Real World Philospohy

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Only if you want to absurdly take things to the absolute extreme. It is quite possible (and happens all the time) for 2 parties with differing secular views to come to a mutually acceptable agreement without ever having to hurt each other.

I did specify "strongly disagree" - which you quoted! - but it doesn't require an "absolute extreme" to get such things - one modern in progress example would be the abortion issue - one side views it as murder, the other as women's rights with their own bodies (broad generalizations there - there are many shades between; but that is the "standard" characterization of the two sides). Not everyone involved feels strongly enough about it to resort to violence, but enough do that violence ensues. As far as I know, it has yet to run full course.

Also, those three options I listed have differeng shades of degree (the reason I used unpleasantness, rather than violence in the original) - mutual isolation might be a matter of "what you do in the privacy of your own home is your business" - usually the case with adultery, for example; suppression might be a matter of illegalizing the activity and letting the police deal with it - the case with pot usage in the US, for example.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Also, it is completely possible to have a moral system not based on an arbitrary religion that does not rely on "feels-right" assumptions, and most atheists have such systems. Some do not, of course, but most still do.

Can you name such a system and give details on it?

[Fyron]

Can you name such a system and give details on it?

I can't name one, as that would be silly... but here are the basics of an example: if it directly or indirectly harms another person other than yourself, it is immoral. If it doesn't, it is not immoral. Being "moral" does not specifcally matter, as most actions that are obviously not immoral are not necessarily morally good.

Here is another one: if it infringes upon the freedoms (freedom to live, freedom to be happy, freedom to better him/herself, etc.) of another individual, it is immoral. If not, it is not immoral. Again, being "moral" is not a big concern, for the same reason as above.

Neither of these rely on "feel-right" assumptions. They can be arrived from from the fact that harming others tends to destablize society in general, so it is better to not harm others than to harm them. If society becomes destablized too much, you might end up getting killed. This is not an assumption, but an observation of human societies.

[spoon]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Oh, yes, people can usually distinguish right and wrong actions without believing in God - but few will be able to say why one thing is right and another wrong; those who can will usually be leaning on various "feels-right" assumptions.

This seems a better system than The Burning Bush Said So system. Especially when what exactly the Bush said is debatable and subject to interpretation.

[spoon]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Mainstream media has the same basic bias, and a tendancy to edit in favor of the side they favor; you pretty much never see creation/evolution debates in the media because the creationists have been burned that way before.

And it probably doesn't help matters that creationism is junk science without merit...

[Jack Simth]

Fyron: The possibility you site is not, in and of itself, an assumption, but your method of getting there and analyisis of it has underlying "feels-right" assumptions:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
here are the basics of an example: if it directly or indirectly harms another person other than yourself, it is immoral. If it doesn't, it is not immoral. Being "moral" does not specifcally matter, as most actions that are obviously not immoral are not necessarily morally good.

Assumes other people are fundamentally important (and presupposes some assumed definition of person); without that assumption, harming another would be no more wrong than killing a potato plant to eat the potatos.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Here is another one: if it infringes upon the freedoms (freedom to live, freedom to be happy, freedom to better him/herself, etc.) of another individual, it is immoral. If not, it is not immoral. Again, being "moral" is not a big concern, for the same reason as above.

Same basic underlying assumption as the Last, with an addition of freedom being a feature it is fundamentally right for others to have. Moreover, there is an additional underlying assumption of what freedoms are(n't) to be included on the list - I doubt very much, for example, that you would include the freedom to take things from people in there.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Neither of these rely on "feel-right" assumptions.

Sure they do - the "feel-right" assumptions simply aren't stated in them.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
They can be arrived from from the fact that harming others tends to destablize society in general, so it is better to not harm others than to harm them. If society becomes destablized too much, you might end up getting killed. This is not an assumption, but an observation of human societies.

Ah, but to go from your "source data" to the conclusions above requires a "feels-right" assumption: personal consequences are fundamentally important in ethical considerations. Also, without the other underlying assumptions I listed earlier for your conclusions, you can only arrive at a "for the most part" conclusion from the data and "personal consequences are important" assumption; specific cases may very well be otherwise. E.g., under social stability is important because of personal consequences, a buisness mogul might find it acceptable to murder someone to prevent certain business pratices of his from coming to light, if such a happenstance would financially crush the mogul - the risk of the mogul getting harmed from the societal instibility generated by the murder being considerably less than the highly-probably consequences of letting the person bring those practices to light, with ensuing loss of the mogul's financial standing.

Every ethical system ultimately has one or more "feels-right" assumptions lying under it somewhere (although some will be disguised as circular logic, "what else could it be?" defenses, or others).

[Fyron]

Totally wrong there on all counts Jack. You are bringing unrelated issues into the morality systems that are not actually assumptions, but still have little to do with the morality itself.

[spoon]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Every ethical system ultimately has one or more "feels-right" assumptions lying under it somewhere (although some will be disguised as circular logic, "what else could it be?" defenses, or others).

Including those based on supposed divine directives. Since you can never get past the "supposed" part.