Secular Morality and Meaning

[Matthew78]

My inspiration for starting this thread is from another regarding where atheists and other secularists get their morality from. For the record, I have stopped calling myself a Secular Humanist because I'm not satisfied with secular ethics.

The problem is that I see no purpose or meaning to life from a secular viewpoint. If we are just the sum of our cells, then what's the purpose to life? There is no objective purpose or meaning as far as I can tell. Some might say that the purpose is to be happy. But if I was asked questions like 1.) why bother to be happy? and 2.) what difference would it make if I was happy or not?, I wouldn't know what to say.

I like the thought of being happy. I want to be happy. I imagine most people do. But as for why I should want to be happy or why I ought to be happy, I have no idea. If someone asked me, I would be completely lost for words. I really have no clue. If life is ultimately meaningless and exists for no purpose, why attach meaning or purpose where it previously didn't exist? What's the point? What difference does it make? Why bother? Is it because it makes for a harmonious and peaceful society? If so, then the question I would ask is: why care about harmony and peace? If some folks reply because they're better than other alternatives, the question becomes: why care about which alternatives are better than other alternatives?

In the end, I find Secular Humanism not much better than the Evangelical Christian fundamentalism I cheerfully renounced nine years ago!

For Secular Humanists, where do you think I'm going wrong?

 

[Skwim]

My inspiration for starting this thread is from another regarding where atheists and other secularists get their morality from. For the record, I have stopped calling myself a Secular Humanist because I'm not satisfied with secular ethics.

The problem is that I see no purpose or meaning to life from a secular viewpoint. If we are just the sum of our cells, then what's the purpose to life?

This presumes there is one. Is there? Many people don't think so.

There is no objective purpose or meaning as far as I can tell. Some might say that the purpose is to be happy. But if I was asked questions like 1.) why bother to be happy? and 2.) what difference would it make if I was happy or not?, I wouldn't know what to say. I like the thought of being happy. I want to be happy. I imagine most people do. But as for why I should want to be happy or why I ought to be happy, I have no idea. If someone asked me, I would be completely lost for words

How about "Pleasure trumps pain." As with many, many other organisms, even those with no reasoning brain, we tend toward the pleasurable and away from the no-so-pleasurable.

If life is ultimately meaningless and exists for no purpose, why attach meaning or purpose where it previously didn't exist? What's the point? What difference does it make? Why bother?

Why indeed?

Is it because it makes for a harmonious and peaceful society? If so, then the question I would ask is: why care about harmony and peace? If some folks reply because they're better than other alternatives, the question becomes: why care about which alternatives are better than other alternatives?

It's the pleasure = good and pain = bad thing again. It's why organisms have survived to evolve. They take up what is beneficial and avoid what is detrimental. Not to say the detrimental can't be momentarily pleasurable, but in the long run it's not beneficial.

In the end, I find Secular Humanism not much better than the Evangelical Christian fundamentalism I cheerfully renounced nine years ago!

Okay.

For Secular Humanists, where do you think I'm going wrong?

I won't say you're wrong, only that you may be ignoring the benefit of good and detriment of bad.

 

[Matthew78]

Skwim, thanks for responding..

This presumes there is one. Is there? Many people don't think so.

Then Secular Humanists believe that purpose and meaning (assuming these two terms aren't merely synonyms) are subjective? This seems to me the most honest answer.

How about "Pleasure trumps pain." As with many, many other organisms, even those with no reasoning brain, we tend toward the pleasurable and away from the no-so-pleasurable.

Okay, so you are suggesting some kind of utilitarianism probably holds the answer? I can accept that living organisms are wired to tend towards what is pleasurable and avoid what is painful but this would only answer the question of why we tend to be moral, as I see it, not why we ought to be moral.

It's the pleasure = good and pain = bad thing again. It's why organisms have survived to evolve. They take up what is beneficial and avoid what is detrimental. Not to say the detrimental can't be momentarily pleasurable, but in the long run it's not beneficial.

So it boils down to utilitarianism along the lines of Bentham and Mill?

I won't say you're wrong, only that you may be ignoring the benefit of good and detriment of bad.

