People who know nothing of religion KNOW inherently when something is considered a GOOD act. The opposite, I believe , is also true.

That's demonstrably false. I can go to history or different cultures and point out human sacrifice was deemed moral. But I don't even have to do that because there is human sacrifice in our society as we speak in the form of abortion. If people inherently knew what was good and evil there would be zero debate on any moral issue including abortion. Same goes for slavery, death penalty, freedom of speech, homosexuality, adultery, indecency, etc. None of this is inherently good or evil outside of a specific moral framework.

The problem of justifying morality outside of religious dogma has been a major one for Enlightenment philosophers and was relevant until the 20th century when they dropped it because they saw it's a fools errand. One of the major empiricists, David Hume (an atheist) posed a very important problem - that you can't get an "ought" from an "is". You can't infer a moral truth through knowledge about the world as it is. What this means is you can't expect people to know what's good, desirable, valuable via observation of the world around them.

If you're somewhat familiar with philosophy you should know there aren't self-evident basic truths outside of a worldview/paradigm that interprets the world. This is true for metaphysical and epistemological problems, but it's most evident and most accessible to lay-philosophers in the ethical field. This is why I asked what's your account for morality under your worldview since you obviously reject the Christian account. What's the framework that let's you determine what is good and what is bad and is that just your subjective preference or is it an universally valid objective principle?

People who know nothing of religion KNOW inherently when something is considered a GOOD act. The opposite, I believe , is also true.

That's demonstrably false. I can go to history or different cultures and point out human sacrifice was deemed moral. But I don't even have to do that because there is human sacrifice in our society as we speak in the form of abortion. If people inherently knew what was good and evil there would be zero debate on any moral issue including abortion. Same goes for slavery, death penalty, freedom of speech, homosexuality, adultery, indecency, etc. None of this is inherently good or evil outside of a specific moral framework.

The problem of justifying morality outside of religious dogma has been a major one for Enlightenment philosophers and was relevant until the 20th century when they dropped it because they saw it's a fools errand. One of the major empiricists, David Hume (an atheist) posed a very important problem - that you can't get an "ought" from an "is". You can't infer a moral truth through knowledge about the world as it is. What this means is you can't expect people to know what's good, desirable, valuable via observation of the world around them.

If you're somewhat familiar with philosophy you should know there aren't self-evident basic truths outside of a worldview/paradigm that interprets the world. This is true for metaphysical and epistemological problems, but it's most evident and most accessible to lay-philosophers in the ethical field. This is why I asked what's your account for morality under your worldview since you obviously reject the Christian account. What's the framework that let's you determine what is good and what is bad and is that just your subjective preference or is it an objective principle valid for all people?

People who know nothing of religion KNOW inherently when something is considered a GOOD act. The opposite, I believe , is also true.

That's demonstrably false. I can go to history or different cultures and point out human sacrifice was deemed moral. But I don't even have to do that because there is human sacrifice in our society as we speak in the form of abortion. If people inherently knew what was good and evil there would be zero debate on any moral issue including abortion. Same goes for slavery, death penalty, freedom of speech, homosexuality, adultery, indecency, etc. None of this is inherently good or evil outside of a specific moral framework.

The problem of justifying morality outside of religious dogma has been a major one for Enlightenment philosophers and was relevant until the 20th century when they dropped it because they saw it's a fools errand. One of the major empiricists, David Hume (an atheist) posed a very important problem - that you can't get an "ought" from an "is". You can't infer a moral truth through knowledge about the world as it is. What this means is you can't expect people to know what's good, desirable, valuable via observation of the world around them.

If you're somewhat familiar with philosophy you should know there aren't self-evident basic truths outside of a worldview/paradigm that interprets the world. This is true for metaphysical and epistemological problems, but it's most evident and most accessible to lay-philosophers in the ethical field. This is why I asked what's your account for morality under your worldview since you obviously reject the Christian account. What's the framework that let's you determine what is good and what is bad.

People who know nothing of religion KNOW inherently when something is considered a GOOD act. The opposite, I believe , is also true.

That's demonstrably false. I can go to history or different cultures and point out human sacrifice was deemed moral. But I don't even have to do that because there is human sacrifice in our society as we speak in the form of abortion. If people inherently knew what was good and evil there would be zero debate on any moral issue including abortion. Same goes for slavery, death penalty, freedom of speech, homosexuality, adultery, indecency, etc. None of this is inherently good or evil outside of a specific moral framework.

The problem of justifying morality outside of religious dogma has been a major one for Enlightenment philosophers and was relevant until the 20th century when they dropped it because they saw it's a fools errand. One of the major empiricists, David Hume (an atheist) posed a very important problem - that you can't get an "ought" from an "is". You can't infer a moral truth through knowledge about the world as it is. What this means is you can't expect people to know what's good, desirable, valuable via observation of the world around them.

If you're somewhat familiar with philosophy you should know there aren't self-evident basic truths outside of a worldview/paradigm that interprets the world. This is true for metaphysical and epistemological problems, but it's most evident and most accessible to lay-philosophers in the ethical field. This is why I asked what's your account for morality under your worldview since you obviously reject the Christian account.

People who know nothing of religion KNOW inherently when something is considered a GOOD act. The opposite, I believe , is also true.

That's demonstrably false. I can go to history or different cultures and point out human sacrifice was deemed moral. But I don't even have to do that because there is human sacrifice in our society as we speak in the form of abortion. If people inherently knew what was good and evil there would be zero debate on any moral issue including abortion. Same goes for slavery, death penalty, freedom of speech, homosexuality, adultery, indecency, etc. None of this is inherently good or evil outside of a specific moral framework.

The problem of justifying morality outside of religious dogma has been a major one for Enlightenment philosophers and was relevant until the 20th century when they dropped it because they saw it's a fools errand. One of the major empiricists, David Hume (an atheist) posed a very important problem - that you can't get an "ought" from an "is". You can't infer a moral truth through knowledge about the world as it is. What this means is you can't expect people to know what's good, desirable, valuable via observation of the world around them.

If you're somewhat familiar with philosophy you should know there aren't self-evident basic truths outside of a worldview/paradigm that interprets the world. This is true for metaphysical and epistemological problems, but it's most evident in the ethical field. This is why I asked what's your account for morality under your worldview since you obviously reject the Christian account.