Morality Is Dead — And Walter Veit Has Killed It

I have just witnessed a murder.

The killer?

Walter Veit—former meth kingpin,1 current lecturer in philosophy at the University of Reading.

The murder weapon?

A rage bait polemical essay titled To Hell With Moral Realism.

The victim?

Morality itself.

At first, I was skeptical. Over the years, moral realism had become my preferred theory of metaethics. I thought I had good reasons for believing it; I thought the majority of philosophers—including those specialising in metaethics—endorsed moral realism; I thought I’d considered and priced-in all the main objections. And so when I began reading Veit’s hit-piece on morality, I thought he would fail. But I was a fool.

In the words of another moral skeptic, Veit “absolutely fucking wrecked” us moral realists. He deployed an argument so powerful, so insightful, so awful, that even though my heart was darkened by sin intuitions, I saw it was game over.

What was this argument to end all moral philosophy? Behold.

P1: moral realism is pre-scientific, superstitious, nonsense.

P2: philosophers cling to moral realism only because they love their unreliable intuitions, which are actually garbage guides to reality btw.

Conclusion: moral realism is obviously false, why are we even debating this? What is wrong with you people? I just can’t even right now.

Thus did Walter Veit, first of his name, defender of the Enlightenment, HANDMAIDEN OF SCIENCE, slay the mythic monster of moral realism.

Now some of you, those whose hearts are still darkened by sin intuition, will want to object that this isn’t actually an argument.

I admit that I once thought as you do. I laughed at the apparent naïveté and wilful ignorance dripping from each sentence. But again, I was a fool.

In a follow-up essay, Veit reveals that he’s been playing a bigger game than anyone realised. In his words:

“Intellectual decency demands nothing less than that we mock religion and all the other fairy tales, pseudoscientific claims, and conspiracy theories with which humans become infatuated. Anything else would… be the downfall of the Enlightenment itself.”

“Many people may hate intellectuals for their arrogance, lack of curiosity in nonsense, mocking tone, and so forth. But these are essential to being an intellectual.”

Do you see it now? Walter Veit doesn’t need to substantiate his claims with “arguments” and “evidence.” For he is a nobler sort of creature: a Serious Public Intellectual (SPI).

As an SPI, he has a sacred duty to mock us. To demean himself by stooping to our level, would threaten the Enlightenment itself. So obviously he’s not going to do that!

Even now, I know many of you doubt. You will object that this is all terribly convenient. You will suspect that Veit does not offer arguments because he has none to give. For example, Matt Whiteley has recently published a hit-piece on Veit. You fools!

Haven’t you heard of skeptical (a)theism? Even if Veit were to give us arguments, why would we expect to understand them? We are but shrimp-brained morons, attempting to discern the reasons of an infinitely greater intellect, a Serious Public Intellect! Therefore, his apparent lack of arguments gives us zero evidence that he has none.

Really, we should all be more grateful. Our lord and saviour, Walter Veit, has taken time out of his busy day to ridicule us. And instead of wiping our chins and saying “thank you”, we rebel. We fools!

Oh woe unto us, we dark-age peasants! Woe unto this faithless generation and its cursed intuitions. For one day the Son of Man Science will come in glory, seated at the right hand of Darwin, to cast us all into hell.

Blessed be the trolls and the edge-lords, for they shall inherit the Earth.