Changes

The '''Moral Zeitgeist''' is a term used by [[atheists]] to describe the evolution of morality.  Proponents of a moral ''Zeitgeist'' believe that morality evolved to help what they believe to be our ape-like ancestors survive in large groups as social animals.  This theory suggests that moral acceptability is chosen by the masses.  As people's view of what is morally right and wrong changes, the moral ''Zeitgeist'' is said to "shift." This position is rejected by Creationists and most Christians.  

The '''Moral Zeitgeist''' is a term used by [[atheists]] to describe the evolution of morality.  Proponents of a moral ''Zeitgeist'' believe that morality evolved to help what they believe to be our ape-like ancestors survive in large groups as social animals.  This theory suggests that moral acceptability is chosen by the masses.  As people's view of what is morally right and wrong changes, the moral ''Zeitgeist'' is said to "shift." This position is rejected by Creationists and most Christians.  

''To Atheists'', there appears to be a universal moral, nae, ethical consensus as to what makes something morally acceptable.  Richard Dawkins illustrates this with respect to racism in chapter 7 of his book ''The God Delusion'':

''To Atheists'', there appears to be an ethical consensus as to what makes something morally acceptable.  Richard Dawkins illustrates this with respect to racism in chapter 7 of his book ''The God Delusion'':

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

Another view of the moral zeitgeist is 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.

Another view of the moral zeitgeist is 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

The moral zeitgeist is thus compatible with [[moral realism]], the notion that true moral facts exists. Atheist and secular humanist Richard Carrier, a defender of moral realism, writes

<blockquote>"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"<ref> Carrier, Richard, "Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism, AuthorHouse, 2005, pp. 336-337</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>"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"<ref> Carrier, Richard, "Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism, AuthorHouse, 2005, pp. 336-337</ref></blockquote>