Is there a secular basis for morality?

Luciddreamer

Certified bakhti
Is there a secular basis for morality?

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.

Guess who said that?
 

Tukraq

VIP
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.

Guess who said that?
who's to say sympathy is good or bad? that sounds subjective, education and social ties also don't cause one to behave or not behave "ethically" which void of religion isn't defined itself
 

Luciddreamer

Certified bakhti
who's to say sympathy is good or bad? that sounds subjective, education and social ties also don't cause one to behave or not behave "ethically" which void of religion isn't defined itself

Dont you think wisdom and empathy is stronger than fear and hope?

I think people like to be told whats right and wrong so they dont have to deal with the
burden of responsibility and complex thinking.

Life is flux and paradoxical and individualism plays a huge role in that.
 
Dont you think wisdom and empathy is stronger than fear and hope?

I don't intend this to be insulting but this sounds like a Yoda quote.

However, wisdom and empathy versus fear and hope............

I think it's quite a puzzle.

I think wisdom is cool but what even is wisdom from a secular perspective? It hasn't even been defined yet.

In any case, though, fear is a pretty strong thing.

I mean if I was the ruler of a nation and I could choose between ruling based on empathy and ruling based on fear..... I think almost anyone including myself would rule based on fear.

I mean would you give up the palace security and your security forces and hope to stay in power just through appealing to empathy? I think it would be a quick way to end up like Gaddafi.
 

Luciddreamer

Certified bakhti
I don't intend this to be insulting but this sounds like a Yoda quote.

However, wisdom and empathy versus fear and hope............

I think it's quite a puzzle.

I think wisdom is cool but what even is wisdom from a secular perspective? It hasn't even been defined yet.

In any case, though, fear is a pretty strong thing.

I mean if I was the ruler of a nation and I could choose between ruling based on empathy and ruling based on fear..... I think almost anyone including myself would rule based on fear.

I mean would you give up the palace security and your security forces and hope to stay in power just through appealing to empathy? I think it would be a quick way to end up like Gaddafi.

Im not dismissing the usefulness of fear but too only be governed by it is very dysfunctional.
There are no simple answers on this topic i am afraid.
 
Im not dismissing the usefulness of fear but too only be governed by it is very dysfunctional.
There are no simple answers on this topic i am afraid.

Well it was fear versus empathy.

If you had to choose one or the other, which would you rule based on?

Presidents and heads of state try to appeal to people in all sorts of ways, whether based on empathy, populism, etc...... but I don't think any of them have any intentions of giving up their security forces.

"Machiavelli then asks whether being feared or loved is preferable. Ideally, a prince should be both loved and feared, but this state of affairs is difficult to attain. Forced to make a choice, it is much better to be feared than loved."

https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/prince/section7/page/2/
 

Luciddreamer

Certified bakhti
Well it was fear versus empathy.

If you had to choose one or the other, which would you rule based on?

Presidents and heads of state try to appeal to people in all sorts of ways, whether based on empathy, populism, etc...... but I don't think any of them have any intentions of giving up their security forces.

"Machiavelli then asks whether being feared or loved is preferable. Ideally, a prince should be both loved and feared, but this state of affairs is difficult to attain. Forced to make a choice, it is much better to be feared than loved."

https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/prince/section7/page/2/

Wasnt this about morality and religion?

Why are you thinking about ruling? We live in the 21 century sxb,
we have laws and governments that keeps people in check.

You can be truly moral if you understand your own nature and you take responsibility seriously.

Your not good or bad, you're both. And the same thing with life and reality.
Its all about being in the middle, so you can see both sides and make the
best judgement from there, based on your values.

And in extreme scenarios you have to choose sides but to make that a default causes more harm than good.
 
Wasnt this about morality and religion?

Why are you thinking about ruling? We live in the 21 century sxb,
we have laws and governments that keeps people in check.

It's not abstract laws and governments that keep the population in check.

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." -Mao Zedong

Mao had a point and so did Machiavelli. It's not "wisdom and empathy" that keeps the people in check. It's armed security forces. It's the carrot and the stick.
 

Luciddreamer

Certified bakhti
It's not abstract laws and governments that keep the population in check.

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." -Mao Zedong

Mao had a point and so did Machiavelli. It's not "wisdom and empathy" that keeps the people in check. It's armed security forces. It's the carrot and the stick.

Again, why are we talking about politics when this thread was about morality?
 
