Can naturalism account for moral absolutes or moral responsibility?

Question

Can naturalism account for moral absolutes or moral responsibility?

Answer 1

It can account for moral responsibility, but there are no universal moral absolutes.



For instance, if wolves and sheep both developed intelligence, they would have very different ideas about the eating of sheep. Maybe the wolves would eventually change their diet and make peace. However, they might still value books written in earlier times describing great feasts. That might upset the sheep, but if they wanted peace, they would have to put up with it.



We have a similar situation. There are many books written back when going to war and enslaving weaker nations was regarded as noble, parts of the Old Testament, for instance. Christians have a hard time dealing with that; If there are universal moral absolutes, why are they defending actions which, if carried out today, would be called war crimes?



There are moral absolutes, though. They may change in future centuries - there is not much we can do about that. And they might well have disgusted our ancestors, but that does not matter.



The absolute sense you mention does not exist. Responsibility means the ability to respond to events which are happening now. We should rejoice that we are more civilised than our ancestors were.

Answer 2

you take morality to be divinely abstract, it is not. it is merely a socially developed system or norms and standards which come about quite naturally. live with people and you will adapt to each other



to give you an example - in the animal kingdom different spiecies often form communities because their rate of survival increases immensely whith larger groups. they will warn each other when danger is present. this is not due to compassion, it is merely a tool for survival. human beings are a little more emotional and so we inject emotion into every instance of our lives. what is to an animal merely a tool for survival we see as some divine gift of compassion for our fellow man. we are mistaken, and that is all there is to it

Answer 3

There is no such thing as "moral absolutes". As we objectively learn more about other species, we see that they have their "defined" "moral responsibility" and that moral responsibility is a function of social groups. We also see that many species exhibit altruistic behavior.



If we look at human morals across history and culture, we see that there are no absolutes..

Answer 4

Are your religious beliefs the only thing keeping you from going on a killing spree? Interesting.



We atheists continue to do our best to do the right thing using our common sense, and we shake our heads at all the nonsense you guys need not to rape and pillage. I guess it's for the best.

Answer 5

not at all

Answer 6

WTF is "naturalism"?