tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post113306635901644198..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Why Be Moral?Alonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1133116631482160192005-11-27T11:37:00.000-07:002005-11-27T11:37:00.000-07:00Belabor to your heart's content. I assume that you...Belabor to your heart's content. I assume that you are asking questions that millions of others would be asking. Only, you get to do it for them.<BR/><BR/>You know . . . I read this and my first response was, "Why don't you read what I wrote?"<BR/><BR/>Then, I realized that you had not read it because I had not posted it. Tonight's blog entry, which I wrote this morning before checking my mail, is about moral facts.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I believe that there are moral facts.<BR/><BR/>I believe that morality is objective and universal. However, I do not believe that it is absolute or unchanging.<BR/><BR/>Moral facts are like scientific facts. "John is taller than Jane" is a scientific fact. It is objective (the statement is either true or false). It is universal (anybody who denies that John is taller than Jane is mistaken). However, it is not absolute (the fact that John is taller than Jane does not imply that John is the tallest person that ever has or ever will exist). Nor is it unchanging. (Since John is Jane's child, there was once a time when John was shorter than Jane, but that changed over time.)<BR/><BR/>Am I a moral relativist?<BR/><BR/>I am in a sense, but not in the sense that I suspect that you are asking a question.<BR/><BR/>Is "n > 3" a true or false statement? It depends on what 'n' is. If n = 5 then, yes, n > 3. If n = 0 then, no, n is not > 3.<BR/><BR/>Now, if you believe this, are you a mathematical relativist or a mathematical absolutist? After all, the only right answer to the question, "is n > 3" is "It depends". Is this relativism? Or is this absolutism? Or is this a little of both?<BR/><BR/>My view on morality is that it is a little of both. Those who insist that morality must be absolute, or it must be relative, will never resolve their differences, because they are both wrong.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I do not think I missed your point about "why be moral?" The reason to be moral is because one wants to be moral. This is the only reason we do anything. We choose the action that best fulfills our desires, given our beliefs.<BR/><BR/>This then leads to the question, "How do we get people to want to be moral?"Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.com