consistent titling fail

[edit]

In the "Key philosophers and philosophical texts" section, there are 4 sub sections: Holyoake, Nietzsche, Kant, Utilitarianism. I call FAIL on that. Why not replace the title with John Stuart Mill, who is presented as the photo for the section... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael J. Chapman (talk • contribs) 18:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

drafting

[edit]

I hope people don't mind if I take the liberty to just compile a bunch of stuff I can find within Wikipedia itself and other sources and just vomit them over this page. The article was really empty when I found it, so I figured all it needed was something for people to work with. Im sure with the addition of content and some later reorganizing this will become top notch. I say this because some citations such as holyoake's and other stuff should probably fit in their own section, but I'm not too worried about that right now. Star Ghost 01:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was a good move. Thanks. Thomas Ash 11:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinism

[edit]

The article Darwinism already exists, of course. I consider Darwin's findings and the consequent -ism to have been a major factor in secularisation. Though 'survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection' (which are not the same as the 'Law of the Strongest') can be cruel and do not seem ethical by itself, precisely the perception of such being a problem to the mind of humans has made them:

1. wonder where our sense for ethics comes from, and
2. think again about where to draw ethical conclusions from.

I'm more of an 'original research' type than one who familiarizes oneself with the publications by philosophers or moralists, let alone their biographers, though I suggest there should be something from this line of thinking in the article Secular ethics. —— SomeHuman 2006-07-30 04:59 (UTC)

Very interesting, I suggest you contribute with what you can in that vein and we can work from there! Star Ghost 23:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By Darwinism, do you mean the theory of evolution or social Darwinism? Evolution has nothing to do with secular ethics. Social Darwinism is metaphysics or teleology. The only "secular ethics" I know of that reject ought is Positivism. "That which is natural is right." This is Ayn Rand via Aquinas. I consider Positivism a (quasi-)religion. "What would Ayn Rand do?" Secular ethics cannot rely on authority, or they would just be another religion or quasi-religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary discussions amongst users Starghost, Chrisrivers, SomeHuman

[edit]

(31 Jul2006 copied here from their talk pages, with minor adaptations like inserting <name> of addressed person, indentation)

  • Brief Introduction
  • Tenets of Secular Ethics (with references to philosophers or works where appropriate)
  • Key philosophers and philosophical texts
  • Criticism
  • Footnotes
Of course we can add more into the table but this seems like a logical outline. This will also make it easier to flesh out the contect of it, and keep the structure relatively simple for the lay-reader. Hope that sounds okay, I'm taking the liberty of making some changes and then we can heavily edit from there. --Chrisrivers 12:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need to beef up the core tenets.
  • Increase the number of the sources under the key philosophers.
  • Probably find more argument/sources for Criticism.
Anything you can add to this would be great.
Thanks --Chrisrivers 19:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

end of parts copied from talk pages, continuing discussion hereunder

  1. It is only a fraction of the criticism and expanding would take too much attention with respect to the main section.
  2. It is selective against one religion's ethics: there exists also criticism on e.g. Islamic ethics but that section has no such subsection.
  3. The criticism on Christian ethics is part of Nietzsche's philosophy and belongs there. Compare: criticism on catholicic ethics by catholic theologists, even if officially excluded from their Church, does belong in an article on catholicism.
Ethics in the Bible has a section with a selection of criticism by religious as well as non-religious people. At a first glance, perhaps this might be opportune, but I keep having some serious doubts about that part. I can't immediately check the relevancy and wager it against the relevancy of criticism that is not mentioned. In other words, it is very hard to establish whether it is POV and that perception alone seems undesirable.
Just try and find a section 'Criticism' with views by secular ethicists in any of these articles: Buddhist Ethics, or in Animism, Shamanism, Mana-ism, Bön, Brahmanism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Confusianism (includes criticism in a few sections), Judaism, Catholicism, Islam (includes not specifically secular criticism of outward actions allegedly by islam religion, also link to Criticism of Islam which page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved — perhaps indicating we might better refrain from creating 'Criticism on secular ethics'?), Protestantism... and you'll know whether or how criticism might be tackled.
Star Ghost suggested a compromise by creating a separate article containing the criticism on secular ethics. Assume we would finally end up with a dozen strains of secular ethics, would we then show the views of each religion on each strain? I consider it to be impossible because probably very few Shi`ites etc, ever even heard of Holyoake etc. If on the other hand we only show criticism that has been brought under larger public attention, we would need to be aware of just about every publication and its weight - I assume this is clearly above our capacities. I would forget about criticism: it's bound to become too complex and then still too disputable. In an article about a specific subject e.g. abortion, genetic manipulation, ..., the relevant ethical views will pop up anyway. There is also a theoretical philosophical problem: one who sincerely believes a god-creator must be accepted as master of his creation to whom his will was demonstrated, such religious person's criticism on secular ethics is predictable; as my remark about Nietzsche's criticism, this religious criticism is part of the religious ethics and has, though outspoken against secular ethics, nothing to do with secular ethics. Only criticism that manages to point out a contradiction or other logical flaw within a strain of secular ethics, if this criticism seems to have any weight in the general discourse, needs to be mentioned in the 'secular ethics' article (or in a separate one if it would become more than a few paragraphs) — regardless whether such criticism comes from an atheist or the Pope. Anyway, the article should only give a resumé of each strain that has its separate article which should already include noteworthy criticism.
May I suggest, if not yet done, to have a look at Religiosity and especially Ethics and its links?
SomeHuman 2006-07-31 03:13 (UTC)
  • Sounds good, your right this will be the hardest part, but it should make for an excellent article once complete. One of the problems I'm finding is that we know what "Secular Ethics" is, but there seems to be precious little sources of information that aren't simply based on opposition from Religious Ethics. I'll do as much as I can with content and then move onto citing and referencing as much as I can. Looking good though! --Chrisrivers 08:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Criticism

