As to your question, I don't think theism entails nihilism. Neither however do I think it would necessarily entail value objectivism. In fact, if all values ultimately stem from God's mind, I think they are necessarily subjective. Naturally of course I reject Rauser's definition.

>a utilitarian judge could be bound to provide injustice to the accused in order to create maximal well being for the town.

None wouldn't. A judge is bound by the secular ethics of his job, not to do so. Under up i would likely assess there to be more harm in providing a false judgment and imprisoning someone falsely, even given rioting. But there might be many more factors to consider. What is the harm from the rioting. Would convicting remove that harm? and so on.

>2/ & 3/ When does the end result of maximal well-being get ignored and is that still utilitarianism?

It's never ignored, individuals need to assess all the different consequences of a decision, as best they can. Utilitarianism says pick the outcome that maximizes well being and reduces suffering.

4 ok you believe that. If you can demonstrate it is true, and that there is some kind of objective moral standard, I guess that comes from this moral teacher, I will believe it too. But as this hasn't been demonstrated to me, I can't derive any morality from this belief of yours.

>if there are no gods, and this belief is only in the conscious delusion of billions of people over two millennia, without it what would the world look like?

Exactly like it does. Just like there are billions who believe you are wrong, and morality is inscribed in the Qu'ran, or in other religious beliefs.

>That's a pretty powerful delusion.

It's not a delusion, it's an unjustified belief, and it's a huge one, yes. But you already believe most people, throughout history, have held the wrong beliefs about deities, you even believe soo many Christians are wrong about Christianity. So you can understand how these massive and wrong beliefs can arise.

>The delusional belief in the beatitudes gives their life purpose and joy i.e. Josephine Bahkita or Therese of Lisieux...

Sure lots of people attribute meaning and purpose to their beliefs in their mythology. And we are back to the topic of this piece by Rauser instead of moral systems. As I said, my life is filled with meaning. I wouldn't say I have a purpose... Like I don't think I'm here to fulfill a role for someone else's plan, and I don't see what would be good about being such a cog.

Ok this is the penultimate word. You've provided no reason for me to believe in any gods or question that utilitarianism is the best moral system, that there is any objective moral standard.

But the last word is that I've found you a respectful and engaging interlocutor and I hope we can pursue further discussion. If you Reddit, I'm active on debate an atheist.

https://www.reddit.com/user/briangreenadams

Hey BGA, sorry I've been away from the CPU for a day. I don't want to imply your moral compass is akin to a Nazi. As a Catholic I ascribe to natural law and as such I believe that the goodness of God is imprinted into your soul. I know you believe that is rubbish, yet without talking past each other for a second, I charitably offer you my apologies if I at all seemed crass. With any moral code, taken to extremes, inconsistencies are bound to manifest.

1/ If a judge in a small town has the entire town rioting over a falsely accused rapist not being imprisioned, a utilitarian judge could be bound to provide injustice to the accused in order to create maximal well being for the town.

2/ & 3/ When does the end result of maximal well-being get ignored and is that still utilitarianism?

4/ I'm Roman Catholic. As such I ascribe reality's existence to an eternal presence who created the cosmos and begot a divine/human son to change the course of humanity and this divine man formed a religious society that is protected from error to be an infallible moral teacher. Swipe away at that :)

But consider this, even if there are no gods, and this belief is only in the conscious delusion of billions of people over two millennia, without it what would the world look like? This simple carpenter's son were simply never born and all his followers for the last 2000 years wiped out of history. No Paul the apostle, no Augstine, no Aquinas, no Benedict, no Francis Bacon, no Caperinicus, no Riccioli, no Kirchir, no Ignatius of Loyola, no Lemaierte, no Martin Luther King. Every time you click a hypertext link, thank Fr. Busa. That's a pretty powerful delusion.

Lastly, it is most especially powerful for the unlucky who get nothing but injustice and suffering in life. The delusional belief in the beatitudes gives their life purpose and joy i.e. Josephine Bahkita or Therese of Lisieux. I'll let you have the last word BGA, but again my apologies on any inference I made on your moral character. Cheers! Feel free to swipe away at my tradition. Catholics... befriending persecution since 33AD.

Edit done.

