Is Secular Moral based Laws ANY different then Theology Moral based Laws?

[Lewkowski]

For example is there any functional difference between these types of laws?

"God wants us to take care of the poor, so we will have welfare."

"Its the right thing to do to take care of the poor, so we will have welfare."

Each argument is based on morality. Each argument justifies the forced acquisition of money from one group and gives it to another based on their view of morality. Are they any different?

[GGT]

Learn to spell before you ask fur a debate on morels.

[Lewkowski]

Learn to spell before you ask fur a debate on morels.

Nice dodge. Care to actually have a debate and discussion on the issue? You know the name of this sub forum?

[Aimless]

The full quote:

"God wants us to take care of the poor, therefore it's the right thing to do to take care of the poor, so we will have welfare."

Each argument is based on morality

Is that a problem? The great difference is that God's authority is suspect, much more so than the foundations of most secular systems.

[Lewkowski]

The full quote:

"God wants us to take care of the poor, therefore it's the right thing to do to take care of the poor, so we will have welfare."



Is that a problem? The great difference is that God's authority is suspect, much more so than the foundations of most secular systems.

So the argument is that its OK to have religious based laws as long as your religion doesn't include God?

[Aimless]

So the argument is that its OK to have religious based laws as long as your religion doesn't include God?

Hang on, what exactly is your definition of a religion??

[Lewkowski]

Hang on, what exactly is your definition of a religion??

"a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"

To define religion narrowly to theistic beliefs would make certain beliefs that are considered a religion today not part of that definition.

[Illusions]

Secular "morality" can be based upon objectively measured, projected, or assumed benefits to society when crafting laws. For instance, do you eat food because its what God wants, because its moral, or "the right thing to do" or because if you don't eat food you're going to slowly suffer through the pains of starvation before finally dieing? What about buying a car? Taking out a life insurance policy? Going to the doctor when you're injured? Implementing a welfare program for those in need of assistance?

Your issue here is that you're assuming everyone else is operating on the same low level of thinking, and that they just want the US to have a series of welfare programs because "its the right thing to do" and not because its beneficial to society overall in an objective manner.

[Lewkowski]

Secular "morality" can be based upon objectively measured, projected, or assumed benefits to society when crafting laws. For instance, do you eat food because its what God wants, because its moral, or "the right thing to do" or because if you don't eat food you're going to slowly suffer through the pains of starvation before finally dieing? What about buying a car? Taking out a life insurance policy? Going to the doctor when you're injured? Implementing a welfare program for those in need of assistance?

Your issue here is that you're assuming everyone else is operating on the same low level of thinking, and that they just want the US to have a series of welfare programs because "its the right thing to do" and not because its beneficial to society overall in an objective manner.

If it benefited society to kill babies in China would you be for it? Or would you have serious moral issues with that. And if you have serious moral issues with it and those moral issues dictate your policy making... what's the difference?

[Loki]

If it benefited society to kill babies in China would you be for it? Or would you have serious moral issues with that. And if you have serious moral issues with it and those moral issues dictate your policy making... what's the difference?

Who do you trust to make better decisions for society, 51% of the US population, the Pope, or Rev. Falwell?

Uh so if 51% of people believe in X religious doctrine it becomes the morality of the people, thereby making it secular morality? What are you talking about?

Secular morality is derived from the people, while religious morality is derived from a holy text (or more accurately, the interpretation of that text by religious elites). So yes, if a majority of the people believe that they should be ruled by religious law as interpreted by their religious leaders, then secular law and religious law would be identical.

[Lewkowski]

Secular morality is derived from the people, while religious morality is derived from a holy text (or more accurately, the interpretation of that text by religious elites). So yes, if a majority of the people believe that they should be ruled by religious law as interpreted by their religious leaders, then secular law and religious law would be identical.

So your definition of secular belief and law allows for the possibility of fully religious law? Boggle? If 51% of Muslims in X country in the middle east wanted to live under Shahira law you would call it secular morality?

So the distinction between secular moral law and theological moral law is democracy? That seems rather absurd.

