Moral Nihilism

[Charles]

Adrian wrote:

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.

You make my point for me. “Societal morality is always superior to individual morality.” Therefore in Nazi Germany, where the societal morality dictated it was acceptable to murder Jews, it was moral for them to murder Jews.

Without a transcendent moral standard, anything goes if that’s what the majority of people want. What if the majority of people in the UK said it was okay to murder atheists, or any other minority group, would that make murder a moral act?

Morality is not determined by poll.

So why don't you try it again?

Been there, done that, found it was a road to nowhere.

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?

Very well. Let me amend my previous statement to “No mention that taking another innocent person’s life is intrinsically evil. What a telling omission.” Yes, there are justified killings in a Christian worldview: self-defense, capital punishment, and in a just war. Your omission of the victim is still telling.

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.

But you still cannot condemn Nazi Germany for mass murder. Their society thought that was acceptable. Who are you to deny them their right of moral self-determination? If the whole world voted it was okay to murder group X, by your reasoning that would be a moral act. What nonsense.

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.

And we know that current scientific understanding is never wrong! I’m applying the naturalistic fallacy to the metaethical question of value itself, not an individual case of applied ethics as you mention. If morality is the product of evolution (that which is), and we should adopt that very morality to guide our behavior (that which ought), then we commit the naturalistic fallacy. For it may be the case that our evolutionary morality is immoral.

But I agree, let’s move on.

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.

Because only a non-nihilist would say "If we all decided murder was ok, we wouldn't have a society anymore." A nihilist would shrug his shoulders and label the whole thing absurd: the survival or extinction of society is meaningless. So your rebuttal is circular.

I’ll supply the same Dawkins quote I gave Sam: “We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.” Dawkins seems to have grasped the inevitable conclusion of his evolutionist atheism, why don’t you?

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.

But the statement “One ought to do that which is good and refrain from doing that which is evil” is true regardless of the culture. Sure, some cultures will define the good and the evil differently from you or me, but the statement itself is true, is it not? That is to say, it is a transcendent moral standard which is culturally neutral.

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.

I’m unaware of any society, African or otherwise, that would deny it is evil to torture babies for pleasure. Please document your claim.

I always find it amusing but sad the lengths to which cultural relativists (like yourself – the “morality of the majority”) or emotivists will go in order to deny such prima facie moral absolutes such as the wickedness of torturing babies for pleasure. Oh the ethical gymnastics you perform!

Yes we can engage in cross-cultural moral judgements.

Not with the force of obligation. You can say to the Nazi “mass murder is evil” but your moral standard imposes no duty on him to obey it, since your standard is culture-dependent.

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.

As someone once said, “might does not make right.” The fact that a moral code is often imposed on one culture by another does not thereby justify said moral code. An obvious example is the slave trade you mentioned. But by your reasoning, the slave trade was a moral action(s) because our culture thought it was a good idea. It was “morality of the majority” to use your phrase.

For the last time, you don't need to be in the country to condemn the actions of such people.

No, but you need a culturally-transcendent moral standard which is duty-imposing by which to judge another culture. Otherwise the culture you’re condemning is immune to your condemnation because it is following its “morality of the majority.”

We judge things by our societies standards and our own standards. By these standards the actions are condemnable.

Adrian, honestly. Your culture’s “morality of the majority” places no burden of obligation on another culture’s “morality of the majority.” You’re intelligent enough to understand this.

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.

I can think outside the box; I used to reside outside it. I understand your argument, I’m simply pointing out the inconsistency of it.

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.

Naturalistic evolution is the mother’s milk of modern atheism. Do you deny naturalistic evolution?

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.

“Only” no objective purpose? Well at least you acknowledge as much. Using the definition that purpose is the reason for which something exists, people can play make-believe and conjure up any supposed reason for their existence. But these make-believe fantasies cannot supply purpose because there is no reason for their existence beyond the blind, naturalistic, non-teleological mechanisms of evolution. You are a cosmic accident, a meat machine, a colony of bacteria. There was no reasoning behind your existence, therefore you have no purpose.

3. Therefore human life has no purpose. // Objectively? yes. Subjectively, some people might have a problem with this statement.

Yes, those who entertain childish and naïve fantasies that their life has purpose in a purposeless universe. And atheists think theists are gullible!

4. Moral values are a component of human life. // Moral values are a component of society, multiple humans living together.

Ah yes, your “morality of the majority.”

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.

Once again you assume that which you need to prove. If human life had purpose (which it does not according to evolution), then its component parts would have purpose. Rather since human life has no purpose (according to evolution), its component parts have no purpose.

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).

See above rebuttals to your annotations.

Atheism does not logical entail moral nihilism, and if it did, well I guess then I wouldn't be an atheist.

In that case, I have a Good Book you should read.

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.

Don’t be jejune, we all have presuppositions, they’re unavoidable. The trick is to be aware of them and avoid their possible pitfalls, or discard them when they’re incorrect.

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 intellectually admirable of you to say.

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.

I’m quite aware of my presuppositions and of alternate explanations – I once held quite different views than I currently do. Regarding God’s existence, I affirm that knowledge of him is properly basic. But that is a discussion for another post.