Moral Nihilism

[Charles]

Giff wrote:

Think that is a quite ignorant statement. I have accutally never heared about Nihilism before you wrote the thread here.

Oh the irony of the conjunction of those two sentences.

[Giff]

I'm merely arguing that without one, the atheist has no warrant to condemn the mass murder of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot. Are you willing to affirm that?

Atheist have moral as everyone else have. So ofcourse do atheist have right to condemn what Hitler, Stalin and the other evil acts that have been made. Don't know why you think atheists wouldn't have moral or symphati. It sounds like you think that athesits are some kind of coldharted persons who are cynical about everthing.

Oh the irony of the conjunction of those two sentences.

May sound ironic. But as I said, I read about Nihilism first so I knew what I was talking about before I started posting.

Then the statement "they don't believe in past/current claims to the existence of gods" is a false statement? Atheists make assertions which they hope and pray are true.

As he said the statement "don't believe in past/current claims to the existence of gods" is correct. Atheism just means that they who are atheists don't believe in gods or a god. It's that simple. Besides that do atheists have diffrent philsophies and life view and so on. Those who believe in a god is those who make an assertion which they hope and pray are true.

As long as there are no evidence of any god/gods or any devine, do I think it's logic not to believe in such thing. Specially when religion is just an invention of the mind to get answers of things we not understand. Religion have always done that.. Before we knew what the sun was did religion try get explain it and said that it was a god, which are just a made up fantasy. Such religious explanation has been regarded as the truth until science came along and found an explanaition.

It have always been that way and will always be that way. Religion make up some explanation which later proves is false and instead is it sceince that get it right.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Why would atheism, "be true"? It isn't a philosophy, it makes no statement about anyone except that they don't believe in past/current claims to the existence of gods.

Then the statement "they don't believe in past/current claims to the existence of gods" is a false statement?

That's not what I said, I said that atheism says nothing about anyone except that (that person) does not believe in current (or past) claims to the existence of gods ... it's nothing but a label, no philosophy! This isn't rocket science you know and I'm sure even you are capable of understanding the idea.

Atheists make assertions which they hope and pray are true.

No they don't, they tend to take the assumptive position that there is no god unless there is evidence to support the claim and it is YOU and your cronies that are making the claim, the extraordinary claim therefore it is YOU and your cronies that need to provide the evidence.

Atheism implies nothing of the sort because to make that claim you MUST prove first that morality (or some aspects of) is absolute and if so demonstrate the moral arbiter that supplies it. Have fun on that.

I'm not attempting to defend the existence of a transcendant moral law at this point. I'm merely arguing that without one, the atheist has no warrant to condemn the mass murder of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot. Are you willing to affirm that?

I have every right because morality is a system of ethics, ethics are social and it is against a given culture's ethical/moral systems that we evaluate out behaviour and that of others. Obviously that also means I do not believe in evil or in absolute wrong or right but it doesn't stop me finding the behaviour of some individuals either morally uplifting or morally repugnant.

Kyu

[Giff]

I have every right because morality is a system of ethics, ethics are social and it is against a given culture's ethical/moral systems that we evaluate out behaviour and that of others. Obviously that also means I do not believe in evil or in absolute wrong or right but it doesn't stop me finding the behaviour of some individuals either morally uplifting or morally repugnant.

I also think, besides what you said, that we are born with some values. Some that are intincts. Like we know it's wrong killing somone, hurting someone and so on. I think the ethical/moral system in our society is partly based on what we natrually think and feel.

[Tiberius]

The study of morality exists in the world, sure, but I am arguing that it is a futile study given atheist presuppositions. Without culturally-transcendant moral laws, the atheist has no ground to condemn the butchery of a Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot.

We can condemn the actions of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and all other mass murderers / murderers for that matter. These are things that are deemed by our modern society to be very wrong. At the time, if you were a Nazi in Germany, you may have thought that Hitler was doing the work of God (in fact many did). The morality in Germany had been shifted due to Hitler's propaganda. If you are honestly saying that you cannot see why Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot are wrong in their actions, apart from "violating God's law", then I honestly feel for you. Why don't you try some freethinking for once? Put down your holy book and think things through. I'm not asking you to consider atheism, I'm asking you to try and think why people like atheists can condemn these things as wrong. We understand why murder in wrong without referencing "God's law", and so can you.

