By Axiomatic, I mean "true without proof".
Whether or not the above is true I think is at the heart of the argument "can atheists have a grounded moral preference" that was diverting a conversation in another thread.
Morality being axiomic means it's based on something you can't rationally prove. You can't prove that killing is wrong, or that lying is immoral.
Without a rational, empirical basis for morality, morality becomes nothing more than mere subjective taste: it is purely subjective for example whether it's moral or immoral to steal from the rich.
Thus, since moral principles can't be proven in the physical world, the only way to get them is as received wisdom. You can't determine moral principles, but you can receive them.
The state, or a philosopher, can declare what is moral. However, that grounds morality, fundamentally, merely on a smaller group of people.
Only by received wisdom from a divine can one ground morality in a way as to not be simply subjective human preference.
That's my understanding of the argument.
Whether or not the above is true I think is at the heart of the argument "can atheists have a grounded moral preference" that was diverting a conversation in another thread.
Morality being axiomic means it's based on something you can't rationally prove. You can't prove that killing is wrong, or that lying is immoral.
Without a rational, empirical basis for morality, morality becomes nothing more than mere subjective taste: it is purely subjective for example whether it's moral or immoral to steal from the rich.
Thus, since moral principles can't be proven in the physical world, the only way to get them is as received wisdom. You can't determine moral principles, but you can receive them.
The state, or a philosopher, can declare what is moral. However, that grounds morality, fundamentally, merely on a smaller group of people.
Only by received wisdom from a divine can one ground morality in a way as to not be simply subjective human preference.
That's my understanding of the argument.