Questions

[Captain Scarlet]

Morality is made mysterious by theists who often ask were it came from. Its casusitry I'm afraid. There is a lot of evidence that we have to behave well to one another in order to survive as a species. Just a simple thought experiment: what happens to a society who believe murder is always acceptable? They die out, therefore only societies who do not think murder is always acceptable survive. But it runs deeper than that, a more detailed sketch of human morality without the need for god can be seen in the contractairan model. It is by no means a full explanation, but is no worse than the god model and it is simpler in that it does not need to invoke a diety.

1. Survival is not the only object of evaluation regarding shared values so any moral theory based on survival is false (does not consider all values). Survival based morality also requires that anything that is contrary to survival is morally wrong (unless a sub-criteria is established) making even willing death (suicide and euthanasia) morally wrong. All recreational activities that carry risk of death are also contrary to survival values.

2. Social contracts do not exist, political contracts are a 'best representation' and not a 'mutual agreement' - it is not necessarily majority either in some nations either, more like 'largest minority' and even if it was the majority or unanimous it would still be an argument from popularity: "It is true that P (moral proposition) because the majority believe that P".

Besides, Contractarianism would conclude that rape is morally right should the group in question mostly agree to it, so really it's moral relativism + a piece of paper (contract).

Can't have made my point clearly enough contextually then. My point isn't that survival is an important factor nor that contractarianism is correct (it is one of a number of views held by ethicists. My point is that you do not need god to get you to objective morality, that there is no such thing as absolute morality, and that god is a more complicated explanation than natural ones.

---

2) if god has set the moral standards, what is the objective moral truth on same sex marriage, coveting wealth and atheism; all of which are condemned explicilty in the bible but all of which seem to be something that a free society should allow

Damn I just realized that the New Testament condemns in many sections greed, which is actually a good thing in moderate quantities. Not to mention drives economic and technological development.

Quite right emulation is a significant force for growth in a free society. Nothing wrong with that.

Its a pity catholics and other churches don't practice what their heros teach. "...eye of a needle...", "...don't covet your neighbours donkey..." etc. The catholic church is SO wealthy it has its own bank, the Church Commission in England is the UKs biggest landowner. Could it just be that they know full well that we have just one life, so no point in practising poverty like Jesus?

The other thing I find bizarre is how anyone could take it seriously. The supposed creator of 400bn galaxies each with billions of stars, actually doesn't want you looking enviously at your neighbours donkey, but is OK with child abuse and slavery. Now that is one enlighted creator