Moral Nihilism

[Tiberius]

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?

We conducted the Nuremberg trials because the majority of people considered the actions of those on trial to be disgusting and evil. We don't convict people based on individual morality, but on the morality of the majority. Societal morality is always superior to individual morality; it has to be for society to function.

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

So why don't you try it again?

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 would wager even you don't believe that taking a person's life is intrinsically evil. Were we wrong to kill Saddam Hussein for his crimes against humanity? What about the people on death row who have killed again and again and again? I'm not a fan of the death penalty in most cases, but there are certainly some that can be justified. How about war? Is it wrong to kill people in a war if you are trying to free the country of tyranny?

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?

We do have a warrant though. Society deems that murder is not a good thing unless in specific circumstances, and you have to abide by the standards of the culture you live in or face the consequences.

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?

How exactly am I ascribing moral approval on anything? I'm not mentioning any type of action that is a matter of ethics, I'm mentioning the system of ethics itself. For the naturalistic fallacy to hold, I must be saying that something is natural, therefore it is moral. The "something" has to be an action (i.e. homosexuality, murder, etc). Morality itself isn't an action, it is the method by which we decide if something is moral or not. Saying this itself is natural is as fallacious as saying our minds are natural (i.e. not fallacious at all). I'm not saying that morality is a product of our individual nature, but it is a product of our evolution. We have to have a certain moral code in order to work together in a social group. This is also the current thinking of science, so please don't bring up the naturalistic fallacy again, it doesn't apply to the current discussion.

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.

No, we've explained (often at great length) why we aren't nihilists. This isn't just us saying "atheism is not nihilistic", this is us telling you why it isn't. I don't see how my statement assumes anything about the beliefs of the people in the society. It is simple deductive reasoning that if a society as a whole thought murder was ok, the entire society would disappear.

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?

They both depend on the society you are in. We allow women to wear the clothes they like, we consider this a good thing. Other countries (middle eastern especially) say this is an evil thing. They think that women are property and that this is a good thing, we think that any concept of human ownership is evil. So no, they aren't irreducible moral truths; they all depend on which society you belong to.

Likewise with the second, it depends on the society. There are societies in Africa which torture babies and children because they suspect them to be witches; they think this is a good thing, we think this is an evil thing. Please explain how this comes about if morality is irreducible.

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

Yes we can engage in cross-cultural moral judgements. Take your example of the Nuremberg trials. We invaded their country and imposed our morals on them. The victor always wins the moral battle, and has done over the centuries. Same thing happened when we started capturing slaves from Africa. We judge other countries all the time. We think that what happens to "child witches" in Africa is disgusting, and we lobby their government to crack down on such activities. If we ever invaded, we would impose our morality on them and prosecute anyone who disobeys our morality.

That is precisely the point, my friend.

See above.

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.

For the last time, you don't need to be in the country to condemn the actions of such people. We judge things by our societies standards and our own standards. By these standards the actions are condemnable.

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

Only because you cannot think outside the box. You think God made us and morality is from God. We don't believe in God and we have other explanations of the origin of morality. You simply stick your fingers in your ears when we try to explain how we think morality originated. Atheism says nothing about morality, it only says something about the existence of gods.

1. Atheism posits that human life is the product of blind, purposeless, natural forces. // No, science posits this. Atheism posits that there are no gods.
2. Anything which is the product of blind, purposeless forces by definition has no purpose. // No, it only has no objective purpose. Subjective purposes might be many. For instance, a rock weathered by a river has no objective purpose, but a person might use that rock as a hammer, thereby putting a subjective purpose on it.
3. Therefore human life has no purpose. // Objectively? yes. Subjectively, some people might have a problem with this statement.
4. Moral values are a component of human life. // Moral values are a component of society, multiple humans living together.
5. Therefore moral values have no purpose. // This is like saying "legs are a component of human life, therefore legs have no purpose". Moral values have a purpose: they hold the society together.
6. Nihilism posits that life is without meaning or purpose and that values do not exist. // Indeed.
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. // No (see above annotations).

My annotations are preceded by a // and are bolded in the above quote ^

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?

Atheism does not logical entail moral nihilism, and if it did, well I guess then I wouldn't be an atheist. I'm a person who does not believe in gods, but holds that morality exists and has a purpose. As for following my presuppositions, I have no presuppositions. My atheism does not lead me to look at the world with any less wonder. Instead, it leads me to search for more answers to things. If I ever found God as those answers, I would reject my atheism. That is the exact opposite of following through with presuppositions. I hold that it is you who has presuppositions and your clinging onto them has blinded you to the possibility that other people might have other explanations. Your presupposition is that God exists and has dictated morality, even though the evidence is to the contrary.