>>11521047Atheism:
This is facing the same kind of problem and only skips the middlemen. Instead of choosing the deities through the things you like you just choose the things directly based on your personal taste. There is nothing that makes your idea of good being "running into a burning orphanage to save the children inside" better than that of the guy who considers its good to set the orphanage on fire.
This is generally tried by using some appearent bias in nature and base your morality on this, but the means of what you dereive it from again are in on itself entirely up to yourself. But here again we can look at some common examples to see the relativistic natuer of them.
-The"do not harm" philosophy:
which while sounding good is entirely open to interpretation. What is "harming" someone? We first need to define what is even bad for someone. Is what we feel an accurate meassurement? Then Heroin must be the best thing ever, I heard. Ask someone who is about to jump from a bridge what he thinks wether death is something good or bad, or ask a serial killer even, so maybe killing isnt too bad after all
- Appealing to natur
"The animals do this so it must be natural for us too". Yet various animals show different behavior, how close must the example be to us to be viable? Why would apes be close enough?
I heard it being argued that behavior is based on the DNA and thus the DNA is the source of morality which evolved together as a survival mechanism with us and any ill behavior would be mutation. But who is to say the mutation isnt progress? We have some animals that kill of the offspring of a previous alpha male or kill their own in general, having evolutionary adventages because of that, so again you can just pick and choose which behavior is meant to be in the DNA and which not.
