Which is a superior foundation for morality: Christianity or Secular Humanism? [Spirituality & Religion]
While i think that Christianity has a number of good moral positions it also has some pretty wretched stuff which is (at least notionally) based on what a god wants. On the other hand, secular humanism holds as it's metric the idea of human flourishing and reduction of harm. It can encompass absolutely every moral virtue claimed by Christianity but is beholden to none of the harmful, punitive dictates that come from religious dogma.
Therefor i say that Secular humanism has the superior foundation for a system of morality.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies 禄
@Pikachu My question isn't about google definitions etc. It's about what you deem to be moral. Perhaps a somewhat clumsy example will help to illustrate why (and what) I'm asking.
There are many cultures and communities and groups which consider consensual polygamy to be perfectly moral. Not all of them are religions. However, our Western societies frown on polygamy so much that we've enacted laws against the practice.
So, who is right? Is consensual polygamy even a moral issue?
Yeah that's perfectly moral as long as all parties are informed and consenting.
It's a moral issue when a certain ideology considers it immoral....i.e. christian morality. So that's actually a good example of where secular humanist morality is superior.
@Pikachu Yeah, I'm not sure that I've read anything in any texts about secular humanism which condones polygamy.
It's almost 01:30am where I am so I'll have a dig around a bit and come back to you on that one some other time. In any event, polygamy is just an illustration vis-a-vis, what is your idea of morality?
@Pikachu The point that I'm trying to make is that, basing a debate on the concept of morality is akin to building a house on shifting sands.
Our social constructs are, and must be, dynamic and organic.
Things go very wrong when groups try to constrict the organic and dynamic nature of our societies. And yes, formal religions are usually the worst culprits. But, so are our social constructs. Even those which formally separate state and religion. Ironic, right?
Because our social constructs must be dynamic and organic, the moral codes which underpin them must be equally adaptive. Must be allowed to evolve.
Before you start jumping up and down and waving and telling me that, that's what secular humanism promotes, I'd like to point out two things. First, humanism argues that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone (Robert Ashby). Human nature can be a pretty crappy thing on which to base anything. Second, if we look at the actual teachings of Christ, it's relatively easy to determine that he was both a humanist and a socialist.