I appreciate your response. I don't think I'm so much ignoring the benefit of the good and pleasurable as much as what is pleasurable and painful have ceased to have meaning for me. I've become, for the most part, apathetic.

 

[Storm]

Have you looked into spiritual Humanism?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Why be happy? Because it's more preferable to being miserable, yes?

If not, then you shouldn't care. So be it. But you know you want to be happy. If someone asks you why it's better to be happy than to be unhappy, it's because you choose it. There may be no intrinsic meaning to life, but you choose your meaning. You seem to be adjusting to the whole "being chained by freedom of choice" thing. I hope you get over it.

Then again, if you chose to not be happy, suffering would be what you would want, and therefore would be your conception of happiness...my head hurts.

 

[Matthew78]

Have you looked into spiritual Humanism?

I'm not sure what you have in mind. What is "spiritual Humaism"? I'm looking into Unitarian Universalism because it seems to me to be religious Humanism.

 

[Storm]

I'm not sure what you have in mind. What is "spiritual Humaism"? I'm looking into Unitarian Universalism because it seems to me to be religious Humanism.

Well, UU is one form, I suppose. It's been a long time, but there used to be a forum for spiritual Humanists. They were pretty diverse. Might look for it.

 

[Skwim]

Then Secular Humanists believe that purpose and meaning (assuming these two terms aren't merely synonyms) are subjective? This seems to me the most honest answer.

No. I think the purpose of X and its meaning are often objective. More specifically, I think any conclusions as to an actual purpose and meaning of life stem either from the acceptance of authoritative pronouncements, or from an inner need for there existence, which will determine the particulars that convince.

Okay, so you are suggesting some kind of utilitarianism probably holds the answer?

In part, yes; the other part being empathy.

I can accept that living organisms are wired to tend towards what is pleasurable and avoid what is painful but this would only answer the question of why we tend to be moral, as I see it, not why we ought to be moral.

I believe the ought comes from our empathy. For whatever reason, to various degrees we identify with and understand the feelings, situation, and responses of others. And it's this empathy that motivates us to see that the least harm possible befalls others. Hence the creation of morals and the establishment of ethics.

So it boils down to utilitarianism along the lines of Bentham and Mill?

Sorry, but it's been yearrrs since I had philosophy 101.

I appreciate your response. I don't think I'm so much ignoring the benefit of the good and pleasurable as much as what is pleasurable and painful have ceased to have meaning for me. I've become, for the most part, apathetic.

The apathy will quickly disappear when you're made to confront either one of the two. You're just in a comfortable coasting place right now, which will change either on its own or when you decide to take action, and effect a change.

 

[Pillsongchurch]

My inspiration for starting this thread is from another regarding where atheists and other secularists get their morality from. For the record, I have stopped calling myself a Secular Humanist because I'm not satisfied with secular ethics.

The problem is that I see no purpose or meaning to life from a secular viewpoint. If we are just the sum of our cells, then what's the purpose to life? There is no objective purpose or meaning as far as I can tell. Some might say that the purpose is to be happy. But if I was asked questions like 1.) why bother to be happy? and 2.) what difference would it make if I was happy or not?, I wouldn't know what to say.

I like the thought of being happy. I want to be happy. I imagine most people do. But as for why I should want to be happy or why I ought to be happy, I have no idea. If someone asked me, I would be completely lost for words. I really have no clue. If life is ultimately meaningless and exists for no purpose, why attach meaning or purpose where it previously didn't exist? What's the point? What difference does it make? Why bother? Is it because it makes for a harmonious and peaceful society? If so, then the question I would ask is: why care about harmony and peace? If some folks reply because they're better than other alternatives, the question becomes: why care about which alternatives are better than other alternatives?

In the end, I find Secular Humanism not much better than the Evangelical Christian fundamentalism I cheerfully renounced nine years ago!

For Secular Humanists, where do you think I'm going wrong?

Wow, it looks like everyone who's replied so far has their philosophy degrees already! I don't so I'll keep it simple by necessity

I've only recently come to the conclusion that I'm an atheist. Until then I would have said agnostic at best and never religious, but I suppose I always liked to believe that there was the possibility of "something else" greater than the physical world. Mortality was a scary concept and religion offered an antidote for that fear.

