(to give an example of secular alleged moral frameworks really just being a smokescreen- "bringing freedom to Iraq" or "bringing Freedom" in general to countries like Libya, Syria, etc. it is utterly just a smokescreen for imperialism)

No, because the term Objective is a loaded term. When you ask a religious person what they mean by this term it becomes immediately clear that they are talking about the existence of an Absolute ideal that they cannot substantiate or defend, literally does not exist. Keep in mind, they are bringing up the objection, which means they have the burden of proof to define the term.

From an old thread "Is anyone here a moral objectivist?"

A précis on (an) 'objective (i.e. subject/pov-invariant) morality':

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/355166 — 180 Proof

Secular, naturalistic, this-worldly (an Epicurus, Spinoza & Philippa Foot love-child). Thoughts and critique, please.

Religious morality is not based on objective facts, but on revealed truths, in some cases, or transcendent knowledge in others.

In the Middle-eastern religions, morality is based on the Mosaic law, and obviously the life and resurection of Jesus, for Christians, or the supposed divine inspiration of Mohamed.

In Indic religions, the basis is the Vedic tradition (for Hindus) or the enlightenment of the Buddha.

But none of these are based on or require objective validation, in the way that secular or scientific affairs do. They are all supposed to issue from a higher or transcendent dimension.

What you're criticising is moral relativism, which is the notion that moral laws are really a matter of individual opinion or at best an aspect of the social contract. Which is the general attitude in modern secular culture, which by definition will generall bracket out or reject any claims to transcendent truth.

revealed truths — Wayfarer

There is no such thing.

I've noticed you presume that, but I find your non-acceptance of them no more convincing than, and quite probably just as dogmatic as, those of whom you oppose!

You mean they do exist? How do you know this?

Every person can just make up their own conception of what is right and wrong and the conception that wins is determined by power. — Ram

That's also the case even if there is some God? The only difference I presume is that if there is some God then people will face some after-life consequence for their actions?

Quoting you, "It's self-evident what is harmful to our kind (and living things like, or nearly like, us such as mammals) and what we need when harmed; thus, we (can) know what to do or not to do to and for other persons and living creatures vulnerable to being harmed or in need of help when they're suffering; therefore, we (can) reasonably judge whether or not, by action or inaction, conduct decreases (i e. avoids mitigates or relieves) someone's - some creature's - suffering. Hardly a (merely) "subjective" consideration."

Yes, I fully agree. However, the objectivity you are here referring to is not that posited by the theist in his attempt to negate morality. How convenient that he never applies his negative standard to his own definition. Like I said, they always use a loaded term.

If there is a God then there is a natural law.

If there is a God then there is a natural law. — Ram

But what difference does that make? Is it just that if I break the natural law then I will be punished after I die?

Where did you go, you said there was such a thing as "revealed truth?" I want to know how you know this?

You mean they [transcendent realities] do exist? How do you know this? — JerseyFlight

This being a philosophy forum, the argument I would like to pursue for that is philosophical rather than Christian apologetics, or anything of the kind.

I started out in life very drawn to Eastern religion and philosophy through the popular books that were circulating at the time. That lead to a degree in comparative religion which has never been remotely useful from a pragmatic viewpoint, but which I remain very interested in.

In any case, to get to the point, there are universal ideas, themes, motifs, that appear in the guise of religions over many cultures and centuries. And I think they stand for and mean something. The alternative is the mother of all conspiracies, or at least a vast collective delusion. But, as it is, all of the major cultures have a religious element at their foundation.

Now, I can pre-empt where this is going: that there is no evidence of any religious claim or idea (in other words, positivism, which is the de-facto outlook of almost all secular philosophy). It is true that such ideas and traditions don't lend themselves to empirical scrutiny like for instance a drug trial or something of the kind. But in the annals of all of those traditions, there is a vast amount of testimonial and other kinds of evidence for which I think our secular-scientific culture can provide no real account.

I don't think you can possibly have objective morality from a secular framework. I think that the liberal, secular framework inherently leads to a sort of moral anarchism. Every person can just make up their own conception of what is right and wrong and the conception that wins is determined by power. This just leads towards humans becoming like animals.

How can there possibly be a secular framework for morality that isn't arbitrary?

