The Quest for a Secular Morality

"We humans need a moral compass, we need guidance—now more than ever. The world is an astoundingly complex place, and even learning the basic science necessary to have a broad understanding of how the world functions is a life’s achievement. We can’t expect each and every individual to be a lantern unto themselves when it will ultimately lead to each of us clumsily reinventing the wheel or a regression into empty hedonism." - IEET guest post from Tim Dean

The irony of that statement is that Dean is suggesting that a system of guidance be developed and taught to those who are not educated or 'progressive' enough to reach those conclusions on their own, while explicitly rejecting religion as a source of moral values. He is convinced that "we need a moral compass", and that such a system "can serve as a replacement for religion in our society."

Umm... I think we call attempts to indoctrinate us with a specific code of morality by virtue of superior authority 'religion'. ;)

Religion isn't unacceptable because involves a hypothetical divine being. It is unacceptable if it requires that the individual subjugate his/her own experience and reason to 'authority' to the detriment of self and others. It is unacceptable if it will perpetuate ignorance in the face of contradictory evidence in order to maintain its structural integrity, to the detriment of self and others. It is unacceptable if it causes more harm than good.

Should we really be questing for the comprehensive code of secular morality to establish how we should treat each other and why? Do we know enough now about the nature of consciousness and the range of conscious experience that we can feel comfortable making definitive statements about what it means to be human? If it is right to reject all of the contents of religion as Dean suggests - "religion is no longer suitable as a moral compass in the modern world" - because you do not like how some of them are used to reason about gene therapy and artificial intelligence, is it any more right to assume a counter-posture that reveres the experience and ideology of a select minority of humans - namely, certain scientists and philosophers?

If your objective in creating a secular morality is to enhance the authority of science, then you will be creating something just as flawed and perhaps more flawed than the existing moral guidance that is available from religion. Science has not explained what we are as conscious beings, and how all of our experiences arise. Science, as an authoritative explanation for the why of things, may provide a better accounting of our empirical knowledge than its religious counterpart, but the evil of religion is not in the nature of the explanation, but in how it is taught and applied. Unquestioning adherence to the teachings is where we get into trouble with religion, and such adherence is only found when there are claims of superior authority. Are we justified in assuming that science progresses, and that a code of secular morality grounded in scientific knowledge will automatically adapt as well? What happens when scientific theories and/or data conflict? To whose authority do we appeal then?

[Pause for rational exercise: If a child has cancer, and the parents turn to faith-healing to the exclusion of chemo or radiation, and the child dies, we vilify the parents as criminally negligent. However if a child has cancer, and the parents turn to chemo and radiation to the exclusion of faith-healing, and the child dies, we don't question their rationality. Empirical data suggests that all of the proposed treatment options work some of the time, so why is one case of blind adherence to dogma acceptable while the other isn't?]

If the true objective of a quest for secular morality is to increase moral behavior, and we can agree that unjustified appeals to authority to the detriment of human beings are the primary reasons to reject existing religious systems of moral guidance, what system or code of moral 'guidance' can be created that will be any better, yet free of the same problems?

Perhaps the place to start isn't in worrying about is inherently right or wrong. Perhaps we need to back up a step and reinforce that, right or wrong, a person should accept responsibility for his or her own actions. As members of society, we may need to accept other responsibilities as well (such as responsibility for the welfare of those in our care, etc.), but our fundamental responsibility is to not seek to attribute blame elsewhere for our circumstances or actions. No 'the devil made me do it', 'the drugs made me do it', 'peer pressure made me do it', etc. Society may conclude that others maliciously manipulated your behavior or failed in their duty to you, but you are not allowed to seek to absolve yourself of responsibility for your actions in that way.

I'd like to think that such a guiding ethical principle would promote critical thinking. If there is no one to blame but you, do you not bear the responsibility of educating yourself to the best of your abilities? Are you not forced to think about the potential consequences of your actions that much more carefully? Would a society governed by this principle exist in a better state of moral/ethical equilibrium? Would it have been enough to have prevented this, or is fear of authority and/or retribution the only thing strong enough to do that?

This merits additional thought.