-
Do you think naturalism holds an adequate basis for ethical values? Explain.
-
No, the ethical basis for naturalists, or I like to refer to this group as secular humanists, have no absolute standard of truth. They believe that there is no God and that we are a product of evolution. Without a Creator God there is no moral standard. It is survival of the fittest. That is why they push abortion without any guilt.
-
There has to be an absolute truth coming from something other than ourselves or outside of ourselves. Therefore I do not believe it is adequate.
-
I do not think so. If there no ethical absolutes and “truth” depends on what culture you are in, I don’t see an adequate basis for ethical values.
-
Living in conformity would infer that one lives life looking to social “jury” rather than personal decision-making processes. I don’t agree this would be adequate for value basis as values would change as the individual changes environments, never creating an individual sense of ethic and morale.
-
No. Take the United States for example. People believe it’s ok to kill babies if the mother simply doesn’t want to be a mother. Drugs are becoming more legal and accessible. Pedophilia is becoming an accepted view in some states. If a group of people all believe one of these is ok, then that’s not an adequate basis for ethics. There’s no absolutes either. So that means murder could also be fine in some groups.