[edit]

Since secular ethics denies or basis its ethos on the concept that there is no higher power or that since we can't see it or prove its existence it should be taken out of the equation. They then go on to state that people can be moral without moral underpinnings. This seems to be based on a fallacy, certainly a good person could be good because he wants to, but this is meaningless. If you are kind and nice by nature fine, but what if your not? why is it wrong to kill? why is it wrong to steal? why is it wrong to rape?. The last question seems obvious, because of the suffering involved, which is true if you are the aforementioned kind person, but what if your driven by your own life experiences or by your own twisted desires to rape?, why is it wrong then?. Most people don't like to see others suffer but some abnormal people do, is the only reason its wrong that it damages human social structures and therefore we have consequences in the form of prison to keep us from acting?. This does not seem like much of a reason, if a person is willing to rape why would he care about the social contract?, and what if he is driven by an impulse of some sort?. The question becomes even more difficult when talking about murder and even more so when talking about theft, why is it wrong to kill, if its to prevent suffering in said victims loved ones thats fine as far as it goes but what if you don't care about others suffering?, what if you see said loved ones as an enemy as well?, is it moral to kill a hypothetical person who is disliked or hated and had no loved ones?. The problem becomes more muddled when looking at other society's, was it right that some peoples performed human sacrifice?, or cannibalism?, or accepted things such as pedophilia and the general subjugation of woman?, the society's that practiced these things thought they were right, does that mean that they were right in that context?. And if the bulk of society thought cannibalism was just fine does that mean its moral by virtue of our attitude?. This is an example of subjective morality.

It seems you completely ignored the article to present the cliché religious criticism of secular morals. The Golden Rule is pretty explicit within the article itself as a guideline, which you seem to have completely ignored, and it also can be completely secular, as it can be quite objective. It is wrong to rape because you are violating the freedom/free will/natural rights of others. The same applies to cannibalism. Nowhere does it say in the article that secular morals is merely a majority principle. Starghost (talk | contribs) 17:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because if we are left without objective morality or you believe that objective morality exists, just without a deity of any sort than the question arises, how does such an general objective morality work, without an overriding intelligence behind it?. If its a natural law then almost everybody except a tiny statistical anomaly would be moral, and that is clearly not the case. And if its a natural law that compels most of us to be generally moral, based on a looser interpretation of natural law so that we are not compelled to be moral but drawn toward moral actions which would explain why most people are on average moral inasmuch as they don't kill or torture and rarely steal and try not to lie. This is fine except this only explains why most people are not evil as we define evil.

Where do you get that only a tiny statistical anomaly would be amoral (I believe that was what you meant to say otherwise it wouldnt make sense) if it was a natural law? Also, where do you get that it is not the case? As far as I know, the majority of the population are not criminals, if written law is one tool we are could to measure objective morality. Also, none is to say natural law is not subject to social phenomena. Read Emile Durkheim on the subject. A "social fact" could be responsible for triggering amorality, or even objective morality if you fancy the hypothesis. In fact, Durkheim and others have suggested criminality arises from social phenomena. Starghost (talk | contribs) 17:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It still leaves open the question of why people who for one reason or another fall out of this natural moral law should act in such a way as is compatible with moral people. He is not drawn towards good acts or away from bad acts like others are, why should he pretend he is?. The fear of consequences becomes the only reason people act morally, but this means that if a person is cunning enough or believes he is cunning enough to get away with a crime, or is willing to take the risk of capture for whatever reward then there is nothing wrong with what he did, we can try to catch him for the betterment of society but telling him he was wrong serves no purpose because their is no objective morality to fall back on.

