Secular Morality

natural law does actually exist though.

here's a simple example

would you willingly drink a mercury potion that lowered your iq by 30 points, with no other effects?

of course you wouldn't. that's natural law. we might not understand it completely, but it does exist. and as time marches on, we recognizew ith more specificity, our specific biases within in.

How is that "natural law"? That's just looking at costs versus benefits.

>would you willingly drink a mercury potion that lowered your iq by 30 points, with no other effects?

Clearly you haven't lurked /d/. Bimbo and broification are actually a thing. There are people out there that would lower their IQs to serve their fetishes. And, there might also be people that honestly believe that being a bit dumber would make it easier for them to be happier, ignorance being bliss and all that.

There exists two moral codes. The morality of mankind, and the morality of god.
Whichever you choose to follow depends on how much faith you have for the human race

Some things to keep in mid during the choice:
Humanity will compromise morality to get to an ends (the ends justify the means)
Humanity will always seek vengeance, there is no mercy between men.

Where do you think that natural law comes from?

>a big game of pretend

That's EXACTLY what religion and "objective morality" are. They simply make unfounded assertions they claim are objective because of an unknowable unfalsifiable supernatural being. How can a religion claim to be objective when countless other religions exist that make the same claim, and all have an equal amount of evidence (zero)?

inb4 fedora, you started it

natural law flows from cost vs benefit, because natural law dictates the needs, sufficiencies, bottlenecks, of biological systems

those people wouldn't survive if their existence asn't supported by a vast state apparatus and you know it.

you can ignore death, but death won't ignore you. these people are dead in an ormal system. some of them can't even learn to read. they're dead.

Same goes for secular morality. Unfounded guesses at what is right and what is wrong.

extremely generally, natural law flows from the constraints, needs, and sufficiencies of cellular systems, which, in turn, are determined by molecular chemistry.

for example, you think of flesh and protein as being a biological bottleneck of human or animal systems? all of that comes down to a single element on the planet, which is nitrogen fixing.

large amounts of natural law and biological systems revolve around fucking nitrogen. just nitrogen.

on a cellular level one of hte bottlenecks revolves around the availability of certain types of ions.

these things are natural law.

where is the morality in that?

So let's say brain A and brain B exist. Brain A is 30 iq points dumber than brain B. But brain B consumes (30 iq)*c+1 more resources relevant to natural law, where c is a correction factor measured in some amoint of resource/(iq point). Under natural law, would brain B be obligated to swallow mercury?

it depends on the utility in harvesting extra resources granted by the extra 30 points of iq.

for most of human history, the bottleneck has been nitrogen and calorie restrictions on the brain.

humans have been getting smarter nonetheless. so under natural law, the iq points usually gets the edge, and outreproduces the low iq

I've described the situational constraints that frame the issue of starvation.

sometimes you have to decide who lives and dies. when yo make those decisions, you do it within the frame, or LAW, of natural law, to come to the conclusion you do.

it's descriptive. it's prescriptive in the sense that when you understand it, people USUALLY end up all deciding the same thng

>depends on the utility
Defined by who? The utility of the brain making use of its IQ or the utility of the society not feeling it's cohesion threatened by an outlier? Do you have an objective way of measuring?

All morality, whether secular or religious is based upon the desire for good things to happen and bads things to not happen. Religious morality say those things happen or don't happen based upon the will of supernatural beings, and if you're compliant with their will they might do or don't do what you would prefer. Secular morality say those things happen because humans do or don't do them and by following morality you can prevent humans from doing or not doing certain things.

Religious morality only seems special because people think that the rules are something special and above them.

smart question

in the short term, obviously a high iq is of dubious utility to an individual because he might be singled out or killed.

the long term should speak for itself, however.

what we see here though, is that the strongest pressure to lower iq is intra-species competition. in the long run, the basic mechanism of extropy is being able to notice and or percieve things. higher levels of perception ALWAYS increase the ability to increase extropy, and increasing extropy is impossible without increased perception. life and iq are a thermodynamic process, and iq is the intensification of the base process, inherently: because there is not a single situation where less perception on any level all the way down to cellular, increases the ability to gather resources.

there are mathematicians and physicists working to code this into proofs, but as you can imagine it's laborious work, but probably inevitable.

Question to the moralist atheists: how do you refute the position illustrated by Glaucon in Book II of Plato's Republic? Or don't you? If you don't, and instead accept what he said, then wherefore even call it "morality"?

>atheists pretend the universe doesnt have a rule set
And you fuckers say we're condescending. Now I know why we have a fedora meme, and you don't.

>there are morals in materialism

Because morality derives from the social contract and our instincts as tribal animals and not from religion.