Again, why are we talking about politics when this thread was about morality?

I don't know why you're changing the topic. You asked

Dont you think wisdom and empathy is stronger than fear and hope?

and so I'm responding.

from examining society, we can clearly see

It's not "wisdom and empathy" that keeps the people in check. It's armed security forces. It's the carrot and the stick.
 

Luciddreamer

Certified bakhti
I don't know why you're changing the topic. You asked



and so I'm responding.

from examining society, we can clearly see

How you expect to have a progressive discussion when your mind is already made up?
And you're obsessing and cherry picking the things im saying,
what about the rest of the conversation you conveniently left out?
 
How you expect to have a progressive discussion when your mind is already made up?
And you're obsessing and cherry picking the things im saying,
what about the rest of the conversation you conveniently left out?

The conversation is progressing from my end.

You asked

Dont you think wisdom and empathy is stronger than fear and hope?

Abstract discussion is all well and good but we need to test concepts in real life.

And when we subject your question to the test of real life situations, it is clear that society is run based on rewards and punishment, not "wisdom and empathy".

I have cited Mao Zedong, Machiavelli and real life examples of how states are run in real life.

Where is your counter-argument to defend the thesis that wisdom and empathy is stronger?

I keep seeing you duck the issue rather than confront the topic. Are you going to duck it or confront it? Do you not have a counter-argument?

You were the one that brought out your thesis. Can you not defend your thesis?
 

Luciddreamer

Certified bakhti
The conversation is progressing from my end.

You asked



Abstract discussion is all well and good but we need to test concepts in real life.

And when we subject your question to the test of real life situations, it is clear that society is run based on rewards and punishment, not "wisdom and empathy".

I have cited Mao Zedong, Machiavelli and real life examples of how states are run in real life.

Where is your counter-argument to defend the thesis that wisdom and empathy is stronger?

I keep seeing you duck the issue rather than confront the topic. Are you going to duck it or confront it? Do you not have a counter-argument?

You were the one that brought out your thesis. Can you not defend your thesis?

Its not one or the other. Fear, hope, wisdom and empathy all have a important role to play.
If you stopped looking for simple and shallow answers you would know what im talking about.

Im not speaking of society, im speaking of the individual.
Im not speaking of politics but morality.

Youre are clinically insane man and im not saying that to insult you, its a honest observation.
Your thinking is very flawed and dysfunctional.
You see what you want to hear and dismiss everything else.

This is the last time im taking you seriously, you deserve to be trolled.
 
Youre are clinically insane man and im not saying that to insult you, its a honest observation.
Your thinking is very flawed and dysfunctional.
You see what you want to hear and dismiss everything else.

translation: you can't back up what your saying

Its not one or the other. Fear, hope, wisdom and empathy all have a important role to play.
If you stopped looking for simple and shallow answers you would know what im talking about.

Im not speaking of society, im speaking of the individual.
Im not speaking of politics but morality.

It seems that you've never read any of Plato's dialogues and so the idea that the individual and the society can be interrelated is something which is foreign for you.

You speak of shallowness but anyone who has read Platonic dialogues (or Hegel or Lao Tzu or Robert Filmer's Patriarcha) is familiar with the Platonic notion of things being interconnected. Your inability to grasp that things can have parellels and be interconnected and to grasp the connections between the societal and individual levels is actually what's shallow.

In any case, for a ruler to stay in power, he needs police and armed security forces before he needs professors. The carrot and the stick is prior to empathy and wisdom in terms of the maintaining the social order. I answered your question, you can't defend your claim and so you resort to ad hominem to mask the weakness of your arguments.
 
Last edited:

Luciddreamer

Certified bakhti
Then show where is this secular basis for morality that you claim exists.

translation: you can't back up what your saying



It seems that you've never read any of Plato's dialogues and so the idea that the individual and the society can be interrelated is something which is foreign for you.

You speak of shallowness but anyone who has read Platonic dialogues is familiar with the Platonic notion of things being interconnected. Your inability to grasp that things can have parellels and be interconnected and to grasp the connections between the societal and individual levels is actually what's shallow.

In any case, for a ruler to stay in power, he needs police and armed security forces before he needs professors. The carrot and the stick is prior to empathy and wisdom in terms of the maintaining the social order. I answered your question, you can't defend your claim and so you resort to ad hominem to mask the weakness of your arguments.

90lyz.gif
 

Trending

Top