Fear of consequences has nothing to do with morality, perhaps perceived morality. The person is still amoral, he's only opressed by authority. You seem to imply some people are naturally amoral and there's perceived morality only because of social contract. We've also discussed earlier about the exceptions to the law that morality is natural, don't think I need to repeat myself. You also seem to make a tautological argument about there being no objective morality because there is no objective morality to fall back on. Empty argument. Starghost (talk | contribs) 17:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or there is an objective morality but without anyone behind it, whereby since this hypothetical person falls outside this weak natural moral law, and since it doesn't apply to him naturally he can't be expected to abide by it. The question of subjective morality is equally problematic, if its correct by virtue of a society accepting it what defines a society. Is any grouping a society if it has borders?, or does it need borders?. And if its acceptable for a society why is it not acceptable for an individual?, if every person is autonomous and morality subjective than can't I define morality for myself based upon self-interest? and if not, why not?.

You obviously have no educated views on what defines society. Read Societal Laws by Maurice MANDELBAUM (The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. VIII, n.31, 1957, pages 211-224) on some aspects on methodological individualism and methodological holism, and the question of whether society is composed by a group of individuals or if the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. In case you are curious, he finds that methodological holism is in fact not the only alternative to methodological individualism. I could also cite a number of ways of "why not". You might start with a society with a number of arbitrary principles, then the ones most likely to succeed would eventually turn them into something non-arbitraty through the process of survival. You might also cite the objectivity of the Golden Rule. A million responses are appropriate to this. Starghost (talk | contribs) 17:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kant's point about how stealing is wrong because if everybody stole it would destroy society and one shouldn't put themselves above everybody else is fine if you accept theism but otherwise we are autonomous and have short life spans, if the negative event is going to happen after all our loved ones are gone then why care?. making the world better for those who come after us is a noble concept but what if you aren't concerned with coming generations?, and what about anarchists?, there whole ethos is about destroying society structurally. And if Kant is correct than anarchists are just moving their agenda further by breaking the social contract.

You would be wrong to determine Anarchists destroy social structure. Anarchism is comprised of a series of complex social structures, as evidenced by the Nuer study of british functional-structuralist E. E. Evans Pritchard. Starghost (talk | contribs) 17:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that secular ethics can't apply, all I'm saying that its not teachable and not useful, if you don't want to abide by it their are no consequences and without consequences society is at the mercy of anybody who has no concern for secular ethics. If taught to a youth, that there is no god and we should be good because we should want to be good or so we don't get caught, then we teach them them the opposite as well, that if we don't want to be good and don't think we're going to get caught then that's that, we should refrain from doing what we feel is repugnant, but if we want to do it and its allowed or we are not likely to get caught within a personally defined threshold of risk, then its acceptable. This criticism is in response to the desire for criticism stated at the beginning of the talk page, I can't put it in the page without citations but still feel it might come in handy if anybody was looking for a general critique of secular ethics.--74.120.33.251 01:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC) I wasn't signed in, sorry. The criticism was mine--Colin 8 01:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments fail to sustain the point you are trying to make. It is teachable, useful. It is specially teachable if you compare it to religious ethics. It is of specially useful understanding if you want a scientific understanding of society. They do not say there are "no consequences", this is just a straw man. They do not say there is no god, they just don't take it into account when considering the subject of ethics and morals. This criticism is hardly handy as it is uneducated, unsourced, and empty from a critical standpoint. Starghost (talk | contribs) 17:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Colin, Wikipedia is not the place for a theological or philosophical discussion, so I keep this short. The source of morality can be put wherever one prefers, but no assumed source has been able to prevent harming people or comitting crimes with much more success than any other source - so we still need prisons and social control. One may assume for instance that an individual may think he has the right to kill or that it would be an advantage to himself to do so, but if that individual does not believe in a supernatural source, he may be less inclined to assume the holiness, devine inspiration of his thoughts and realize the possibility of forgetting something, of making a mistake in one's thinking, and knowing that people are very much against killing, doubt his own conviction. If not absolutely sure, it seems a lot safer to find other solutions to a problem. It is then selfishness or self-protection, and the ease of knowing that others will think that way too and thus the nice feeling of being safe between others, that steers us in an ethically acceptable way. — SomeHuman 12 Dec2006 02:53 (UTC)
In order to be at all credible and intellectually honest, this article needs a criticism section.--70.67.143.197 (talk) 09:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Small Point

[edit]

The first line of the Secular ethics and religion section appears to imply that atheists and agnostics are definitionally irreligious, which is untrue. Surely simply "irreligious people" is an exhaustive description of the group of people that the sentence is referring to. Heihachi 16:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Scouts

[edit]

Why is the Scout Law featured as an example of a secular code of ethics? I mean, it says "A scout is [..] reverent." Also, the Scout Oath states

