# "Secular ethics" put under the microscope **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 11, 2016, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-ethics-put-under-the-microscope/774456 "2016-12-11T18:33:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-ethics-put-under-the-microscope/774456/81 "2016-12-13T08:41:36Z")
> [@Calico\_Jack](#): > > That of course wouldn’t be the source of our higher nature, such as our aesthetic sense, rather merely our lower moral sentiments, just as species such as ants have basic altruistic instincts pre-programmed into them, but aren’t able to question then and act according to logical moral rules, merely respond to them on impulse. Does is not strike you as curious that we see such behaviour in creatures like ants and as we move further along the spectrum of brain complexity and sentience we see even more complex behaviours until we approach the higher mammals and primates. There we see quasi-moral and ethical behaviours which are refined and codified still further by homo sapiens. This is exactly what one would expect if such behaviours were purely a product of nature and evolution. This includes the aberrant behaviour of both Ted Bundy and the Nazis. > [@](#): > > Only the physical body is mortal, the human’s essential being is not the body of course You don’t know that. You _can’t_ know that and there is no evidence to show it, nor any suggestion that you can prove it. You’ve made that up out of whole cloth and if it is merely a personal belief taken on faith then clearly say so and we can safely discard it from the debate. > [@](#): > > I’d venture one can prove logically the notion of complete non-existence after the death of one’s body fails the logic tests, so I’d say the continuity of one’s existence after the death of their body is more or less logical fact which can be taken for granted. Nope, that won’t cut it here. You have no evidence, and there is certainly no line of logical reasoning that means it must be so. For something to be “taken for granted” there must be overwhelming evidence for it. Where is your evidence for this earth-shattering and paradigm-shifting claim? You should really discard all the wooly thinking regarding secular morals and concentrate first on establishing the the existence of the supernatural rock on which your theories stand. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-ethics-put-under-the-microscope/774456/82 "2016-12-13T08:44:36Z")
> [@Calico\_Jack](#): > > Only the physical body is mortal, the human’s essential being is not the body of course, the body being like a good horse, or vehicle which the human pilots, and the brain being the controls of said vehicle. Actual, for-real Cartesian Dualism in the wild? How quaint, it’s like visiting some sort of Jurassic Park for extinct philosophical constructs… ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-ethics-put-under-the-microscope/774456/83 "2016-12-13T08:47:27Z")
[QUOTE=Calico Jack] Likewise, a welfare recipient who doesn’t work and contribute financially to the economy but who has 10 kids on the dole is more “fit” than a full-time worker who only has 1 kid. The Octomom is therefore more “evolutionarily fit” than Donald Trump from a scientific perspective. [/QUOTE] Well, welfare moms having 10 kids is a recent development and I doubt evolution has had much time to weigh in on the matter, but let’s take this to its logical conclusion: all women should be on welfare and have 10 kids. What happens to our species’ fitness then? More babies isn’t always better as far as evolution is concerned, which is why human females rarely have more than one at a time, and other species like whales and elephants have also traded size and longer lifetimes for plopping out litters. \*Less \*children can be good for a species too. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-ethics-put-under-the-microscope/774456/84 "2016-12-13T09:06:58Z")
More like “put under a kaleidoscope”, am I right?! ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-ethics-put-under-the-microscope/774456/85 "2016-12-13T09:22:42Z")
> [@naita](#): > > More like “put under a kaleidoscope”, am I right?! Where’s the upvote button?? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-ethics-put-under-the-microscope/774456/86 "2016-12-13T10:19:24Z")
