Secular Morality

[Spencer]

Today is my son’s first birthday. This, of course, has forced me to take pause and evaluate the state of the world, and what I can do to improve it. Going around (and around) in my head is the only realistic thing I can do to change the world for the better- I must develop and record a complete secular moral code.

I have come, firmly, to the conclusion that morality without religion is no only possible, but necessary in order to positively advance global society. We have laws, yes, but these should not be confused with this concept of secular morality. Laws regulate the transactions between people and/or the state. Secular morality isn’t this. The rub comes in defining this morality. It could too easily degenerate into a monologue on the “World According to Spencer.” This brings rise to the first rule of secular morality- all statements included in the moral code must be objectively and logically reasoned.

The lack of logic in religious morality is, simply stated, unacceptable. However, the fact that these moral codes have been collected, written down, and preached, has allowed them to sustain for millennia. These, combined with the promise of an afterlife, are advantages that secular morality must address. It cannot address, due to its very nature, issues of afterlife; but secular morality can be collected, transcribed, and preached. This, I have concluded, is what MUST be done. This will be our legacy, our gift to future generations.

This is a movement. It is a revolution against subjective moral codes.

[Spencer]

yeah, its pretty slow going.

[Woody Evans]

Hmm... Questions come to mind:
. Has this been tried before?
By whom, and to what extent did it work or fail?
. Could you use the notion of Kantian 'categorical imperative' as a modified 'golden rule' to begin?
. If punishment/reward were clearly and specifically tied to incidents of breaking one of the tenants of your secular moral code, would that not make it too kin to religious (non-legal) systems of reward/punishment?
. How would consequences of broach of code differ from consequences in broach of law?

and for me, very important!,
. How can any moral system (whether secular or not) be free from cultural biases of those who define the systems?
Even an avowed atheist may sub-consciously carry moral attitudes defined by the cultural-religious system at work in the society he grew up in.

It might be nice in some ways if we were all playing according to the same rules -- but being all the same in the finer cultural affectations of morality, we would lose to much that was good about ourselves, I think.