If I had to guess at the time when my atheism became clear to me it would be some point after having kids. I now have 2 beautiful little ones and I've realised that I'm part of this unimaginably long chain of life. Whilst I accept that this chain stretches in both directions further than I can get my head around, I'm pretty happy with my immediate place in it. My parents raised me as I raise my children, as hopefully they will raise theirs. I understand now that I don't need to live forever - the people in my life who love me will remember me after I'm gone, and right now that's actually enough.

That probbably seems like a cliche, but that's just my experience and my perceptions. Because I'm comfortable with this I have far more peace of mind now than I did when I was agnostic and uncertain.

 

[Sunstone]

Mathew, you ask, "Why bother to be happy?" But have you ever tried not to be happy? Do you think you could sustain a serious effort to be unhappy? And if you could, do you think that would indicated a problem such as depression or some other mental illness.

For most of us, Mathew, values are grounded in a combination of things. Even if we say our values are grounded in just one thing, say god, that is only brave talk. In reality our values are derived from many factors.

 

[elmarna]

Life is "meaningless" only if you put no meaning to it!
:appiness is a tough1.
I am in a state where you question is not without me.
To find happiness is not without reaizeing it must come from within.
To be fufilled with it is in the steps of a positive mind and a objectivity that will let your mind find the concepts of importance in which you shower yourself with them.
For example-pleasent is pleased.pleased is satisfied.
How you manage the world to support happiness is up to you to define.
If you find anything that works contact me I am always open for suggestions!

 

[Straw Dog]

My inspiration for starting this thread is from another regarding where atheists and other secularists get their morality from. For the record, I have stopped calling myself a Secular Humanist because I'm not satisfied with secular ethics.

The problem is that I see no purpose or meaning to life from a secular viewpoint. If we are just the sum of our cells, then what's the purpose to life? There is no objective purpose or meaning as far as I can tell. Some might say that the purpose is to be happy. But if I was asked questions like 1.) why bother to be happy? and 2.) what difference would it make if I was happy or not?, I wouldn't know what to say.

I like the thought of being happy. I want to be happy. I imagine most people do. But as for why I should want to be happy or why I ought to be happy, I have no idea. If someone asked me, I would be completely lost for words. I really have no clue. If life is ultimately meaningless and exists for no purpose, why attach meaning or purpose where it previously didn't exist? What's the point? What difference does it make? Why bother? Is it because it makes for a harmonious and peaceful society? If so, then the question I would ask is: why care about harmony and peace? If some folks reply because they're better than other alternatives, the question becomes: why care about which alternatives are better than other alternatives?

In the end, I find Secular Humanism not much better than the Evangelical Christian fundamentalism I cheerfully renounced nine years ago!

For Secular Humanists, where do you think I'm going wrong?

I don't think we currently have sufficient scientific understanding of either life or the cosmos to say whether or not life serves an objective role in the flow of things. We do know enough to say that there's an underlying order to nature, but we can only speculate now as to what exactly it all surmounts to. So it's jumping to conclusions to say life is meaningless or meaningful on a cosmic level.

On a personal level, I think its important to consider the role that intuition and emotion plays in our lives. There's no definitively logical reason to even ask the question "what is the meaning of life?" to begin with. It's an emotionally driven desire and so will only accept an emotionally satisfying answer. We don't have to care about anything really. No divinity is demanding it. Life is just more interesting and enjoyable if we choose to care about things.

I learned in a positive psychology course that the key to happiness is other people. We need other people in order to feel good about ourselves, or at least anyone who isn't a sociopath needs other people. I think most of our spiritual and ethical philosophies are based on this deep desire for social bonding and cohesion. I wouldn't say the meaning of all life across the board is to be happy, but why wouldn't we try to follow our bliss simply for the sake of happiness itself?

I agree that secular humanism is flawed in its basic logic of deriving its humanistic values from observations of human characteristics. For example, human beings express compassion within certain contexts so that means that we should value compassion. They ignore that aggression is also an equally observed human characteristic within certain contexts so why shouldn't we also value that? Both characteristics have been valued to varying degrees in different cultures throughout history so there's no logical reason why we would choose one characteristic to the detriment of an opposing one in all possible contexts.

