(March 6, 2011 at 2:01 pm)corndog36 Wrote:Don't agree corndog. You are suggesting that there are indeed objective moral values (even though they do not bootstrap from a diety). We can agree that human understanding of accpetable behavious changes through time and space. You could account for this:(February 18, 2011 at 5:52 pm)OnlyNatural Wrote: I firmly believe that human morality has evolved along with the rest of us
Human understanding of morality evolves, not morality itself. Morality is based on the fundamental principles of right and wrong, which never change. Social and personal attitudes about right and wrong change for various reasons. A good example might be Ben Franklin's views on slavery. Initially he supported slavery because he believed that Negroes were a lesser race, not equal to Whites. Through his own experience he later concluded that he had been wrong in his thinking about Blacks being a lesser race, and changed his position on slavery. His Morality did not change, it was how those fundamental principles, of right and wrong, applied to that issue that changed. Just because something is socially acceptable does mean that it is morally right.
The idea that God 'justifies' morality seems to be a convenient way of avoiding moral responsibility. Saying that your moral's were given to you by a god that is infallible, and that is all the justification you need, is simple a way to avoid having to figure it all out for yourself.
-there is objective morality which we can uncover (through adaptation and shared understanding), or
-that no such objective moral values exist and it is an illusion to say that they exist at all.
The latter seems to me to be a more parsimonious as I would not have to explain the wellspring from which objective morality emerges. What is the evidence/reasoning for objective morality?
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.