Secular Morality

In one of our various discussions over what I prefer to regard as Kenya's favourite drink we touched on the issue of morals. The majority consensus was that morality cannot exist without religion. To quote one of the debaters “Secular morality is an oxymoron”. This got me thinking, can we really have morality without religion? Would secular morality in itself simply be a form of anarchy? Perhaps we should begin by trying to find out what “Morality” is.

According to Wikipedia:
Morality (from the Latin moralities "manner, character, proper behavior") is a system of conduct and ethics that is virtuous.
In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society.
In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what people think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation.
Morality may also be defined as synonymous with ethics, the field that encompasses the above two meanings and others within a systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.

According to Dictionary
Moral: Adjective, of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:
In my opinion none of these precludes having a secular morality. Morality, in itself, cannot be said to be religious, neither can secular morality be defined to be anarchy.

I would imagine that secular morality would define a system of conduct that enables a human being to live in society in a manner that enhances rather than destroys the fabric of human interaction, and the development of human potential. Granted that many of the principles that we consider moral are also in almost every religious book, it does make it hard to distinguish between religious morality and secular morality, that in itself, however, should not invalidate the concept.

Morality should be based on a few fundamental precepts. The right to life and the right to freedom. This implies not only that the individual has these rights, but also that the society he interacts in as well as humanity at large is guaranteed these freedoms. Not only should the individual have these rights but should acknowledge that other entities, too, have those rights. The only limitations should be when these selfsame rights abrogate the rights of others in this respect.

Most (not all) of the religious precepts ignore the second and limit the first except where it is expedient for it's purposes. All religions have some form of moral precepts. Not all agree, but in many cases those precepts do have a lot of similarity. But this is about secular morality, nor religious morality.

Given the fundamentals, there a a few questions that would arise from that. What moral precepts would guarantee these basic rights? In my honest opinion some of the so called “controversial issues” like homosexuality, abortion or even the right to kill in special circumstances can be answered by ensuring that the basic principles are taken care of while ensuring no person or group of people are capable of removing these rights, and if they attempt to they would have, at the very least, have abrogated their rights to freedom.

Most people take the golden rule as the ultimate morality. The golden rule says “do unto others as you would want to be done unto you.” I tend to disagree with this. Consider a person who loves pain and is into pain inducing activities as a turn on. Would somebody else, who is not into pain and such, really want to be done unto as that one would want to be done unto? The golden rule really should be “do unto others as they would like to be done unto them.” What you do unto others should be as per their preferences, not as per yours. What you do unto yourself, however, is as per your preferences.

Capital punishment cannot be a morally desirable issue. Capital punishment is an unrecoverable form of punishment which (if proven unjustified) can neither be reversed or adequately compensated. As such it should not be an option society should have at it disposal.

Imprisonment, while it does abrogate the right to freedom, should be used in cases where people abrogate the rights of others. Banishment from society and it's products would be a better option though it can only become practical when we find areas we can banish people to. Mayhaps when we discover other life supporting planets, or even if the population ever falls to a level where we can afford to have vast tracts set off and sealed for these persons.

Abortion should be limited to the persons who actually carry these babies. Persons who have nothing at stake, other than a hypothetical interest in genetic continuity or voter expansion. What is in my body is mine until it leaves my body, and as such it is my responsibility to either nurture it or terminate it. It should not be the responsibility of other third parties, whatever stake they may imagine they have unless I am no longer capable of making these decisions for myself.

Some “sins” like fornication, adultery, homosexuality et al should not really be an issue at all. After all whatever is done between consenting adults in their own privacy is really a matter between those adults. In the case of adultery (defined as a sexual act between at least two persons, one or more of whom are a married to a person outside this liaison) is really a matter between the parties concerned and should not be an issue for society at large.

Certain “commandments” like Do Not Steal, Do Not Kill fall under the right to freedom and the right to life. Persons should have freedom to accumulate, or not accumulate, articles they consider valuable and it would be morally improper to either curtail this activity or profit unfairly by removing them from that person without their free consent or otherwise. And persons should be left to live the life they want to live.

Incidentally, it should also be within that person's rights to terminate their own life in any manner they feel like, inasmuch as it does not directly infringe on the lives, or rights of others. This means that jumping out of my fifth floor window and bashing yourself to death on my new Toyota Premio is a no no. So would shooting yourself in the premises you are renting from me in such a manner as to create damage to my premises. However if you want to hang yourself from the nearest tree the only good thing the “good Samaritan” can really do is give you a stout rope as an aid.

The biggest advantage secular morality would have is that since it is not set in stone by some being it can evolve as society evolves, and it can adjust itself to situation that are new and strange without in themselves being broken. A new rule is simply set up against the fundamentals, and if it fails the fundamentals then it is immoral, if it doesn't then it is moral. Isn't that so much simpler?