RE: On Moral Authorities
November 10, 2016 at 11:09 am
(This post was last modified: November 10, 2016 at 11:10 am by Neo-Scholastic.)
(November 9, 2016 at 8:02 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(November 9, 2016 at 4:40 pm)theologian Wrote: Morality can only be objective with God. For, morality is about what is good action and what is bad. Now, to be good or to be bad is according to the fulfillment of the end of a something. For an instance, a good eyesight is an eyesight which can see clearly, for the end of eyes is to see. Now, the end of man is God, for man is created to know the truth and love the good, but God is the Truth and Goodness Himself, for all true and good things come from Him, because He is Being Himself, as proven by the arguments for God's existence. Therefore, without God, there can't be objective morality.
Good and bad imply goals, and the fulfillment of goals. However, some goals are universal enough to consider objective. For example, all normally-functioning humans (at least those in good health) wish to survive. In serving our nature by surviving, we are serving out a goal that is not the arbitrary creation of the conscious self. In creating social contracts and feeling guilty when we violate them, we are acting according to our nature as a highly social species.
That's objective enough for me.
Seems like you understand the concept of natural law and/or virtue ethics. Those are not strictly atheistic concepts. All that is required is recognition that our bodies - their limbs and organs serve functions that allow people to not only survive but to thrive as well. As such, proper care and use of the body and its parts is considered good. The neglect and misuse of the body is considered evil. In other words, if it means something to be human, then there is an essential human nature that is the universal object serving as the basis for cultivating virtue, i.e. the objective moral standard. The ultimate moral question is "To what end is Man?". On the other hand, if we are biological robots in a meaningless universe, as many AF members assert then that question is meaningless.
On point about of confusion with respect to objective morality is the mistake of assuming that objectivity entails full and complete knowledge of the referenced object.