Quote:
Originally Posted by TGS
Don't you think that reason plays a part - even in ethics? For example, one might hold to a principle that all life should be protected and that doing intentional harm to a living creature is wrong, (most people don't hold this principle, it's just an example). Now if a person who claimed that causing deliberate harm to a living creature was wrong unless the English name of that creature began with W, and therefore causing harm to worms, wombats, wolves and whales (and probably lots of other things that I can't think of), was morally justified, we would consider them irrational. There simply seems to be no a priori reason to ascribe a different moral status to creatures on the basis of what their English name is. Similarly if someone argues that all humans have equal rights - unless they have ginger hair, that's equally irrational.
So, in this sense I'm not sure that non-theists are "free" to adopt whatever beliefs they want in relation to morality.
|
Reasoning is a process. It's useless without premises. Moral and ethical reasoning needs premises. Without them, reasoning is useless. You can have premises by observing reality (induction) or apriori. Moral reasoning needs apriori premises.
For example:
Peace and wealth are good.
Stealing makes people angry and lowers GDP.
Therefore, stealing is wrong.
The second line is observation. But one can't arrive at the conclusion without the first assertion.