The standard version is that in looking at the stars we realize our own insignificance. Apart from the sheer non-sequitur from “of comparatively small dimensions” to “insignificant” (to whom?!), such tropes may serve as a sort of moral anaesthetic: “Taking the Hubble View, does it really, fundamentally matter if I steal money from my investors?”
The general problem is that of making leaps from empty empirical facts to (almost certainly mistaken or self-serving) moral conclusions.
I don’t think it’s usually employed to justify moral nihilism so much as to tell people to shut up and not take human problems so seriously—when in fact human problems are all that matters. It strikes me as a secular cognate of the way religion frequently calls for “humility”.
What do you mean by “harmful commonplace”?
The standard version is that in looking at the stars we realize our own insignificance. Apart from the sheer non-sequitur from “of comparatively small dimensions” to “insignificant” (to whom?!), such tropes may serve as a sort of moral anaesthetic: “Taking the Hubble View, does it really, fundamentally matter if I steal money from my investors?”
The general problem is that of making leaps from empty empirical facts to (almost certainly mistaken or self-serving) moral conclusions.
I notice I am confused, and I do get a sense of insignificance/wonderment when looking at the night sky.
Are there actually people who use the size of the universe to justify moral nihilism?
I don’t think it’s usually employed to justify moral nihilism so much as to tell people to shut up and not take human problems so seriously—when in fact human problems are all that matters. It strikes me as a secular cognate of the way religion frequently calls for “humility”.
Maybe the specific example I cite is a bit farfetched, but the general principle of “ex naturalistic fallacy quodlibet” is sound.