> [@Calico\_Jack](#): > > I’d venture one can prove logically the notion of complete non-existence after the death of one’s body fails the logic tests, so I’d say the continuity of one’s existence after the death of their body is more or less logical fact which can be taken for granted. Run an electrical current through a coil of copper wire. A magnetic field is generated. Does the field have a separate existence to the wire? Does it continue once the power is turned off? > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Does is not strike you as curious that we see such behaviour in creatures like ants and as we move further along the spectrum of brain complexity and sentience we see even more complex behaviours until we approach the higher mammals and primates. There we see quasi-moral and ethical behaviours which are refined and codified still further by homo sapiens. The OP might benefit from some reading on [emergence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence). > [@Wiki](#): > > Whenever you have a multitude of individuals interacting with one another, there often comes a moment when disorder gives way to order and something new emerges: a pattern, a decision, a structure, or a change in direction (Miller 2010, 29). And that includes social structures and mores as well. > [@levdrakon](#): > > \*Less \*children can be good for a species too. [Pedant Police] _Fewer_. [/PP] ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-ethics-put-under-the-microscope/774456/87 "2016-12-13T12:39:56Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > If you say, “Murder is immoral,” and I say, “Prove it,” what can you show me? > [@](#): > > On the other hand, if we’d all been born in Germany in 1910, and right now it was 1940… who knows? Yeah, I’d like to think I’d be standing up against the fascists, but I grew up in a liberal democracy that, after WWII, largely defined itself in opposition to fascism. If I’d been born a hundred years ago in a different country, I wouldn’t be me. I’d be that German guy who died a couple decades ago, and who knows what he would have done? Why would you like to think you’d be standing up against the fascists? You’ve almost constructed a spinach argument against yourself here. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-ethics-put-under-the-microscope/774456/88 "2016-12-13T15:33:28Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > IF I don’t rob, cheat, hurt or kill others, others will be less likely to want to do the same to me. Whereas if I don’t rob, cheat, hurt or kill others, I get bored. Go figure. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-ethics-put-under-the-microscope/774456/89 "2016-12-13T18:56:32Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Why would you like to think you’d be standing up against the fascists? You’ve almost constructed a spinach argument against yourself here. I don’t understand your question. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2016, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-ethics-put-under-the-microscope/774456/90 "2016-12-13T19:28:58Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > [Pedant Police] > > _Fewer_. > > [/PP] Way past my bed time last night. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-ethics-put-under-the-microscope/774456/91 "2016-12-14T11:01:54Z")
Fair enough. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-ethics-put-under-the-microscope/774456/92 "2016-12-14T18:34:58Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I don’t understand your question. Maybe I’m wrong, but given your stance that one can’t prove murder is wrong I read you as a non-realist, or maybe an epistemological skeptic (moral facts exist, but we don’t know what they are). You then seemed to worry you may have been a Nazi if you grew up in Germany, which would be bad. Psychologically that makes sense if morality is an objective standard outside of your mind you’re trying to live up to, not so much if it’s a personal preference or what works best for society’s current situation. It’s right out of the [spinach argument.](http://law.huji.ac.il/upload/WOE.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-ethics-put-under-the-microscope/774456/93 "2016-12-14T19:44:32Z")
> [@naita](#): > > More like “put under a kaleidoscope”, am I right?! Nice. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-ethics-put-under-the-microscope/774456/94 "2016-12-14T20:46:34Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > You then seemed to worry you may have been a Nazi if you grew up in Germany, which would be bad. Psychologically that makes sense if morality is an objective standard outside of your mind you’re trying to live up to, not so much if it’s a personal preference or what works best for society’s current situation. It’s right out of the [spinach argument.](http://law.huji.ac.il/upload/WOE.pdf) Your comment was directed at Miller, not me, but here goes… I read about half of that “spinach” paper and I think it’s bullshit. Frankly. His point is that worrying about what I may have been had I been born in Germany in 1920 can only make sense if morality is objective, and I think that’s plainly wrong. His argument just doesn’t make sense. He tries to use our sense of whether a certain joke is funny or not, with different substitutions, as a guide to whether it’s about preferences or objective facts, but the whole approach just doesn’t work. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-ethics-put-under-the-microscope/774456/95 "2016-12-15T02:44:09Z")
You don’t have to find the joke literally funny, but you do need to recognize the different attitudes behind the different statements. Of course, one could be a non-realist but also believe that humans are hard-wired to treat moral statements as if they were real, which means the non-realist would also fall into the same trap through no fault of their own. Somewhat similar to how one may believe free will doesn’t exist, but instinctively treat it as a useful fiction. ---
