@BrettKunkleSTR @NFQblog When you say there is no "good rational basis" for morality without God, do you just mean there is no "truly objective basis" on which to ground morality without God?

Because when you say there is no "good rational basis," it sounds to me like part of the argument might be trying to define what a "good, rational basis" for morality SHOULD be, which is not the question. The question is "do objective moral values and duties exist?"

I understand the grounding problem. I understand that without some ultimate standard to appeal to, there cannot be a truly objective moral law. The buck stops no where, and we can never REALLY say that something is truly wrong or truly right. And I understand the difference between them existing and us being able to perceive them. Please believe me when I say I have taken this to heart and thought about it a lot.

The question that @NFQblog and I, among countless others, are asking, is "why should we think that objective moral values and duties actually exist?" To tell people, as proof, that we all just know it, is far from convincing. This is what we are talking about. The lack of good reasons to think these types of moral values and duties are actually real, or if our moral intuitions can be explained better by another theory.

Thanks for reading, and sorry for the length :D

Reply · Report Post