In the first instalment of Reason at Large Craig Biddle is dealing with Kant's school of altruist ethics and the “is-ought dichotomy”, also known as Hume's Law. Both fallacies are causing a blind spot for objective morality, which on that basis they continue to deny. Just because your intellectual tools are insufficient to figure it out, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist!
Hume's law states, it is not possible to derive moral principles from Reality, from what Is.
Biddle explains in the video the fallacy at the heart of Liberalism, known as Hume's Law. It explains why Liberalism started as a reasonable enough premise until it outsourced all matters of morality to religion. And since the sacred has no business with the secular, a wall was erected that leads Liberalism in the final stages to a position of Nihilism. Which is where we are today.
The second blind spot explains furthermore why New Atheists (usually Anti Theists) and secular Humanists are equally incapable of solving the problem. This one is rooted in the Kantian notion that ethics are by definition altruist (see Ayn Rand's frozen abstractions).
But there simply are no facts in reality that support self sacrifice. Ayn Rand demonstrated that in fact morally lies in rational egoism. Morality is objective when the life of man is the ethical standard.
This goes to reason: if the Good has to commit suicide in order to be Good, Evil would prevail. There simply is no sense in altruism.
Morality is objective.
But there simply are no facts in reality that support self sacrifice. Ayn Rand demonstrated that in fact morally lies in rational egoism. Morality is objective when the life of man is the ethical standard.
This goes to reason: if the Good has to commit suicide in order to be Good, Evil would prevail. There simply is no sense in altruism.
Morality is objective.