Universal Objective Secular Morality

[NoTrueFace1]

goal: find objective morality.

assumptions: objective morality is possible. objective good exists. logic and reason are acceptable tools to find truth.

logic: if good exists, then to seek it is good.. therefore it is good to strengthen your character, rise above emotion, and improve your mind so as to better seek good. Reason is also good. Thought is good.

Therefore, these goods should be protected and nurtured in others.  Therefore one should not needlesly cause harm to others.

[NoTrueFace1]

One can keep building from there. I also value individuality and freedom, partially because they contribute to the pursuit of truth and partially out of sentiment. I would think most will agree with me on that though. From these basic conclusions one can build a moral code, and then just government if necessary.

Any objections?

[WhiteDragon103]

@NoTrueFace1 I'm not sure what to take from this comment, but I find it interesting that people consider that objective morality is something that is possible or impossible, existent or nonexistent, as if it's some foreign entity or substance that we'd need to physically detect. I'm not suggesting this is necessarily what you mean, but I think it's important to establish that truth claims cannot always be falsified or supported using some kind of gathering of empirical data or physical evidence.

[NoTrueFace1]

certainly i never suggested that morality is a physical thing. i don't really understand what you are asking. I am well aware that morality comes from within an individual of course, but perhaps since human nature is universal, morality becomes universal and bigger than the individual. I will grant that as an ex devout catholic with 13 years in their schools I have a tendency to think of abstracts as more solid than most. If you think that clouds my judgement please tell me.

[WhiteDragon103]

@NoTrueFace1 (Cont, pt 2) What makes more sense to address some truth claims is to see whether or not it logically extends from other things we know are true. For some things, whether or not we can find supporting data or make predictions afterwards wouldn't have any meaning or affect on the conclusions drawn from logic. In other words, some truth claims cannot be not evident, they're just implied.

[NoTrueFace1]

@WhiteDragon103 I seem to have replied before you were finished and this has confused the issue somewhat. I am rather intolerant of anything that can't be proved though.  Perhaps I am an extremist in that regard. It would hardly be the first area in which i was. I don't do things half way.

[SuckUhSauce]

So lets say i abduct someon rape emm slit there throat then steal there money. In the events that occured i experienced pleasure of sex, taking life, and getting money=Good? Then saving somebody in a burning building and u get burned it is evil? You must be trying to explain the reward or punishment after judgement not the actuall action. So putting me to death is good? and rewarding me for saving someons life is good?

[HHthinktank]

really great video - 5 stars.

i even enjoyed the Steven Hawking-esque narration lol

[WeisseEdelweiss]

Sorry about that. XD! 5+!

[Airodishiin]

good vid <3

[WeisseEdelweiss]

Basically what I had in mind was something similar.

Evil = pain

Good = pleasure (or a benefit). I wouldn't have time to explain it all here. I should make a video

[WhiteDragon103]

Sounds close to what I think :3

[wesmartino64]

@WeisseEdelweiss

sounds like utilitarianism.  bentham and js mill.

[WhiteDragon103]

thank you :3

[GodWantsBlood]

Great video.

[WhiteDragon103]

thanks!