Secular Morality - (10) Secular Judgement of Biblical Immorality

Why we can judge human immorality in the Bible as "wrong" from a secular perspective.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• bible
• immorality
• god
• morality
• ethics
• right and wrong
• secular
• humanism
• atheism
• atheist
• agnostic
• new atheist
• faith
• jesus
• relativism
• nihilism
• ethical philosophy
• sam harris
• c.s. lewis
• william lane craig

[myintellectualjourny]

@Theologica37

(A-2)

Do you have a critique for this version of Psychological Egoism?

(I argue in this series that moral concerns are in our natural interest. And in part 5, plan to defend this understanding of Psychological Egoism - though I've just now learned the official name for the view.)

(I first adopted this view as a Christian as a result of reading theologian John Piper's Desiring God - where he defends it as biblical. Blaise Pascal also appears to have shared this view.)

[myintellectualjourny]

@Theologica37

(A-1)

Thanks. I watched your videos on Utilitarianism and Ethical Egoism (as Epydemic2020 has suggested this as my view previously.)

It now is clear to me that my view is Psychological Egoism. I believe - as it is defined in wikipedia - "that humans are always motivated by self-interest..."

(I do not believe that we are ONLY motivated by self-interest but ALWAYS motivated by it.)

(cont'd in next comment.)

[Theologica37]

watch?v=PmQvRm_4tmI

This is the video. The problems with the theory I outline throughout, and they are summarized in the last minute.

[Theologica37]

Check my video:

'Secular Ethics: Utilitarianism'

[myintellectualjourny]

@Theologica37

Thanks Theologica. For the problems I've come across that apply to my understanding of morality as grounded in human nature (and not a consequentialists definition of morality per say), I've not come across any that I haven't understood the rebuttal to (or been able to discover it.)

Please let me know if there are any particular issues that strike you as relevant. I'm open to having my view challenged and giving my best response.

Thanks.

[Theologica37]

Its a statement of classical utilitarianism.

There are many noted problems with this sort of reasoning.

[myintellectualjourny]

(A-2)

As I argued in my first video in this series, that which causes greater "harm" - in terms of suffering - & benefit - in terms of well-being - are not mere matters of opinion. There are things we know about this showing some opinions on what is beneficial or harmful to be more accurate then others. And this same knowledge allows us to show some choices to be better (more beneficial / less harmful) than others. This remains true despite the fact that some situations offer no best choice.

[myintellectualjourny]

@Epydemic2020

(A-1)

Thanks man. I definitely would & do say that we should value (for reasons subjective to human nature itself.) So far, I've argued that we should care about how human behavior effects people in general & specifically how our own behavior does. And further that for these reasons, that we should value behavior that has a more positive effect over behavior that has a more negative effect as generally worse for us.

[Epydemic2020]

Thats probably the best I have heard your position summarized, it sounded pretty good. "Causing harm that is not necessary to create some greater harm is immoral". If you cannot say what we should value, you cannot say harm is bad. aka harm cannot be bad unless we first assume or prove that something is objectively valuable (and therefore something exists which should be valued and not destroyed). Also "greater harm" is entirely subjective.