into the Nile, but you shall let every daughter live.”

            Nowhere does it say that the midwives lied to the Pharaoh.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Is it moral to save the life of your mother who was condemned to death for picking up a stick on a Saturday? Before answering, consider that the Bible prescribes the death penalty for heresy.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            See:

            What makes you think I'm religious? Religious morality is a joke, but secular morality is a bad joke.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            Also, even if I were religious, how the frick would that in any way change the fact that Kantian ethics are moronic for morally condemning someone for lying to save their family?

            So if you're against religious ethics AND secular ethics, do you just detest any form of ethics that isn't your own?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There are no morals or ethics, only people who are honest about what they want and those who are dishonest and try to obfuscate their desires under the veil of "morality".

            But I'll tell you this, religious morals would be superior IF God existed, unfortunately he doesn't.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Morals and ethics are evolutionarily selected for because they improve group fitness even when they are detrimental to individual fitness, a rational person can also come to the conclusion that certain actions create dispersed benefit to society at large and are therefore often good energy investments.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            See:[...]

            Also, even if I were religious, how the frick would that in any way change the fact that Kantian ethics are moronic for morally condemning someone for lying to save their family?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >how the frick would that in any way change the fact that Kantian ethics are moronic for morally condemning someone for lying to save their family?
            It would change that by condoning the most moronic moral system in existence, you're a moron.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Kant still cultivated an internally consistent framework for approaching morality that doesn't necessitate faith in some existential figurehead
          It's still requires a leap of faith in order to accept the categorical imperative. Kant utterly failed in producing an external reason to adopt it, his morality can be all the consistent you want, but that has no bearing on its truthfulness, it depends on the good will of people to find it agreeable enough to subscribe to it (which lucky for him, most people in the Western world do). There is absolutely no reason for an individual person to subscribe to nebulous moral laws, no matter how consistent they are, without a reason. At least religious morality has the advantage of coming from a higher source, but Kant's system doesn't even have that, it completely relies on the person accepting it at face value. Here's a thought experiment:

          Imagine that you're given a once in a lifetime opportunity, you're given a box with a big red button, you're given the choice to press it, if you do, you'll immediately receive one billion dollars in your bank account, completely untraceable, nobody will ask you where the money came from, while at the same time, a hundred people completely at random will be killed directly as a cause of you pressing the button, but nobody will ever be able to trace those deaths to you. Under these circumstances, why should anyone give a care about the categorical impertaive?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Exactly, people don’t understand this. It doesn’t matter how rational or consistent or anything else it may seem; ANY attempt at trying to demonstrate an objective system of morality without an objective basis such as God will have no bearing on truth at all. Most atheists are just sheep and follow the morality of their time thinking they’re one of the only generations to recognize and condemn the evils of the past generations! Lmao

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I can't follow an objective moral system unless there's a carrot and stick offered by an existential authority
            That sounds more like a "you" problem than Kant's. Have you considered the possibility you're a sociopath? Or at the very least, at the same moral stage of development as a literal toddler?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You and your christcuck savior Kant can continue to cope. Nietzsche and I will be sociopaths and on the moral stage of development as a toddler. Who gives a shit about psychology and this moron Kohlberg, it’s all BS

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You've clearly never actually read Nietzsche before or you would've come across his positive ethical philosophy. He in no way ever argued that morality needn't exist, he just viewed its application differently.

            You should really read these authors before discussing them.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Did he critique the idea of objective morality? Yes or no?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >without an objective basis such as God
            Why is God an objective basis in the first place?
            Some powerful figure simply saying what is right and wrong doesn't make it so. What if God misleads you?

