Such an astounding task indeed, proving the stupidity of morality, God, government, and all authority! It should prove interesting to see how he does so without utilizing the very things he is seeking to reject, (or maybe he’ll be honest at the outset, and admit that his own philosophy is subject to the same harsh criticism he applies to more theistic ones.)
On this front page in the Philosophy forums alone, I counted at least 17 threads having as their topic of discussion some aspect of the philosophy of morality and ethics. From browsing through a few of them, I can tell that by far, my own view will be a minority view, and perhaps even be met with a certain deal of hostility, (although I do wish to keep philosophical discussions as civil as possible!)
I would like to say at the outset of our discussion, that I am a Christian, and I love Jesus Christ with all my heart (to put it in colloquial terms.) That being said, I deem this thread as good a place as any to begin challenging some of the more predominate view points being articulated on the subject of morality, particularly the more humanistic materialist view. (I feel it necessary here to interject an aside, that it is no surprise this view has dominated these forums, since it is being taught 8 hours a day for 5 days a week all across America in the public school systems, but, I shall not say anything more about the matter in this thread!)
To conclude:
I assume Mr. Ragnar Redbeard has some new view on the problem, taking into account the miserable failure of the logical positivists of the early 19th century to discount morality (and indeed all theological discussion) to the realm of nonsense. (To read a thorough critique of the logical positivists position, from A.J. Ayer, to Feigl, I suggest the book, “Language and Theology” by Gordon H. Clark.)
So to the more prominent Atheists of today fail at articulating a non arbitrary objective system of morality. Consider George H. Smith in his book, “The Case Against God,” who in his chapter on morality, (11) relies heavily on the work of Ayn Rand, “The Objectivists Ethics” to make his case. He attempts to base a foundation of rational scientific “is-ought” ethics into a normative science resting in an existence non existence dichotomy. Hence, he draws ethical conclusions (to use his analogy,) that whatever being conducive to extending the life of the plant, (such as giving it water,) is to be considered a valuable action, and therefore can be called a moral action.
It is at this point that one must point out the overall arbitrariness of Mr. Smiths view, (and presumably Mr. Redbeards as well) by making the observation that Smiths reliance on an existence non existence dichotomy is nothing more than his own decided starting point, and no one else is bound by any obligation to accept his standard.
Essentially George H. Smith, when asked why a particular action is wrong, if he were consistent, would answer, “Because I say it is!” Playing right into the title of this this thread, “Might Makes Right.”
It will be interesting to see if Redbeard avoids similar difficulties, although, I can already tell by the above quotes that this is doubtful.
I look forward to the future dialogue on this issue!