Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

I would say that moral statements have no real truth value because they do not assert genuine propositions, and therefore cannot describe some feature of the world in a cognitive sense. This is because there is no moral mechanism to attribute a moral statement with an expression of a truth claim. Of course, this only really functions like the most common form of atheism. It's not a claimation that morality does not exist objectively, as there could be some authoritative mechanism that creates and defines objective morality that is not yet apparent to us. It's more like the more popular forms of atheism in the sense that it is a lack of belief in the existence of morality, as there is no evidence that currently exists to prove that morality exists.

Just as we would in the lack of belief in a deity, we would find a natural mechanism to explain why people believe that morality exist. What it is, and why it arises. The typical belief is that our expression of what we claim to be morality, is merely an expression of our emotional interpretation of a certain event or act. An example would be when we go out of our way to condemn murder. We are merely expressing our opposition to it, showing our reluctance to commit it, indicating our disgust at it, and strongly encouraging our peers to do the same. In this case, we are not making moral statements of truth, as that would not be cognitively coherent. Instead we are expressing our emotional perspectives on an issue. Which is a sound naturalistic expression for an individual's 'morality'.

Morality in a religious context would be how the belief in a divine authority's morals, shapes an individuals emotional interpretation of issues. Since they will adhere to the claimed moral structure promoted by the religious or spiritual ideal. Then, of course, in a societal and cultural context - the claimed morality of a society will develop from the mixture of individual's within the societies emotional expressions. While also being heavily influenced by the elite groups, which are primarily political, economical, religious and educational elites. Which then also goes on to influence new individuals within the given societies emotional interpretation of events, depending of course, on how strict the society is on a given issue.

So given this meta-ethics jumble, I am good in the sense that I do not commit acts that I view as emotionally abhorrent.