I want to write a book on Secular Morality...

[Jadebrain_Prime]

Hey guys, it's been a long while since I've last been here... Anyway, as the title suggests, I want to write a book of undecided length on Secular Morality. As we all know, one of the bigger things that a lot of religious people have against atheists is that they think we don't have morals, or otherwise that society wouldn't have morals were it not for religion (I certainly believed the latter, back when I was a christian). But I beg to differ with those ideas. I believe that morals can exist without religion, and I intend to both prove and theoretically demonstrate the possibility of a moral, nonreligious society.

I have a few ideas, such as finding a definition of moral behavior (may or may not be subjective to the purpose of this book), finding out what the source of morals are (perhaps a combination of an evolved instinct of specie-preservation and a detailed expression of the needs of a society?), describing what goes against a cohesive and functional society ("sins," if you would care to call them that), as well as what helps create and maintain such a society ("virtues"), and then defending my ideas in some fashion against hypothetical or anticipated criticism.

My question: Does anyone have any leads or ideas that could help me in this endeavor? As of right now, I have in mind six major "sins," or behaviors that go against a functional and cohesive society: Bigotry, Cruelty, Dishonesty, Greed, Ignorance, and Waste. Another such "sin" could be Obstruction, or generally hindering the progress of society, but that could be considered a combination of Ignorance and Waste.

As for my credentials relevant to the writing of this book, I have only a personal interest in politics, philosophy, psychology, evolutionary biology, and the like; while I could be considered "self-taught," I have had no formal training (I'm just starting college, and I'm going to major in computer science, which won't help me write this book).

 

[dbnp48]

Hey guys, it's been a long while since I've last been here... Anyway, as the title suggests, I want to write a book of undecided length on Secular Morality. As we all know, one of the bigger things that a lot of religious people have against atheists is that they think we don't have morals, or otherwise that society wouldn't have morals were it not for religion (I certainly believed the latter, back when I was a christian). But I beg to differ with those ideas. I believe that morals can exist without religion, and I intend to both prove and theoretically demonstrate the possibility of a moral, nonreligious society.

I have a few ideas, such as finding a definition of moral behavior (may or may not be subjective to the purpose of this book), finding out what the source of morals are (perhaps a combination of an evolved instinct of specie-preservation and a detailed expression of the needs of a society?), describing what goes against a cohesive and functional society ("sins," if you would care to call them that), as well as what helps create and maintain such a society ("virtues"), and then defending my ideas in some fashion against hypothetical or anticipated criticism.

My question: Does anyone have any leads or ideas that could help me in this endeavor? As of right now, I have in mind six major "sins," or behaviors that go against a functional and cohesive society: Bigotry, Cruelty, Dishonesty, Greed, Ignorance, and Waste. Another such "sin" could be Obstruction, or generally hindering the progress of society, but that could be considered a combination of Ignorance and Waste.

As for my credentials relevant to the writing of this book, I have only a personal interest in politics, philosophy, psychology, evolutionary biology, and the like; while I could be considered "self-taught," I have had no formal training (I'm just starting college, and I'm going to major in computer science, which won't help me write this book).

The rule I use is "If everyone did this, would things be better or worse."I make no claim that this is
"correct" or "complete" but it works well for me

Since I'm an atheist, I don't use terms like "good", "evil" or "sin".

I know a fair amount about mathematics and logic but I know almost nothing about ethics and morality.

I think your book is a very good idea.

 

[Jadebrain_Prime]

Since I'm an atheist, I don't use terms like "good", "evil" or "sin".

Interesting point. I suppose it is rather awkward that I'm using the word "sin," yet I don't actually believe in any divine entities. Unfortunately, I'm a bit slow when it comes to finding the right word(s) to express what I'm trying to say.

As far as "good" and "evil" are concerned, I personally believe that goodness (or evilness) comes from the idea that a given action will have a certain intended outcome, and the intended outcome's net benefit or detriment to those whom the outcome effects determines the morality behind the action. I suppose that, given more thought, it would end up more complicated than that, but I'll leave it at that for now.

 

[elte]

I think the world could use a book that offers a simple morality. I have thought much about the idea even though I haven't much writing time or talent. I would like to see what I have thought of expounded upon in a book.

The basic idea fits in a sentence:

Everyone fight, rather than against anyone else, against things in our universe harmful to everyone, like weather, hunger, and disease.

Here is a summary of what I've come up with over recent years. With simple morality there would be less confusion in the world that wastes the available energy humanity has.

Avoid competition against all other people. Cooperate to protect everyone from harmful or fatal things in our universe. Determining what all those things are is one area where it might get sticky. But there are plenty of obvious ones to fight against to keep us very busy.

Belief is involuntary and forms from our circumstances: knowledge and understanding, life experiences, and natures. Being judged by belief is unjust.

I make a distinction between with and against types of competition. The with type doesn't involve the desire to take something psychological or physical from anyone, for example, competing with oneself during self-improvement.

 

[Jadebrain_Prime]

I think the world could use a book that offers a simple morality. I have thought much about the idea even though I haven't much writing time or talent. I would like to see what I have thought of expounded upon in a book.

The basic idea fits in a sentence:

Everyone fight, rather than against anyone else, against things in our universe harmful to everyone, like weather, hunger, and disease.

Here is a summary of what I've come up with over recent years. With simple morality there would be less confusion in the world that wastes the available energy humanity has.

Avoid competition against all other people. Cooperate to protect everyone from harmful or fatal things in our universe. Determining what all those things are is one area where it might get sticky. But there are plenty of obvious ones to fight against to keep us very busy.

