Difference between secular morality and religious morality

[Father Heathen]

The philosophy of law contains the notion of morality. But it deals with secular morality.
Which is different than religious morality. Also because there are so many religions, and different religious moralities.

Prostitution is legal in Germany and there are even brothels where prostitutes are protected by the State. Because the State doesn't consider it immoral.

Secular law is based on real world cause and effect, not moral assessment.

 

[Father Heathen]

Very good observation.
As they go, according to the changes throughout time.

It's logical to make adjustments and improvements as civilization's knowledge and wisdom grows.

 

[Estro Felino]

Secular law is based on real world cause and effect, not moral assessment.

There is a strong moral component in secular law.
Why do you think that torture and death penalty were abolished in Europe?

 

[vulcanlogician]

formulate = change

Formulate = using the best of your abilities to determine what is most correct.

As time goes one, we TEND to come up with more and more accurate formulations. (This is the trend, although it's not a linear thing. Regression happens too.) But you have to admit, more accurate formulations qualify as change, but it's good that we change in this way (by having a better understanding of things).

Newton formulated gravity and laws of motion fairly well. But Einstein gave us a clearer picture. So the overall accepted scientific theory changed. That's CHANGE. But it had nothing to do with changes in public attitude about how gravity works. It had to do with a clearer understanding or reality.

edit: ninja'd by Father Heathen who (again) said what I said in a more concise and direct way than I can.

 

[Alien826]

That's true.
But: why isn't polyamory recognized by the secular law?
Because according to the secular law, it is not moral. It has nothing to do with religion, I can guarantee that.
It's because natural law implies a mutuality and an equal partnership that cannot exist when there are more than two people in a relationship.
The contractual nature of marriage falls apart because there can never be perfect equality among three or more partners.

I don't understand this. Bigamy is illegal, yes, but I don't think polyamory is, is it? Personally I don't see anything immoral about it as long as it is confined to consenting adults. If I want to date several women at the same time, or date a woman who is also dating other men, is that wrong? If we then decide to all live together in one house, does it become wrong then? It probably is more difficult to all get along together, but isn't that the business of the people involved, not the general public?

If you are talking about allowing multiple people to be legally married, I'm probably out on a limb but I don't see why not, provided there is no coercion involved. We don't want a modern day Brigham Young with 55 wives, forced into it by the culture they are in.

 

[We Never Know]

Formulate = using the best of your abilities to determine what is most correct.

As time goes one, we TEND to come up with more and more accurate formulations. (This is the trend, although it's not a linear thing. Regression happens too.) But you have to admit, more accurate formulations qualify as change, but it's good that we change in this way (by having a better understanding of things).

Newton formulated gravity and laws of motion fairly well. But Einstein gave us a clearer picture. So the overall accepted scientific theory changed. That's CHANGE. But it had nothing to do with changes in public attitude about how gravity works. It had to do with a clearer understanding or reality.

edit: ninja'd by Father Heathen who (again) said what I said in a more concise and direct way than I can.

Yep.. Change

 

[Father Heathen]

There is a strong moral component in secular law.
Why do you think that torture and death penalty were abolished in Europe?

I've articulated my point the best I could.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

But: why isn't polyamory recognized by the secular law?

You're thinking of polygamy, not polyamory. Polygamy is marriage to multiple spouses - typically one man and multiple wives. Polyamory is, simply put, a multi-person relationship. The law says zilch (for now) about polyamory.

Because according to the secular law, it is not moral. It has nothing to do with religion, I can guarantee that.

Really. You can guarantee that? Because a lot of laws regarding sexuality and relationships in the Western World are built upon Christian ideas and mindsets. Marriage chief among them.

It's because natural law implies a mutuality and an equal partnership that cannot exist when there are more than two people in a relationship.

"Natural Law" has absolutely no bearing on the very human concept of marriage and partnership. Additionally, you say that this cannot exist with more than two people in a relationship. Firstly, what's your evidence for this? Secondly, have you tried this?

The contractual nature of marriage falls apart because there can never be perfect equality among three or more partners.

I invite you to observe a triangle.

