Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
There is no issue of semantics here; you are either misinterpreting or misrepresenting completely cogent perspectives on how we come to believe in certain moral propositions.
For the sake of complete clarity, the following are two completely distinct areas of inquiry:
- What behaviour is right and what is wrong, and how ought we to act?
- Why do we think that certain things are right or wrong, and why do people conclude we should act in a particular way?
It's #2 that's under discussion at the moment. The answer is not simply "because Christianity". |
That wasn't what was under discussion. I could easily satirize the other side and say that the answers given were "because technology." Doesn't work like that either.
I was trying to discover his premise so that I could reasonably respond. Do we behave morally as a result of 4 billion years of evolution? If so, why is there so much diversity in human moral systems, and if we think that reason is important, to what degree, and in what form? This is exactly why I tried to demonstrate that one type of progress, in terms of engineering and technological development, doesn't logically lead to an increase in universal morality.
My only answer is that Christianity must be considered as the primary source of morality within the modern context.
If we double back from #2 to the first area of inquiry, then the other side has to be a lot more cogent then simply saying, well we've progressed, and have a lot more information now so that must magically make us all a great deal more sophisticated.