-
Do you think naturalism holds an adequate basis for ethical values? Explain.
-
I do not believe naturalism holds an adequate basis for ethical values. If everything is left to chance and there are no ethical absolutes I do not believe they can establish a basis for values.
-
It can, but it is on shaky ground as it lacks a universal guarantor for any of these values, which can then be uprooted at any time at will.
-
No. Naturalism holds no adequate basis for anything. Given that the entire existence of the universe is essentially the result of random chance there is no ground that morality or ethics can be built upon. Furthermore, given that death is the ultimate finale of one’s life, to the naturalist there is no objective reason to even try to be moral or ethical during one’s time on the planet.
The Naturalist could argue that mankind’s role in the universe is the propagation of the species, a goal that is best accomplished through the “survival of the fittest”. Even still, ethical values are not necessary to accomplish this goal.
-
No, because we need something greater than ourselves to define truth, which defines right and wrong. Without absolutes, and holding true to those absolutes, there is chaos of the constantly changing ethical values. In order to define right and wrong, there must be an absolute basis for both. A non-changing standard of comparison.
-
No, if my truth is mine, but doesn’t have to be yours then there is no consensus within the group then there are no ethical values. Even is a specific group has created some moral values, not everyone will hold to them.