-
Do you think naturalism holds an adequate basis for ethical values? Explain.
-
Ethical? No. Through naturalism ethics doesn’t exist. That’s why what is right or wrong is constantly changing in this worldview, which is problematic.
-
Naturalists believe that the modern day social culture should decide what is right and wrong. This is not right because ethical values would be constantly changing from year to year.
-
While it is reasonable to think that social cultures can decide what is acceptable or not, it is still baseless in an ultimate truth. If there is no defined truth, then there is nothing to define right and wrong. The absence of this plum line would be the basis for absolute chaos if all held this view.
-
I can’t help but think that we all have a God-shaped hole in our hearts. I do believe that Paul was right when he said all one has to do is to look around them at “nature” and inherently know there is a plan that had to be put in place by “a higher power.” Most of the naturalists that I know, no matter how self-involved they are follow something of a moral code, some of them follow it more devotedly than many Christians I know.
-
No, how does each social group determine what is right vs wrong, good vs bad, etc? If people are the foundation for moral ethics, then they are always changing & not consistent regardless of where I live.