Quote:
Originally Posted by TimMason
I have argued against there being anything that one could point to as a 'natural morality'. That does not mean that I believe that all talk of morality or ethics is useless - simply that without transcendence there is no natural morality.
This said, there clearly exists something that we can describe as 'morality' or 'talk about morality' or, despite what Sparrow says, morally motivated behaviour. Moreover, all this talk and much of this behaviour does have real-world effects. The modern state, its laws, its protections, are all in part shaped by moral concerns. It is because the church set out to curb the excesses of the medieval feudal lords that we today have societies in which the blood-feud is a thing of the past, and in which infanticide is far more rare. It is because the state - at least in some places - was *moralized* that we live longer,healthier lives.
|
Sorry Tim, but you haven't argued anything. You state and seem to believe that morals only come from religion and unsupportable/unprovable supernatural being.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Tom had pointed out Sam Harris' take on morals based on science and others have pointed out the biological/evolutionary basis. It's this latter that seems most likely as a basis for what we call morals. What are morals but beliefs about how to interact with the world? Not that different than any other beliefs as far as I'm concerned it's all about survival and as Sparrow says - self-interest in surviving and ensuring the survival of progeny.