Tim Madigan from “The Basis of Morality” in Philosophy Now magazine.
[b]
[/b]
Isn’t that basically what morality comes down to in a No God world? We can frame human interactions in whatever secular/humanist narrative that happens to appeal to us. But “for all practical puropses” it seems to come down to creating social, political and economic interactions that are construed to be the least dysfunctional.
The only other really important factor then being political power. You can think about the “right thing to do” however you wish. But, when push comes to shove, you can either enforce your own narrative existentially or you cannot.
And this seems to be true whether the community is predicated more on might makes right, right makes might or on moderation, negotiation and compromise.
Rewards and punishments. It all evolves into or devolves out of that. Depending on your point of view regarding pleasure and pain.
[b]
[/b]
In fact, any number of religious folks scoff at the idea of discussing morality in the absense of God. Even philosophers like Plato, Descartes and Kant recognized that without a “transcending font” there is “for all practical purposes” no basis upon which to resolve conflicts revolving around “right” and “wrong” behavior. Not on this side of the grave.
And that has certainly been my own argument here in defending “moral nihilism” as a reasonable frame of mind.
No God, no access to a morality in which the behaviors of mere mortals can be judged from both an omniscient and omnipotent point of view.
Then what?
How about this: Human history to date.