            >"but God is all good!"
            What if he was misleading you even when he said that?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What if he was misleading you even when he said that?
            The he wouldn't be God.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How would you know? All you have is a sensation of something incredibly powerful.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            We can never know God fully, we have to trust Him at some point.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What God again? There are thousands of them.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong, there's only One.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >objective basis such as God
            >tells you to kill your son as a prank

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're creating a false ontology in which there are moral things, valuable things, and some things which are both, neither, or a mixture of the two.
            Your hypothetical rests upon a conundrum over why one should choose a moral thing instead of a valuable thing.
            But this is poorly formed from the start, because moral frameworks define value in terms of how moral something is.
            Your hypothetical then presupposes the existence of a moral system with which you're evaluating the value of following Kant's system or a system of self enrichment.
            The conundrum is thus illusory. You have already determined what is valuable to you and the choice of Kant or self enrichment comes down to whichever system more closely aligns with the one you have necessarily constructed to ask the question.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Kant still cultivated an internally consistent framework for approaching morality
          Literally anyone can do that, moron. I can say "the most moral course of action is that which benefits the local trout population" and I have a morally consistent framework, all that's left is to determine what's best for trout in a practical sense.
          The difficult part is an internally consistent secular framework that actually makes sense and doesn't instantly lead to moronic conclusions like "it's immoral to lie to save someone's life"

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Most religious moral frameworks have the same problem. See

            Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure only the Quran permits its followers to lie out of self-preservation. The Judeo-Christian Old Testament makes it pretty clear lying is always wrong regardless of the circumstances:
            >Leviticus 19:11: "You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another"
            So why is it an issue with Kant's secular morality but not the Bible's religious variety?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes. Also to steal a loaf of bread and to covet your wife and mom.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        2 views into this
        >Saving your family is always moral, so yes
        >In an absolute sense, it's always immoral to lie about anything, but then again, why do human being have to be moral at all times?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >In an absolute sense, it's always immoral to lie about anything, but then again, why do human being have to be moral at all times?
          Because highlighting exceptions where bad behavior becomes morally permissible necessarily implies that morality is relative - which begs the question as to how any moral framework is ever truly rational.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >any moral framework being rational
            If you are a fundamental deist of various kinds, don't you believe that morals and values derive from God(s) and thus don't have to be what we perceive to be rational/practical?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not a fundamental deist and even though Kant was his philosophy doesn't necessitate God(s) to justify itself. The principle of universal applicability fills that void.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        According to Christianity it is
        >Abandon your family to follow me
        >No you can’t bury your dead father before deciding to follow me leave his body to rot and follow me now

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Kant proved definitely you don't need religion to have a coherent moral framework.
      How?
      I'm just curious how you understand it.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Kant's ethical system relies on a principle of universal applicability. That means an act is only good if it's good in every applicable context. This leads to some issues in tricky morally grey situations, like this anon highlights

        https://i.imgur.com/A6eYZvq.gif

        Is it moral to lie to save the life of your family?

        , but that doesn't mean it isn't internally consistent in a way that, frankly, even hallowed religious texts like the Bible, Quran, Tanach, etc. just aren't.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >That means an act is only good if it's good in every applicable context
          Does Kant think all lying is the same "kind of act" just because we use the same word for it? 'Lying'
          That's so moronic.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nobody can prove an objective moral system in an atheistic worldview. There’s simply no basis

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Kant did. That's why he's still remembered today.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          His whole point was morality is “treat others how you want to be treated,” yeah? Why in the world should I care what he thought morality was? There is no objective basis for any such reasoning lol, it’s not rational

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            See

            Kant's ethical system relies on a principle of universal applicability. That means an act is only good if it's good in every applicable context. This leads to some issues in tricky morally grey situations, like this anon highlights [...], but that doesn't mean it isn't internally consistent in a way that, frankly, even hallowed religious texts like the Bible, Quran, Tanach, etc. just aren't.

            What you're describing is just the Golden Rule, which is a massive oversimplification of Kantian ethics.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Bible's whole point is "do what god says", yeah? Why in the world should I care what God thinks morality is? There is no objective basis for any such reasoning lol, it's not rational

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There is no objective basis for any such reasoning lol, it's not rational
            Ultimate appeal to authority argument. Some people are too stupid to have reasoning beyond false but simple arguments like appeal to authority so in their mind appeal to a absolute authority is absolute argument. In this way it's very logical.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What's wrong with secular morality?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He's just fuming about the other thread.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Kantian ethics are moronic because they try to impose some sort of universal morality to a version of the universe without an universal singular experience
    taking the example from above, chiding someone for lying to save their family's lives is pretty moronic by that metric, as the concerned agent has no true reason to be chided to begin with, as he would correctly infer that the chider interpreted the situation he was tasked to solve as a no-win one ad-hoc to its resolution; meanwhile, at the time, the concerned agent clearly discerned the path in which every actor was left better off (the family for being saved, the concerned agent having preserved his family and his moral integrity by both interfering and not allowing lives to be squandered, the agent lied-to, that will continue his action, following his own moral ethics undisturbed)
    The lie is irrelevant here. Enter the universal observer-judge, however, and everything changes; however, kantian ethics being driven by a need to justify secular ethics, this obviously means that this particular argument is thrown out the window.
    Secular ethics need something else than absolute axioms in order to operate, no matter what Kant claims