On 1, it depends what you mean by "justice" I don't think I would ever call it just if the outcome on balance degraded Human well being.

On 2, if you are saying utilitarianism ignored means and only assesses ends, this is not the case. Or at least for me.

3 I'm not sure what role you are thinking motives play, but to the extent they affect well being, utilitarianism takes them into account. If the do not, then why should I care?

4, as opposed to what exactly .I have heard no alternative objective moral goal or objective way to assess moral questions.

Yes the nazis thought they were acting morally as do ISIS, as did crusaders and Andrea Yates. It asses those as wrong and can explain why

But please after taking swipes at my morality and indirectly comparing me to the Nazis, please demonstrate a moral goal that is demonstrably objective and a way to make objective moral assessments.

Interesting as always Luke. Thanks for that. I think there is a reason that rich people are described (and describe things they covet) as "decadent". In the literal translation it means, "in a state of decay". Why rich people should crave decaying chocolate cake I can't imagine. God bless.

Thanks for the clarification BGA. I agree utilitarianism is common. I also see the problem of Harris' end goal. Here's a few of my problems with utiltarianism: 1) It could require injustice to an innocent individual if the right moral decision benefits everyone overall. 2) It ignores means and means matters morally. 3) It ignores motives and motives matter morally 4) How persons assign value to the variables in a moral decision is subjective and thus all it really is is moral relativism. In such case the beliefs of Nazism is deemed true and their practices right relative to their moral framework, just assign a negative value to a Jew. Americans did the same with fetuses in 1973. Edit Done. Cheers BGA!

Ok, yes, as I understand the term "subjective" to be commonly used, that's the kind of meaning I have, and I have lots abd it's real. Are you using "subjective" to mean imaginary?

>Maybe you can see why I was confused.

Yes, you were thinking the term I was referencing was "subjective", but the term I was talking about was "nihilism". It makes sense if you read it as follows:

>My life is filled with meaning and purpose, and the term ["nihilism"]as commonly used implies no meaning or purpose, subjective or objective.

>Jaws song, you're going to make an emotional moral judgment to pull him out of the water.

I really don't think I would. If I saw a shark I would, and that would be a logical judgment informed by an emotional attachment, it would be a moral act in my morality.

>seem to be objectively true because we cannot find a way it is objectively not true

Sure all moral judgments "seem" to be objectively true, if that's your definition of "objective" then ok I accept your version of objective morality. But I would have thought it would be defined as "absolutely the case irrespective of what it seems like to individuals".

>Well-being is not quantifiable and comparable value wise the way capital is on a balance sheet.

I agree. But we can make assessments about well being and suffering most of the time. Sometimes it's unclear, sometimes we are biased by cognitive biases.

>While it sells books for Sam Harris, it is a philosophical and scientific face plant.

It's utilitarianism, it's a pretty well respected area of philosophy of ethics, as are others. If be happy to discuss why I prefer it if you like.

I don't like parts of Harris' view of it, particularly calling well bebeing an objective goal.

>I never said I had colloquial anything. I said I have subjective meaning. And there a subjective meaning is real and my life is filled with it.

Okay, colloquial: (of language) used in ordinary or familiar conversation; not formal or literary

>My life is filled with meaning and purpose, and the term as commonly used implies no meaning or purpose, subjective or objective.

Maybe you can see why I was confused.

> So I would say my judgment is logical, but the logic takes into account my emotions, and values, and my understanding of those of others and tries to determine the outcome that best supports maximal well-being.

I said emotional because if your son is playing in the waves at the beach and you hear the Jaws song, you're going to make an emotional moral judgment to pull him out of the water. That's understandable. I would too. Just saying that moral judgments are often emotionally based. Conversely logical moral judgments remove the emotion, well as best we can. But some moral judgments like is it not okay to torture babies for fun seem to be objectively true because we cannot find a way it is objectively not true without another layer of moral dilemma, like torture this baby for 5 minutes or I will kill your entire family.

Here is where you take the philosophical leap of faith: describing moral judgments as a commodity of maximized human well-being. Like an accountant might value currency (maximized, reduced). Well-being is not quantifiable and comparable value wise the way capital is on a balance sheet. While it sells books for Sam Harris, it is a philosophical and scientific face plant.