Moral Nihilism

[Charles]

Adrian wrote:

Just to make sure you understand this point, I (me, moi, atheist, etc) would not think murdering atheists would be a moral act (relative morality remember), but the majority of people who were doing the murdering would (again, relative morality). As for competing moral claims, I disagree. There are only a finite number of things that can ever be considered "wrong" by sane people, and most of them have gone through the process of majority-morality-shifting (MMS). In modern civilizations, things like murder, rape, theft, etc are all considered immoral acts, and by now we are only scrambling over the details (death penalty, abortion, etc).

And those issues which we consider immoral (murder, rape, theft, etc.) were considered acceptable in past civilizations and may again in future civilizations. Don’t let the tyranny of the Now and our own cultural hubris blind you to the possibility that a majority in a future dystopia may judge murder acceptable again, against which you have no argument to obligate them to change their ways since you can appeal to no trans-cultural moral standard. Moral for them, not moral for you. Result? Stalemate.

People cannot declare absolute morality, of that I agree with you, but people can easily declare relative morality ("I find that immoral").

Then you accede to my original statement that “Without culturally-transcendent moral laws, the atheist has no ground to condemn the butchery of a Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot.”

As for your statement 'if people in culture X find something acceptable, it is moral' this isn't what I'm arguing (honestly, do you read my posts). I'm arguing that for the majority, this is moral (relative morality!!!). You can see this happening in any country in the world. The majority often dictates the morality of the state, and in the occasions when it doesn't, it is always the majority ruling opinion (for instance governments creating laws) that states what is moral. Abortion in America is a split topic at the moment (always has been) but the government has ruled that banning it is non-constitutional, and thereby saying it is a moral act.

Yes, I read your posts thoroughly. I understand what you’re saying: if the majority of people in culture X find something acceptable then it is (relatively) moral for them. My rebuttal is that this gives license to actions like the Final Solution or Pol Pot’s killing fields, and you cannot obligate that cultural majority to change its ways since you can appeal to no trans-cultural moral standard. Moral for them, not moral for you. Result? Stalemate.

If you say "by anyone's standard" then you immediately give rise to the possibility that someone out there might object, hence my point. I'm sure some of the soldiers in Iraq felt it was morally right to kill some of the innocent people there (they had to bomb Baghdad to start the war) but what about the relatives of those who were killed? You can argue from both sides of the issue, and certainly many people thought Saddam was an innocent and glorious leader, so were we right to kill him? Right and wrong is not so easily dictated as you seem to think; it all depends on the context, and on the people doing the judging.

Only if you are a cultural relativist. For a moral realist like myself, there are trans-cultural moral standards by which we or the Iraqis or anyone else can render judgment.

Oh the counterexamples that leap to mind: the Copernican Revolution (16th century...hardly "current"),

True, but the idea was current for those defending Ptolemy. We’re not any smarter in general than our forefathers were. This is just an example of when the leading scientific lights at the time got it wrong.

Einsteinian relativism (Unless I'm missing something here, how is that wrong on a large scale???),

It was the transition from Newtonian physics, which is just another example of when the leading scientific lights at the time got it wrong.

the Chemical Revolution (The chemical revolution was the turning point from "earth, air, fire, water" to discovering elements...how is that wrong on a large scale?),

The former view of the four basic elements was wrong, which is just another example of when the leading scientific lights at the time got it wrong.

spontaneous generation (Spontaneous generation (otherwise known as abiogenesis) is a current scientific theory based on evidence, not disproven by any means. Experiments are currently being done to figure out how exactly life first emerged, but just because we haven't got all the answers doesn't make it "wrong")

The former abiogenic theory as disproved by Pasteur was yet another example of when the leading scientific lights at the time got it wrong.

The point being in this little history lesson is that the most advanced scientific understanding of the world at the time is always open to revision if not a wholesale paradigm shift, so we should maintain a portion of skepticism (an atheist buzzword if I'm not mistaken) when appealing to the authority of current scientific knowledge. Who knows what scientists a hundred years in the future will mock about our current scientific understanding?

No, the statement "If we all decided murder was ok..." was used to support the main argument of relative morality, MMS, etc. It was used as an example of how I (as an atheist) can explain morality and therefore do not count as a nihilist. It's an indirect connection, not a direct one.

