And yet he doesn't kill and eat my family the moment I turn my back. He doesn't need philosophy as a source of morality, and he doesn't need faith... he only needs socialization.
Perhaps; can you elaborate on the difference? What exactly would be the property of a social animal -- dogs, humans, whatever -- that allows it to restrain its own baser instincts? In humans the term morality is often used to describe this property, but I'll admit I don't know how correct that is.
Well, to cite Wikipedia, "Moral nihilism is the meta-ethical view that nothing is moral or immoral."
The primary opposing viewpoint is moral realism, which holds that statements like "Intentionally killing an innocent person is immoral" are both meaningful and capable of being evaluated as a truth claim.
In general, I believe the ability of a social animal to restrain "baser" instincts would be referred to as social cooperation. For humans, a moral realist would say that while morality is closely related, it also can't be reduced to merely social cooperation.
For humans, a moral realist would say that while morality is closely related, it also can't be reduced to merely social cooperation.
Sure, I'd buy that. But I will also stand by my assertion that what you're calling "social cooperation" is sufficient for a workable morality to emerge. At no point is there a necessity for religion.
My dog does OK with a philosophy of pure materialism, I figure I can, too.