Belief is involuntary and forms from our circumstances: knowledge and understanding, life experiences, and natures. Being judged by belief is unjust.

I make a distinction between with and against types of competition. The with type doesn't involve the desire to take something psychological or physical from anyone, for example, competing with oneself during self-improvement.

A noble idea, to say the least. Unfortunately, I don't think human nature (not to mention the outliers of sociopaths or the criminally insane) would allow for that form of unity to fully work. As of now, obviously, we don't have the technology to change the personalities of "problem" people, and even if we did, there would be ethical problems where it could be considered brainwashing to do so.

As far as belief, I consider it quasi-voluntary. That is, you could potentially choose what to believe, but what you choose is severely limited by what you want to choose, as determined by the factors you mentioned. Knowledge and understanding can, theoretically, be the most important factor, if the individual gives knowledge and understanding the credit it deserves. Unfortunately, not all people do so, and, even more unfortunately, many people (especially in third-world countries) don't have any significant access to knowledge. What you said about being judgmental of someone based on their belief still stands; while beliefs themselves can and should be judged, it is wrong to judge the person who believes them based solely on the belief.

I suppose I should mention that the main idea for this book is to prove that secular morals are possible. Listing specific moral laws would be a secondary goal, as, while it wouldn't be the main idea, it would certainly reinforce the main idea by giving a hypothetical example of secular morality at work and showing how one would go about determining morality in specific areas without the invocation of divine law. Other than that, though, the specific moral laws that would be in this book would not be the main idea; the main idea would be that being morally upright without the laws of a deity would be possible.

That said, the secondary idea of specific moral guidelines is still important. One thing I am personally interested in, and as such believe is worthy of discussion, is the idea that certain actions may allow for more good to be accomplished, yet the act in itself is morally wrong. Take Darwinism in the form of eugenics, for example. Even if you simply take away someone's right to breed, even if you don't actually kill them, it is still wrong. Yet, by eliminating undesired genes, you would be helping to create healthier future generations.

Any ideas on this highly controversial subject of doing bad things to prevent other bad things from happening?

 

[elte]

A noble idea, to say the least. Unfortunately, I don't think human nature (not to mention the outliers of sociopaths or the criminally insane) would allow for that form of unity to fully work. As of now, obviously, we don't have the technology to change the personalities of "problem" people, and even if we did, there would be ethical problems where it could be considered brainwashing to do so.

It seems to be a pretty new moral idea and that means a widespread education program would be needed. That could be considered brainwashing or just teaching something new, beginning with children. Sociopaths don't follow accepted morals very well or at all as things are now.

As far as belief, I consider it quasi-voluntary. That is, you could potentially choose what to believe, but what you choose is severely limited by what you want to choose, as determined by the factors you mentioned. Knowledge and understanding can, theoretically, be the most important factor, if the individual gives knowledge and understanding the credit it deserves. Unfortunately, not all people do so, and, even more unfortunately, many people (especially in third-world countries) don't have any significant access to knowledge. What you said about being judgmental of someone based on their belief still stands; while beliefs themselves can and should be judged, it is wrong to judge the person who believes them based solely on the belief.

Maybe it's just me, but I never had any choice. Sometimes I believe contradictory things at the same time. For example, I believe that there is a god at 60% certainty and there isn't a god at 40% certainty, just to include rough figures for example.

I suppose I should mention that the main idea for this book is to prove that secular morals are possible. Listing specific moral laws would be a secondary goal, as, while it wouldn't be the main idea, it would certainly reinforce the main idea by giving a hypothetical example of secular morality at work and showing how one would go about determining morality in specific areas without the invocation of divine law. Other than that, though, the specific moral laws that would be in this book would not be the main idea; the main idea would be that being morally upright without the laws of a deity would be possible.

The simple morality I mentioned is not based on any deity, so a secular one is definitely possible since that is mine now.

That said, the secondary idea of specific moral guidelines is still important. One thing I am personally interested in, and as such believe is worthy of discussion, is the idea that certain actions may allow for more good to be accomplished, yet the act in itself is morally wrong. Take Darwinism in the form of eugenics, for example. Even if you simply take away someone's right to breed, even if you don't actually kill them, it is still wrong. Yet, by eliminating undesired genes, you would be helping to create healthier future generations.

Any ideas on this highly controversial subject of doing bad things to prevent other bad things from happening?

Alas, this is how many laws work in civilization. I'd like us to humanize culture more and more to overcome this drawback, though, by careful policy enactment.

Eg. I have to stop my car at traffic lights, consuming gas and wearing out the brakes. Those two bad things prevent the third worse thing of an accident.

In the future, reproduction will probably have to be considered a privilege that is rationed. Not from a eugenics point of view as much as for population reduction. Eugenics looks too prone to cause trouble due to the law of unintended consequences, in my opinion. (I am for the methods of contraception and/or abstinence.)

 

[Pandaemoni]

It's a fine idea.

You may have done this already, but if not, I'd suggest that before you write a book like this, you read what other philosophers have written on ethics. Most do not ground ethics in religion, or at least in religion alone. Aristotle, for example, certainly did not ground his ethical works as having been revealed by the gods (just look at the gods he was working with—few were models of moral conduct). Kant considered his ethical system to really just an exercise of pure logic (and not an outgrowth of evolutionary predispositions). Hume, on the other hand, always placed the emphasis on human emotion and felt that superceded mere "Reason."

Then there are also books dedicated to the evolutionary origins of morality.