Dinesh D'Souza reflects on Peter Singer's ethics.

But this position creates a problem outlined more than a century ago by the atheist philosopher Nietzsche. The death of God, Nietzsche argued, means that all the Christian values that have shaped the West rest on a mythical foundation. One may, out of habit, continue to live according to these values for a while. Over time, however, the values will decay, and if they are not replaced by new values, man will truly have to face the prospect of nihilism, what Nietzsche termed "the abyss."

I've followed up on this abyss business, and what I've found is Nietzsche referring to this and that abyss, but not the facing-the-prospect-of-nihilism abyss. Isn't that one of Kierkegaard's? Or the Straussian reading of Nietzsche? Perhaps William Deresiewicz had it right when he wrote: "'the abyss.' This is a venerable trope in modern thought, typically employed with a great deal of self-pity and a great want of precision."

Apparently being secular, means purging yourself of transcendental foundations.

Why haven't the atheists embraced Peter Singer? I suspect it is because they fear that his unpalatable views will discredit the cause of atheism. What they haven't considered, however, is whether Singer, virtually alone among their numbers, is uncompromisingly working out the implications of living in a truly secular society, one completely purged of Christian and transcendental foundations.

I haven't read Singer, but can there be an ethics without transcendental foundations? Singer privileges the individual's right to decide over institutional dictats, which sounds sensible to me - obviously the individuals closest to a situation can assess it best. And what about the central committee of athiesism (Hitchens, Dawkins, etc), if Trots and scientists don't have transcendental foundations, who does? Just the mythical foundationalists?  ¶ 9:20 PM