-
Do you think naturalism holds an adequate basis for ethical values? Explain.
-
No, they don’t believe in absolute moral truths. I don’t quite understand that. There has to be something or truth that life is based on. It makes everything so relative.
-
Group think can be good or very bad depending on your moral law and code. I am reminded of The Lord of the Flies, where group think meant elimination.
-
No, we must have truth to live, wrong versus right.
-
Naturalism cannot hold adequate ethical views because the only ethics they follow are simply out of conformity to social norms with no ethical absolutes.
-
No, I do not believe that naturalism holds an adequate basis for ethical values. The way that naturalists see social groups as providing the only basis for ethical values, places humans in the same classification as all other animals. Our ability to reason is completely ignored. It is a nature versus nurture argument in which naturalists support only nurture in regard to shaping our ethical values. Although the acceptable standards of our chosen social group and/or culture does have a significant bearing on our ethical values, it is not the sole determiner thereof.