>morality derives from the social contract and our instincts
lel

that's false

if it was true then helping old people would be morally bad as they are a burden on the tribe. as would be helping the weak and the poor. yet we see that as morally good things to do.

You don't seem to understand much about mammalian attachment. Dolphins live in groups--tribes, if you will--and while they are capable of cruelty, as has been well documented, they also help sick or injured group members swim and breathe. If tribal instincts were purely "survival of the fittest," that would not be the case.

Morality as a principle is very restrictive and opposes the animalistic instincts in human nature, thus it is not a natural possibility. If you reduce a man to the limits of nature you get simply an animal that can reason, but we are clearly more than that. And by the way, the social conducts of the dolphin example you posted are not a moral thing because it is motivated by interest and needs. Morality is not motivated by interest. The example of taking care of the poor and old is out of humanity, not because the society benefits from it.

user provided a good example and you're just plugging your ears. Dolphins care for those that would be a disadvantage to the society.
You can't simultaneously claim that dolphins have no morals AND that caring for burdens on a society is strictly derived from morals or "humanity."

also
>implying we aren't simply animals that can reason

>didn't read what I posted
>"you're just plugging your ears."
or perhaps you didn't understand what I wrote

>Dolphins care for those that would be a disadvantage to the society.
yes, but why? the answer is for the benefit of society. but as we have seen, morality isn't motivated by the benefit of society.

>"implying we aren't simply animals that can reason"
>be human
>do culture
>be animal
>0 (zero) culture

>the social conducts of the dolphin example you posted are not a moral thing because it is motivated by interest and needs
>caring for the sick
>in any way an interest or need
?????

>Could someone explain to me why most moral philosophers are moral realists despite most of them not being religious?

Could be that they think certain actions are by natural necessity associated as "bad", such as unjustified violence, or theft.

There literally is no society that has existed that have thought any of those behaviors are acceptable, so it's at least plausible that some moral rules are innate to being human.

so why do they do it then? what's the latest from the marine biologists

>implying culture isn't a product of tool-making and complex idea transmission (aka language) that arise from higher brain functions (aka reasoning)
>implying that if other animals had these reasoning skills they would still be unable to produce "culture"

You're trying to separate humans categorically from literally all other animals through some invisible "humanity" that endows us with morality

Try placing these 3 animals into 2 categories:
Humans
Lowland Gorillas
Tapeworms

I think the question more broadly refers to materialists and people with a general negative attitude towards metaphysics.

Whether a particular religion is true or not in a metaphysical sense, in any case a widespread true belief in it gives morality a solid base, while with modern materialistic conceptions there seem to be a constant contradiction of ideas, of having morality grounded in something but at the same time being hardcore materialist and thus wanting to reduce things to the material.

>falling for the materialists meme
wew
explain asceticism
great post

How does asceticism have anything to do with my point?
Also still haven't separated those animals

You haven't been able to define what "humanity" is and why it makes us different
inb4 circular reasoning
>human morals clearly show humanity!!!

Because they are social animals, as are humans, and "altruism" is part of our inherent (as in born out of our biology) behavior because it facilitates social behavior.
Are you acting dumb on purpose?

>in any case a widespread true belief in it gives morality a solid base

It really doesn't.

it's a phenonomenon that doesn't exist with animals

this whole culture, religion, spirituality, going against nature behavior and so on is the proof for the separation of humans and animals.

our morals often make us inefficient, which goes against the animalistic instincts that always strive for efficiency.

youtu.be/iwvlKjwbttA

>this is what materialists unironically believe.
but man is also an individualist.

it does by the simply fact that people truly believe it does, that's the difference with morality in the modern world, it hardly has any solid foundation in the community

and by 'truly believe' I mean in an existentially defining manner

don't think of it as an external observer, in that case you wouldn't consider it a solid base, but think of yourself as being part of those true believers, there wouldn't be doubt of it

>Hurr hurr hurr
Are you fucking retarded?
Altruism is defined as a behavior that affects you negatively in order to positively affect others, it's self-sacrifice for other beings, and it's well fucking documented in animals.
Other things certain animals have: families and more structured societies, completely meaningless behavior like mourning the dead, rebellion (fighting your main group to help your kin/subgroup)
I mean, are you fucking retarded user?

>Man is an individualist
You don't know what social behavior is do you.
At this point it's like arguing with a 12 year old that saw too many youtube videos about philosophy and thinks he is a Ph.D at "muh morals"

>just a big game of pretend?

You mean like a religion?

How exactly would you expect animals without tool making (rituals, totems, idols, etc.), language (liturgy, fables, myths), social stratification (priest class, congregations) to develop or display religion?

