Morality = Success?
"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."
Nihlism is kind of hard to sell, you're right about that. People just don't like it, even if it is the logical conclustion that flows from their premises. Morality does help enhance our lives, but that's not what morality is, and it does not explain some of its core elements or account for its existence.
I say it's axiomatic that the purpose of morality is to enhance our lives. Any discussion of morality kind of falls apart at the start without that a priori assumption. Any motivation to even worry about such questions in the first place falls apart at the start without it.
What command of the universe creates a moral obligation to enhance our lives? (whatever "enhancing life" means - what if it suits one caveman's purpose to kill another caveman in cold blood if that will "enhance the former's life"? Is there anything radically wrong with that?) How can Mindless, impersonal Evolution produce something "wrong"? Are there "good" and "bad" atoms and molecules? You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is" without a transcendent ethic, which begs the question of where the transcendent binding ethic comes from.
Cordially,
Morality = Success?"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."
"...13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved." Everyone comes to understand that rewards don't always come immediately. But Jesus was promising eternal bliss in Heaven to those who stood firm.
What command of the universe creates a moral obligation to enhance our lives?
Just before this question you agreed with me that the idea of not striving to enhance our lives (or rather the idea of striving to not enhance our lives) was silly. So you've answered your own question.
(whatever "enhancing life" means - what if it suits one caveman's purpose to kill another caveman in cold blood if that will "enhance the former's life"? Is there anything radically wrong with that?)
Morality deals in principles. Self-serving "principles" geared for a person's immediate gratification don't make the cut. A moral code by its very nature must be something the person would be willing to apply universally. And a caveman may not understand the long-term implications of such a moral code applied universally, but we can instantly see that "kill your neighbor & steal his venison" would lead to everyone on earth remaining a caveman, forever. We 21st century citizens have much higher standards because we have much higher expectations out of life.
How can Mindless, impersonal Evolution produce something "wrong"? Are there "good" and "bad" atoms and molecules? You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is" without a transcendent ethic, which begs the question of where the transcendent binding ethic comes from.
No, you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is" if you limit yourself to purely deductive logic. But thriving in the real world requires a combination of deduction and induction. Since the goal of enhancing our lives is a real-world "is" which drives the necessity for morality in the first place, there is no problem here.