There is nothing sacred, in my estimation. Nothing is beyond question. I don’t disagree that there is an objective morality, the stated purpose of the thread having been established as finding the basis for what was objectively good. It is the confusion of the good with the sacred that got me irritated with the thread from the beginning.
Sacred is a religious term. If you look it up in the dictionary, you will find that the predominant definition for sacred is something revered by god. What is good on the other hand can be a relativistic term, but it can also be objectively determined through testing and observation. The good in that instance being synonymous with right, correct, or positive.
This conversation started due to some podcast or other that DrYouth was certain contained some revelations about morality. I tried listening to those podcasts and couldn’t get past the false dichotomy introduced into the discussion. There is no either/or present, so there is no dichotomy to be in conflict; on the other hand, introducing religion into politics, the law, and science is something which cannot be allowed to occur, and should be combated at every turn. Religion cannot be verified, cannot be held to a standard, can not be judged except from within it’s own teachings. The conduct of the religious, can.
The way to settle the conflict over what should or shouldn’t be sacred is to throw out the concept of sacred in the first place. Remove the distinction of anything being beyond question. Nothing can be beyond discussion, even if raising the discussion merits immediate dismissal by the other party. If there is no concept of sacred, of something being beyond discussion, the conflict goes away. It doesn’t exist. The way to settle the remaining conflicts is to determine what is the good, and then work toward that goal. You cannot discuss something that is sacred. It’s beyond question, beyond negotiation. Measuring and determining the good, isn’t.
As always in arguments of this kind, it’s the precepts that end up tripping up the result. Morality (proper behavior) can be objective in the broad sense by simply being demonstrably reasonable and rational. No arbiter, no enforcer, no rigid code. You just do what you think is right, what your ability to think critically tells you is right.
No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker with no past at my back.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
This is where the signature I still use comes from. This thread is to blame.