 

[Estro Felino]

You're thinking of polygamy, not polyamory. Polygamy is marriage to multiple spouses - typically one man and multiple wives. Polyamory is, simply put, a multi-person relationship. The law says zilch (for now) about polyamory.


Really. You can guarantee that? Because a lot of laws regarding sexuality and relationships in the Western World are built upon Christian ideas and mindsets. Marriage chief among them.


"Natural Law" has absolutely no bearing on the very human concept of marriage and partnership. Additionally, you say that this cannot exist with more than two people in a relationship. Firstly, what's your evidence for this? Secondly, have you tried this?
I invite you to observe a triangle.

In Italian civil law, the spouses have duties of moral and material mutual assistance.
Which means, duties of sexual nature.
In a polygamous marriage, there are at least three people. There is no equality, because there will be at least two people who will have more sex than the other ones.
So it is based upon equality.

What I like about our civil law is that it considers sex juridically relevant.

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't understand this. Bigamy is illegal, yes, but I don't think polyamory is, is it? Personally I don't see anything immoral about it as long as it is confined to consenting adults. If I want to date several women at the same time, or date a woman who is also dating other men, is that wrong? If we then decide to all live together in one house, does it become wrong then? It probably is more difficult to all get along together, but isn't that the business of the people involved, not the general public?

If you are talking about allowing multiple people to be legally married, I'm probably out on a limb but I don't see why not, provided there is no coercion involved. We don't want a modern day Brigham Young with 55 wives, forced into it by the culture they are in.

There's difference between morality and legality.
The secular law considers polyamory immoral, and that's why there is no such a thing as polygamous marriage.
But it doesn't consider it illegal, so polyamorous people can have all the fun they want.
Altogether or separately...the secular law couldn't care less.

As for consent: consent is irrelevant because the crime of bigamy exists regardless of the consent.
Even if all three people gave their consent.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

In modern democracies, the most controversial topic is drawing the line that separates religion from secularism.
Meaning, that after the French Enlightenment, philosophers and jurists have been working together on creating a juridical system that necessarily is autonomous and independent from religious influence: that's what secularism is all about. But: does secular law rely on morality?. Yes, it does. On secular morality, and its sources are:

- jus naturale (natural law), that is what a society and a community naturally considers good and rightful, and so therefore, moral. For instance, marriage is a juridical institution that basically relies on natural law. The attraction between two people who want to commit before the State.
- bioethics, that is what secular philosophy considers ethical, in medicine and science. The most controversial topic that involves bioethics is abortion.
- common sense; all that involves logic and equity. Compromise between individuals' rights and common good or general welfare. In several constitutions it is called "good customs".
- international law. The fundamental human rights of the person, that rely on philosophical principles and not on religion. Let's give an example about how these two kinds of morality greatly differ.
The topic of adultery. According to secular morality, it is not considered immoral because it deals with sexual relations between two consenting adults. According to religious morality, it is considered a sin.

Secular morality has its source in one's built-in conscience - Romans 2:14-15
So, unless damaged, a person comes equipped with innate knowledge, an inner witness bearer.
Man's conscience already manifested itself when Adam and Eve broke God's Law and hid themselves.
So, all people whether Christian or non-Christian have an inherent conscience to choose right and wrong.
Ignoring one's conscience can lead to having a hardened conscience to the point of being so hardened as to no longer have feeling like calloused flesh which was seared by a hot branding iron.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

In Italian civil law,

Firstly, that's Italy. Secondly, can you cite this law?

In a polygamous marriage, there are at least three people. There is no equality, because there will be at least two people who will have more sex than the other ones.

Can you prove this?

 

[Alien826]

There's difference between morality and legality.
The secular law considers polyamory immoral, and that's why there is no such a thing as polygamous marriage.
But it doesn't consider it illegal, so polyamorous people can have all the fun they want.
Altogether or separately...the secular law couldn't care less.

Yes. That's what I was saying I thnk/

As for consent: consent is irrelevant because the crime of bigamy exists regardless of the consent.
Even if all three people gave their consent.

OK. I was talking about how I thought it should be not what the law is. And for that consent is very much a factor.

Maybe you'll like this joke.

