This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Richard Dawkins - Absolute Morality

Quine's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by Quine

Comment #485452 by rocket777:

Not all absolute morality is bad. All absolute means is that some idea has lasted a long time.
The questioner asked the classic moral question (although without the usual quote from Dostoevsky) in which "absolute" has a fixed meaning in this context. I get this from Christians all the time. They want a moral system that is absolutely true the way 2+2=4 is absolutely true, and they think that they can't have that if there is no supernatural law giver. They project a result that makes them afraid, and work that back to deny truth, a common human response. As Spinoza just posted, the two have no logical connection.

Of course, Richard points out that we have always had a relative moral system, and picking and choosing and reinterpreting are the ways we have always changed our relative systems while keeping a false front of absolute authority. Think about it, we have all these different religions that all claim to have the absolute authority over morality. Even if one does, all the rest (being false) have been going on for quite a long time on non-absolute authority, anyway.

Now is the time for us to "people up" and accept the responsibility to construct moral principles that give us the kind of mutually beneficial society in which we want to live. Again, it is not about Atheism. Folks can keep their churches and imaginary friends, but claims to absolute authority must be cast aside unless they can be supported by objective evidence.

Got evidence?

Sat, 01 May 2010 19:33:00 UTC | #464681