Philosophically speaking, I do not wholeheartedly subscribe to any specific mores. I consider myself an agnostic and extreme skeptic. In response to the original post, I disagree that the tenets of The Satanic Temple are superior to the Judeo-Christian tradition, or the Buddhist tradition, or a number of religious traditions. The inviolable right to one’s body is in fact violable if someone willfully encroaches upon the freedoms of another; it is possible to willfully kill somebody without willing your own imprisonment. The tenet asking Satanists to root their beliefs in science is itself not rooted in science - no moral beliefs are. That may not actually be a contradiction depending on how it is construed. I think the final tenet is a sort of catch-all that undermines the rest, but such a thing is not unheard of in moral proclamations.
Even with these criticisms I do not hold any particular religion above The Satanic Temple. Philosophically speaking, I do not prefer any system of morals because I don’t have an objective way to compare them. I do not yet rule out the possibility that such an objective standard exists, and in fact last month I discovered that I am partial towards kraterocracy (might makes right) as a basis of morality.
Personally speaking, I defer to what I think society finds moral, which is in our case the constitutional system of law based on natural rights. I think this is compatible with certain platitudes of The Satanic Temple, but there are many points where I disagree. The choice between law and justice is sometimes a false choice: there are laws which are unjust and must not be followed; there are laws which are unjust but should still be followed. Either way, the law ought to be changed, but that does not necessarily give one the right to skirt the law now. The right to one’s body is not inviolable (inalienable), and may be justly curtailed if an appropriate law or constitutional amendment calls for such treatment. The freedom to offend in all cases is similarly without guarantee except by grace of the law - for example, I support certain restrictions on obscene speech. People’s beliefs ought not be based on science, but are inherent in the people and answerable to no-one. Were society-at-large to willfully abandon science, so long as certain inalienable rights are not threatened, I would not object.
When you ask why my beliefs are superior, my answer is to point to the constitution and natural law - and I will defend my interpretation of those things. If you ask why the constitution is superior, my answer is to appeal to democratic principles. If you ask why democratic principles are superior, my newfound answer is to point at kraterocracy; ultimately, might makes right. If you ask why kraterocracy is superior, my answer is that if you disagree, your disagreement could be forcibly mooted. If you ask whether that is right or wrong, I would say it is wrong and point at the constitution and natural law. If you ask whether that ought to be right or wrong, regardless of the democracy or kraterocracy, my response is that you have asked me to speak without a tongue, for there is no right or wrong without kraterocracy, and this is an axiom.
If you were to give a hypothetical where society thought that torturing me is moral, and ask my opinion on a proposal for my own torture, I would condition my response. If I was raised in that society, and knew their mores, and identified with their mores, then I must conclude as a matter of principle that my own torture is moral. Such a situation is not merely hypothetical, we have a rich history of slave and serf culture where people “accept their place”. If I was abducted from this society and placed in a society where my torture was considered moral, barring Stockholm syndrome I would consider myself a part of the former society, and therefore reject the mores of the torturers.
~Max