And yet, the other side of the coin here is that it is also responsible for altruism, compassion, humanitarian work, equality and tolerance, and other such goods.
Not in my world view. In my view it is the God given conscience that produces these things. I do agree they exist but I will relist a few examples that show they are not persuasive as a naturalistic explanation.
The most generous demographic on Earth are conservative Christians. It is almost always a nation with a strong Christian tradition that shows up first on the scene of international tragedy. It has built more school systems and hospitals than any other cultural group.
The heart regardless of reason does produce good as well as evil. That certainly does not make it a dependable source for moral foundations. For example it has produced 300 years of peace in 5000. The good it produces is in many ways swamped by it's immorality. It may save a few thousand lives for profit and also take a million in the womb for convenience.
The greatest form of government possible is a good dictatorship. The reason it is also the worst form is that you will get far more bad dictators once adopted than good ones.
No, not really. You were discussing metaethics. Well, not even that- you're making a metaethical claim; one you never bother to adequately substantiate.
We are neither technically correct. My claim was simply a denouncement of an absurdity. It however comes from a moral ontological position that has existed for thousands of years. Moral truths and foundations require a transcendent standard that only exists if God does. Evolution, the heart, the mind, preference, opinion, whatever natural source you give will never ever produce moral truth unless God exists. It is at best a system of contrived ethics agreed to be beneficial given certain arbitrary valuations. BY arbitrary I mean derived independent of truth.
If consequentialism is an adequate ethical theory, then your claim here is false. If deontology is an adequate ethical theory, then your claim here is false. If any form of moral anti-realism is an adequate metaethical theory, then your claim here is necessarily false. And yet, you've never attempted to rule any of these out. Worse, you're ignoring all of the work in biology and anthropology that suggests that morality is nothing more than adaptive behavior consisting in mutually beneficial cooperative strategies. So this is what you're left with- IF moral anti-realism is false AND IF consequentialism is false AND IF deontology is false AND IF virtue ethics is false AND IF every other secular theory of ethics and every POSSIBLE secular theory of ethics is false... THEN your claim may follow and not otherwise- but that's a rather long string of rather big "if's"!
Pick you favorite semantic term and lay out what it means and I will review it. I am not looking up every aberration coughed up in a philosophical think tank. I am not ignoring any work done by biologists or anyone else. I did not get into all of their vagaries because they can't possibly produce objective moral foundations.
There are only two viable positions, and almost all scholars consistently pick the one their world view validates.
Almost everyone intuitively believes objective moral truths exist and they comprehend a moral realm that transcends human opinion.
1. This is true and can only be true given a transcendent moral agent.
2. There are no objective moral truths because no transcendent moral agent exists. We still value an ethical system of law and so invent one independently from moral truth.
I have only seen one professional claim a third and completely unsustainable option (but I am sure there are many more but a small percentage over all).
Harris claimed objective morality exists but God does not. Craig backed him into a corner so airtight he finally gave up and admitted he only assumed objective moral exist and then spent a hour excusing his assumption.
