Rape in the Bible

[FatAndFaithless]

It is many orders of magnitude better than the christian bullshit, Johnny. If morality was a school test, secular morality would get a B-, but christian morality woud get a well rounded F.

You are leaking dogma trough the side of your mouth, mind you and clean that up.

Secular morality also has the benefit of not being beholden to a 2000 year-old rubric. It evolves and improves with human experience.

[John V]

Yes, it's demonstrably more effective. It's not "better" in any sort of cosmic justice objectively-ordained-by-a-cosmic-jury sense, it's better because it works.

Whether it's demonstrable is irrelevant. Even if it works at "creating functioning, safe, stable, and efficient societies," it's still just opinion that such societies are morally good things. Someone else could note that humans in such societies are damaging the earth and so opine that such systems are immoral.

No matter how many levels you take it to, in the end you'll still end up with an opinion.

---

It is many orders of magnitude better than the christian bullshit, Johnny. If morality was a school test, secular morality would get a B-, but christian morality woud get a well rounded F.

Depends on who's grading the test.

---

You are leaking dogma trough the side of your mouth, mind you and clean that up.

Dogma? No, I'm arguing on the side of subjective morality...a position that many atheists also hold. Well, until it turn around and bites them...

Edited to change "objective" to "subjective."

[FatAndFaithless]

Yes, it's demonstrably more effective. It's not "better" in any sort of cosmic justice objectively-ordained-by-a-cosmic-jury sense, it's better because it works.

Whether it's demonstrable is irrelevant. Even if it works at "creating functioning, safe, stable, and efficient societies," it's still just opinion that such societies are morally good things. Someone else could note that humans in such societies are damaging the earth and so opine that such systems are immoral.

No matter how many levels you take it to, in the end you'll still end up with an opinion.

---

It is many orders of magnitude better than the christian bullshit, Johnny. If morality was a school test, secular morality would get a B-, but christian morality woud get a well rounded F.

Depends on who's grading the test.

---

You are leaking dogma trough the side of your mouth, mind you and clean that up.

Dogma? No, I'm arguing on the side of objective morality...a position that many atheists also hold. Well, until it turn around and bites them...

I'm not sure what your idea of an 'opinion' is, but a model or system that is supported by data is not a simple guess or opinion, and it's strange that you're so desperate to paint any sort of non-absolute morality as "just your opinion", seeing as your morality (I would assume) comes by flat assertion from the 'opinions' of a single source.

[LastPoet]

Dogma? No, I'm arguing on the side of objective morality...a position that many atheists also hold. Well, until it turn around and bites them...

It is all you have, a dogmatic belief, saying it isn't so won't change that fact. Also, you are misrepresenting "objective morality", in other words, making a strawman. Perhaps you were trying to say "Absolute morality"?

[FatAndFaithless]

Noticed that too, it's why I used "absolute morality" in my response.

[John V]

It is all you have, a dogmatic belief, saying it isn't so won't change that fact. Also, you are misrepresenting "objective morality", in other words, making a strawman. Perhaps you were trying to say "Absolute morality"?

No, I intended to say subjective morality and have changed it above.

[FatAndFaithless]

I believe in situational ethics. In any situation or moral question, there is a course of action (or multiple courses of action) that are objectively better than others if human wellbeing is the foundation of one's morality. There is no code in stone from a lawgiver that tells us flatly which is which, we evolve and refine our moral understanding over time in order to maximize human wellbeing to the best of our abilities.

[John V]

I believe in situational ethics. In any situation or moral question, there is a course of action (or multiple courses of action) that are objectively better than others if human wellbeing is the foundation of one's morality.

And as already noted, general human well-being does not need to be the basis of one's morality. One can go broader and consider the well-being of all life or even the inanimate, or one could go narrower and consider the well-being of one's own nation, tribe, nuclear family, or just the self. Or you could dispense with systems altogether and just go with your conscience at the moment.

[FatAndFaithless]

I believe in situational ethics. In any situation or moral question, there is a course of action (or multiple courses of action) that are objectively better than others if human wellbeing is the foundation of one's morality.

And as already noted, general human well-being does not need to be the basis of one's morality. One can go broader and consider the well-being of all life or even the inanimate, or one could go narrower and consider the well-being of one's own nation, tribe, nuclear family, or just the self. Or you could dispense with systems altogether and just go with your conscience at the moment.

Yes. Yes you can. You can base your morality on the omens of randomly found rock formations or on the writings of 2000 year old goat herders (the two aren't so far apart). I'm not saying there is some sort of binding property of reality that obligates humans to behave that way. It's a system that emerges from recognizing that we all share the same space, and in order to construct a society that is stable and effective, human wellbeing is a damn good principle to put as the foundation of a moral code.

Are there better foundational principles for a moral system? Could be. However, there are certain principles that have demonstrated throughout history that they do not work (such as adherence to an arbitrary and unassailable set of bald pronouncements in stone), and "human wellbeing" as a structural starting point is doing pretty damn well comparatively.

[robvalue]

Wow, this argument still going huh?

Blindly following arbitrary rules is not moral, it's amoral.

I wonder how many times I should say that.