Are objective moral values possible without a foundation?

Very good question. I am religious as the mood strikes me, but this has always bothered me-how do you raise a child to live ethically without religion? If you go by what Christians call the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," you can construct a pretty robust moral structure without any reference to a higher power.

There is a philosophical name for this, which I think is "rule utilitarianism.

Very good question. I am religious as the mood strikes me, but this has always bothered me-how do you raise a child to live ethically without religion? If you go by what Christians call the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," you can construct a pretty robust moral structure without any reference to a higher power.

There is a philosophical name for this, which I think is "rule utilitarianism".

I really doubt so! I guess we need a foundation, or say a set of axioms telling these are the basic foundation values.

Those are all complicated terms -- objective, moral, and foundation. I'm religious but I don't believe that religion is the only way to have a foundation. If you just mean any kind of foundation of beliefs about right and wrong, then I would say yes, that does seem necessary for making sure you have something to refer back to (and lean on) when you have to make a tough moral decision.

I think the term "objective moral values" is just about guaranteed to lead you astray. Since people don't generally agree on morality, to call a moral value "objective" is presumptuous at best. I think the best guide is to think about it subjectively, rather than objectively.

I do not like it when people hurt me, so I should not hurt others. I like it when people are kind to me, so I should be kind to others. I do not like to be misunderstood, so I should not assume that others think the way I do.

If you think about it this way, I think that you will find that what you come up with looks a lot like the ten commandments, or the buddhist idea of right speech, action and thought. So despite the fact that the foundation of what you came up with would be completely subjective, it would still work. And this shouldn't be surprising.

Wouldn't it be surprising if the teachings of God or of an enlightened being didn't make sense? Doesn't it make more sense that they do in fact make sense, but aren't necessarily what we tend to do naturally?

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.