Secularism - Good, Bad, Too Much, Too little?

[JoshB]

Forward: I am not going to take a side in this original post. I will merely propose questions I have about Secularism.

A) In an extremely diverse societies with citizens who hold immense amounts of perspectives, is Secularism a necessary governmental philosophy to govern the people ubiasly?

B) Should there be any restrictions to Secularism? If so, give examples.

C) Is it better to have a 100% Secular government (exaggeration. I mean EXTREMELY Secular) or a government with certain restrictions on Secularism? Explain why you think the Former or the Latter.

Extra: Can Theocracies only function with a large (8/10) majority of religious like-mindedness?

[Goat]

And what is wrong with moral relativism??

It is a politically destabilizing and antisocial philosophy.

I would like to see you prove this statement. Can you show that your morals are relative?

So, the people that feel fervently about their religion, and want to impose it on others have the moral right to do so? And, if I am not of that religion, I have to suffer through another religions holidays because of it? What nonsense.

You misunderstood me. I said only that secularism does not entail the absolute refusal to involve moral and religious claims in policy deliberations. Also, the particular holidays in question were mostly civic and of no religious significance.

So what?? If they were civic, if you don't want to shop, don't shop.

[WinePusher]

And what is wrong with moral relativism??

On this view, no coherant justice system can be established as it would be "unfair" to judge and condemn someone for their own interpretation of morality. The whole basis for realativism is that a person's morals are shaped and influenced by their surrounding enviroment, well a person could have been brought up in an enviroment where they thought murder was good, and since no objective standard of interpretation exists, you or I have no right to condemn him.

[McCulloch]

If you say that something appears to be evasive gibberish, then you are saying that it is evasive gibberish. Let’s be honest.

No, I am just saying that that is the impression that I get. I am making allowances that perhaps I am incredibly dull and completely missed the point.

Strong forms of secularism pave the way to moral relativism and the utter inability to express or defend any normative position. That is to say strong forms of secularism make moral relativism easier to defend, and make moral dogmatism more difficult to defend. Strong secularism does not strictly imply moral relativism, but rather a political regime that embraces strong secularism makes life more comfortable for those who have adopted moral relativism. Moral relativism and moral dogmatism are both undesirable, so government should do what it can to counteract both. If religion serves to reinforce morality in some citizens (and it does) then a liberal democratic government should not be prohibited from praising that and incorporating it into policy considerations.

Perhaps you could define moral relativism for us and explain why it is evil.

Here is a geographically pertinent example. Square One Shopping Mall recently beat out certain public opposition to allow its retailers to open for business on retail business holidays. The objection (made by religiously motivated individuals) was that to allow shopping malls to open on holidays would contradict the very purpose of those holidays, and would have deleterious effects on the traditional family value of spending time with your family away from materialistic shopping malls. Square One prevailed, partially because they had more money and resources to fight, but also partially because of a political regime that was at a loss to comprehend “traditional family values�. Square One is not primarily interested in family values or moral issues in society; it is interested in profit. They were morally relativistic in favour of whatever would promote their ability to make more money. In this instance the government appeared indifferent to this. It is unnecessary (and counterproductive) for a liberal democratic regime to be so indifferent to moral issues, even ones that may be underpinned for some people by their religious beliefs.

You and I see this event differently. You see it as a victory for the forces of moral relativism. I see it as a struggle between the values of unbridled capitalism and traditional family values. In this struggle, the forces of Mammon used the fact that many of the holidays in question are at least nominally religious, to support their case with the secular government. I do not believe that family values are the sole possession of religion.

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship [...] .
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

These look a lot like traditional family values to me.

[Goat]

And what is wrong with moral relativism??

On this view, no coherant justice system can be established as it would be "unfair" to judge and condemn someone for their own interpretation of morality. The whole basis for realativism is that a person's morals are shaped and influenced by their surrounding enviroment, well a person could have been brought up in an enviroment where they thought murder was good, and since no objective standard of interpretation exists, you or I have no right to condemn him.

Can you show that 1) that an objective standard exists', and 2) that you can determine what that objective standard is??

Go for it. Prove your case.

[WinePusher]

And what is wrong with moral relativism??