Yes, Hitler thought they were a good thing. I do not since murder is a violation of God's law. You do not because your cultural values tell you so? Change your culture, change your values, eh?

I do not murder because I understand the negative impacts it has on society, and the punishments society places on it. I do not murder because in my society, we are rewarded for doing what is considered "good" things, and murder is the complete opposite. I do not murder because we have evolved in a tight social group, and causing pain to members of the social group results in social ostracism. It's not a simple matter of changing culture, it is a matter of adapting to that culture. I am sure that if I took a holiday to Zimbabwe, I wouldn't suddenly want to vote for Mugabe. However, given years of living there, perhaps raising a family there, my values may change. What I am saying on the cultural question is that if you went to every single culture on Earth and asked different ethical questions, you would get a wide range of answers. In some parts of Africa, they still burn people as "witches", when in most of the modern world, we see this as a vile act, since witchcraft is superstitious nonsense.

You're committing the is/ought falacy, if morality is simply a function of human nature. But beyond that, atheism entails not only moral nihilism, but ontological nihilism. So what if we all decided murder was okay? Life is meaningless, devoid of purpose, significance, or dignity. The universe doesn't care if all the homo sapiens kill each other, why should you or I?

No, the is/ought fallacy is concerned with saying "action X is natural therefore action X is morally right". I'm saying that morality itself is a natural thing, part of how our species developed. This is being studied by numerous biologists all over the world; it is not a fallacy. A fallacy takes place when someone makes a bad logical step in their argument. Atheism does not entail moral nihilism. If you keep on saying things like "atheism = nihilism" without showing your reasoning then we aren't going to have a good discussion here. Many people have already shown how atheism does not equate nihilism, so you have been challenged on your viewpoint; your job is to answer them rather than repeat points already countered. If we all decided murder was ok, we wouldn't have a society anymore. Such a position has detrimental effects on the society itself, and we can see how this is the case. More importantly, it goes against our species instincts, which is to work together in a social group, as we are social animals. The universe doesn't care, but I fail to see why it should. As long as the species requires morality to survive, it will be there. We need to work together to survive since we are an extremely weak species individually (human without tools vs lion / bear etc).

Society is an absurd concept for the nihilist.

Indeed, which is why I am not a nihilist. Did you forget you were in a discussion here? If you come in with presuppositions and then use those presuppositions to create an argument, only to have them countered, perhaps you presuppositions are wrong? It's childish to respond to a point by saying "Well my presuppositions say X is an absurd concept for someone Y, therefore you are wrong". It's probably a type of fallacy too. Now respond to my point, but do it properly next time.

Its only absurd for the nihilist, which atheism entails.

We've shown how atheism does not entail nihilism, so again: Respond to my point, but do it properly next time.

So there are no irreducible moral truths for you, since they're all culturally-dependant? Then you cannot honestly condemn the mass-murders of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

There are no irreducible moral truths. Moral "truths" are all culturally dependent. I live in a culture, therefore I have certain moral truths, ergo I can honestly condemn the mass-murders. If I lived in a different culture, maybe I couldn't, but that isn't the point. Since I live in a culture that condemns the actions, I condemn the actions. I can also work it out why these actions are to be condemned by reasoning; it's just a shame you cannot.

And since all of our moral "standards" are culturally-dependant, cross-cultural moral criticism is verbotten. So again, the atheist cannot condemn the mass-murders of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

See above.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I also think, besides what you said, that we are born with some values. Some that are intincts. Like we know it's wrong killing somone, hurting someone and so on. I think the ethical/moral system in our society is partly based on what we natrually think and feel.

I don't think we are aware it is wrong to kill until we are taught it is so and being a moral relativist I don't accept it is universally wrong to kill or hurt anyway (especially given that we do it all the time anyway so, quite obviously, some don't find it wrong at all). I imagine instinct must play a part in who and what we are but I am fairly certain they do not affect our morality the way you just suggested.