Reminder that ascetics only make sense as divergances from traditional religious practices

Besides, religion only develops as a response to higher brain development and social organization as questions about the fundamental organization of nature become possible

You also seem to be under the impression that nature is based entirely off efficiency and will always produce the most efficient and effective behaviors. This is unfortunately not how natural selection works.

Lets just say you're right.

Why does it matter if morality has a solid base, if the expression of morality is equally as relativistic and non-absolutist as without a solid base?

I mean, just look at the world. 90% of the human population believe in some kind of divine creator, and most of them believe that specific books give moral guidance on how to act.

This supposed "solid moral base" doesn't stop them from acting as though it isn't there.

social interest is not moral behavior.

but animals have tools, language and social stratification. but they dont develop taboos, myths and so on.

>will always produce the most efficient and effective behaviors
it will. within its enviroment of course.

>He is gonna keep memeing instead of arguing
You said animals don't do X but they do, and now you are arguing that their X isn't actually X because you say so? Nice.

>Taboos
But they do.

>Myths
Would require more complex communication which again they don't have

>Tools
Not even close to being on the same level as early human ones.

Why do you keep arguing about shit you clearly have no idea about?

>But they do.

When will this meme die

Elephants mourn dead
>self-interest
Dolphins care for the wounded and dying
>self-interest
Elephants refuse to pointlessly kill another living animal
>self-interest
Chimpanzees, Gorilla, and Baboons stage coups and infighting that can potentially shatter the troop
>self-interest

Humans care for the poor (except when they don't)
>wow aren't humans such noble souls, isn't it so great that we have morality and ~humanity~ doesn't that make us so special and wonderful?

do you think that 90% figure really represents people who truly believe in god and the teaching of its religion?

and I mean it, as I said before, a true belief should result in an existentially radical change of your outlook on things
and because of this, I doubt cartel members who dismember rivals for petty reasons are really in contact with their religion despite probably identifying as Catholics

I think that 90% figure is mostly representing a vestigial cultural/spiritual element that has in fact pretty much disappeared from the modern westernized world as an existentially defining force.
most self-declared religious people, judging by their behavior, don't have a significantly different outlook on things compared to the more honest atheists who simply drop the facade

and I don't mean this as a "no true scotsman", I'm pretty much atheist myself but I think religion is in a much deeper crisis than it looks, and those 90% figures are really damage control on the part of religious figures who haven't fully internalized that they have lost their grip on the common folk

Also:
>Most efficient
No. Look up the paradox of altruism and the instability of such an adaptation.
Also fuck off.

>drawing inferences when the science behind their reasoning is too incomplete

Did you really just see me re-framing your claims, and then criticize it for making assumptions?

gg m8

>I doubt cartel members who dismember rivals for petty reasons are really in contact with their religion despite probably identifying as Catholics

Sure, and I would agree with you on that.

But this argument fails when you're talking about people who literally devote their lives to religion, such as Catholic priests, and they end up raping altar boys.

Either they have completely misunderstood their religion, or the so-called "solid base" as you call it, doesn't really do much at all.

They're literally not dead. You have confused actual evolution with what you think evolution *should be*. The fact is that we live in a society. Looking at Mexican population makes it pretty clear that being smart isn't necessarily adaptive and being dumb isn't necessarily maladaptive. Maybe it will eventually become so. But maybe it won't. You don't know.

>I am retarded: the post

>Making assumptions about why humans do it when the science behind it is even more incomplete due to moralist retards (like you) and anti-sobiology socialist fuckups.

Lol not a "no true scotsman"
Just a blind idealizing of the past

>disappeared from the modern westernized world
>lost their grip on the common folk

Are you really trying to claim that the world used to be a more moral and less disgustingly brutal place? Furthermore, are you trying to claim that the non-western world is more moral and less brutal right now?

Atheists have morals most likely because since they don't believe in an afterlife, they only have one chance to live life. If they completely mess up, for example prison for life, that's an entire and only lifetime wasted.

You're assuming all atheists believe in souls. It may be difficult for you to imagine, but not everybody believes that each human is a special snowflake.

There is no blanket answer that would sufficiently answer this question, because each of them probably has their own answer to it. I'd wager many of them are moral realists because they want morals to be real, and so strive to prove them to be real.

those mexicans can't learn to read or write. they don't follow the law. they live in corrugated steel shacks without plumbing.

they have no future. their existence hangs on a thread of goodwill. even when they come to america and recieve gigantic cash infusions they can barely read. they have zero future and never will. they're dead.

yeah pretty much this but christian is getting btfo by technology, just look at abortion/birth control/fertility tech advances in the last couple hundred years. Secular morality will be the only thing adaptable enough to keep pace with technological advancement now.

