15
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 20:
Line 20: − + + + + +
→Controversy
==Controversy==
==Controversy==
The moral ''Zeitgeist'' is incompatible with moral absolutism and religious morality. Moral absolutism suggests that actions are either morally right, acceptable, or wrong, regardless of the context. Religious morality suggests that actions are either morally right, acceptable, or wrong based on the religion's teaching (see [[Buddhism]]) or the revelations of a deity or deities<ref>Some religious people would consider their morals absolute</ref>. The moral ''Zeitgeist'' suggests that actions are morally right, acceptable, or wrong based on the opinions of the masses.
The moral ''Zeitgeist'' is incompatible with moral absolutism and religious morality. Moral absolutism suggests that actions are either morally right, acceptable, or wrong, regardless of the context. Religious morality suggests that actions are either morally right, acceptable, or wrong based on the religion's teaching (see [[Buddhism]]) or the revelations of a deity or deities<ref>Some religious people would consider their morals absolute</ref>. The moral ''Zeitgeist'' suggests that actions are morally right, acceptable, or wrong based on the opinions of the masses or, alternatively, that all moral controversy is strictly a matter of factual dispute or pointing out logical flaws in other people's argument. For instance, some people held the empirical premise black people should not be considered humans in an attempt to justify slavery. Once that empirical premise was disproven, and blacks where shown to be just as much humans as other people, that justified equality instead. So slavery is not considered immoral on the Moral Zeitgeist due to an arbitrary change in popular opinion, but by the refutation of the flawed empirical premise of slavery.
The moral zeitgeist is thus compatible with [[moral realism]]. Atheist and secular humanist Richard Carrier, a defender of moral realism, writes
"Thus we can explain all moral controversy and progress. For when we try to argue that someone is wrong about a moral proposition we always find ourselves arguing in either of two ways: either we point out how their understanding of the facts is wrong, or we point out how they have deduced the incorrect values from the actual facts. Both can be valid arguments. For instance, we tell the Nazi that his beliefs, like that Jews are not human beings and that they are plotting to take over the world, are factually false, and therefore his morals regarding the Jews are in error"
==Quotes==
==Quotes==