Replacing Religious Morality

[Simon Moon]

If we think of the rules as exhaustive covering all possible scenarios and participants, perhaps that would make it simpler?

ex. Bob murders Frank under circumstance X: Evil
Bob murders Frank under circumstance Y: Not evil
Bob murders Frank under ...

Is that subjective or objective? It depends on the details, but each situation only has one correct answer.

Each instance can be evaluated for the best possible outcome. But it is not subjective because there is a a standard we can compare each action in every situation against.

It is known as 'situational morality'. Some people believe situational morality is subjective, but it is not.

To evaluate whether an act is evil or not evil, all one has to do is calculate, to the best of their ability, the most likely outcome from the act. Will it cause more or less suffering to innocent people if circumstance X or Y are carried out or not?

I'm not saying that every situation will have an easy moral choice, and their may even be more than one best possible choices, but that is how society becomes more moral.

Bob murders Frank because Frank slept with his wife. While I wouldn't call that an evil act, it is wrong. How do I know? Because it is causing more suffering to murder Frank, than not to.

Bob murders Frank because Bob knows for a fact that Frank is a serial murderer. In this case murdering Frank will cause less suffering than to let him live.

Of course, this method will not always yield the best results in every case, but using logic and reason, less than the best results can be improved upon.

Please take note that we no longer have slavery in the US.

When did a deity come down and tell people "though shall not own another human being as property"? It was through logic and reason (and empathy) that slavery was outlawed.

It is secular morality that has constantly dragged religious morality kicking and screaming into modernity.