**Author:** ![CatandMouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c89c15/32.png) [@CatandMouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CatandMouse)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-ethics-put-under-the-microscope/774456/96 "2016-12-15T03:05:53Z")
> [@Calico\_Jack](#): > > No, the argument is just that it’s illogical to not be a moral nihilist if one doesn’t believe that morality comes from a higher objective source than the material world. > > Whether or not the ‘higher source’ is a God or not is a different argument (e.x. some Buddhists don’t believe in a “God” per se). Humans are complex social animals who have evolved morality simply because we’ve learned that communities help us exist. Morality springs from the human desire to live lives free from anxiety and worry. This is due to secular law and personal ethics, not religion or some higher power. Funny, I just ordered a book from Amazon called The Moral Animal, by Robert Wright. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-ethics-put-under-the-microscope/774456/97 "2016-12-15T04:15:24Z")
> [@CatandMouse](#): > > Humans are complex social animals who have evolved morality simply because we’ve learned that communities help us exist. Morality springs from the human desire to live lives free from anxiety and worry. This is due to secular law and personal ethics, not religion or some higher power. Seems to me that religion is consoling if your life _isn’t_ free from anxiety and worry, i.e. those people that are oppressing you or scaring you? God will punish them in the afterlife. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-ethics-put-under-the-microscope/774456/98 "2016-12-15T15:11:40Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > As for his latter arguments. I think he’s missing the point that humans are genetically a social creature. We want to live in the companionship of other humans. So part of our own self-interest lies in acting in a manner that other people will find acceptable. > [@Calico\_Jack](#): > > That still fails the same litmus test, since again that doesn’t hold true with 100% exception, as some people are naturally more introverted than others. You’re arguing that because something doesn’t happen with 100% reliability, it doesn’t happen at all? Do I need to explain why that is bollocks? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-ethics-put-under-the-microscope/774456/99 "2016-12-15T17:20:15Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Maybe I’m wrong, but given your stance that one can’t prove murder is wrong I read you as a non-realist, or maybe an epistemological skeptic (moral facts exist, but we don’t know what they are). You then seemed to worry you may have been a Nazi if you grew up in Germany, which would be bad. Psychologically that makes sense if morality is an objective standard outside of your mind you’re trying to live up to, not so much if it’s a personal preference or what works best for society’s current situation. It’s right out of the [spinach argument.](http://law.huji.ac.il/upload/WOE.pdf) What a silly essay. My point was, we’re shaped by the environment we grew up in, and it’s difficult to say how much of what we hold as our values are a result of having a particular moral clarity, and how much are just going along with what everyone around us is doing. My ethics are based around not harming other people. Do I hold those ethics because I’m particularly perceptive and empathic to other people’s suffering? Or do I hold them because I grew up in hippy California in the '70s? One way to think about the question is to imagine if you were born in different circumstances: Jim Crow South, or Nazi Germany, or what have you. But, as I said, it’s not really a meaningful comparison, because there isn’t really a way for you to be born in such radically different circumstances, and still be “you” in any meaningful sense. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-ethics-put-under-the-microscope/774456/100 "2016-12-15T21:17:44Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > But, as I said, it’s not really a meaningful comparison, because there isn’t really a way for you to be born in such radically different circumstances, and still be “you” in any meaningful sense. I would say that 'you would not be “you” ’ is precisely the point. Considering that Germans today are as empathic as you or me, despite being genetically exactly the same as 100 years ago, it must have been something else that made the Nazi’s unempathic towards Slavs and Jews. The only logical explanation is upbringing and surroundig moral values of that time and place. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-ethics-put-under-the-microscope/774456.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secular-ethics-put-under-the-microscope/774456.md?page=6)