[Loki]

So your definition of secular belief and law allows for the possibility of fully religious law? Boggle? If 51% of Muslims in X country in the middle east wanted to live under Shahira law you would call it secular morality?

So the distinction between secular moral law and theological moral law is democracy? That seems rather absurd.

Yes. The primary difference being that those people can always chance their minds, while a holy text is unlikely to ever be changed.

I fail to see what's so absurd. A monarchy is when a country is ruled by an unelected king. People in a democracy can elect a leader for life if they so choose. Does that mean the country stops being a democracy?

[Aimless]

If it benefited society to kill babies in China would you be for it? Or would you have serious moral issues with that. And if you have serious moral issues with it and those moral issues dictate your policy making... what's the difference?

On a scale of badness which is worse, killing babies or not paying for parking?

[Lewkowski]

On a scale of badness which is worse, killing babies or not paying for parking?

Killing babies. If my reasoning is that God said thou shalt not kill - is this any different then an atheist saying its wrong because we are all human? Its different in the details but overall from a policy prescriptive they are both moral positions that we are basing public policy on.

[Aimless]

Killing babies. If my reasoning is that God said thou shalt not kill - is this any different then an atheist saying its wrong because we are all human? Its different in the details but overall from a policy prescriptive they are both moral positions that we are basing public policy on.

If God had said, "Thou must kill these cute babies," would you do it? Would you believe it to be the right thing to do? Is it possible in principle for God to do or to require an act that is generally considered to be evil?

[Illusions]

If it benefited society to kill babies in China would you be for it? Or would you have serious moral issues with that. And if you have serious moral issues with it and those moral issues dictate your policy making... what's the difference?

There are different systems of secular thought, and they don't all agree. If killing babies in China benefited society that might be utilitarian, but I can also have a secular view that conflicts, that it would also be poor for society to take away another person(s) rights.

[Lewkowski]

There are different systems of secular thought, and they don't all agree. If killing babies in China benefited society that might be utilitarian, but I can also have a secular view that conflicts, that it would also be poor for society to take away another person(s) rights.

Of course there are different secular schools of thought that doesn't change the fact that people are opposed to government doing "immoral" things despite it being possibly against the best interests of society on an objective level. By many people's view overcrowding causes great hardship and social problems. Having less children in an over populated country is probably a good thing for the whole of society. But people are still going to be against it for moral reasons. Why is the moral reasoning of "it feels wrong" somehow inherently superior to the moral reasoning of "God doesn't like it." And why should government be attacked for supporting one way of coming to the moral conclusion but not the other?

[Illusions]

But people are still going to be against it for moral reasons.

People are also still going to cross roads without looking, stick forks in electrical sockets, try to clear a stuck garbage disposal while its still on with their hands, and a slew of other really poorly thought out stupid crap. I think this is more indicative of people in general than commentary on whether secular morals or religious morals should govern law making.

Why is the moral reasoning of "it feels wrong" somehow inherently superior to the moral reasoning of "God doesn't like it." And why should government be attacked for supporting one way of coming to the moral conclusion but not the other?

They're both shit reasons. "It feels wrong" while secular reasoning, is not good reasoning.

[Loki]

Secular morality reflects the morality of the people. Religious morality reflects the morality of the top religious officials.

[Lewkowski]

Secular morality reflects the morality of the people. Religious morality reflects the morality of the top religious officials.

Uh so if 51% of people believe in X religious doctrine it becomes the morality of the people, thereby making it secular morality? What are you talking about?

[LittleFuzzy]

Secular morality reflects the morality of the people. Religious morality reflects the morality of the top religious officials.

Yeah, and an despot really does have absolute power

[ar81]

Secular morality reflects the morality of the people. Religious morality reflects the morality of the top religious officials.

If there are no top secular officials, each individual has a different set of laws, the result is anarchy. Everyone is a top official. A criminal does not think that he is doing wrong.

Secular law is reflects the morality of the top secular officials. Nazism has a secular morality.

Secular "morality" can be based upon objectively measured, projected, or assumed benefits to society when crafting laws. For instance, do you eat food because its what God wants, because its moral, or "the right thing to do" or because if you don't eat food you're going to slowly suffer through the pains of starvation before finally dieing? What about buying a car? Taking out a life insurance policy? Going to the doctor when you're injured? Implementing a welfare program for those in need of assistance?