Personally, I don't ask the question "what is the meaning of life?" I ask the question "what is the meaning in my life?" I don't intentionally create meaning as the existentialists proscribe. I just discover the meaning already inherent in my experiences: my relationships, my academic goals, my beliefs, etc. I don't believe that I SHOULD value anything. I just realize that it's a fact that I DO value certain things in practice. I don't have to derive values directly from facts because some values are already facts of my existence and experience.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

I think "why bother to be happy" is a non-starter.

The real question, in my opinion, is more along the lines of "what is happiness? What are its limitations? What can I and can I not do to get it, and how are the limitations on its pursuit derived?"

 

[blackout]

I personally prefer pragmatism and empathy
to "morality".

 

[Matthew78]

Mathew, you ask, "Why bother to be happy?" But have you ever tried not to be happy

Sunstone, I'm not sure what you mean by trying not to be happy. I have suffered from clinical depression. In fact, I suffered from clinical depression for six years when I was a Christian fundamentalist. This was because I was single; I viewed being single as a divine punishment. When I couldn't figure out what I had done to so royally tick god off to deserve something like that, I came to conclude that he simply didn't love me. So, I have been unhappy before.

When I became a non-Christian, I felt a joy I hadn't felt in years! But, years later, as my deism dissolved and I became an agnostic, and, then, an atheist, my joy left and I became apathetic. Now I'm apathetic with bouts of depression and occasional fits of joy.

Do you think you could sustain a serious effort to be unhappy? And if you could, do you think that would indicated a problem such as depression or some other mental illness.

I'm not sure what you mean. These days I'm apathetic but I pretend to be happy. When I have bouts of depression, I'm usually alone and I don't dare show it.

For most of us, Mathew, values are grounded in a combination of things. Even if we say our values are grounded in just one thing, say god, that is only brave talk. In reality our values are derived from many factors.

I'm not sure what you mean by values being grounded in a combination of things.

 

[elmarna]

"Being happy" is a state of being in a positive note.
I prefer happy people. They bring to the world a source of inspiration that can change the tone of a room with a great atmophere!
Happy people are not likely to be prone to sickness as much and never could imagine creating WAR! I am finding my way there just not there yet.
I send the world a smile and encourage it!
I will be very satisfied the day I manufacture it and shower the world with a great way to be!
What strikes me as odd is the true unhappy people seem to avoid real happy people as if they do not want to be reminded of what they can not have!
HAVE A GREAT DAY and I hope someone smiles upon you!

 

[Jordan Robert Wilson]

People make the common mistake that being a secular humanist/atheist/freethinker etc. (I am all of these things) means that life lacks meaning and purpose. The thing is, things like morals are better when you find them yourself, rather than search for them in ancient texts. Morality is a beautiful thing when applied correctly, but more beautiful when applied correctly because you have found the right way, rather than have a book tell you to. My viewpoint on religion is that it is detrimental but it has many hidden gens of wisdom spread out across the religions. Why not read religious texts to help you get morals (pick out the parts you agree with) but not actually believe the whole thing because you want to be a part of that religion. Being non-religious does not mean you can't take inspiration from religion. You just have to find your own meaning of life, and that's a beautiful thing.

 

[LuisDantas]

I personally prefer pragmatism and empathy
to "morality".

How would you feel if I told you they are supposed to be the same thing?

 

[lunakilo]

My inspiration for starting this thread is from another regarding where atheists and other secularists get their morality from. For the record, I have stopped calling myself a Secular Humanist because I'm not satisfied with secular ethics.

The problem is that I see no purpose or meaning to life from a secular viewpoint. If we are just the sum of our cells, then what's the purpose to life? There is no objective purpose or meaning as far as I can tell. Some might say that the purpose is to be happy. But if I was asked questions like 1.) why bother to be happy? and 2.) what difference would it make if I was happy or not?, I wouldn't know what to say.

