This article is a few quick thoughts I have related to objective morality from a secular and naturalistic perspective.
The subjective value is not necessarily. An atheist's values might be secular and a theist's values might not be. Each mind here is free to have religion, just not to force it on another.
Theist's behavior is likely to be driven by their understanding of the divine. They are more likely to adopt something like, "one should behave according to divine command to please God", or "one should behave according to divine command to align with the nature of God". There is little to compel a theist to follow Objective Secular Morality.
But the naturalist is in a different boat. If actions are just chemistry, then satisfaction is just a certain kind of chemistry. Can one take any action that does not concede their own satisfaction is valuable? It seems any action concedes the following:
The satisfaction of my mind is good.
And that commits the naturalist to the following chain:
The satisfaction of my mind is good.
The mind is what the brain does.
- The satisfaction of my brain is good.
The composition of my brain gives it its properties.
Other human brains have a similar composition to my brain.
- Other human brains have the same basic properties as my brain
The satisfaction of my brain is good.
Other human brains have the same basic properties as my brain.
- The satisfaction of other human brains is also good.
It seems compulsory to me. But hey, I'm probably missing something.
Secular
When something is secular, it is set apart from the divine. It is not against God. The divine just is not considered.
Buying groceries tends to be secular. American government is secular by design.
This can be confused with another term: Secular Humanism. This is different than just "secular", and Secular Humanism has nothing to do with Objective Secular Morality.
Buying groceries tends to be secular. American government is secular by design.
This can be confused with another term: Secular Humanism. This is different than just "secular", and Secular Humanism has nothing to do with Objective Secular Morality.
If you believe the divine, you can still participate in secular activities. Secularism is an effective basis for a society made up of people that don't all agree on god.
Objective
Being objective means it is the same from all viewpoints. Some also mean that it should be in some way absolute and binding. I will address those aspects. But my general use of "objective" will just mean that an objective fact is a fact that does not rely on a particular viewpoint.
Subjective
Being subjective means that it is not the same from all viewpoints.
Morality
Morality is a way to describe behavior. This is usually tied to a set of rules, or at least rough guidelines. A behavior can be described as being on the moral-immoral scale or as being amoral.
Sentient Mind
A mind able to sense, to want things, and to not want things. Anything capable of suffering and joy.
Understanding Objective Secular Morality
Objective Secular Morality describes a behavior as "good", "bad", or somewhere in between. It does this based on how it affects sentient minds. A behavior that increases overall satisfaction of those affected is "good", and one that decreases overall satisfaction of those affected is "bad".
Is it morality?
This is a system of morality, because it grades behavior.
Is it objective?
Yes. There is a subjective component, but that subjective component is internal to each mind. The mind is free to determine subjective value.
Consider two people: Blaze and Frost. Blaze likes to be hot, while Frost likes to be cold. Each person is free to decide what they want, which is subjective. We don't get to tell either Blaze or Frost that they "should" like it hot or cold. But once we know what they want, we can objectively say something about setting the thermostat in the room. If Blaze sets it to hot, Frost will both be uncomfortable and upset that Blaze was inconsiderate. The same if Frost sets it to cold. In that situation, the objective thing to do would be to balance that unhappiness and set it between hot and cold (objectivity requires impartiality).
A key to this is that the wants of each affected mind has to be considered. This is required by definition for it to be objective.
There would be hours of debate on how to do the moral math. But that you can seems valid.
Consider two people: Blaze and Frost. Blaze likes to be hot, while Frost likes to be cold. Each person is free to decide what they want, which is subjective. We don't get to tell either Blaze or Frost that they "should" like it hot or cold. But once we know what they want, we can objectively say something about setting the thermostat in the room. If Blaze sets it to hot, Frost will both be uncomfortable and upset that Blaze was inconsiderate. The same if Frost sets it to cold. In that situation, the objective thing to do would be to balance that unhappiness and set it between hot and cold (objectivity requires impartiality).
A key to this is that the wants of each affected mind has to be considered. This is required by definition for it to be objective.
There would be hours of debate on how to do the moral math. But that you can seems valid.
Is it secular?
The objective judgment is. If the affected minds are known, and their subjective wants are known, the moral judgment is secular: the one doing the math need not use the divine to grade the behavior.Is it compulsory?
Why "should" a person behave according to this Objective Secular Morality?Theist's behavior is likely to be driven by their understanding of the divine. They are more likely to adopt something like, "one should behave according to divine command to please God", or "one should behave according to divine command to align with the nature of God". There is little to compel a theist to follow Objective Secular Morality.
But the naturalist is in a different boat. If actions are just chemistry, then satisfaction is just a certain kind of chemistry. Can one take any action that does not concede their own satisfaction is valuable? It seems any action concedes the following:
The satisfaction of my mind is good.
And that commits the naturalist to the following chain:
The satisfaction of my mind is good.
The mind is what the brain does.
- The satisfaction of my brain is good.
The composition of my brain gives it its properties.
Other human brains have a similar composition to my brain.
- Other human brains have the same basic properties as my brain
The satisfaction of my brain is good.
Other human brains have the same basic properties as my brain.
- The satisfaction of other human brains is also good.
It seems compulsory to me. But hey, I'm probably missing something.
Comments