Supernaturalism and Morality

Shelby asked: "As Emily, and Professor Johnson, and Aristotle mentioned, sources of morality are never empirical. Therefore, aren't all of our world-views somewhat supernatural?"

I do not think this is the case. As I mentioned in class, it is very easy to argue that morality can in fact have an empirical basis. We consider murder to be wrong because we do not want a stranger to walk up to us and kill us. We consider lying to be wrong because, in order to make informed, rational decisions, we need to have accurate data, and lies give us incomplete or false data, and thus hinder our ability to make rational decisions. Even a pro-life versus pro-choice stance in terms of the abortion issue can have an empirical basis. Do we consider the fetus itself to be a new life? It's living tissue, to be sure, and genetically unique, but is it a human until it can survive on its own? That question could go either way, and there's certainly scientific evidence that could be drawn for both camps.

While I am drawing on examples, they illustrate a key point: morality can, in fact, have a purely naturalistic basis. This is not meant to imply that they DO, but it merely makes the case that it CAN, and that both naturalists and supernaturalists can have the same moral principles, and merely draw from a different body of evidence to back them up.

To end with a question: Can there be such a thing as a universal moral principle?