guest journaler
As I mentioned yesterday, I am going to focus this blog more on relating moral theory to action. The first action that I would recommend is to oppose acts that lead to the possibility of a Palin presidency. A person with good desires and true and complete beliefs would be adamantly opposed to any action that would put Palin a heartbeat away from
( Read more... )
Religious people have to address the exact same issue, wrt interpretation of scripture, theology, accepting or rejecting dogma, &c. &c. Where does _your_ moral compass come from? If it is different from another theist's, whose view prevails where they conflict? Is there a still, small voice telling each of you different things? How do you know whose is truthful?
Fyfe has written extensively on this. Here's one post: http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2006/09/foundations-of-ethics.html
He actually argues strongly against moral relativism, by the way, as he does believe in an objective morality. He just doesn't attribute it to God. (Why do you feel the need to?)
I myself typically follow the golden rule approach to ethics (Fyfe's approach is by and large too cerebral for me). Why, if there's no threat of eternal damnation or the enticement of eternal bliss? Basically, I believe that humans function best in societies, and societies function best when their members get along. If I act in a way that causes harm to the community, then its members have an obligation to use the tools of condemnation and/or punishment to try to change my behavior. Likewise with beneficial behavior, which ought to result in praise and/or reward.
Reply
Leave a comment