I do not know what you mean. To me, that is all morality is.
It doesn't matter.
And if it doesn't matter, there is no presupposition that humans have any intrinsic value (beyond what a person/family/society/population puts on them). We can theorize (evolutionary theory) that groups of social animals with a morality that works towards the common good rather than the "individual egoistic and sometimes psychopathic good" had a survival advantage over those groups that didn't.
I see it as rooted in reality, based a varying mix of reason, compassion, empathy, and relative human wellness, the Silver Rule, and the social contract. It exists because that behaviour evolved with as as social animals.
I do not see a problem. Your question makes as much sense to me as "What gives a human value without Gribbg?".
Why can you not make a determination of right and wrong based on reason, compassion, empathy, and relative human wellness, the Silver Rule, and the social contract?
So it sucks. But, it still beats the alternative by a long shot (not existing at all).
Indeed. And the Earth seem flat, and to hang in space while the Cosmos rotates around it. The desk on which my computer monitors rest seems to be of a solid material, and not mostly empty space.
I don't know. For me, it would seem a more coherent description of reality, and I want to believe as many true things as possible, and as few false things as possible.
What motivates you to be here in this forum?
But you didn't answer my question though. What then, according to you, and supposing that God doesn't exist, give humans as a whole and as individuals value? Unless you don't really believe we do? I suppose you believe not, based on what you just said. I can hardly understand how you content yourself with this view though.
Yeah, but the question is: would you be able to recognize the truth? I wish so, for you.
In any case, to answer your question: well, it's to discuss this kind of stuff of course!
Upvote
0