Science and religion

[Darkstar]

That doesn't explain how condition one is ok, but condition two is not.

Well, condition one is "okay" in the fact that it is simply true. People do disagree. This doesn't say anything about who is right or wrong (or if being either is possible).

What makes that the case? How does empathy establish objective morality for all people in all circumstances and provide an interpretative framework that is able to give people the ability to make absolute moral judgements that are universal, in all cultures?

It doesn't. Empathy is, in part, one of the things that contributes to the general feeling of inherent goodness from moral actions, and inherent wrongness from immoral ones. Many morals can be figured out simply from the "conscience", though more formal arguments could be made for them. However, visceral responses are not always right, and in that case using reason could also help in developing morals.

On the most basic level, if an action does not hurt anyone or infringe upon their rights, it is most likely not immoral. If an action does hurt others (and I mean physically or emotionally or even monetarily) without their consent (assuming they aren't masochistic) then you would need to determine if the possible benefit would be worth the action. (Take a "kill one to save one thousand" scenario, for example).

Empathy in and of itself isn't a justification, per se, but more of a tool to help understand the justification that, yes, other people are people to, just like you, and they can suffer just like you can. And just like you wouldn't want to suffer unnecessary, so don't they (except masochists). And if everyone is nice to everyone else, it would just make life so much easier. Empathy is a sort of tool by which the golden rule can function (without empathy, the golden rule would seem strange).

If you can't prove that, you can't prove that you don't fall into condition two, which entails you are not only a moral relativist, but a nihilist, whatever you may call yourself.


Do you demand the same level of rigor from atheist ethics that you do from Christianity?

Yes, exactly the same. It is simply that I have never seen Christian ethics be argued for in any way other than "god said it, so it must be true".