Why Secular Morality is Superior

[John V]

That's my take on morality from a secular point of view. We have no moral obligation towards rocks or amoebas. Our obligations are to one another as thinking, feeling, self-aware beings. Our actions impact the happiness and well being of others. You can't make rocks or amoebas happy nor to they feel pain. If we fail to act with integrity or violate the rights of other sentient beings, we cause them pain. What we call "morality" from a secular perspective relates to our obligations toward each other as fellow sentient beings.

If you wish to go into greater detail, we can utilize the academic philosophies on morality using a variety of approaches, some of which I have listed in previous posts on this thread to Frodo (Bentham's Utliltarian Principles, Rawls' Veil of Ignorance, etc.). But the bottom line is the ones I'm familiar with all speak of issues of social justice, the relief of one another's pain and the promotion of our happiness in this life.

This is the body of point #1, that secular morality focuses on what's really important. Religious-based morality gets side-tracked on victimless "sins" or useless "virtues" and even promotes their importance over what really matters in our discussions on morality.

The conclusion of point #1 is that since a secular understand of morality is focused and a religious based understanding of morality is distracted, secular morality is superior.

Do you disagree?

I disagree that secular morality focuses on what's really important. You have yet to say what's really important, let alone support such an assertion. In this post you jump from one criterion to another. I don't see laser-like focus. What's important? Is it thinking, or feeling, or self-awareness, or avoidance of pain, or promoting happiness? Is there a line somewhere between amoebas and men?

As yet you haven't shown focus at all.