Nihilism and atheism (Endings)

by Matt S. , Friday, June 05, 2009, 20:54 (5648 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George, - I think that's the first time I've ever heard of cleanliness as a prerequisite for moral/ethical behavior. However I can already think of the ready example of Germany ca. Hitler to show an excellent counterpoint to that suggestion. Or, Native American civilizations. How about Thomas Aquinas? Arguably a moral man, but his generation was hardly noted for its practice of cleanliness. I find more faults with the idea than benefits. It seems though, perhaps you miss the scope of my argument... I'm going for very big game. - I'm talking about a basis for a secular and universal ethics here, one that could be applied regardless of cultural background. Prior to the 20th century, this was largely done by invoking God. Universal law as decreed by an abstract creator. - From a secular perspective, this does present a challenging problem to the necessity of ethics. They're not, if you don't care about the kind of society you live in. We need a reason to accept a moral code in the first place, and the reason needs to be a compelling one. Being clean and hygienic doesn't give us that. My argument is that we're born into a social contract and do not have even the marginal ability to change it, therefore we have no logical recourse but to accept it, even if (as some suggest) morals are entirely arbitrary to begin with. - I've thought of ways that this argument can be broken, but the only exceptions are 'hermits.' Which don't exactly exist in human society. We rely on each other for something. - Some people (atheists included) state to use the 'golden rule.' But that rule has some logical fallibility too. It's not general enough. (The masochist problem.)