I like the thought of being happy. I want to be happy. I imagine most people do. But as for why I should want to be happy or why I ought to be happy, I have no idea. If someone asked me, I would be completely lost for words. I really have no clue. If life is ultimately meaningless and exists for no purpose, why attach meaning or purpose where it previously didn't exist? What's the point? What difference does it make? Why bother? Is it because it makes for a harmonious and peaceful society? If so, then the question I would ask is: why care about harmony and peace? If some folks reply because they're better than other alternatives, the question becomes: why care about which alternatives are better than other alternatives?

In the end, I find Secular Humanism not much better than the Evangelical Christian fundamentalism I cheerfully renounced nine years ago!

For Secular Humanists, where do you think I'm going wrong?

If we assume that there is no grand plan behind life, the universe and everything, then objectively there is no purpose or meaning to life.
There is also no objective reason why you ought to be happy.

But the sum of your cells tells you that you would like to be happy.
So seen from the point of view of the sum of your cells, aka you, there is a point to being happy.
The point is that you want to be happy.

It is your life. Possible the only one you are going to get. If you want a life that you at the end when you are old and grey can look back on and think, "that was a good life, I am glad I did that" then the point of your life is to try to make that happen. (Hint: Being apathetic probably wont get you there. Doing things which you like doing might )

 

[Alex_G]

My inspiration for starting this thread is from another regarding where atheists and other secularists get their morality from. For the record, I have stopped calling myself a Secular Humanist because I'm not satisfied with secular ethics.

The problem is that I see no purpose or meaning to life from a secular viewpoint. If we are just the sum of our cells, then what's the purpose to life? There is no objective purpose or meaning as far as I can tell. Some might say that the purpose is to be happy. But if I was asked questions like 1.) why bother to be happy? and 2.) what difference would it make if I was happy or not?, I wouldn't know what to say.

I like the thought of being happy. I want to be happy. I imagine most people do. But as for why I should want to be happy or why I ought to be happy, I have no idea. If someone asked me, I would be completely lost for words. I really have no clue. If life is ultimately meaningless and exists for no purpose, why attach meaning or purpose where it previously didn't exist? What's the point? What difference does it make? Why bother? Is it because it makes for a harmonious and peaceful society? If so, then the question I would ask is: why care about harmony and peace? If some folks reply because they're better than other alternatives, the question becomes: why care about which alternatives are better than other alternatives?

In the end, I find Secular Humanism not much better than the Evangelical Christian fundamentalism I cheerfully renounced nine years ago!

For Secular Humanists, where do you think I'm going wrong?

I think youve hit on two points here, meaning and morality. I dont think morality hangs on the requirement of some specific greater meaning per say. Of course morality can be interpreted in that way, and is done so by many religious people. But ultimately questions of value, how to act and how to live a good life cannot sensibly stem from divine command.
In a nut shell, acting a certain way, from fear of punishment or promise of reward, as with heaven and hell, demonstrates a self serving element that undermines being truly moral in ones actions, even if the action itself might mimic a moral one. And also what is good is not defined by the authority who claims it, its right or wrong independent of whether it stems from a god. When Socrates asked Euthyphro what 'Holy' ment, he said its 'what pleases the Gods'. And so Socrates asked, 'is the holy 'holy' because the Gods approve it, or do they approve it, because it is Holy? I think his point touches on this deep concept of where questions of value come from.

I thinks its incredible that we exist, that you are in fact you, and not me, and your not the chair ur sitting on, or the computer your using, but you are yourself, with all the subjective qualitative experiences you have. The quest for meaning in life can take many avenues, with science being at the fore front in uncovering truths and insights into our universe.

It is part of life to grapple with meaning, and sometimes descend into the darkest of caves, but also rise to the highest of peaks. How best to act and a guide for the good life doesnt need fabricated higher meaning to validate its own existence and importance. We are living in a world of mystery, and there is so much left to uncover. I think one has too be honest with oneself about were they stand in this world as a sentient being, and find their own equilibrium with life.
In a way, to be disillusioned by apparent lack of meaning underpinning things, one is being so very human in that regard, which has itself the same value as the very ethics and morality of life, that has been so disillusioned.

Alex