>>24530429
>>24530425
>o'rly, you don't even
Yes, you don't.
>keep going.
Sure. You first misunderstood the post here:
>how does that refute OP bout being secular humanistic?
Because the post in itself provided the answer. The answer was "yes", because the comparison between very secular ethical philosophies and religion was explicit. OP's first question was
>Is it possible to refute the idea that even in atheism we still assume most of the same moral premises of religion?
And the post provided a partial solution; The "moral premises of religion" in this case are the ones that founded western secular humanism, largely Christianity and the specific style of Abrahamism (this can be extended to many religions, like Hinduism, although I only speak of what is directly related). The absolute refutation of this is any form of consequentialist ethic, primarly those that justify themselves by "least harm". In the post, I argue this point by comparing the unshakable dogmas of humanistic ideals — of freedom, of equality, of love — with the absolute null of utilitarianism.

Yes, it is true that everything must be interpreted subjectively. But there is only so far that you can stretch "The right to keep and bear arms", or "Thou shalt not steal", or "don't rape" before it breaks. This dogmatic law based moral system is an essential part of Abrahamism. Something is not good because it causes people to be happy, it good because God, or in other words the circular justification of Good, says it is Good. The 1st Amendment is not justified by its goodness, or by the lives it saves, or by the harm reduces, it is justified merely by its enshrinement as the First of laws. Sure, it may be amended, the Bible may as well, but watch the masses cry out, again, with religious fervor.

In contrast, consequentialist "least harm" forms a totally empty signifier. There is meaning in "do not steal" if only in the action itself of taking that which is not your property (this again is subjective, but there is an action), but there is no meaning in "least harm". Do not steal — unless it is the least harm. Do not skull fuck babies — unless it is the least harm. Do not X, unless it is the least harm. Even "harm" is an empty signifier. Do not 'X' unless whatever 'Y' you want. There is no amendment or law or dogma which supercedes this "dogma"; The final law is NOTHING.

This is the short of it. Common utilitarians do not abide by pure utilitarianism and often mystify the process with "humility" or "authenticity", or fully dilute it into secular humanism with freedom or autonomy. Yet in stark contrast to the osseous, monolithic mass of "religious" GOOD is the fluid, vaporeous, and ineffable NOTHING. This is the truest expression of atheist morality, and the solution I gave OP.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/lit/

Thread:

Is it possible to refute the idea that even in atheism we still assume most of the same moral premises of religion? Is secular humanism really just…