Moral Nihilism

[Charles]

Tiberius wrote:

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.

Then on what basis did we conduct the Nuremberg Trials? The Nazis' personal and societal moral code informed them that genocide was acceptable. What justification do you have for saying what they did was wrong? Is your personal or societal moral standard superior or universal whereas theirs was not?

I did the "freethinking" thing a couple of decades ago, but thanks for the offer.

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.

So you do not murder because of the negative consequences to yourself: "punishment", not "rewarded", "ostracism." No mention of the victim here. No mention that taking another person’s life is intrinsically evil. What a telling omission.

I could reply that I am pro-murder because it brings me sadistic pleasure. That's my personal preference. You have no warrant to convince me that my murderous actions are immoral, other than appealing to my own selfish interests of being punished or ostracized. You have no standard by which to condemn me: why should I abide by your preferences or those of your culture?

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.

The naturalistic fallacy entails ascribing moral approval to that which is already found to be the case, which is what you're positing when you say that "morality itself is a natural thing.” It is simply another way of saying what is (the fact that a cultural values exist) entails ought (these cultural values should be so). How else can we judge an action blameworthy or praiseworthy if our moral standard is itself the product of our own nature?

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).

Many people here have denied that atheism entails moral nihilism, but a denial does not an argument make. Your rebuttal "If we all decided murder was ok, we wouldn't have a society anymore" assumes that atheism does not entail moral nihilism, so its not much of a supporting argument.

There are no irreducible moral truths.

One ought to do that which is good and refrain from doing that which is evil. Is that an irreducible moral truth? Torturing babies for pleasure is evil. Is that an irreducible moral truth?

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.

Only if the murderers shared your culture. You cannot engage in cross-cultural moral judgments, since there is no transcendent moral truth.

If I lived in a different culture, maybe I couldn't, but that isn't the point.

That is precisely the point, my friend.

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.

Unless you’re a Chinese or Khmer Maoist, you do not share the culture of Mao or Pol Pot, so you cannot condemn their murders of 74 million people.

Indeed, which is why I am not a nihilist.

If you were consistent in your atheism, you would be.

Did you forget you were in a discussion here?

No.

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.

Okay, I will connect the dots for you. Since a lot of folk on this forum look to Wikipedia for their philosophical knowledge, which speaks volumes in and of itself, we’ll use its definition of nihilism:

Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical position that values do not exist but rather are falsely invented. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without meaning, purpose or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that morality does not exist, and subsequently there are no moral values with which to uphold a rule or to logically prefer one action over another.

Here then is the (admittedly rough-and-ready) argument:

1. Atheism posits that human life is the product of blind, purposeless, natural forces.
2. Anything which is the product of blind, purposeless forces by definition has no purpose.
3. Therefore human life has no purpose.
4. Moral values are a component of human life.
5. Therefore moral values have no purpose.
6. Nihilism posits that life is without meaning or purpose and that values do not exist.
7. Regarding the meaning or purpose of human life and moral values, both atheism and nihilism are linguistic tokens describing the same conclusion: human life and moral values have no meaning or purpose.

So we’re back to the original assertion in my first post: Atheism logically entails moral nihilism, yet I have encountered few atheists willing to assert it. Are you? Are you willing to be consistent with your own presuppositions and follow them to their logical conclusion? Do you have the courage of your convictions and declare unequivocally that all of life is meaningless and absurd?

To quote the existentialist Jean Paul Satre: “Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within himself or outside himself . . . Nor, on the other hand, if God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimize our behavior.”

---

EvidenceVsFaith wrote:

Ummmm....because we DO? And it's a good fucking thing TOO?

The question was not why DO we care, but why SHOULD we care. I'm sure you understand the difference between the two.

---

Sam wrote:

Now I'm sorry to jump in late in the day here Charles, but I've been reading you thread with some interest and regretfully, disbelief ...

Hi Sam.

First you arrived here and asserted (without any supporting logic, let alone evidence) that atheists are all nihilists

Not quite. I asserted that atheism entails moral nihilism. My challenge is that the consistent atheist ought to affirm nihilism unashamedly. See the above argument I provided for Adrian.

with no right to have an opinion on moral matter

Yes, since this follows from the nihilistic premise that there are no moral standards, and the very notion of "rights" is an absurd one.

you further implied that your entire personal moral construct was a result of your religion which a) suggests your moral compass may be skewed on infanticide/just punishment

Skewed by what standard? But you're jumping ahead here, I'm trying to limit the discussion to one point. We could take that up later in a new post if you like.

b) suggest that without religion you would have no self control whatsoever.

That's quite a leap.

The fact is that society as a whole (i.e. the global society) has an ingrained sense of right and wrong, that is why we experience tangible pain/sympathy when we see our hear of others suffering. We can obligate everyone in line with this global trend in ethic & morality ... that what international law is all about.

So you affirm cross-cultural transcendent moral standards? You aren't a closet theist, are you?

---

EvidenceVsFaith wrote:

The fact is Charles, you ask why should we care if the universe doesn't....
And the fact is - we DO care. Because we're human, we have feelings, we have empathy. We often share feelings or feelings towards another.

The fact is we DO care and it's a good fucking thing too, as I said.

And the fact is, your response is a non-answer. I didn't ask IF we care, for clearly we do, I asked WHY SHOULD we care. Do you have an answer for that question?

You do not need absolute morals to be moral

You need a moral standard to be moral, and you need a transcendent moral standard if you wish to critique intelligently across cultural boundaries.

- in fact, what if you believe in absolute morals but those morals are actually flawed and mistaken, not correct?

If your moral standard is a false one, then obviously your moral judgments based on it would likewise be false.

The lack of flexibility and overconfidence could lead to problems and make things WORSE. I.e, immorality and evil through enforcing absolute morals that afterwards, don't turn out to be right anyway - because you can never truly KNOW and be absolute about these things - whether there are absolutes or not.

Are you being absolute when you tell me I cannot be absolute regarding moral standards? Here comes the self-refutation train, all aboard!

But there are no evidence for absolutes anyway,

How do you know? Do you possess all knowledge in the universe? You're making some sweeping generalizations!

and I don't think I'd want there to be - I think the freedom is important...

But of course. Sinners value more than anything else their supposed autonomy from their Creator.

But one more time: the fact is we DO care - and it's a good fucking thing too.

And one more time: your response is a non-answer. I didn't ask IF we care, for clearly we do, I asked WHY SHOULD we care. Do you have an answer for that question?