At 4/8/2012 10:55:27 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
Given atheism, there is no satisfying reason why the survival or flourishing of species x is "good." If anything, you'd simply be submitting yourself to speciesism. Why think that what is conducive to human flourishing is any more valuable than what is conducive to the flourishing of ants or mice? Why think that inflicting harm on other members of our species is wrong? Why would it be wrong if atheism is true and we are nothing but relatively advanced primates whose inevitable destiny of death is ultimately not related to your behavior, why not do as you please?
I don't think human beings are morally superior to other sentient creatures. That is to say I don't think a human's suffering or pleasure is any more significant than another sentient creature's suffering or pleasure.
Again, you say "Given atheism, there is no reason to think the flourishing of our species is good". And again, I say if our ancestors had thought that way, we'd be extinct.
And what if we agree that enslaving all peoples of black colored skin is morally good and conducive to society, even if people are blind to the fact. Or what if we agree that Jews are ruining society and committing a list of economic crimes so it's best we just round them up and send them to gas chambers? See, under relativism or moral subjectivism, whatever a majority of men declare to be "moral" is nothing but an opinion -- a bare arbitrary act.
Agreeing something is true doesn't make it true. What I meant was "If feeding the homeless is objectively wrong, then we ought to feed the homeless".
I simply don't think you understood this last point. Like Plato (hence the name), Moral Platonists believe that moral values simply exist as abstractions, or Forms. So why think, given atheism and if we are nothing but the product of a blind cosmic process that spat us out and will one day swallow us whole again, that this abstractly existing realm of moral values would somehow, by sheer luck, prove to be so useful to our survivability and so alike to what we all recognize as objective moral values and duties? Under naturalism, the chances of a creature being spat out that would correspond so naturally to this abstractly existing realm of morality would be fantastically improbable.
I'll drop the last point since I don't think I subscribe to the platonism it was originally referring to.