Adequate, no! Values change, varying from culture to culture.
“According to naturalists, social groups are the sole source of ethical systems. Because of this, we must realize that there are no ethical absolutes from one culture to another. The moral consensus of a group, however, can provide helpful guidelines for ethical decisions. Most often it is easier to live in conformity with the laws and moral guidelines of the culture in which one lives.”
No. Ethical values could change when the group changes or when it relocates. The ethical values of one group might agree with the ethical values of another group they meet and that could cause major problems.
Absolutely not. If they believe that social groups form ethical values by consensus, then those values can shift. Social groups can be swayed by changing knowledge and moral values and thus, find themselves believing things that they never would have adopted before in time. This is also why naturalist thinking can actually become dangerous.
I do not think naturalism holds an adequate basis for ethical values. It is based on humans in social groups who have a sin nature and when left to themselves will erode and collapse. There are no universal truths. People do what they feel like doing which is not sustainable.
No. if everything is an accident then what their offering is not good nor ethical.
No, because of it being science based, people can utilize resources in an unethical manner when it comes creating life or destroying it in ways that go against the laws of Creation as God designed.
No I do not because if the belief is that when you die, there is no eternal life, the what good is it to live a moral and ethical life now? And who and how can that redetermined for the entire human race but vary from culture to culture?
No, because what one culture seems as ethical another does not. And with some things that some cultures approve of, it’s just not okay. There’s no true morality and no firm foundation.
No, only God’s perfect plan and God’s Word gives an adequate basis for ethical values.
No-I think the Bible makes it quite clear that we have absolute truth and there are clear ethical guidelines, regardless of culture.
Naturalism does not hold an adequate basis for ethical values because those ethical values are determined by the acceptance and expectations of a particular group and they would change from group to group.
No. There are no absolutes in this because it varies from culture to culture – so in a blended world it can’t function well.
No, if your belief is when you die you are terminated from existence, then to what purpose would living an ethical life be an incentive.
No. In essence, this lane of thought holds that it really is about the survival of the fittest, in which case, if I am stronger, bigger, and faster than you… then ethically, I can do as I please, regardless of how it affects you.
No. Holding to the belief that your ethical values are manmade by a group of people and can be different from another group of people would bring disunity and confusion when you interact with others – no ethics. Only the Perfect Creator truly defines right and wrong…and it’s universal.
No, You need to follow God’s perfect example of truth… He is the best example of what is right and wrong. No other worldview can achieve that.
The naturalist believes that each culture defines for itself what is ethical which would ultimately mean that there is no such thing as ethics. It’s only a manmade construct to conform to dependent on the people group you’re in.
No, who gets to be the one that says what is right and wrong besides God?
Naturalists believe our morals and ethics come from social groups and our society. If we see laws as mere guidelines to protect others, then who has the right to set those guidelines if there are no absolutes? Naturalism may agree in being moral and ethical for the greater good, but it does not answer the SOURCE for defining right and wrong.
No, without a creator God their is no basis for right or wrong.
No, I do not think that naturalism holds an adequate basis for ethical values because for the Naturalist, everything ultimately leads to the death of the universe and extinction of every species and human. If that is what they believe, there would be no real standing for their moral and ethical values.
Naturalism does not hold an adequate basis for ethical values. The naturalist views that moral terms or concepts are ultimately definable in terms of facts about the natural world. It is not adequate to have a view of life without taking into religion.
no, you have to have absolute truth
No I do not. To say there are no ethical absolutes is wrong. Murder has always been murder, adultery has always been adultery, lying has always been lying. To suggest otherwise would simply be a justification of a selfish desire to please self.
If you have no absolutes, how can you ever know what is right. How can you know what you believe. No. You have to have absolutes.