Kyu

[Giff]

I also think, besides what you said, that we are born with some values. Some that are intincts. Like we know it's wrong killing somone, hurting someone and so on. I think the ethical/moral system in our society is partly based on what we natrually think and feel.

I don't think we are aware it is wrong to kill until we are taught it is so and being a moral relativist I don't accept it is universally wrong to kill or hurt anyway (especially given that we do it all the time anyway so, quite obviously, some don't find it wrong at all). I imagine instinct must play a part in who and what we are but I am fairly certain they do not affect our morality the way you just suggested.

Kyu

I must say that when it comes to killing another humans do we find wrong because it's in our backbone. But also it depends on the situation and the person (if he's lacking emphaty for an example).

You don't think it's wrong to kill a child, for an instant, because society says so. It's but because you self have a barrier that says that something like that is wrong. Also eating another humans is something that we are born to think is discusting and wrong to do.

The moral values we have in society is mostly based on what we allready feel is wrong. We have something called conscience that also is a part of that, which tells us what we can't do and what we can do. That's why you can feel bad after hurting someone emotinally and other such things, depending on the situation of course. That's nothing to do what society tells you, it's what you mind tells you.

If we hadn't "built in" moral and ethical values, a feel for what's right and wrong, then we pretty much would be like a mantis or something.

Animal are an example for that right and wrong is something that we are born with. It depends just what species it is. Most animals don't get the feeling of eating eachother, but mantis think it's ok for an example. Such thing is evolutionary. Such barriers, like not killing someone within the same speices is important to most beings. Humans wouldn't live specially long as a spieces if we would have nearly no barriers as the mantis for an example. Like if our kids didn't move out to quickly then we would eat them.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I must say that when it comes to killing another humans do we find wrong because it's in our backbone. But also it depends on the situation and the person (if he's lacking emphaty for an example).

I don't think you are right ... do you have any evidence to support the claim?

You don't think it's wrong to kill a child, for an instant, because society says so. It's but because you self have a barrier that says that something like that is wrong. Also eating another humans is something that we are born to think is discusting and wrong to do.

I agree I find the idea abhorrent but I do not agree it is inbuilt ... I concede there may be (probably is) a pack instinct to protect our own children I do not necessarily believe it extends to all children without societal factors. The Nazi's killed Jewish children as easily as they killed the old and frail ... that rather implies that humans feel nothing specifically for children of another "pack" or "tribe" without societal influence. Cannibalism has been a component of several cultures and has been noted to occur many times in adverse situations.

The moral values we have in society is mostly based on what we allready feel is wrong. We have something called conscience that also is a part of that, which tells us what we can't do and what we can do. That's why you can feel bad after hurting someone emotinally and other such things, depending on the situation of course. That's nothing to do what society tells you, it's what you mind tells you.

I don't agree, I believe pretty much all our morality is learned. Individual do not possess morality, morality is a societal concept ... individuals (as you note) possess a conscience which allows them to evaluate their own and others behaviour against accepted societal morals. There have been cultures where it is acceptable to brutalise many, to enslave others, to kill young and so on and all without apparent remorse ... that goes against what you are claiming.

If we hadn't "built in" moral and ethical values, a feel for what's right and wrong, then we pretty much would be like a mantis or something.

That's a helluva assertion ... justify it.

Animal are an example for that right and wrong is something that we are born with. It depends just what species it is. Most animals don't get the feeling of eating eachother, but mantis think it's ok for an example. Such thing is evolutionary. Such barriers, like not killing someone within the same speices is important to most beings. Humans wouldn't live specially long as a spieces if we would have nearly no barriers as the mantis for an example. Like if our kids didn't move out to quickly then we would eat them.

I don't think there is necessarily an instinctive component to morality ... I'm not discounting it as a possibility but I would want to see more evidence before I accept it.

Kyu

[Giff]

I don't think you are right ... do you have any evidence to support the claim?

