[AnimalMuppet]

The Marquis de Sade did. He said, "If there is no God, then whatever is, is right." And he went on to say that nature made man stronger than woman, therefore man had the right to do to woman whatever he wanted.

So that's probably not what you consider "optimal ethics", but given the starting assumption (that there is no God), it seems very difficult to explain why de Sade was wrong.

[krapp]

> it seems very difficult to explain why de Sade was wrong.

If we can't prove unambiguously whether or not God exists (and we can't), much less what the actual Will of that God is (even the religions which more or less agree on the same God can't agree on that), then ethics in the presence of God are in practice no different than ethics in the absence of God.

I think it's difficult to prove the Marquis wrong because it's impossible to prove him right.

Edit: let's just pretend I wrote this from an alternate mirror universe where what I said here made sense in context. I'm not deleting this comment because that's the coward's way out....

[AnimalMuppet]

I think you miss my point. Given de Sade's premise (that there is no God), his conclusion seems to follow. (If you think you can show that it doesn't, go for it.)

And many people accept de Sade's premise. They are then left with his conclusion. (Not necessarily sadism - that's just what de Sade felt like doing. The part that people are left with is "Whatever is, is right" - that is, there is no basis for a "should" or an "ought"; there is no basis for morals.)

[krapp]

It seems I got it completely backwards then, I feel kind of silly.

[AnimalMuppet]

Well... do you blame yourself, or my explanation? Message sent != message received, but the blame could be at my end.

[krapp]

I'm going to blame myself. I wound up arguing against a strawman without realizing it.

[lozf]

It was a beautifully absurd argument though, thank you :)