[vlehto]

Problem here is that we don't have "scientific" viable moral framework. Western values are built on the fading influences of Catholicism and Protestantism, neither is coming back. Utilitarianism has been trying to break into mainstream, but its not really applicable to real life.

Then there is individualism. But it has gone bit too far. It is currently making people lonely, unsafe and unhappy. Then as persons yearn for collectivity, they are giving up their privacy in virtualized group meetings over internet.

[dragonwriter]

There's no such thing as a scientific moral framework; the concept is incoherent, like a four-sided triangle. Science answers "is" questions, not "ought" questions.

Science can inform moral decisions by providing information about which actions will achieve the goals set by a moral framework, but not can't provide you with a moral framework.

(Specific religions also probably get too much credit for providing moral framework; while its not an incoherent idea, its usually inaccurate -- usually, a moral framework coevolves with a religion, or has a religion constructed -- ot split off from some predecesssor -- to support it, rather than really emerging from the religion.)

[vlehto]

I don't really care if religions didn't create moral frameworks. The point is that a religion can justify one. "Why can't I kill Joe, he is an asshole! - Because God said murder is wrong."

Philosophy might be able to do that too, but the west doesn't seem to be aligning behind any one philosophy. And there are no credible purely philosophical moral frameworks to pick from.

[dragonwriter]

> Philosophy might be able to do that too, but the west doesn't seem to be aligning behind any one philosophy.

The West was never united behind one religious moral framework even when it had, at the highest descriptive level, one dominant religion -- both racial/sexual equality (as cited above) and strong racial/sexual discrimination were justified by reference to Christianity; likewise both religious tolerance and religious persecution have been.

"People don't agree on one moral framework" is an issue, sure, but its not a new issue in the West, nor is it one in anyway linked to the decline in the dominance of Christianity.

> And there are no credible purely philosophical moral frameworks to pick from.

There are plenty of moral frameworks not grounded in religion to pick from (everyone, inevitably, has a moral framework, and lots of people don't have religions.)

Not sure what your criteria for "credible" is, or how you've determined that no existing non-religious moral framework satisfies it.

[vlehto]

The "egalitarianism of sexes and races" is based on bible. West didn't agree on many single issues, but for couple millenia west agreed on bible as moral authority.

In the future if there is something that deviates west from those values, there is nothing to turn us back. For a long time there was bible and "god created all men as his image". But we don't care about that shit anymore. We only care about money.

Nazi Germany could not happen before 1930 because people were too religious. It was pushed back by outside forces, still clinging on religious moral framework. When memory of concentration camps fades eventually, there is no such thing left.

The only current challenger for moral framework for the atheist is utilitarianism. Which happens to he hopelessly inapplicable to real life. So we can't really rely on any "western values" endlessly. Which could be good or bad thing.