A man sat in court accused of marrying 16 women. They were all present. Four of them were beautiful, four were not so good looking, four were wearing expensive jewellery, four were dressed in ragged clothes. He stood up and gave his defense. "Your honor, that's just what it says - four better, four worse, four richer, four poorer".

 

[Alien826]

Can you prove this?

Mathematically it's impossible for them all to have the same amount of sex, assuming that there are always two "together" and of different genders (M/F). However if the two that are the same gender have homosexual sex, or if they have "threesomes" it works. It would all have to be carefully planned to make sure it all came out equal, though, if that really mattered.

Hmmm, I just thought of same sex marriage. Yes, that works out the same.

And it gets more complicated with more partners. Let's see, how about giving everyone the same number of counters at the beginning of each month (or whatever time period was agreed). Each person would need to surrender a counter before each encounter. No sex without a counter. If it turns out that they end up with one counter each and there is an odd number of partners, they have to have at least one threesome. If everyone ran out of counters before the end of the month, extra counters could be distributed, but it would have to be evenly.

Hey, this is fun!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I would argue that cheating on one's spouse is immoral.

All well-and-good (and I agree, by the way). But @Estro Felino seems to be focused on the juridical aspects. And many things that might be considered "immoral" are decidedly not illegal. It may well be solid grounds for divorce, however.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

An example of secular immorality: public nudity. It is considered immoral because there is a sense of modesty and public decency that is considered not violable.
It has nothing to do with religion. It is something that involves natural law and common sense.

I wonder about that, actually. Why would a naked man be immoral, but Michelangelo's David not?

Spoiler: Nudity

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Mathematically it's impossible for them all to have the same amount of sex,

More of what I'm driving toward (and to cut right to it) is that sex isn't the only thing in a relationship. And in polyamorous relationships, the goal isn't necessarily "Everyone gets equal sex". Maybe one person in the relationship is asexual, and prefers intimacy in spending time together reading. Maybe one person likes sex every now and again, and another is hypersexual. A relationship, even a polyamorous one, is built on trust and providing for one another (and more, I'm just simplifying). Maybe it's an open monogamous relationship, and the only standing rule is "don't bring people back home."

Adultery, or "cheating" isn't so much sleeping with other people. It's breaking your partner's (or partners') trust and boundaries.

 

[rational experiences]

Adult..a fact. Is the adult. No one is wrong being an adult. As no one is wrong born innocent a baby.

Brother sister had sex as first humans became A father and A mother. All humans with God as adults are brother sister.

As adults.

The history of non natural partnership related to consciousness were sacrificed.

An adult laying with a non mutual equal partner. The topic adultery.

As status first one in gods laws as mutual natural sex is not a governing.

Governing introduced legality records and ceremony. The ceremony was about the human orders first sex... as first adult sex. Law was ordered as men began raping young women and daughters.

So men were told now you have ordered self sexual control no early age sex. Commit to the adult woman in marriage as mother father.

Tried to order a return to mutual held partnerships. As balanced pairing was first.

When men pretended women were whores.

As father's legal consciousness changed by satanic sciences heavens attack.

Was causes about adultery. Non commit.

How the old laws or old sciences were applied reasoned is a subjected study today.

Mind memory knows father mother were natural sex partners just brother sister and not in a ceremonial marriage as humans memory.

So you argued by governate after the fact.... only because governed science had changed biology on earth itself.

Causing immorality to emerge.

The science cover up was the evolution thesis. Not we are now recovering returning healing from scientific old genesis DNA attacks.

Man's mind one of all changed. As human man one human theoried as the sciences.

Two natural human bodies separate. Two natural consciousness separate. Were attacked by man's gods science heavens mass brain changed advices.

Changed sexuality expressions.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The topic of adultery. According to secular morality, it is not considered immoral because it deals with sexual relations between two consenting adults.

I think you're overstating the level of consistency amongst 'seculars'.
I find adultery immoral.

 

[Ponder This]

Meaning, that after the French Enlightenment, philosophers and jurists have been working together on creating a juridical system that necessarily is autonomous and independent from religious influence: that's what secularism is all about.

Secularism is about separation of the state from religious institutions as opposed to the separation of the state from religious influence. It is an error to conflate secularism with an irreligious agenda.