RE: The difference between ethical atheism and nihlism is that ethical atheists have more faith
March 5, 2013 at 8:55 pm
(This post was last modified: March 5, 2013 at 8:59 pm by genkaus.)
(March 4, 2013 at 9:20 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: That evades the issue. Values derived solely from an indifferent evolutionary process only relate to survival value. Your 'morality' is just programmed into by random chance. Rape and slavery have evolutionary advantages. That doesn't make them morally good. But neither does it make them evil because within naturalism good and evil have no meaning.
Not quite. Naturalism informs and forms the metaphysical basis for a lot of different philosophies. So while it does not dictate any particular morality by itself, it is incorrect to say that there are no naturalistic moralities.
(March 4, 2013 at 10:16 pm)jstrodel Wrote: You are using evolution in a teleological sense. Really, if naturalistic evolution is true, evolution is no more significant to morality than particles of space dust.
Wrong on both counts. Teleological evolution does not contradict naturalistic evolution. And evolution had a greater significance in defining who or what we are and therefore it is more significant to morality that space dust.
(March 4, 2013 at 10:16 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Why should human happiness be the ultimate standard for morality?
It'd simply be the indicator of the ultimate standard of morality.
