Initial description of the moral argument

Moral terms do multiple things, they don’t have a single definition. As a result most arguments are true as intended, and untrue as interpreted.

Atheists have coherent conceptions of “objective morality”. However theist conceptions differ. Thus theists are correct objective moral values don’t exist without God, and atheists are correct that they do. Other atheists correctly claim they don’t exist even if God exists.

The argument thus is about the correct conception of objective morality, not whether there is objective morality.

I use ‘wrong’ to refer to things which harm human welfare. John Rawls uses wrong to describe things rational bargainers would not agree to from behind a veil of ignorance.

If the Nazis won rational bargainers behind a veil of ignorance would still disapprove of them. The holocaust still would have caused harm on net. Obviously majority belief cannot affect this.Claiming  “if we had evolved otherwise different things would be wrong” is simply not using ‘wrong’ how either atheists or theists use it.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Initial description of the moral argument

  1. Urs says:

    This had two good posts and a couple fledgling posts in it. I put you on my blogroll, so I’m hoping that you continue to make thoughtful posts on a consistent basis.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s