Secular Morality

[Petros Agapetos]

How moral are atheists?

There are good people and bad people among atheists as there are good and bad people in all communities.

Christian stereotyping

If there is no god you have no morals.
A man without God is totally depraved.

The quotes above are from a video of 2 Christians, they are likely to impress more gullible believers.
See Christian Bullshit :- Atheists are Satanic.

Unfortunately Christian stereotyping sometimes influences impressionable atheists and they assume that because they are atheists they can’t be moral or can’t be very moral. Youngsters whose characters have not fully developed yet are most vulnerable to negative stereotyping of this type. Liberal Christians rarely do this but Christian fundamentalists stereotype atheists more often. See How stereotyping atheists as immoral can do harm

One particularly nasty technique that Christian evangelists sometimes use is deliberately provoking atheists or perhaps others they want to convert into doing something wrong/many wrong things. Then they say something like, "There! See how bad you are! You need Jesus!" If conversion attempts are successful probably the wrong things the person did/was provoked into doing before conversion will be regularly used to make that person feel guilty and inferior so the leaders of the group can keep the sinner under control.

[Petros Agapetos]

Richard Dawkins' Version of the Ten Commandments

The alternative to the Ten Commandments cited by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion is:

1. Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you. (See Golden Rule.)

2. In all things, strive to cause no harm.

3. Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.

4. Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.

5. Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.

6. Always seek to be learning something new.

7. Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.

8. Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.

9. Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.

10. Question everything.

[Petros Agapetos]

Christopher Hitchens on the Ten Commandments:

1. Do not condemn people on the basis of their ethnicity or their color.
2. Do not ever even think of using people as private property.
3. Despise those who use violence or the threat of it in sexual relations.
4. Hide your face and weep if you dare to harm a child.
5. Do not condemn people for their inborn nature. (“Why would God create so many homosexuals, only to torture and destroy them?”)
6. Be aware that you, too, are an animal, and dependent on the web of nature. Try to think and act accordingly.
7. Do not imagine you can avoid judgment if you rob people [by lying to them] rather than with a knife.
8. Turn off that fucking cell phone.
9. Denounce all jihadists and crusaders for what they are: psychopathic criminals with ugly delusions and terrible sexual repression.
10. Reject any faith if their commandments contradict any of the above.

[Petros Agapetos]

A. C. Grayling - The Good Book, compiled by A. C. Grayling, features ten commandments in The Good Book 8:11:

1. Love well
2. Seek the good in all things
3. Harm no others
4. Think for yourself
5. Take responsibility
6. Respect nature
7. Do your utmost
8. Be informed
9. Be kind
10. Be courageous

[Petros Agapetos]

Socialist Sunday Schools propagated a socialist set of ten commandments.

1. Love your schoolfellows, who will be your fellow workmen in life.

2. Love learning, which is the food of the mind; be as grateful to your teacher as to your parents.

3. Make every day holy by good and useful deeds and kindly actions.

4. Honour good men, be courteous to all men, bow down to none.

5. Do not hate or speak evil of anyone. Do not be revengeful but stand up for your right and resist oppression.

6. Do not be cowardly. Be a friend to the weak and love justice.

7. Remember that all good things of the earth are produced by labour. Whoever enjoys them without working for them is stealing the bread of the workers. (That should not include disabled people who can't work.)

8. Observe and think in order to discover the truth. Do not believe what is contrary to reason and never deceive yourself or others.

9. Do not think that he who loves his own country must hate and despise other nations, or wish for war, which is a remnant of barbarism.

10. Look forward to the day when all men and women will be free citizens of one fatherland and live together as brothers and sisters in peace and righteousness.

[Petros Agapetos]

Athenian reformer and lawgiver Solon (~638 BCE - ~558 BCE) had another set (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 1.60):

1. Trust good character more than promises.
2. Do not speak falsely.
3. Do good things.
4. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made.
5. Learn to obey before you command.
6. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful.
7. Make reason your supreme commander.
8. Do not associate with people who do bad things.
9. Honor the gods.
10. Have regard for your parents.

The ninth one is about fictional entities, but the others are good.

