For a materialist the term “ethics” is empty of objective meaning, and in a post from a couple of years ago I pointed out the absurdity of materialist “bioethics.”
After all, when pushed to the wall to ground his ethical opinions in anything other than his personal opinion, the materialist ethicist has nothing to say. Why should I pay someone $68,584 to say there is no real ultimate ethical difference between one moral response and another because they must both lead ultimately to the same place – nothingness. I am not being facetious here. I really do want to know why someone would pay someone to give them the “right answer” when that person asserts that the word “right” is ultimately meaningless.
I have returned to this theme a few times. See here, here and here. At the end of the day, for the materialist, ethical discussions always boil down to might makes right, and the strong impose their preferences on the weak.
Over at ENV Wesley Smith highlights a recent example of this playing out at a practical level. Materialist “bioethicists” are now saying to doctors: “You think killing people is wrong? We will coerce you into violating your conscience or drum you out of the profession.”
Like I said, “materialist ethics” is an oxymoron and always covers “might makes right.”