-
Do you think naturalism holds an adequate basis for ethical values? Explain.
-
No, naturalism allows a majority to determine right and wrong. Since humans are flawed and sinful by nature they are an unreliable basis for determining ethical values
-
Absolutely not, how can it be adequate if there are no absolutes? Getting to choose “your truth” is one of the biggest problems in the USA right now. There must be absolutes.
-
No, I don’t. That allows for a limitless spectrum of values decided by humans with egos, jealousy, impulsivity and greed.
-
No, I do not think naturalism holds adequate basis for ethical values. It might give some reasons for why we feel or maybe even why we should behave a certain way (to ensure our progression as a species), but it cannot give reasons for moral obligation that would be sacrificial or harmful to your own survival (such as sacrificing one’s own life for another person’s life).
-
Absolutely not. Expecting that separate social groups can create their own ethical systems is a recipe for chaos and confusion.