skeptic
Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote (qetzal @ Nov. 09 2006,20:15) | Consider. If it's true that some higher supernatural being or consciousness (e.g. God) exists, it's easy to him/her/it as the source of morality. Fair enough.
But what if there is no such being or consciousness? Where does morality come from then? Suppose philosophical materialism is right? Then morality can only be a result of some naturalistic process. In that case, evolution seems the logical candidate, no?
This is not meant to argue that philosophical materialism is, in fact, correct, or that morality must be the result of evolutionary processes. It's merely to show that it's a logical and reasonable possibility. And, if it's correct, then morality is most certainly subject to scientific evaluation, however laughable that seems to you.
But I have no doubt you'll come up with some convoluted defense of your statement, so you can hold on to your cherished self-image of open-mindedness. Mean time, I see no further point in engaging your comments. |
Very true, this is actually a very serious question and I will treat it as such. There are a number of scenarios that could be considered and I've heard or read many of them but all at the philosophical level of inquiry.
A problem you run into when you remove a higher authority as origin is the question of absolute morality. Who then defines what is moral and at what time in human existence. You naturally resolve into realitivism. If you then want to apply scientific investigation at this point it gets murky and completely subjective.
I think it might be more accurate to define the scenarios thus:
A) If God exists then God could be the origin of moral law (I say could because this makes an assumption upon the nature of God).
B) If God doesn't exist then absolute moral law is nonexistent.
either way we are stuck because the primary premise, the existence of God, can not be proven. So where do we go from here...
|