-
Do you think naturalism holds an adequate basis for ethical values? Explain.
-
No. Naturalism cannot possibly provide ethical values because of the belief that nature determines our moral code and what is right / wrong for people is dependent on what we see as “natural” to that people group.
-
Having no consistent basis for ethical values creates chaos. “Ethical” behavior in one group is unethical in another group. A lack of absolutes means that no one can hold another accountable for their actions.
-
No because what is right for one group may be wrong for another group. There is no standard for all.
-
No! Naturalists have no ethical absolutes from one culture to another. Values and ethical decisions are always different and changing with no standard to make ethical decisions. They basically live as they please.
-
No, not at all. If the naturalist holds that there are no ethical absolutes from one culture to another, and that the moral consensus of the group can serve as a “helpful guideline” for ethical decisions, then values are in constant flux and there is no true standard in which to make ethical decisions. There is nothing to truly inform one’s conscious as in monotheism.