Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H
Gormley


ETHICAL SCEPTICISM ANE ETHICAL NIHILISM - "ALL IS PERMITTED"
 
Ethical Scepticism is the fancy sounding term for something indescribably foolish, one - that there is no right and wrong (nihilism) or two - the less silly idea that we cannot know what is right and what is wrong. It is only a little less silly because it is a short step from being sceptical about knowing right from wrong to denying they exist.  Indeed you may as well!

 

Every discussion of good and evil must tackle this terrible twosome. 
 
Ethical scepticism when it merely indicates an inability to know right from wrong differs from Ethical Nihilism which says that all is permitted for nobody agrees on what right and wrong are. Ethical Nihilism does not necessarily deny that we might be able to work out what right and wrong are but might tell us to do what we like until the true ethic is found. Religion is the major cause of Ethical Nihilism.

 

The Nihilist then can say that all is permitted and permission doesn't matter anyway for there is no God there to permit. 

 

The Nihilist is said to be unable to be consistent with this.  But if all is permitted then you are permitted to say adultery is immoral. You are still a Nihilist for the Nihilist says inconsistency is fine for all is permitted.

 

Ethical Nihilism can be sectioned off so you can be Nihilist with the unborn and not other things.  You can say that the unborn child at any stage is worthless and can be brought out of the womb to be tormented but you can still battle hard against animal testing.

 

You never really know if somebody is or is not an Nihilist.  They may not realise it themselves.

 

A Nihilist who tries to commit to Nihilism and is not very successful is still a Nihilist for a label is earned by trying.  If you don't try the label does not describe you.

 

There is passive nihilism and active.  The passive just thinks there is no point in acting.  The active acts but sees no point.

Ethical Scepticism or nihilism teaches that there is no right and wrong for all the moral theories are irrational. But there must be one or two of them that is the best.

When they say that there is no right and wrong they are saying that it is wrong and therefore immoral and evil to believe in right and wrong!
 
Ethical sceptics claim that they do not endorse violence. But if they do not endorse it they certainly permit it.

We know that in an ideal universe each person should do what makes her or him happiest. Happiness is obviously better than sadness and when it is not it is just a good thing that is being abused.

There are more Ethical Sceptics than one could ever realise because people notice how people alter standards to suit themselves and to condemn others. They see how difficult it is to work out what is good and evil and how people will still find themselves wrong. Religion does a devoted job of destroying real belief in right and wrong. Its superstitions and wickedness make it a bad influence.

Most people believe in some form of altruism. They say it is wrong to put your own happiness first. Altruism says that self-inflicted evil is the true good so no wonder many feel that there is no morality.
 
More subtle forms of ethical scepticism are embodied in the philosophies of moral relativism and pragmatism. The first says that if a culture believes in female genital mutilation and other doesnít then both are equally moral for their beliefs make it right. The second says that if something works it is true and that truth has nothing to do with reality. So if one nation functions best denying the existence of God then for that nation it is true that there is no God. And if another nation needs belief in God then it is true that there is a God for that nation. Both deny that truth is realistic or about what really is. They are ethical scepticism in the sense that they deny that right really is right and wrong really is wrong. They say that all that matters is what you think is right and wrong and you must deny they really are right and wrong!
 
The relativist says there are different moralities for different nations. Why donít they teach that there are different moralities for different individuals so that a man can kill his wife on the grounds he has decided that he should? What is so special about cultures? Cultures are often made up of sub-cultures which have their own way of doing things. The relativist despite claiming that nothing is absolutely wrong says it is absolutely wrong to criticise nations that sacrifice babies to gods or anything else we might consider abhorrent. A total contradiction. If relativism is true then there are things that are always wrong and so morality doesnít differ from nation to nation and so sacrificing babies is wrong no matter how many people believe it isnít. Relativism says there are no fixed rules just what your culture prescribes is right no matter what it is and then it contradicts these cultures which argue that their morals are right and everybody that differs from them including other cultures is wrong. So relativism is incoherent nonsense. Its just a whitewashing of much evil.
 
Pragmatism says truth isnít about what is real but about works. It says it doesnít believe that something is either true or false (page 181, The End of Faith). So it is saying that it is real that there is nothing real. So when it believes in real after all it should believe in the same real as the rest of us! To say that two and two is five is true in a nation that can make it work for it is the height of absurdity and evil is absurdity so pragmatism is evil.
 
THE END OF FAITH, RELIGION, TERROR AND THE FUTURE OF REASON, Sam Harris, Free Press, London, 2005