JOHN W. LOFTUS SAID:
Have you yet reviewed Erik J. Wielenberg's book, Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe? (Cambridge University Press, 2005). I don't think such simplisms, even if coming from my friend Copan, are worthy of what we in the opposition are actually saying.
1:46 PM, May 07, 2007, John W. Loftus said...
I don't think there is an eternal Platonic standard of morality. Some atheists like Wielenberg do.
Notice that having apparently endorsed Wielenberg’s book as presenting a cogent, secular alternative to Christian ethics, Loftus, in another thread, admits that he rejects Wielenberg’s solution.
1:48 PM, May 07, 2007, Prup (aka Jim Benton) said...
I do not believe in 'ultimate moral standards.' Since 'good' and 'evil' are judgments on specific actions of human beings, I believe that the terms are the responsibility of humans. However I also believe that communication, co-operation, ethics, and most particularly empathy are evolutionally 'programmed' into us because they are the most important survival traits we possess.
As I’ve pointed out on several occasions, there are several things wrong with evolutionary ethics. Just to name a few:
i)It commits the is-ought fallacy as well as the naturalistic fallacy.
ii)Assuming that evolution has programmed us to be altruistic, yet once we become aware of our programming, we are then in a position to see that our moral intuitions are illusory and repudiate our evolutionary conditioning.
iii)Notice how the appeal to evolutionary ethics is being used to underwrite the politically correct orthodoxy of 21C liberal Western values. Funny how our evolutionary programming happens to exactly correspond to the New York Times editorial page.
5:26 PM, May 07, 2007, Curiosis said...
Morality is a social construct. It exists only to allow humans to live and work together. Imagine that you were all alone on an island. Can you do anything immoral? No, because there is no victim for your immoral act. There is no objective morality because the rules are made by humans based on our desires. I once read that murder will be considered immoral so long humans dislike being murdered. We have morality for the same reason that sports have rules. Imagine a football game with no rules. It would be utter chaos, and likely nothing would ever be accomplished. The rules of the game only make sense in the context of a goal. The goal in football is an exciting game where no one is injured, and everyone has a fair chance. Any rule contrary to these goals is discarded.
This statement has the merit of intellectual candor. And how many of you would like to see such an admission enacting into law? Would you want the attending physician at the ER to operate with this philosophy?