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Secular ethics need something else than absolute axioms in order to operate
      Agreed.
      Authoritarian government it is.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >morality arguments all day every day
    Why? Can’t you come up with something better? You don’t convert any atheists with this discussion. All you do is ignore any and all arguments that go against you and shit up this board even moreso than it already is

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >You don’t convert any atheists with this discussion.
      It laids bare their moral bankruptcy though.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Kek, no it doesn’t, nobody follows any morality, not even Moses. You guys sound like Covid Karens.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous
          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >wear the mask chi’s
            >covid is real
            >you don’t want to admit it so you can get away with not wearing a mask

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >chud*

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >It laids bare their moral bankruptcy though.
        How?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          By showing that they're utterly incapable of producing any functioning moral system. Centuries and they haven't even been able to get over the is/ought problem.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What does a moral system need to have in order to be functioning?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It needs to be able to cause the irresestible impetus to follow said moral system.

            I.e. why should I subscribe to this particular moral system and not any other.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Should it be built upon lies? Fake promises and empty threats of heaven and hell.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Should it be built upon lies?
            Where did I say that?
            >Fake promises and empty threats of heaven and hell.
            Presupposing much?
            >Doesn't that mean that religious moral systems are dysfunctional because it is not irresistible to non-believers and even among the believers sin is frequent?
            Religions obviusly proclaim to be correct, that their threats of eternal damnation are not unsubstantiated, and that non-believers are ignoring the truth.
            >A mix of it appealing to your values
            1. Why do you assume that the person in question has any values to begin with?
            2. What if the values they hold are in direct contradiction with the moral system you're offering to them? How would you make them change those values for the sake of your moral system? I mean when Christians do it it's because otherwise you're going to Hell, what do you have?
            >and because you think it will lead to a better society or better outcomes
            What makes you think the person believes this? Or to put it in another way, what could you argue to overcome someone's apathy towards your moral system? Again in the case of Christianity, they have the threat of Hell.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Punishment and Reward is for animals.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wholesome as frick.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Aren't we animals?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Christians seem to be.

            Wholesome as frick.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >what could you argue to overcome someone's apathy
            "Hey have you ever noticed that buttholes who steal and lie end up stuck in communities of thieves and liars? That seems to happen a lot, and nice people seem to attract other nice people."
            And if they end up being a dickhole then I stop interacting with them, proving my point. As enough people do this the buttholes get quarantined with other buttholes and collaboration between well intentioned people increases

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >"Hey have you ever noticed that buttholes who steal and lie end up stuck in communities of thieves and liars?
            lol no. Tons of buttholes who steal and lie get away with shit all the time.
            >That seems to happen a lot, and nice people seem to attract other nice people."
            lol no. Plenty of "nice people" get the shit kicked out of them.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It needs to be able to cause the irresestible impetus to follow said moral system.
            Doesn't that mean that religious moral systems are dysfunctional because it is not irresistible to non-believers and even among the believers sin is frequent?
            >I.e. why should I subscribe to this particular moral system and not any other.
            A mix of it appealing to your values and because you think it will lead to a better society or better outcomes

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Slavery and foreskins.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it needs to import Black folk into my country
            OK Tyrone.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous
      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Here is theists moral bankruptcy
        https://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/07/living/sixties-women-5-things/index.html
        Explain from your theist moral position should women be able to get credit card without husbands permission or not. You can't. And you use atheists morals to solve all questions posted in the link above.