[Petros Agapetos]

Kochhar Humanist Education Center
Its Ten Commitments:

Altruism
Caring for the World Around Us
Critical Thinking
Empathy
Ethical Development
Global Awareness
Humility
Peace and Social Justice
Responsibility
Service and Participation

[Petros Agapetos]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnOtdbTWvIo

[Petros Agapetos]

The fundamentals of modern Humanism are as follows:

1. Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations. Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction.

2. Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. Humanists believe that the solutions to the world’s problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention. Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare. But Humanists also believe that the application of science and technology must be tempered by human values. Science gives us the means but human values must propose the ends.

3. Humanism supports democracy and human rights. Humanism aims at the fullest possible development of every human being. It holds that democracy and human development are matters of right. The principles of democracy and human rights can be applied to many human relationships and are not restricted to methods of government.

4. Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society, and recognises our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world. Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents. It is thus committed to education free from indoctrination.

5. Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. The world’s major religions claim to be based on revelations fixed for all time, and many seek to impose their world-views on all of humanity. Humanism recognises that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process of observation, evaluation and revision.

6. Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognises the transforming power of art. Humanism affirms the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfilment.

7. Humanism is a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfillment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living and offers an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our times. Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere.

Our primary task is to make human beings aware in the simplest terms of what Humanism can mean to them and what it commits them to. By utilising free inquiry, the power of science and creative imagination for the furtherance of peace and in the service of compassion, we have confidence that we have the means to solve the problems that confront us all. We call upon all who share this conviction to associate themselves with us in this endeavour.

[Petros Agapetos]

Members, do you consider yourself humanist? If not, why?

[Petros Agapetos]

bump

[Petros Agapetos]

What do you think of secular ethics?

[Petros Agapetos]

How science can answer moral questions

Sam Harris points out we show greater concern for the well-being of primates than rocks or ants. He suggests this is due to their greater capacity for happiness and suffering. He claims all moral systems are a concern for life capable of conscious experience. Religious morality still contains this notion by its concept of the afterlife filled with happiness or suffering. He outlines a continuum of experience between suffering, such as life in a failed state, to happiness in a more stable, enlightened society, such as the developed world. Actions can be judged by their effect on human life on this continuum.

"Values are a certain kind of fact. They are facts about the well-being of conscious creatures."

He speculates that the continuum or space of human experience has not been fully explored and may contain poorly understood areas, some might be known as "mystical experience". Different societal and experiential inputs change our brain and result in changes. The possibility of equally good but different societies is admitted by Harris. He cites corporal punishment in the US, being justified religiously, but may be judged based on educational outcomes.Answering his critics that moral progress is undefined (resulting in moral scepticism or Loki's wager), Sam Harris uses the analogy of physical health still being meaningful while still being poorly defined and open to revision. He also compares morality to chess strategy: normally loosing the queen is disastrous, but sometimes it's brilliant play. In a similar way, there are bad social policies that are clearly wrong such as acid thrown in the face of woman who refuse to wear certain clothing. In a juxtaposition to Islamic women's clothing, he criticizes Western pornography based on a concern for women and children.

Harris notes that Western civilization is not perfect and there are many more possible non-perfect societies than perfect ones.While many academics are moral relativists, Harris agrees with the moral realism of theism. He criticised theist morals of their moral code having an imaginary basis.

"We need a universal conception of human values [...] How have we convinced ourselves that in the moral sphere that there is no such thing as moral expertise? or moral talent? or moral genius?"

Harris argues that all existing moral systems are based on concern for life capable of conscious experience. He uses this as the general basis for his moral continuum or space. However, this is possibly a hasty generalization and definitely an appeal to the majority. We might base morality on some other criteria and not on conscious experience.He does not attempt to address the is-ought problem in the talk. He later addressed the issue by claiming he does not use reason and evidence exclusively but uses some value judgments as premises:

"I have just assumed that well-being is a value, and this move is both unscientific and question-begging. [...] the same can be said about medicine, or science as a whole. As I point out in my book, science in based on values that must be presupposed [...] Our "oughts" are built right into the foundations. We need not apologize for pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps in this way."

