Re: Secularism and Atheism
Why should we need an ultimate arbitrator? Why can good not be done for the sake of good?
What is good and what is bad is not an arbitrary thing, its hard wired into our psyche. Stealing is bad and murder is bad, not because we are told as such by god, but because it is inherent in us to understand these things as being bad.
If arbitration is of value, and i suppose it is at some point, then that is the role of society… Society judges what is or is not permissible.
But even if we assume god is the ultimate source of right and wrong, im reminded of Platos “Euthyphro” in which the question is raised, does god love something because its pious, or is something pious because god loves it? Another words, are morale deeds deemed to be as such by god because they are morale by nature, or are moral deeds such because they were deemed to be as such by god? So citing god doesnt really resolve our dilema. Because if things are morale by nature, then why would we need god to tell us that? It implies there is a moral standard outside of god. And if they are moral only because god says they should be, then god could have easily made something that is moral be immoral and so morality thus is arbitrary…
(Im curious, Muslim philosophers must have wrestled with this back in the day, what is the Islamic resolution to the Euthyphro’s dilemma?)
where the concept of randomness is then? how can you be that specific in you view of the world? You are contradicting with so-called concept of world-view…