From wikipedia is there a good explannation on conscience on a bio-psychological view:

Conscience can prompt different people in quite different directions, depending on their beliefs, suggesting that while the capacity for conscience is probably genetically determined, its subject matter is probably learned, or imprinted, like language, as part of a culture. For instance, one person may feel a moral duty to go to war, while another feels a moral duty to avoid war under any circumstances.

Numerous case studies of brain damage have shown that damage to specific areas of the brain (e.g. the anterior prefrontal cortex) results in the reduction or elimination of inhibitions, with a corresponding radical change in behaviour patterns. When the damage occurs to adults, they may still be able to perform moral reasoning; but when it occurs to children, they may never develop that ability

There's more about in this link: http://www.visioncircle.org/archive/004733.html

agree I find the idea abhorrent but I do not agree it is inbuilt ... I concede there may be (probably is) a pack instinct to protect our own children I do not necessarily believe it extends to all children without societal factors. The Nazi's killed Jewish children as easily as they killed the old and frail ... that rather implies that humans feel nothing specifically for children of another "pack" or "tribe" without societal influence. Cannibalism has been a component of several cultures and has been noted to occur many times in adverse situations.

In cultrues were cannbalism have strong connection with religion. Not because it's something that we find tasty.

We have an instinct that tells us to not go the neighbour and eat him when we feel hungry, if we don't have anything in the fridge.

Seeing a children suffer is something causes everyone to get emtional effected. Since we have emphaty do we feel sorry for people and specially children, since it as you ay built in to protect children. Since we are diffrent from most animals can our brain feel sorry for other outside our "tribe". It's an effect of our advance emphatical feelings. Which have heped humans, since our instinct tells us to defend the weak no matter what that humans come from.

The Nazis idea is an affect of an psycholigcal term called masshysteria and brainwash. Those who killed children where hating them becuase they where let to belive that they where evil.

I don't agree, I believe pretty much all our morality is learned. Individual do not possess morality, morality is a societal concept ... individuals (as you note) possess a conscience which allows them to evaluate their own and others behaviour against accepted societal morals. There have been cultures where it is acceptable to brutalise many, to enslave others, to kill young and so on and all without apparent remorse ... that goes against what you are claiming.

Some moral is a social concept. However many are what I call built in. We have barriers that stop us from doing things. Those soceities where bruatlise, enslage and kill young have often have strong connection with religion who have justified this.

We find it morally wrong to kill our own parents, since it something that our brain tells us pretty much. We cry when someone we love dies, we wouldn't kill someone we like for an instant. We have emotions that control what we can do and not. Psychopaths don't have that and are pretty much evil and lack a sence of moral.

A guy here died when he was run over by train. The reason was becasue someone where on the railroad track and he threw himself and pushed that person away. He was self killed. I think it was girl he saved that got paralyzed when seeing the train and couldn't move out of the way. The reason he did it wasn't because the society says it's good at helping eachother, it was in impulse he got to help someone which he did. However he was run over by train and died.

That's a helluva assertion ... justify it.

If we hadn't had emotions a conscience, would we have no problem killing another humans and don't feel a thing about it. We wouldn't care if our relatives died or someone we would love and we would have no problem killing our own children. We would be like mantis without our emtions, our brain and conscience.

I don't think there is necessarily an instinctive component to morality ... I'm not discounting it as a possibility but I would want to see more evidence before I accept it.

Understand that. I will try to do that. But just as a short and easy example: Dolphins for an example have saved people from drowning, which have been reported. They haven't done this because they have a moral created by there society that telled them to do that. It was an instinct for them to help someone they saw were in danger.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I don't think you are right ... do you have any evidence to support the claim?

From wikipedia is there a good explannation on conscience on a bio-psychological view:

And? It says nothing about not killing being "in our backbone" which is my only point of disagreement with you.

agree I find the idea abhorrent but I do not agree it is inbuilt ... I concede there may be (probably is) a pack instinct to protect our own children I do not necessarily believe it extends to all children without societal factors. The Nazi's killed Jewish children as easily as they killed the old and frail ... that rather implies that humans feel nothing specifically for children of another "pack" or "tribe" without societal influence. Cannibalism has been a component of several cultures and has been noted to occur many times in adverse situations.