From this, the argument reduces to a common sense argument to avoid "bad" things while evaluating choices based on evidence. This is also called evidence-based decision-making. This raises the question of what to do to people who do not agree with this moral standard.The specific details of his moral continuum or space is established by various appeals to emotion (sympathy for Muslim women forced to wear the burka), appeal to consequences (we would be better off), arguing we are "mature" enough to know this information already (effectively begging the question) and appealing for us to think of the children. How we can establish the range of human experiences, being the basis for our self-concern, is not established. By some standards, dolphins might be more "conscious" and therefore it might be more important to benefit dolphins than humans.He criticized intellectuals for being moral relativists but did not establish that they are wrong. One does not need assurance of an absolute morality to criticize other cultures or to take controversial actions. His analogy of physical fitness is incorrect since the vast majority of people can distinguish between a very health person and a dead body. However, ethical systems often disagree as to what constitutes maximally "good" and maximally "bad". The chess analogy is also incorrect because chess has an set outcome but morality has no absolute standards needed to "win" at ethical behavior (although it does suit his position on moral realism).A practical objection, that also applies to utilitarianism, is that it is difficult to select and evaluate policy because different circumstances mean policies must be adapted and the resources to evaluate the effect of policies are not necessarily available.

[Petros Agapetos]

Members, are you secular humanists?

[Petros Agapetos]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO2NSGfwMkA

[Taiguaitiaoghyrmmumin]

im secular humanists. Anyone can have morals. Some morals are different then others though

[Gooding]

Ethics are ethics. Secular ethics are just as binding as ethics tied to a religious point of view.

[Demon Revival]

How moral are atheists?

There are good people and bad people among atheists as there are good and bad people in all communities.

Christian stereotyping

If there is no god you have no morals.
A man without God is totally depraved.

The quotes above are from a video of 2 Christians, they are likely to impress more gullible believers.
See Christian Bullshit :- Atheists are Satanic.

Unfortunately Christian stereotyping sometimes influences impressionable atheists and they assume that because they are atheists they can’t be moral or can’t be very moral. Youngsters whose characters have not fully developed yet are most vulnerable to negative stereotyping of this type. Liberal Christians rarely do this but Christian fundamentalists stereotype atheists more often. See How stereotyping atheists as immoral can do harm

One particularly nasty technique that Christian evangelists sometimes use is deliberately provoking atheists or perhaps others they want to convert into doing something wrong/many wrong things. Then they say something like, "There! See how bad you are! You need Jesus!" If conversion attempts are successful probably the wrong things the person did/was provoked into doing before conversion will be regularly used to make that person feel guilty and inferior so the leaders of the group can keep the sinner under control.

Define "good" and "bad". All the "commandments" (it is fucking hilarious you even refer to them this way instead of 'principles' or 'values'! I hope the sense of irony isn't lost in you) sound like bullshit you'd find in a bad cartoon. "Goodz", "evilz", "luvz", "just be yurself", only to finally contradict itself by saying "always question everything" and "Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience". If this truly was the intention, there would be no need to label any of this as commandments, or to offer a poor man's imitation of the format of the bible.

[Petros Agapetos]

The conversations about morality are usually muddled by religionists' fallacies to the point that we can't even agree what it is that we are talking about. There is confusion about whether we are talking about morals or ethics, where morality comes from and why we care about any of this. Generally, I think that what we are talking about is how can go about thriving in the world recognizing the impact our actions have on ourselves and other people. Morality is about choosing the best course of action. For secular ethics, reality is the ultimate arbiter of what's right and wrong. We are physical beings in a physical universe, and there are truths to be discovered about our place in it. Reality dictates what the consequences of actions will have, and this should be sufficient for a moral reference frame: well-being, human flourishing, and progress. And it is not just about evaluating consequences, because motivation and intention also figure into our moral calculus because they colour our actions. The world is robust, we are living in a dynamic universe and what we need to do is regard each situation individually on its own merits and create generalized assessments of actions which we can then use as a litmus test to evaluate other situations.

[denz]

Members, are you secular humanists?

Humanism which believes personal freedom and equality is the singular form of socialism. Humanism from liberal propagandists and/or socialism as well do not match with us. Let say, this millenium national socialism and socialism have collapsed as liberalism is going to fail.

On the other hand, yes secularism is one way to create better society.