I am curious how people feel about this debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig. The Objective Morality question is central to the question of a need for God. Sam Harris advocates for the position that there is an objective morality that does not require a Lawgiver. Particularly, at the beginning of Harris argument, he cites the example of a hypothetical culture that plucks out the eyes of every third child born because their scared text reads every third should walk in darkness. He asks wouldnt you agree that there we have found a culture that is not maximizing human well-being? The question of objective morality is posed by people like Bill Craig as proof of God. I think that Harris, with whom I disagree on whether morality is objective, makes a perfectly valid point in making the case for the possibility of an objective moral standard that does not require a Dictator-like Supreme Cosmic Lawgiver. I am of the opinion that morality IS subjective. That Nazis killing Jews is not wrong in a cosmos balance principle but that it is wrong to US who have decided that all men are created (loosely-interpreted version of the word) as equal. For me, this philosophy is purely Lockean. We are born innocent because we are born ignorant. For us as a society to judge another society as moral does not make one society right and the other wrong but wrong according to our own measuring-stick. For example, Bill Craig says that a male animal that forces copulation of a female does not rape her. I disagree. He says that a Lion that kills a zebra for food does not commit murder. I would agree that the Lion does not commit murder but that is because I define murder as killing a member of your own species for a pre-meditated reason or otherwise to take life indiscriminately. If to murder is simply to kill, then meat is murder for all carnivores, humans included. And I disagree with that. I say that animals are as prone to moral judgement as humans, provided that they have the neurological capacity for empathy. So dolphins and other cetaceans, for example, have perhaps greater neurological ability for empathy than do we as humans. It could be entirely possible then that they are more morally-founded creatures than we are, breaking down the hierarchy of consciousness and accountability that separates human beings from the rest of the animal kingdom. In any event, I welcome your opinions and arguments. https://youtube/watch?x-yt-ts=1421914688&x-yt-cl=84503534&v=OwcZNWd3iSo
Posted on: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 21:39:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015