Secular "morality" can also be based upon subjectively measured, projected, or assumed benefits for someone when crafting laws. For instance, do you eat food because its what you want, or "the right to kill an enemy". Secular morality is subject to and defined by individual desire, which may not be the best for society, or even the individual.

Religious morality sets a boundary between good and evil. When that line is erased, convenience is what determines what is good or bad, so good or bad lose all meaning. Normally, secular morality brings ego reasons (not morality) where people think in terms "I am always the good guy" or just Lloyd Blankfein said "I'm doing God's work" (I am God).

[Loki]

And yet divorce (let alone abortion) was banned in much of Latin America until fairly recently thanks to the lovely Catholic Church.

[Lebanese Dragon]

Learn to spell before you ask fur a debate on morels.

Damn, GGT spitting some venom right off the bat. You'd think with that annoying approach others have, such as loki from time to time, you'd realize how ineffective and rude it is.

I think ultimately as a society we will make no laws that command us to do immoral acts, not ones that force us to do moral ones. The law "You must aid the poor" is fine. The law "you may or may not aid the poor." is fine. However the law, "you cannot aid the poor" is morally not okay to have.

This is why I take issue with many of your laws lewk that command us to do immoral things.

[Steely Glint]

There's no functional difference between the two examples you gave, Lewkowsk, because they say exactly the same thing. But there is a fundemental functional difference between the two systems of thought in that they come to their conclusions in a very different way. But that's not what this thread is really about is it?

[Lewkowski]

There's no functional difference between the two examples you gave, Lewkowsk, because they say exactly the same thing. But there is a fundemental functional difference between the two systems of thought in that they come to their conclusions in a very different way. But that's not what this thread is really about is it?

The hypocrisy of those who support laws founded on morality "independent" of religion but despise laws founded on morality based on religion. It really boils down to "I don't believe in X therefore X is bad. I believe in Y and therefore Y is good." I'm not arrogant enough to suggest that everyone be forced to worship my God at the point of the gun however there are plenty of people on this board that are perfectly OK with forcing people to give up the fruits of their labor at the point of a gun because of their morality. Hypocrisy of the worst kind.

[Timbuk2]

however there are plenty of people on this board that are perfectly OK with forcing people to give up the fruits of their labor at the point of a gun because of their morality. Hypocrisy of the worst kind.

Care to qualify that?

[Nessus]

Care to qualify that?

It's Freeper talk for taxation, basically

[Lebanese Dragon]

Here's my ideal society:

1. They make laws that only restrict actions that violate the moral rights of others (as defined by Christian values).

The society that i still find morally acceptable but not Ideal:

2. A society which allows any law to be created except ones that violates others rights.

The differnece being society 2 could have a law like every sunday everyone has to stand on their right leg for one hour (as long as it passed democratically), wherease society 1 could make no such law. I still find them both morally fine socieities though.

Morality is relative. There is a vast array of examples of morality evolving over time, so it's meaningless to talk about as though its an absolute.

If morality is relative then there is no morality, it's as simple as that. Morality turns into set of prefrences and not some significant moral law. It's only significant if you want it to be. Two people can have contradictory views and both be right. So there is no moral law, or anything, it's just a matter of prefrences. And prefrences don't create right or wrong, they don't create moral law, they create something just called law. Which doesn't say whether it's right or wrong, simple that if you do X then Y happens, it's based on the values of the populace.

The thing the church and other religions try to do, is mold the people to their, what they call, absolute values, and not vice versa.

Even if morality changes over time doesn't mean there is not an absolute morality, to be perfectly clear, you can easily argue we are heading to the "absolute morality" and the reason our morality changes is simply because we're more aware, and are hammering out our definitions. If someone proved fetus at 2 months is alive that would affect our abortion laws. It can also simply be a matter of understanding.

[Lewkowski]

Care to qualify that?

I didn't say everyone I said plenty of people on the board... all taxation (except when folks voluntarily pay more) is done at the point of the gun.