(LONG) "I Don't Know" as a Good Answer in Ethics

[The Grand Nudger]

Why do atheists adopt a defensive posture concerning ethics? Instead of brashly asserting our moral discoveries, like we do with proven scientific theories, we find ourselves defending the claim that morality can exist without God or attacking moral aberrations in the Old Testament. What if we admitted that (while there are dark spots in our ethical theories) they are still a hell of a lot better than anything theism has to offer? I think our reservations have to do with our relative uncertainty in what we can positively say concerning ethics.

"We" do that all the time.  I habitually remind our christian friends that while I may be many, many terrible things...a scapegoater I am not.
 

            Ethics falls into the domain of philosophy, an intellectual discipline which is commonly chided for its lack of discernable progress. Philosophers have struggled for centuries to find a mere foundation for ethics. And no foundational theory in ethics is without its problems. If one has not even laid a definite foundation for a theory, it’s hard to claim progress. Take hedonism, probably the most attractive value theory of the bunch: hedonists assert that happiness and pleasure are the things which contribute to a good life. To the hedonist, an action is right if it creates happiness or reduces pain and suffering; an action is wrong if it diminishes happiness or increases pain and suffering. But there is a problem with this theory. A doctor may cause you pain and suffering by informing you that you have inoperable cancer, but “breaking the bad news” is still the right thing to do. Autonomy is dear to our hearts, but a hedonist says that it is better to do actions that increase happiness, even if it undermines the autonomy of the action’s benefactor. The point is, there is plenty of disagreement in ethics and nothing remotely resembling a consensus. We have yet to fashion anything like the Periodic Table in ethics. Thus, ethical theory is seen as something more akin to alchemy than chemistry.

Hedonism has it's issues, but I don't think that's one of them.  Presumably, a diagnosis is the first step in reducing pain and suffering.  Most of hedonism's issues arise in the conflict between your pleasure and another's suffering (or your own).  The hedonists paradox more adequately describes the trouble with hedonism.  Pleasure seeking may not actually be the best way to achieve pleasure.  Hence the modification of hedonism with stoicism, ethical hedonism.  Whereby one seeks to increase pleasure and reduce suffering..but acknowledges that abstaining from at least some pleasure or pleasure seeking (or even seeking and accepting the reverse..suffering) might more adequately achieve the end goal for one's self and for others around them.  The gaping hole, as it were, in hedonism is incomplete and often counterproductive perceptions of how to best seek or achieve pleasure, and what responsibilities we may have to others in that pursuit.  
 

But philosophical ethics possesses many virtues that a religion-based ethics lacks: honesty, integrity, reasonableness, and (most importantly) humility. You see, while ethicists from different camps squabble over the importance of happiness or autonomy, religion callously asserts that making graven images is one of the ten most immoral things a person can do—all while neglecting to condemn slavery, or the rape of slaves, or genocide... the list goes on. But in all of this, theists speak with pride about how their morals are laid out in black and white, boasting that they are certain what the most ethical action is in any given situation. Perhaps there is something more valuable than certitude in these situations.

Good ole christian moral fortitude.  Here's where an "I don't know" answer is so very relevant.  If a person insists that there is some blemish upon their character or soul or agency (whatever they want to call it) that the usual methods of redemptive action are insufficient...that they "can;t pay the bill" - so to speak-  they may ask, in the absence of vicarious redemption, how are we to be redeemed? 

The answer, ofc..is, "I don't know..maybe you can't be.  Just wtf did you -do- anyway?".