Ultimately these are the rocks upon which any materialist outlook gets wrecked. Utilitarianism is a woolly viewpoint that feels good to tout but falls apart under examination. Seder didn't want to tie himself to it but said nothing that differentiates his moral basis from utilitarianism. It boils down to 'just do what's bestest for the mostest' - well what does that mean? That which will leave most people happy? Completely unquantifiable. Most healthy? Hello last 5 years; anyone empowered by a certain policy will rig stats and metrics to make that policy seem like the most healthy option. Most people alive? See above, even mortality figures can be queered, hidden and straight up ignored, plus now you've skipped over the issue of quality-of-life and overcrowding is on the table. A pure mathematical system of making society moral is a childish pipe dream wide open to abuse, as mythical as genetic impulses making us 'moral'.
Seder didn't even get into issues as complex as that, he tried to reach for 'well people vote and decide what's right' (ie. moral), meaning morality is just a movable feast that changes every few years, subject to propaganda and electioneering, and the moral framework you end up with is derived from nothing other than the messy system of laws you're left with over centuries. Which is fine if you believe that and are content with it, but at that stage it's pointless to pretend you have any greater vision for a nation other than a nihilistic morass, and you will get trampled in argument by anyone whose morals proceed from something timeless and intangible. And obviously he got shot down in the next sentence when he revealed it wouldn't be moral any more if people voted for something he didn't like.
Religion provides a sense of consequences, even to things that the actor expects they won't be caught doing, to the kind of creature that isn't capable of reasoning out why moral behavior is preferable to immediate gratification / selfish behavior.
Yes, you are correct. For children and animals who are incapable of rational thought it is quite useful. But it doesn't change their nature. Which is why ethnic homogeneity is of vital importance. And it also shows that 'Christian' values are actually European values which is why they don't translate well to the rest of the world as one can see especially well in Africa and South America.
Have you looked at Europe lately, or ever read a history book? Christianity was brought to most European nations by the Romans. Weimar Germany didn't come from nothing. Communism didn't come from nothing. Centuries of degeneracy from every corner of the world disprove what you just said.
Ultimately these are the rocks upon which any materialist outlook gets wrecked. Utilitarianism is a woolly viewpoint that feels good to tout but falls apart under examination. Seder didn't want to tie himself to it but said nothing that differentiates his moral basis from utilitarianism. It boils down to 'just do what's bestest for the mostest' - well what does that mean? That which will leave most people happy? Completely unquantifiable. Most healthy? Hello last 5 years; anyone empowered by a certain policy will rig stats and metrics to make that policy seem like the most healthy option. Most people alive? See above, even mortality figures can be queered, hidden and straight up ignored, plus now you've skipped over the issue of quality-of-life and overcrowding is on the table. A pure mathematical system of making society moral is a childish pipe dream wide open to abuse, as mythical as genetic impulses making us 'moral'.
Seder didn't even get into issues as complex as that, he tried to reach for 'well people vote and decide what's right' (ie. moral), meaning morality is just a movable feast that changes every few years, subject to propaganda and electioneering, and the moral framework you end up with is derived from nothing other than the messy system of laws you're left with over centuries. Which is fine if you believe that and are content with it, but at that stage it's pointless to pretend you have any greater vision for a nation other than a nihilistic morass, and you will get trampled in argument by anyone whose morals proceed from something timeless and intangible. And obviously he got shot down in the next sentence when he revealed it wouldn't be moral any more if people voted for something he didn't like.
I'd argue that something is common sense and not religion. In the end religion is just seasoning for societal rules that are based in reality.
Why is murder, thievery, fraud etc bad? Because it threatens societal life/peace.
Why is incest bad? Cause it produces genetically fucked up offsprings.
Why is promiscuity bad? Because it is psychologically damaging and because of that threatens societal life/peace.
Religion provides a sense of consequences, even to things that the actor expects they won't be caught doing, to the kind of creature that isn't capable of reasoning out why moral behavior is preferable to immediate gratification / selfish behavior.
Yes, you are correct. For children and animals who are incapable of rational thought it is quite useful. But it doesn't change their nature. Which is why ethnic homogeneity is of vital importance. And it also shows that 'Christian' values are actually European values which is why they don't translate well to the rest of the world as one can see especially well in Africa and South America.
Have you looked at Europe lately, or ever read a history book? Christianity was brought to most European nations by the Romans. Weimar Germany didn't come from nothing. Communism didn't come from nothing. Centuries of degeneracy from every corner of the world disprove what you just said.
Christian morals are learned, not inherent.