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?

A meeting with Her Pinkiness

Tony Lawrence : The Ten Commandments
(A Man recounts the decalogue to Her Pinkness.)

The IPU shook her mane and stamped her feet impatiently. Her Holy Nostrils flared. "Anything else?" she inquired of the Man who stood quivering in front of her.

"Um…" The Man was obviously nervous. He was not enjoying this conversation, and the IPU's growing impatience was not helping. "Um, yes, we are, um, not…" The Man paused and then continued in a rush, "not supposed to covet our neighbour's wife!"

The IPU snorted loudly. "That's rich!" she bellowed. "Now THAT ought to be an easy one for you insatiable little monkey spawn. I'll just bet!" she chortled.

The Man shuffled his feet and stared at the ground. A small slug was crawling slowly through the leaves at his feet. The Man wished he could crawl off somewhere else.

But the IPU was not finished with her interrogation. "You have missed one. I believe you said there were ten commandments, and you have only told me nine. What is the tenth, insignificant turd?"

The Man swallowed hard. Hands clenched, he gritted his teeth and raised his head. He stared into the flashing eyes of the Holy IPU. "We are tmf nthr ds for em".

"WHAT!" The Holy IPU fixed the Man in her regal stare. "Speak up, you ugly pink ape!"

The Man's hands were shaking and his tongue could not work. He opened his mouth, closed it, then opened it again. Finally, eyes winced against the inexorable results, he spoke: "We are to have no other gods before Him." He closed his eyes and waited for the Fiery Breath to consume him.

Nothing happened. Cautiously, the Man opened his eyes. The Holy IPU was simply standing in front of him, and actually she looked more amused than angry.

"No other gods?" she asked. "As in, no worshipping of the One True God, Her Incredible Pinkness? No worship of ME?

The Man again found the slug to be the focus of his concentration. Something about its slow progress through the field encouraged him. The slug would reach its destination, and he, the Man, would also survive this day. The Holy IPU would not reduce him to a pile of cinders to be blown away by the summer wind.

The IPU spoke again. "Where is this Mighty One who is so jealous of Me?" she asked. "Have you seen Him?"

The Man looked at her once again. "I have not, but Moses has. The Lord spoke to him from a burning bush."

"Cheap carnival trick," offered Her Pinkness. "I don't suppose you've seen any tangible evidence of this Dude's presence, then. How about intangibles? Healing of the sick, bountiful crops, that sort of thing? Actually, I thought the harvest was pretty poor this year. Shouldn't your Pal have prevented that?"

The Man's face plainly displayed anger. He was well aware of the IPU"s refusal to even listen to entreaties for assistance. She didn't care if his people lived or died, and made it well known. Pleas for assistance were greeted with nothing but insults and laughter, if they were even entertained at all.

"There has been sin."

The Holy IPU raised her eyebrows. "Sin? Oh, how handy. Let me guess: I bet there's been some coveting, and some bearing of false witness, and perhaps some harsh words by teenagers to their parents, so conveniently enough, your Invisible Pal doesn't have to shower you with bounty. How beautifully done: set you up for failure, then get you to blame yourselves. I love it!"

"God is not Invisible. God is everywhere!" The Man was sullen, but was also remembering a certain bit of coveting that he was guilty of. He hated to think that it might be his fault that the crops were bad, but…

The IPU shook her mane, and looked off across the field. "Go away, Man." She spoke softly, even kindly. Usually her words were caustic, full of sarcasm and disgust. But now she seemed almost tender. No fire was in her eyes, and her hooves were not pounding the earth. "Go away," she repeated. "Go and pray to your invisible friend. Chastise yourself, and praise him. Punish everyone who will not join you in your delusion. Feel good about that, and believe that your Make Believe Buddy will reward you for your cruelty. Take his commandments, and rule your life by their words. Do not question anything, do not use your pitiful mind; simply give yourself over to this pathetic dream."

The IPU now looked sad. "You know, in spite of the fact that you are all incredibly ugly and hopelessly stupid, I had some hope for you." She paused, and looked again at the Man who stood before her, still afraid, but now confused by her inexplicable reversal of attitude.

"Things could have been different", she said, and then vanished in a puff of Pinkness.

The Man stood alone in the field. The last rays of the sun lengthened his shadow to where the IPU had stood. The grass was even now straightening up from the imprint of her hooves, and soon there would be no remaining trace of her presence at all. The slug had managed to move an entire pace away from the Man's foot. He stepped forward, bent down, and popped it in his mouth.

Gods suck, he thought as he walked back to his village.

Gotten from http://www.palmyria.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm

Of Coughs, Flu and God Almighty

I am trying to recover from one of those bugs that seasonally fly around. It been so bad that this has been one of the rare times I've actually gone to the pharmacist to get myself drugs for it. As usual the pharmacist asks what symptoms I have. Running nose, cough, fever, and one painful headache. All standard. Then he asks "Wet cough or dry cough." Usually I answer without thinking so much "Dry Cough." After all wet cough does give me a picture of some undersea noises as you cough through a mass of liquid. For some strange reason this time I decided to ask what the difference was. Horror of Horrors, I discover then that what I'd always presumed to be a dry cough is defined, at least by the pharmacist, as a wet cough. I, apparently, have been using the wrong definition for all my life!

Cough and flu done. So what has this got to do with God Almighty? I was tempted to say nothing, however something did come to mind. I have two friends on the opposite side of the God spectrum. One believes in God. The other doesn't believe in any gods. Then again, I have may friends who believe in God, or gods and insist that these entities exist while others insist that it is impossible to know whether they exist. What I have noticed with all these people is that they all seem to presume they are using the same definition of God, or gods, as the other.

Every time I challenge one or the other to prove their stand I get a mass of contradictions. One would think they are actually discussing different concepts while thinking the other is discussing their concept. I've realised that most of us have our own internalised definition of God which may not necessarily be what the other thinks of as God.

Which brings me to the crux of the matter. Exactly who, or what, is God?