In cultrues were cannbalism have strong connection with religion. Not because it's something that we find tasty.

Firstly so what? And secondly who are you to decide what people do and don't find tasty?

We have an instinct that tells us to not go the neighbour and eat him when we feel hungry, if we don't have anything in the fridge.

As previously stated, I don't agree and I think you'll be hard pressed to find anything more than opinion to back that up.

Seeing a children suffer is something causes everyone to get emtional effected. Since we have emphaty do we feel sorry for people and specially children, since it as you ay built in to protect children. Since we are diffrent from most animals can our brain feel sorry for other outside our "tribe". It's an effect of our advance emphatical feelings. Which have heped humans, since our instinct tells us to defend the weak no matter what that humans come from.

You do. I do. You and I no doubt know of many others who do but that by no means supports your assertion because we are of similar cultures, modern, western cultures and that assertion, whilst seemingly reasonable to you, may not transcend the barriers of time and civilisation.

The Nazis idea is an affect of an psycholigcal term called masshysteria and brainwash. Those who killed children where hating them becuase they where let to belive that they where evil.

Again so what? It may be true, it may not be true but it doesn't support your assertion that we have an inbuilt need to avoid killing children.

I don't agree, I believe pretty much all our morality is learned. Individual do not possess morality, morality is a societal concept ... individuals (as you note) possess a conscience which allows them to evaluate their own and others behaviour against accepted societal morals. There have been cultures where it is acceptable to brutalise many, to enslave others, to kill young and so on and all without apparent remorse ... that goes against what you are claiming.

Some moral is a social concept. However many are what I call built in. We have barriers that stop us from doing things. Those soceities where bruatlise, enslage and kill young have often have strong connection with religion who have justified this.

You can call it what you like Giff but your wish and/or belief that it is so does not make it so. Humans are animals with brains, we are capable of great beauty, great achievements, great love and so on but by the same token we are also capable of great "evil", appalling acts of inhumanity and brutality which (to me) clearly indicate that we are nothing special in whatever great scheme of things there might be. Maybe religion is involved, maybe it isn't but as Dawkins said "Good people do good things, bad people do bad things but it takes religion to make good people do bad things" ... I would later that from religion to ideology and I would further add that religions/ideologies CAN make bad people do good things. But then again who decides what is good and what is bad?

We find it morally wrong to kill our own parents, since it something that our brain tells us pretty much. We cry when someone we love dies, we wouldn't kill someone we like for an instant. We have emotions that control what we can do and not. Psychopaths don't have that and are pretty much evil and lack a sence of moral.

Some don't and in some cases I would support them.

A guy here died when he was run over by train. The reason was becasue someone where on the railroad track and he threw himself and pushed that person away. He was self killed. I think it was girl he saved that got paralyzed when seeing the train and couldn't move out of the way. The reason he did it wasn't because the society says it's good at helping eachother, it was in impulse he got to help someone which he did. However he was run over by train and died.

Which is all very well but it DOES NOT prove we have any inbuilt moral concepts, it simply demonstrates that we will act in some very self-sacrificing ways ... why has yet to be established.

That's a helluva assertion ... justify it.

If we hadn't had emotions a conscience, would we have no problem killing another humans and don't feel a thing about it. We wouldn't care if our relatives died or someone we would love and we would have no problem killing our own children. We would be like mantis without our emtions, our brain and conscience.

And again it DOES NOT prove that morals are built in and not learned.

I don't think there is necessarily an instinctive component to morality ... I'm not discounting it as a possibility but I would want to see more evidence before I accept it.

Understand that. I will try to do that. But just as a short and easy example: Dolphins for an example have saved people from drowning, which have been reported. They haven't done this because they have a moral created by there society that telled them to do that. It was an instinct for them to help someone they saw were in danger.

Sigh! Marvellous! Peachy! Very nice! Moving and whatever else but none of that proves that we have any kind of built in moral conscience.

Kyu