On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

--Humanist Geek (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a set of principles that does not mention God or a higher power. The Oath is not included here and it is separate from the Law are separate.
"Reverent" may have religious connotations for some people. Its definition is not restricted to religion, however. One can have "reverence" for just about anything.
I would be OK deleting the Boy Scout entry if it could be shown that they Boy Scouts are:

Otherwise, I think that the Boy Scout law could reasonably be included here. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had to delete that section

[edit]

Scout law clearly implies God and uses Him as a foundation for most of their beliefs, even if not explictly stated in the law... This is pretty consistent wordlwide. A lot of scout organizations have variations of these two rules codified:

Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Chile, Denmark, Guatemala, Hungary, Indonesia Ireland, Norway, Poland, as well as the aformentioned oath in the U.S. Scouts all make mention of a God... these organizations are hardly secular.

Just because the legal-code in the U.S. doesn't mention God doesn't mean the ethical code is inherently secular, as the organization clearly relies on God for it's foundation. Otherwise, several religious denominations might well qualify under "secular ethics". Atari25 (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted for reasons given below. There's something to what you say, but this is something that needs to be agreed on by more than one editor here. More discussion is needed. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Desperately Needs Improving

[edit]

This article desperately needs some attention by someone who has studied ethics. I won't critique it in full, but it falls down badly in the first line.

"Secular ethics is a branch of moral philosophy in which ethics is based solely on human faculties such as logic, reason or moral intuition, and not derived from purported supernatural revelation or guidance (which is the source of religious ethics)"

This opening claim is flagrantly false, at least as written. By this definition, Kant's ethical thought would qualify as secular ethics (which it clearly isn't), and what one would make of Aristotle on this kind of a reading is frankly a mystery! The attempt to define secular ethics by comparing it to some strange caricature of religion based (it seems) purely on fundamentalist Abrahamic religion, is doomed to fail.

I'm prepared to believe there's some content that deserves to be collected under this heading, but the article can't exist in a complete vacuum of knowledge concerning the history of ethics. At the moment, that appears to be the case. 93.97.31.222 (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scouts

[edit]

I understand some don't like the boy/girl scouts' ethical codes here. My take is that their ethical codes are secular, (The only possible issue might be with the word "reverent", in the Boy Scouts' motto, but that has non-religious connotations as well so we shouldn't try to interpret it one way or the other.) Secular ethics and examples of secular ethics codes are what this article is about. Further analysis into the organizations behind the codes is out of the scope of this article, IMO.

I believe that the Boy and Girl Scouts' ethical codes are useful examples of secular ethics. If a consensus of editors feels differently, so be it. Just my two cents. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal ethics

[edit]

The definition given here is that "Secular ethics comprises any ethical system that does not draw on the supernatural."

Blogger "Crude" complains in "Secular Crimes and Religious Crimes" that this article omits the secular ethical codes followed by some criminal organizations. Examples are the Russian-originated "Thieve's Code" and the Sicilian Mafia's Omertà and "Ten Commandments". Also, according to our Wikipedia, the Japanese Yakuza are known for their strict codes of conduct. The fact that these secular ethical codes clearly exist (or existed) must be at least mentioned in this article. Criminals' codes are of course used to cement in-group loyalty in order to obtain power and profit at the ultimate expense of everyone else.

A more respectable secular group, the American Medical Association, has an official code of ethics, violations of which can result in losing one's license to practice medicine. Our Wiki article mentions some criticisms to the effect that in the past it seemed to value physician pocketbooks over public health.

Major engineering societies also publish ethical codes which are considered binding by some state licensing boards. --71.174.174.177 (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. As to the "definition", it is unsourced, and will eventually need a source—which will probably modify its wording somewhat.
I see no reason why any secular ethics code cannot be added to an encyclopedia article. However, before someone did a lot of work adding and sourcing more examples, I'd suggest that the definition and limits of the article be clearly identified in the lede first. There are so many organizations out there with secular ethics codes, that a fully developed article here might eventually summarize them by type, only noting a few examples. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Freemasons

[edit]

If the Boy Scouts, with their requirement of theistic belief, can be considered as a group whose ethical code can be considered "secular", surely the Freemasons can also be so considered since they have a similar requirement but do not advance any particular creed, even prohibiting religious discussion at their meetings. --71.174.161.150 (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Boy Scout section was removed some time ago. What specifically in the article are you referring to? --Airborne84 (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to your own argumentation above; I had not checked the current state of the article. Sorry! --71.174.161.150 (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks for your interest, and please consider contributing further to the article itself. It needs a lot of work. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Luizpuodzius:

[edit]

Querendo traduzir é só brotar aq. 2804:14C:5BB3:8BED:88F1:F7B3:7DB8:E551 (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categories