I mean... all these secular attempts at creating a moral framework.... I think they're mostly just a thin smokescreen for the interests of the person propounding them.

If I'm wrong and I'm just a dumb, idiot person for thinking this way- where is this objective moral framework that is completely detached from anything religious or spiritual and doesn't seem to mysteriously uphold vested interests of narrow groups? — Ram

First things first. Religious morals don't fare any better than secular ones. There are the moral injunctions and there are the reasons that make them so and while secular morality has failed in ferreting out the ever elusive rationale behind our moral tenets, religion doesn't provide anything by way of logical arguments either. If there is an argument in religious ethics it's the fallacious argumentum ad baculum.

That said, notice one important, dare I say often missed, fact. Morality seems to deeply connected to knowledge especially as it concerns pain. Back in the "good ol' days" vivisection - quite literally cutting open living animals without any anesthesia - was common practice but that was a time when people thought animals didn't feel pain or that animals were incapable of suffering, that they were just automatons. Vivisection, in this day and age, will elicit immediate and loud condemnation. This is because we've learned that animals too can feel pain and suffer just like us. Our moral dimension is coextensive with our knowledge - the more we know, the better, in a moral sense, we become.

Too, the whole idea of philosophers being able to cook up special scenario thought experiments that invalidate existing moral theories is a farce. Ethics or morality is a theory built for a perfect society, in every sense of the word "perfect". Special cases that throw a spanner in the works of a moral theory should be, quite literally, impossible - no trolley problem, no murderer at the door will ever see the light of day in such a society.

"Fascism denies the equation: well-being = happiness, which sees in men mere animals, content when they can feed and fatten, thus reducing them to a vegetative existence pure and simple."

-The Doctrine of Fascism

I agree with the Doctrine of Fascism on that point. I think the proposed warrior ethos is a lot more noble and fulfilling for human beings than the "mere animals" alternative that is criticized.

I'm neither endorsing nor attacking fascism. Fascism is a completely different discussion. But I agree with the above-quoted point.

Let me get this straight, you just cited the term "revealed truth" and now you want to change it and debate another term? Can you not see why this appears as an admission of its indefensibility? This is incredibly dishonest, where's your intellectual integrity?

If science and math have a monopoly on truth then this forum has no business existing and all of us should stop being interested in philosophy and get on with mechanical drudgery. For philosophers to deny the transcendent is like for a chicken to support KFC.

[deleted]\

Well I guess if you look at it from a very immoral perspective. If you want to be a moral person than morality has to be an end in itself.

It is like for a chicken to support me? Chickens have little to worry about from me. I prefer beef.

(e.g. Wayfarer) :up:

Ok. Seems arbitrary, or merely subjective.

For philosophers to deny the transcendent is like for a chicken to support KFC. — Ram

Elaborate. I don't see how this follows. Careful reading of my initial post shows that my position on ethics/morality is naturalistic, which doesn't negate or deny "the transcendent" but simply suggests that "transcendence" lacks any practical or explanatory role in any lived exercise-experience of moral agency.

so in other words you admit that secular objective morality is impossible but you say objective morality isn't even possible anyways and so we should just give up on morals being anything other than objective?

What definition would you give for nihilism?

Without a basis in natural law, it may be subjective or arbitrary- but as arbitrary or subjective as what you proposed.

What the people here seem to be proposing is simply "well yes but objective morality isn't even possible". If that's so why not just say it directly instead of covering it up to hide the inherent dangers of secularism?

You cannot possibly prove that there is no such thing as an underlying natural law that exists. For you to deny its existence is just an assertion without proof. You cannot disprove its existence anymore than a theist can prove it's existence.

I'm not going to bother with you — Wayfarer

I think you mean, you're not going to step into the arena with a person who can call you out on your nonsense. Like all good apologists you prey on the ignorant. Not in my house playa.

I believe in an underlying natural law. It's not something specific to Abrahamic or Eastern religion. I've studied both.

Whether you're Christian, Taoist, Muslim, Hindu, etc.- all these groups believe in an underlying natural law. The only dispute is over the details but the existence of an inherent natural law is a premise that is common to all of them.

s Objective Morality Even Possible from a Secular Framework? — Ram

Yes.

:up:

It is? So you've found the Holy Grail? Well show it then. Spill the beans on your discovery.