Jim:
>>STOP THE PRESSES! RE-DO PAGE ONE! HEADLINE: "RUSSELL STEWART ADMITS
MATERIALIST MORALITY IS NOT OBJECTIVE, UNIVERSAL OR ETERNAL. CYBERSPACE
STUNNED."<<
Pim:
<< What's so surprising about that ? I am more confused about claims that
such a morality does exist which is objective, universal or eternal. >>
The Christian theist assumes God and the atheist assumes no God. God, if
he exists, would be the transcendent, objective standard of morality. The
debate at present is not about proving or disproving this basic assumption,
but rather it is about whether or not the WORLDVIEW each conceives, when
CONSISTENT with the chosen premise, allows us to insist that anything is
'right' or 'wrong.'
I would go so far as to say that by the Christian Theist CONSISTENT
worldview, an "objective, universal, eternal" moral standard exists, and by
the Atheist CONSISTENT (that is, taken to its logical conclusion)
worldview, the moral standard is subjective. It comes down to his or her
opinion. Where government establishes an 'objective' standard of law it is
still only subjective consensus, as it has nothing that transcends human
beings.
Russell plucks a seemingly 'objective' moral standard out of thin air when
he makes self-awareness the criterea for abortion. One might ask though,
whether he applies the same standard to the cattle he presumably eats from
time to time, and if not, why humans are more important than cattle? There
are atheistic answers to these questions, just not transcendent and
objective within the context of his/her worldview.
Regards,
Peter Grice