And the argument of relative morality is in turn a supporting argument of yours of why atheism does not entail nihilism. You, an atheist, are assuming the purposefulness of the universe when arguing for your moral code, and any supporting argument (such as this one) which assumes the validity of the argument its supporting is question-begging. You’re using a non-nihilist supporting argument to support a non-nihilist argument, which gets you nowhere.

You are quite correct that a nihilist would never use that argument, and your admission to this fact only supports my counterclaim that atheists are not nihilists. How else can you explain me having a non-nihilistic worldview?

As I previously stated, your inconsistency.

Yet when presented with the arguments that atheism is not nihilism, and when we say things that a nihilist cannot possibly say, instead of admitting that you are incorrect with your argument, you say "Well, if you were true to your atheism you would be a nihilist". That isn't an argument, and it reeks of presupposition.

For some reason you apparently want me to present my arguments in detail (if not strictly formally) while you don’t find yourself under the same obligation. I can accommodate. Here then is the argument:

1. Atheism entails nihilism (the conclusion of the previous argument).
2. A consistent atheist would admit that his atheism entails nihilism.
3. Therefore an atheist who does not admit that atheism entails nihilism is inconsistent.

Let’s move on.

Go ahead and call foul on it then. What exactly is illogical about my argument?

It’s a petitio principii. Moving along.

Human beings are part of nature, yes, but Dawkins was talking about nature in the casual sense (natural disasters, etc). A hurricane cannot be said to be "evil" because we know it is a natural force and isn't human. It doesn't have a sense of morality, we do. The same can be said of the above quote. When speaking about the universe, he means just that, the universe. Not the parts of the universe, just the universe as a single entity. The universe itself does not have evil or good in it, only what we perceive as evil and good, and ultimately what we judge as right and wrong.

Me thinks thou dost equivocate. The universe is the sum total of reality (in your view), which of necessity includes humans and their sense/perception of morality. If the universe has “no design, no purpose, no evil and no good”, that includes you. You, as a member of the class of the universe have “no design, no purpose, no evil and no good.” You are free of course to pretend you have “subjective” design, purpose, or morality, but wishing doesn’t make it so.

It isn't a moral truth though, it is the requirement for morality to work. A moral truth requires morality in the first place; this is completely the reverse of what I just said. In order for morality to even exist there must be a system in place that favours certain actions over others. We are social creatures, and we need to help each other to survive, therefore this desire to help has become the catalyst for morality.

I said: “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.”

You replied: “Indeed, I agree with you.”

So the statement “One ought to do that which is good and refrain from doing that which is evil” is a transcendent moral standard which is culturally neutral, or is it not?

No, because if you took a load of people who liked torturing babies for pleasure and dumped them on an island, the morality on that island would dictate that torturing babies would be ok. Hypothetical scenario I know, but it's perfectly true.

This is my point. In that hypothetical scenario torturing babies for pleasure would be acceptable by their own culturally-dependent moral standard. You have a different culturally-dependent moral standard.

Impasse.

The National Socialists’ culturally-dependent moral standard sanctioned gassing Jews. Your culturally-dependent moral standard prohibits gassing Jews.

Impasse.

Neither culturally-dependent moral standard outranks the other.

Impasse.

Since there is no trans-cultural moral standard which obligates all cultures, you are forced to admit that the Final Solution was perfectly moral for the National Socialists to carry out.

Feel free to point that out to the members of your local synagogue next Saturday. I’m sure they’ll understand your qualifier “well I don’t think the Endlösung was a good idea, but it was okay for the Nazis.”

But I'm arguing that there is no difference between opinion and moral standards.

But of course, you’re not a moral realist.

We each have our own moral standards, and you can predict with almost certainty that you will never find a person with the exact same standards as you. Since it would be a contradiction to label these as facts (facts cannot have multiple truth values), they must be opinions.

Only if you presuppose there are no trans-cultural moral standards. If there are, then they are the facts and anything contradictory would be not only merely opinion, but false.

When you tell John that cheating is wrong, you are stating your opinion on a specific moral, and appealing to his opinion on that specific moral. The only thing that changes opinions is an argument, so if his opinion differs from yours, he will most likely say "I disagree".

