Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[genkaus]

I didn't just repeat them gen. I put them in my own words, and then did that afresh a few times just to try to help you guys understand it. You're still trying to misrepresent my original statement. Let me try one more time.

Reality one: unfair
Reality two: fair

Person living reality one: his decisions/ moral values are based upon the scope of reality as he knows and experiences it. If he knows a murderer will never get punished, justice to him could only come from equal suffering dealt to the perpetrator.

Person in reality two, has no concern about exacting revenge, because he knows justice to be enacted. He feels no need to punish over and above what might be fair to compensate for any lack of justice.

Therefore moral standards from the two perfective are different. The moral standard of the person in reality one is inferior to the standard of the person in reality two. Because person one acts given injustice.

When you put it like this, I can clearly see that the moral standard of person in reality one is superior to the standard of person in reality two. The person in reality one is proactive in establishing justice and prevents further injustice as far as possible. Whereas the person in reality two might as well sit on his ass all the time because he thinks justice will be served automatically. The person in reality one would punish the murderer as soon as possible after the murder - thus preventing the murderer from killing anyone else. The person in reality two would just let the murderer go on a killing spree because he thinks that the murderer will get his just rewards in the afterlife.

And then there are the victims - the person assuming reality one would think that since there is no automatic justice, the victims don't deserve their terrible fate of being killed or tortured or raped or robbed. So, he'd make ensure - as far as possible - that those horrible things don't befall the innocent. The person in reality two would assume that since justice is always served, the person who was killed or tortured or raped or robbed deserved it.

What I'm seeing here is that person 1 is definitely more moral than person 2.

Morality restricted by injustice is a limited morality.
Morality unrestricted is not limited.
Therefore morality based upon a fair reality is superior to morality based upon an unfair reality.

Person one's morality is not limited by injustice - it overcomes it and is made all the more better for it.
Person two's morality, on the other hand, is limited by fantasies.
Which is why morality based on a fair reality is much, much inferior to the morality based on assumption of no fairness in reality.