-
Do you think naturalism holds an adequate basis for ethical values? Explain.
-
No. It is only a free for all. My truth is the truth is very dangerous and has been proven over and over through out history and even in our current times.
-
No I do not. We cannot trust in the heart of man to determine what is acceptable.
-
I don’t personally think it does. The idea of “group thought” or consensus is appealing if everybody in the world was a clone of one another with the same thoughts, mindsets, emotions, etc. If one group believes child sacrifice is appropriate and another group believes it isn’t, you are in a bind of sorts. If you believe in the fact that there is some sense of ethical “right and wrong” then either those things are true always or they don’t exist at all like a Nihilist would argue.
-
Adequate, no! Values change, varying from culture to culture.
“According to naturalists, social groups are the sole source of ethical systems. Because of this, we must realize that there are no ethical absolutes from one culture to another. The moral consensus of a group, however, can provide helpful guidelines for ethical decisions. Most often it is easier to live in conformity with the laws and moral guidelines of the culture in which one lives.”
-
No. Ethical values could change when the group changes or when it relocates. The ethical values of one group might agree with the ethical values of another group they meet and that could cause major problems.