        P.S. Islam is not morality bankrupt, their moral systems certainly work. But Christian morals don't.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Conversion isn't always a one-step pseudo-mystical revelation, though
      plenty of people historically converted to opposite viewpoints after being exposed to the failings of their own, following successive expositions to those flaws.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Atheists threads are increasing because you guys are moronic.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Atheists threads are increasing because you guys are moronic.
          truly a riveting position, I am now an atheist, God is dead

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Exactly, the position is not being associated with morons.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            too bad you're being reminded you're associated with one every time you look into a mirror

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Secular.

    It's still religious. They've just replaced the old gods with new ones.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >No, no, guys, we are le cultural Christians

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >jews building the temple before israelitesus comes

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the only real morality. religious "morality" is just fear of a punishment

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    God not real, though
    all morality is secular

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >christian values

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's funny how hard Western societies latch on to the israeli concept of morality, when the israelites have long abandoned it.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is there a system of results based morality? Action based morality will inevitably have flaws because all the exceptions you have to make like "lying is ok if it's to save people" and "killing is okay if it's in self defense"
    Prescribing a moral vector to lying is silly. It's about what the lying causes.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Kantchad completely buckbroke the larpers itt

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Empathy is the true morality.
    The rest is compulsory rules for psychopaths

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So your morality on goes so far as to whom you're empathetic towards? Creepy.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >anon only feels empathy towards his mom and his one irl friend
        >thinks other people are also like that and thus can't imagine empathy being the bedrock of morality
        wew lad

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No one feels empathy for all people, meaning that if you ground your morality in your empathy, there will be some people to whom you'll always be immoral towards.
          >anon only feels empathy towards his mom and his one irl friend
          That would actually be you, anon. I don't base my morality on who I'm empathetic towards.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            how did god get you to not rape and slaughter orphans?
            for me it's just that I'm empathetic towards them, as a functional human idk

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >how did god get you to not rape and slaughter orphans?
            By commanding me to love others as I love myself and do unto others as I would have do unto me.
            >for me it's just that I'm empathetic towards them
            What about the people you're not empathetic towards?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What about the people you're not empathetic towards?
            Like your mother ? Easy, I rape her in front of you

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Empathy, everyone.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Black person, humans can exhibit even interspecies empathy. That's why vegans exist.
            The only reason we need a boogeyman skydaddy is because there is the opposite side of that spectrum, but they don't give a shit about God anyway. In fact, psychos even weaponize God for commiting otherwise unjustifiable atrocities.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Black person, humans can exhibit even interspecies empathy. That's why vegans exist.
            You mean the psychos that care more about animals than humans? Very empathetic.
            > In fact, psychos even weaponize God for commiting otherwise unjustifiable atrocities.
            So people who don't even submit to God, got it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You mean the psychos that care more about animals than humans? Very empathetic.
            >Caring about other animals equals not caring about human animals
            Nice false dichotomy, tryhard
            >So people who don't even submit to God, got it.
            They vocally do, despite the fact that everybody knows they are soviet glowies

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Caring about other animals equals not caring about human animals
            In the case of vegans, yes.
            >They vocally do
            But actually don't. Jesus specifically spoke against those kind of people.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >In the case of vegans, yes.
            Elaborate.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Vegans are insane. Simple.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            You see what I mean? All it takes to throw away your supposed sense of morality is for someone to get on your bad side and that's it.
            "Empathy is the foundation of morality" my ass.

            can't handle bantz now can you

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You see what I mean? All it takes to throw away your supposed sense of morality is for someone to get on your bad side and that's it.
            "Empathy is the foundation of morality" my ass.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What about the people you're not empathetic towards?
            What about the book of Thomas

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You mean the "Gospel" of Thomas? What does a false gospel have got to do with this?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >as a functional human idk
            Psychopaths are perfetly capable of functioning in society.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The only reason people follow rules is because they don't want to go to Hell when they die.
    >Even though there's no actual punishment for sins since everything can be forgiven in Christianity.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Christian morality
    >No consistent themese whatsoever among people who claim to follow such an ideology
    Really it’s more just cultural morality borne of countless different factors, and for the West Christianity is only a very tiny aspect.

  19. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Abrahamic morality

  20. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Sunday roast? For me, it's the feet.

  21. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >dude I'm just right because of my feelings yo!

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      We only care about God's feelings around here...

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *