Talk:Secular ethics

message: In the "Key philosophers and philosophical texts" section, there are 4 sub sections: Holyoake,  Nietzsche,  Kant, Utilitarianism. I call FAIL on that. Why not replace the title with John Stuart Mill, who is presented as the photo for the section...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael J. Chapman (talk • contribs) 18:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: consistent titling fail

message: I hope people don't mind if I take the liberty to just compile a bunch of stuff I can find within Wikipedia itself and other sources and just vomit them over this page. The article was really empty when I found it, so I figured all it needed was something for people to work with. Im sure with the addition of content and some later reorganizing this will become top notch. I say this because some citations such as holyoake's and other stuff should probably fit in their own section, but I'm not too worried about that right now. Star Ghost 01:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, that was a good move. Thanks. Thomas Ash 11:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  drafting 

message: The article Darwinism already exists, of course. I consider Darwin's findings and the consequent -ism to have been a major factor in secularisation. Though 'survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection' (which are not the same as the 'Law of the Strongest') can be cruel and do not seem ethical by itself, precisely the perception of such being a problem to the mind of humans has made them:
:1. wonder where our sense for ethics comes from, and
:2. think again about where to draw ethical conclusions from.
I'm more of an 'original research' type than one who familiarizes oneself with the publications by philosophers or moralists, let alone their biographers, though I suggest there should be something from this line of thinking in the article Secular ethics. —— SomeHuman 2006-07-30 04:59 (UTC)
:Very interesting, I suggest you contribute with what you can in that vein and we can work from there! Star Ghost 23:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By Darwinism, do you mean the theory of evolution or social Darwinism? Evolution has nothing to do with secular ethics. Social Darwinism is metaphysics or teleology. The only "secular ethics" I know of that reject ought is Positivism. "That which is natural is right." This is Ayn Rand via Aquinas. I consider Positivism a (quasi-)religion. "What would Ayn Rand do?" Secular ethics cannot rely on authority, or they would just be another religion or quasi-religion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darwinism 

message: The first line of the Secular ethics and religion section appears to imply that atheists and agnostics are definitionally irreligious, which is untrue. Surely simply "irreligious people" is an exhaustive description of the group of people that the sentence is referring to. Heihachi 16:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Small Point

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Scout law clearly implies God and uses Him as a foundation for most of their beliefs, even if not explictly stated in the law... This is pretty consistent wordlwide. A lot of scout organizations have variations of these two rules codified:
*Service/faithfullness to God.
*Recognizing nature as God's work.
Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Chile, Denmark, Guatemala, Hungary, Indonesia Ireland, Norway, Poland, as well as the aformentioned oath in the U.S. Scouts all make mention of a God... these organizations are hardly secular. 
Just because the legal-code in the U.S. doesn't mention God doesn't mean the ethical code is inherently secular, as the organization clearly relies on God for it's foundation. Otherwise, several religious denominations might well qualify under "secular ethics". Atari25 (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted for reasons given below. There's something to what you say, but this is something that needs to be agreed on by more than one editor here. More discussion is needed. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Had to delete that section

message: This article desperately needs some attention by someone who has studied ethics. I won't critique it in full, but it falls down badly in the first line.
"Secular ethics is a branch of moral philosophy in which ethics is based solely on human faculties such as logic, reason or moral intuition, and not derived from purported supernatural revelation or guidance (which is the source of religious ethics)"
This opening claim is flagrantly false, at least as written. By this definition, Kant's ethical thought would qualify as secular ethics (which it clearly isn't), and what one would make of Aristotle on this kind of a reading is frankly a mystery! The attempt to define secular ethics by comparing it to some strange caricature of religion based (it seems) purely on fundamentalist Abrahamic religion, is doomed to fail.
I'm prepared to believe there's some content that deserves to be collected under this heading, but the article can't exist in a complete vacuum of knowledge concerning the history of ethics. At the moment, that appears to be the case. 93.97.31.222 (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desperately Needs Improving 

message: I understand some don't like the boy/girl scouts' ethical codes here. My take is that their ethical codes are secular, (The only possible issue might be with the word "reverent", in the Boy Scouts' motto, but that has non-religious connotations as well so we shouldn't try to interpret it one way or the other.) Secular ethics and examples of secular ethics codes are what this article is about. Further analysis into the organizations behind the codes is out of the scope of this article, IMO. 
I believe that the Boy and Girl Scouts' ethical codes are useful examples of secular ethics. If a consensus of editors feels differently, so be it. Just my two cents. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scouts 

message: If the Boy Scouts, with their requirement of theistic belief, can be considered as a group whose ethical code can be considered "secular", surely the Freemasons can also be so considered since they have a similar requirement but do not advance any particular creed, even prohibiting religious discussion at their meetings. --71.174.161.150 (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Boy Scout section was removed some time ago. What specifically in the article are you referring to? --Airborne84 (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to your own argumentation above; I had not checked the current state of the article. Sorry! --71.174.161.150 (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. Thanks for your interest, and please consider contributing further to the article itself. It needs a lot of work. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Freemasons 

message: Querendo traduzir é só brotar aq. 2804:14C:5BB3:8BED:88F1:F7B3:7DB8:E551 (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{Ping|Luizpuodzius}}