Can atheists/existentialists help me out here? Two questions...

[Billy]

First, to existentialists. I might be oversimplifying this (please be charitable if I am), but this is what existentialists seem to believe: all values in the world are subjective, thus (in Sartre's words) we are in a state of "abandonment" or freedom from the laws of a higher power. At this point, nihilism extrapolates that everything is meaningless and worthless. Existentialism says that man is now free to create his own meaning. But, if everything is subjective, what is the point of creating your own meaning? Isn't that just self-deception?


What do you guys and gals think?

Well, there is no point, if you boil it all down to the basics all we have is existence, so in some way thats its own point, so you can stay in the system we are in and live a life simply for the sake of living it because thats all there is to do. What I like about that is that it breaks away from a lot of securities we hold and frees us up in mental chaos to just exist in the moment more aware and enjoy it, experience it, live it. Whatever you want your life to be, can be, just because its pointless doesn't mean its not worthwhile to you. Especially since you will learn about yourself.

 

[blueflame]

First Question:
"If everything is subjective, what is the point of creating your own meaning? Isn't that just self-deception?"

Second Question:
"They contend that ethics and morality can exist outside of a higher power/God/unmoved mover/watchmaker/etc. How can that be reconciled with relativism?"

The choice of religion or in some cases lack thereof, results from an individual being presented with a question they ask themselves or someone else asks them. Usually those questions are: what is the meaning or life, what is my purpose in life, and how do I cope with temptations and feelings of guilt and shame during my lifetime. Some people are more philosophical than others and choose to be existentialist because they spend more time pondering the value of mere existence while others just want to find comfort in knowing someone is in control. While some people are atheist because they were that way their whole lives others choose to be athiest because the only way to be free of such shame and guilt is to deny that someone exist that may judge or punish them i.e. god. Therefore to answer your second question, there is an inherent contradiction to may athiest beliefs simply because the atheist way of life doesn't seem to be defined by explaining anything, only denying that something as specific as a god exist. Existentialist are more concerned with a school of thought not necessarliy religion. But any religion or the choice to not follow a religion will still leave you with unanswered questions and that is why I don't declare a religion because life is open to may interpretations.

 

[Lex Orandi]

To express your subjectivity.

You were confusing science and ethics. Separate those two.

This statement implies that ethics can't be looked at scientifically, and are thus subjective. This leads to moral relativism.

Morals are subjective in my opinion. For example we cannot say "murder is always wrong" because it's isn't necessarily. That's just one point of view on it. The morality of a situation comes down to the consequence of that decision. In Buddhism it's karma but karma in the traditional indian sense isn't what we think of as karma in america, it simply means action. The consequence comes from performing right or wrong karma (aka right or wrong action.) For example I know that if I eat big macs for a month I'm going to be in poor health, so it is wrong action. If I eat healthy and exercise for a month I'll be in good health so it's right action. To me that is morality, seeing consequence.

I see your point. But on what grounds is the pleasure derived from eating Big Macs not worth the damage it causes to health? Is health the most important thing? Surely the urge to avoid death is one of our most powerful instincts, but does that instinct necessarily trump everything else? By that logic, its morally wrong to throw yourself in front of a bus to save a child, because it would damage your health. Why should we act only in our own self-interest? Or, why shouldn't we act in our own self-interest? On what philosophical foundation?

It doesn't quite work the same way in todays society because of the structures we have set up. There is still consequence for action but it is more structured consequence. Take rape for example, say you rape someone; our consequence for rape now days is to go to prison so that is likely where you would end up (ideally anyway), but without a structural construct in place to prevent her father or brother or friend from bashing your head in with a rock (in modern society they would likely go to prison for bashing your head in.) they very well may take this action instead and you would get your head bashed in. So there is still consequence in your action, only that it is consequence that is upheld by society rather than by law.

To continue in the same vein of my previous response, what if I was the warden of a political prison in a corrupt country. If I want to, I can rape the female prisoners and get off without punishment (or maybe even be rewarded). Is that morally correct? You might say, "No, because that hurts another person, and we shouldn't hurt each other." But that would be an objective (not subjective) truth!

 

[technics]

This statement implies that ethics can't be looked at scientifically, and are thus subjective. This leads to moral relativism.

I was referring to your argument that atheists and so on don't believe in eternal truths. But in science there are eternal truths. In ethics that's something different, especially now in the age of postmodernity. Ethics is an expression of power.