Does Naturalism Lead to Moral Relativism?

5 Comments

1. ChatGPT 4:

   The transcript presents a discussion on whether naturalism necessarily leads to moral relativism and explores ways naturalists attempt to claim objective morality. The discussants, Greg and Amy, outline the implications of naturalism for understanding morality and the possibility of grounding moral obligations without supernatural or metaphysical entities.

   *Moral Nihilism Perspective:*

   From the perspective of a moral nihilist, the discussion in the transcript aligns with some foundational nihilistic principles, particularly the denial of intrinsic moral values. Moral nihilists hold that morality does not inherently exist, and any ethical statements do not express truths but are instead expressions of subjective preferences or societal constructs.

   *Key Points from a Moral Nihilist View:*

   1. **Naturalism and Morality**:
   – Naturalism posits that only natural laws and entities which are observable and measurable exist. This excludes the existence of abstract entities such as moral values which cannot be observed or measured.
   – Moral nihilists would agree with the naturalists' view that morality, being a non-physical entity, does not inherently exist. They argue that moral properties do not have empirical basis and are therefore illusions or socio-constructs rather than objective truths.

   2. **The Illusion of Morality**:
   – As discussed, under strict naturalism, morality cannot be a natural property because it is not derived from natural laws or physical phenomena. Thus, the concept of right or wrong as intrinsic properties would be illusory.
   – A moral nihilist would further assert that because moral values are not empirically ascertainable, they are non-existent. The feelings or beliefs regarding morality are merely biochemical responses conditioned by evolutionary or societal pressures.

   3. **Darwinism and Morality**:
   – The argument that morality evolved for fitness purposes aligns with nihilistic views that moral beliefs are adaptive rather than true. Moral nihilists would support the idea that what is considered "moral" is just a set of survival strategies passed down through generations.
   – They would argue that just because a certain behavior or belief increases evolutionary fitness, it does not confer upon it any moral truth. Morality is a useful fiction in this view.

   4. **Moral Platonism and Objective Standards**:
   – Moral platonism suggests that moral truths exist in an abstract realm, independent of physical reality. From a moral nihilist's perspective, this is merely substituting one illusion for another. Abstract objects, if they cannot have causal effects or empirical verification, do not warrant belief.
   – Nihilists reject the existence of a metaphysical realm of moral forms as it lacks empirical support and does not meaningfully interact with the physical world.

   5. **The Problem of Grounding Morality**:
   – The discussants mention the difficulty of grounding moral obligations in a naturalistic worldview where no supernatural or metaphysical entities exist to enforce these obligations.
   – A moral nihilist would conclude that in the absence of an objective moral standard, all moral claims are baseless. The concept of moral obligation is a human construct without ontological backing, reflecting personal or cultural preferences rather than truths.

   *Conclusion:*

   A moral nihilist would find the discussion validating their perspective that morality is not an inherent part of the universe but a construct of human minds influenced by biological, psychological, and social factors. They would agree that in a purely naturalistic framework, morality cannot be objective or absolute. Instead, moral nihilists view ethical discourse as reflective of subjective human conditions and not of any deeper, universal truths. This aligns with the naturalistic view that rejects the supernatural while also highlighting the philosophical challenge of discussing morality without a foundational belief in its inherent existence.

   Log in to Reply

2. Can't morality be grounded in society or government, the laws constructed by society/ government?

   Log in to Reply

3. Without God there is no morality. I believe that the morality that atheists do have is sourced from the Holy Spirit and his conviction in their heart. Why? Because it is how God will judge them. They may know nothing about scripture but God will judge them according to their conscience. That is how God judges people who do not know scripture. By their conscience.

   Log in to Reply

4. The problem with telling atheists that people would have no moral center without the Bible and the threat of eternal torture, is that the Bible's morality sucks eggs. "Do not kill" says the commandment – conveniently after God had genocided the Egyptians with the ten plagues – done as the Bible specifically said for no other reason than for God to show his power – no mercy there. Then the Isrealites going around genociding the people living on the land that God said he would "give" to them – what right did God have to "give" them land that other people owned, and how is making the Isrealites kill everyone on that land "giving" it to them? And that of course is just the tip of the iceberg. First immoral act God did was punish the entirety of the human race for the "sin" of just two people. The very definition of Evil.

   Log in to Reply

5. There is no such thing as objective morality.

   Log in to Reply