-
Do you think naturalism holds an adequate basis for ethical values? Explain.
-
No because they do not believe there is any life beyond our physical death on this side of heaven
-
No, because there is no standard moral or ethical code to follow. If Naturalists believe social groups are the sole source of ethical systems, then an individual may live by a particular social group’s system until such time they feel to change. There is no foundation to live this way which ultimately leads to a meaningless life.
-
No. There are no ethical absolutes. They believe in no future, only death.
-
I don’t not that a worldview that does not have a true foundation or clarity on anything could offer a basis for anything including ethics. Values of importance vary across people and cultures, matters of ethics cannot be left solely to the discretion of individuals. If there is no standard for value there can be no standard for violations against ones values. And value itself is also based on something, which is where traditional institutions derive theirs. People are therefore not being held down by institution standards but protected as a whole.
-
The ethics would likely be based on the strongest individual or group which would change over time. I have a hard time imagining basic ethical considerations changing. A life is a life, whether the person is a hunter gatherer from 4,000 BCE or an astronaut on their way to Mars.