Atheism, A Grim Position?

[Esquilax]

I wouldn't approach this using the term "ethics" (Forsakens term) because it is such a complicated topic. I'd use terms like "right" and "wrong" instead because they are more intuitive. However, so if I get this right, you are saying that killing redheads "goes against ethics" because it is against normative ethical considerations ("normal execution of ethical considerations"). So does that mean the defense against killing redheads is just an appeal to what is normative? Why use what is normative as a defense? Why not just what I want?

But I'm not using normative behavior as the basis for my argument, I'm saying that moral behavior needs to be blind by necessity, in order to stop it just being a set of individual opinions. Approaching the question "is it good or bad to kill redheads?" from a hypothetical perspective where you are to be introduced into a society that adheres to however you answer that question as a randomly generated person- perhaps even a redhead yourself!- the rational answer one would come to is that no, it's not okay to kill redheads, because in that hypothetical you would be forced to consider what it would be like to live in that society, from the perspective of a redhead, and you would conclude that you wouldn't prefer to live in that world over one where the opposite answer would be applied.

Now that you've answered that question from a position where you'd need to consider all possible variables, if you were still dead set on wanting to kill redheads you would have no justification for doing so that doesn't rely on special pleading, making it a fallacious and inherently irrational position to take. You'd be adding an "except me, the rules don't apply to me," caveat, without a reason to do so.

There are a number of other considerations and justifications that go into what, exactly, is moral, but the concept I've detailed above is plenty sufficient to deal with the majority of moral dilemmas without needing to waste all of my time going into each and every twist and turn of a very complicated subject. It's called the veil of ignorance, and it's something a number of philosophers and great thinkers have alluded to in the past.

Oh, and before I go, please don't insult me by appealing to people who are suicidal or sociopathic as a way around the veil example I've given; it should be obvious to a reasonable person that rebuttals that require us to consider the perspectives of the mentally ill, for whom the brain is acting counter to healthy and productive operations, aren't propositions that need much consideration at all.

Sick claims, sick conclusions, and all that.