Personally, I believe it's fair to assume nature/reality has no purpose. Quite often, people that, like myself, have some interest in natural sciences, agree that there are good reasons to believe nature/reality has no purpose.
However, when asked whether they believe morals are therefor relative, quite often they seem to disagree. I've never really asked them how they want to defend that position though.
But now, I just wanted to ask people who might recognize them selfs in said position (rejecting moral relativism while at the same time assuming no purpose in nature). How does one intellectually defend such a position?
To be clear; I'm not talking about what is an emotionally desirable position to take, but rather the intellectually honest position to concede. I can totally understand that if one intellectually comes to the conclusion that morals are indeed relative, there may still be an emotional need to reject moral relativism and for instance prefer a utilitarian approach to ethics.
However, is there an intellectually honest approach to construct moral axioms that are still ultimately logically defensible?
I, for instance, haven't come up with any logically convincing manner to extrapolate judgment values (good, bad, nice, beautiful, ugly, etc.) from the logical values true or false.
Are people that reject the idea that morals are relative, when conceding the large probability that nature/reality has no purpose, fooling them selfs intellectually?