Atheism and morality (Introduction)

by George Jelliss , Crewe, Thursday, October 21, 2010, 22:18 (5124 days ago) @ David Turell

As you might expect I largely go along with Sam Harris on the question of whether ethics is open to a scientific approach. -In my previous post I cited A.J.Ayer that "good" cannot have an objective meaning. I meant this in an "absolute" sense. It can become objective if you accept that the purpose of ethics is the flourishment of conscious life in the widest possible way. -Far too much relativism has now come into the discussion. There is no way that the culture of Sparta, or that depicted in Deuteronomy, or the Third Reich, can be called "good" examples of the way to organise society. -Our own societies, in the UK and America, are of course far from perfect, and there is much scope for debate about the best way forward, simply because of our lack of the appropriate scientific knowledge. But as we develop the Science of Ethics progress can surely be made in an objective manner.-I would also question B-M's apparent idea that an Individual can have any meaningful life other than as part of a Society.

--
GPJ