>social contract

As a real-life philosopher I think only the Golden Rule (you know, even Jesus talks about it) and Kant's categorical imperative can be used as a logical and practicable "objective morality".

>Golden Rule:
- One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (positive or directive form).
- One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form).
- What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself (empathic or responsive form).

>Kant's universalizability principle:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction."

I think this is common sense.
You don't even need a religion or academic philosophy to live like this: treat others how you wish to be treated.

P.S.1: Yes, I used Wikipedia quotes, because I'm lazy.
P.S.2: I don't even like Kant. But categorical imperative makes sense.

Everything you said is pretty spot on but calling yourself a real-life philosopher is kinda euphoric, no offense.

It is just a big game of pretend. If you're not an Essentialist, you're basically a Nihilist.

>>Humanity will compromise morality to get to an ends (the ends justify the means)
>Humanity will always seek vengeance, there is no mercy between men.
What makes you think this? It took secular democracies to abolish the death penalty.

Egoism is a spook.

lol this guy

You can't be serious.

society instills morals into people at a subconscious level whether they like it or not. They can come to reject these morals over time and act against the, but they are there nonetheless.

Our atheists are pious people

user, it really looks like no matter what I do I and my bloodline will die long before my culture. I care for my self more than my family and my family more than my culture and my culture more than the world, but I know the world will last the longest, so I end up caring for it the most. Dunno what to say.

>Everything you said is pretty spot on

Good to hear that.

>but calling yourself a real-life philosopher is kinda euphoric, no offense.

Non taken.

Well, I am a real-life philosopher (master's degree), but I have no problem with religions.
I'm very open-minded.

In fact my favourite subjects are all kinds of metaphysics - from Taoism to Christianity... anything, really.
I started with Asian stuff, and now I study theology.

See this is the problem.
Belief in objective morality is like belief in a lingua franca or a state.
Just because you can categorize natural phenomenon (like murder is bad, or theft is bad), DOESNT mean that there's a dictation of what rules there are.

>Golden rule
I used to think like that, but the reason I stopped, is because I realized the golden rule was really badly flawed. It's very unconditional, and it wouldn't make sense in certain situations where the moral itself is greater than the golden rule. I don't want to be killed. So should I not kill an animal? If I should be able to kill it, then why only animals get to die? If I shouldn't be allowed to kill another animal, then what's the point of a golden rule if it doesn't accurately capture our sins and virtues?

I don't speak for most people who don't believe in God.. in fact, I DO believe in God. But I believe in a natural morality as well.
>How is secular morality not just a big game of pretend?
Well, how is language and territory not just a game of pretend? Like language, morality is form of communication; it depends on the community that you're communicating with. It's a very basic mechanism looking back at our evolution. I'm surprised more people don't realize this.

>I used to think like that, but the reason I stopped, is because I realized the golden rule was really badly flawed. It's very unconditional, and it wouldn't make sense in certain situations where the moral itself is greater than the golden rule. I don't want to be killed. So should I not kill an animal? If I should be able to kill it, then why only animals get to die? If I shouldn't be allowed to kill another animal, then what's the point of a golden rule if it doesn't accurately capture our sins and virtues?

I think the Golden Rule is a human-only rule.

...

>people consistently prefer similar things
>therefore we can find rules which most people will agree with and benefit all of us

you don't even have to believe in objectivity to think there's something real to this.

Because people are generally decent and society flourishes because of this decency.

Behavior is genetic. You can objectively observe things like altruism being developed through evolution. That's some Steve Harvey logic user.

>Behavior is genetic.
No it's not.

Morality is a pre-made option. Like a door to be chosen and beyond that door is a pre-set path that sticks strictly to the concept of itself, which is morality itself. When walking this path, it translates through our physicals actions and over all depicts the ever lasting series of images that is our personal lives. We can all witness each other choosing the option of morality.

Now the fact morality is a pre-made option, is further proof that man did not create morality, that it's an option to be chosen by man, as man is not the author of it. The path is already there, it's waiting to be walked on. The secular wont address who designed this path though. Obviously though, it's God.

As for the qualities of morality, I mean they are so obvious that they can't be denied. A child at a relatively early age could discern the path of morality and the benefits that lay on the path of morality. I mean it's such a simple and easy concept to understand, which makes it quite disconcerting at how hard it is for man to choose this option habitually. As again, a relatively young child could see it's benefits.

But yeah, not even the secular can deny the truth of morality. It just makes too much sense. The blatant benefits. The secular just don't address the fact that, probably out of pride, I don't know, that morality as an ideal or concept, just like the earth they woke up on, it was all pre-made FOR them. They aren't the authors. Everything has already been thought of, which I think kind is kind of offensive to the proud I think.