"My views on absolute morality don't depend on the existence of God or gods"
I'm just curious, Tim. Why do you look beyond the obvious evidence for humans creating their own moral codes? Why should very strong belief about the rightness or wrongness of something (such as is held by many people relative to time, place, circumstance, and culture) suggest anything beyond humanity? I would understand if you were pushing some God dogma that you just happened to believe in--but that does not appear to be the case. So I wonder why you need (or feel justified) to complicate something that can be explained by known facts?
Right and wrong are not objects; they are assessments, evaluations, or judgments. An act is simply an act. How one thinks or feels about the act is a judgment. Human beings assess and judge conduct. And relative to culture, allegiance, and so forth we often have agreement on moral questions.
Some people believe that killing is justified in self defense; some feel it is justified in war; some feel it is not justified in war; some feel that even killing insects and viruses is "wrong". These are all legitimate opinions. In your case, I am curious as to what could logically lead someone to search beyond the facts which adequately account for things...to espouse something unknown and unnecessary to account for those things? Obviously, there is no general agreement that any one thing is wrong outside of context, circumstance, interest, motive, and so forth. So why would one (such as yourself) feel the need to presume an ultimate method of evaluating an action? If it does not depend on God, then whose interests would such an evaluation reflect? |