On this view, no coherant justice system can be established as it would be "unfair" to judge and condemn someone for their own interpretation of morality. The whole basis for realativism is that a person's morals are shaped and influenced by their surrounding enviroment, well a person could have been brought up in an enviroment where they thought murder was good, and since no objective standard of interpretation exists, you or I have no right to condemn him.

Can you show that 1) that an objective standard exists', and 2) that you can determine what that objective standard is??

Go for it. Prove your case.

Ummm.....I made no claim above. Your question was "what is wrong with moral relativism?" I answered that question, and instead of respond to my answer, you try to shift the burden onto me. Can you answer any of my objections?

[Goat]

And what is wrong with moral relativism??

On this view, no coherant justice system can be established as it would be "unfair" to judge and condemn someone for their own interpretation of morality. The whole basis for realativism is that a person's morals are shaped and influenced by their surrounding enviroment, well a person could have been brought up in an enviroment where they thought murder was good, and since no objective standard of interpretation exists, you or I have no right to condemn him.

Can you show that 1) that an objective standard exists', and 2) that you can determine what that objective standard is??

Go for it. Prove your case.

Ummm.....I made no claim above. Your question was "what is wrong with moral relativism?" I answered that question, and instead of respond to my answer, you try to shift the burden onto me. Can you answer any of my objections?

Yet, you can not show that there is any evidence of any viable alternative. You have not shown your claims about moral relativism is true either.

[geospiza]

Perhaps you could define moral relativism for us and explain why it is evil.

I think that would be going too far beyond the scope of this thread. We have so far been evaluating the framework of a more-or-less classical, rights-based liberalism. Let’s stick with that.

You and I see this event differently. You see it as a victory for the forces of moral relativism. I see it as a struggle between the values of unbridled capitalism and traditional family values. In this struggle, the forces of Mammon used the fact that many of the holidays in question are at least nominally religious, to support their case with the secular government. I do not believe that family values are the sole possession of religion.

The struggle of values was in this instance unfairly resolved because one set of these values was totally precluded from the deliberations. Family Day, Victoria Day, Canada Day & Labour Day are in no wise religious holidays, and Thanksgiving is barely so. In an apparent nod to Christianity, Square One did not seek permission to open for business on Christmas Day or Easter. The case has many more nuances that you are not aware of. I would be interested if you have any examples of your own.

I appreciate that you have taken the time to cite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but that is a political document, not a philosophically deep defence of rights-based liberalism. It takes the whole concept of human rights for granted; the preamble even states that the peoples of the United Nations "have faith" in these things.

[McCulloch]

Strong forms of secularism pave the way to moral relativism and the utter inability to express or defend any normative position.

As we can see in the following discussion, the claim that secularism leads to moral relativism or the utter inability to express or defend any normative position, has not been supported. No clarification about what is meant by moral relativism have been offered, in spite of the general admission that Moral relativism may be any of several descriptive, meta-ethical, or normative positions regarding the differences in moral or ethical judgments between different people and cultures. No attempt has been made to clarify what is meant by Strong forms of secularism or to provide examples of such a beast which has lead to the utter inability to express or defend any normative position. It has not been shown that moral relativism is politically destabilizing or antisocial.

I am not sure what you mean by this. Perhaps you could provide an example of a strong form of secularism that led to the utter inability to express or defend any normative position.

Strong forms of secularism pave the way to moral relativism and the utter inability to express or defend any normative position. That is to say strong forms of secularism make moral relativism easier to defend, and make moral dogmatism more difficult to defend. Strong secularism does not strictly imply moral relativism, but rather a political regime that embraces strong secularism makes life more comfortable for those who have adopted moral relativism. Moral relativism and moral dogmatism are both undesirable, so government should do what it can to counteract both. If religion serves to reinforce morality in some citizens (and it does) then a liberal democratic government should not be prohibited from praising that and incorporating it into policy considerations.

And what is wrong with moral relativism?

It is a politically destabilizing and antisocial philosophy.

I would like to see you prove this statement.

Perhaps you could define moral relativism for us and explain why it is evil.

I think that would be going too far beyond the scope of this thread. We have so far been evaluating the framework of a more-or-less classical, rights-based liberalism. Let’s stick with that.

Yes, it appears to be time to move on from the unsupported and unsubstantiated claims of the dire evils of moral relativism.