SolitaryWalker
Tenured roisterer
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 3,504
- MBTI Type
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 5w6
- Instinctual Variant
- so/sx
It must be understood that we are talking about a hypothesis here. The question isn't whether the original premise is true, but what conclusions would follow if the premise were. I'd think a person with such a fervant belief in dragons is probably very naive or crazy, because there appears to be no evidence that dragons exist. But if, for the sake of argument, dragons did exist, it would make sense for them to be accounted for.
I basically think it's a matter of function. The more and more you describe dragons as entities which function like God does, the more applicable it becomes to the belief in God.
As an added note, there are many different conceptions of God. My take on it varies significantly depending on whether we are talking about God as a cosmic, pantheistic entity, or some kind of wordly, interventionist diety. I personally believe in neither, but I would grant that the former is much more plausible than the latter.
1)Suppose everybody has an innate instinct towards the belief that murder is wrong and altruism is right. Since we have assumed that this is the case, morality must be innate. Is that correct?
This is regarded as the naturalistic fallacy and famously so.
This is exactly the 'is/ought problem' that ajblaise mentioned in the OP. David Hume was the first to inquire into this matter in the 18th century.
Hume's Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
In the 20th century George Moore has expounded on this problem.
Advanced Search
Moral Non-Naturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
George Edward Moore (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Naturalistic fallacy is the belief that what is natural is right because it is natural. This is a fallacy or an error of reasoning, or an erroneous methodology with regard to justification of morality because the term innate is irrelevant to morally justified.
To put it very simply, it is one thing to say that something is 'natural' and it is another thing to say that something is 'right'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)The existence of God or dragons alone does not justify morality. For instance if I were to say that morality is objective because God says it is, I would be comitting the fallacy of an appeal to authority. In condensed form, it is one thing to say that X says morality is objective, and it is another thing to provide reasons for why morality is objective.
A theist can say God knows all things, therefore if he says that morality is objective, it must be true. In that case, the doctrine concerning objectivity of morality is true in its own right. Whether or not God pointed out that it is true it is irrelevant.
In conclusion, God is not relevant to the question of whether or not morality is objective.