And for a cultural relativist like yourself, that ends the discussion.

Impasse.

For a moral realist like myself, I can appeal to a moral standard that supersedes his opinion.

Indeed the Maoist could reply like that, and this is where the argument starts and opinions may change. You say you are a moral realist, but there are people out there who have a different set of morals to you, so how do you explain this?

Sin. The refusal of people to obey the commandments of their Creator.

If I told you I fully support abortion under any circumstance (which is pretty much accurate) then how would you persuade me otherwise.

If you were a moral realist, then I would appeal to a trans-cultural moral standard which obligates your obedience. Since you are not, I cannot persuade you, since your “morality” is no better or worse than mine.

Impasse.

What you seem to be saying is that by telling me "But Adrian, you know abortion is wrong" you think that I will suddenly realize the "truth" of absolute morality, but it isn't a good argument at all.

You’re right, which is why I would never mount such an “argument.”

I disagree that abortion is wrong, or that I "know" it is wrong. The only way you are going to change my opinion on it, and thereby change my moral opinion on it is by presenting a good argument for your moral opinion.

Given your commitment to individual autonomy/cultural relativism, I cannot persuade you. Since morality is mere opinion, I might as well try to convince you that vanilla ice cream is tastier than chocolate ice cream.

Indeed. I never said it was a pretty process, and who knows, maybe if Hitler had won the war and conquered the world everyone would be happier and things would be going much better than they are today.

Sure, as long as you’re an Aryan . . .

This is where I agree with Dawkins when he argues that we cannot set moral absolutes on people (his famous misrepresented Hilter quote). We are thankful that the Allies won the war, because they enforced our morality, which we consider good. However, if Hitler had won, perhaps we would be thinking how great Hitler was, because he enforced our morality, which we consider good (MMS remember). The key unanswerable question is, would we have the same morality today as we do, if Hitler had won the war instead of lost?

Here’s the answer: I would have the same morality since it is trans-cultural and thus not subject to MMS; you might have a different morality since you can appeal to no trans-cultural standards and thus are subject to MMS.

The thought that my moral standards could conceivably include gassing innocent men, women, and children turns my stomach. Apparently you’re cool with that possibility.

Condemnation doesn't imply we need to do something about it, but often we do anyway. Our moral majority doesn't trump the Nazi moral majority, but it harshly contradicts it, and our condemnation of it lead us to act on it. We like seeing our morality spread around, it makes us feel better about the world. Morality doesn't trump morality, but majority often trumps majority.

Again, feel free to share that with a Jewish holocaust survivor. I’m sure he’ll appreciate your nuance.

I don't pretend the universe gives a shit, I know the universe doesn't give a shit about me. However subjective purpose isn't excluded by this, because subjective purpose doesn't require the universe to give a shit it requires an individual to give a shit.

Let me see if I follow your argument:

1. The universe is a purposeless entity which encompasses all of reality.
2. You are part of the universe.
3. Therefore you have no purpose.
4. You believe you have subjective purpose.
5. Your belief in subjective purpose is itself part of the purposeless universe.
6. Therefore your belief in subjective purpose has no purpose.
7. But your subjective purpose is somehow excluded from the universe because you give a shit.
8. Therefore you have subjective purpose.

Got Logic?

If you admit there isn't an exclusively causal relationship, then you have lost the point. Please don't bring it up again. I wouldn't say atheism was made mainstream by evolution. Evolution certainly helped atheists to explain life without God, but if any atheist says "Evolution shows there is no god" then I give them a slap, because such an argument is full of holes. Atheism should be (and is in most cases) reached by logical deduction.

My point, as I said, is “Its (the relationship between evolution and atheism) not an exclusively causal relationship, but there’s a relationship nonetheless.” I “admit” my point, yes. I don’t see how I thereby “lost the point” I was making.

Now you are simply arguing with semantics.

Of course I am! See the above syllogism.

You confuse objective purpose and subjective purpose.

There is no distinction since both are constituents of a purposeless universe and are thereby themselves purposeless.

Forget the rock since you seem to not "get" that example.

I do not “get” irrational reasoning, true. Apparently that’s necessary to be an atheist. Guess I’ll need to cancel my subscription to American Atheist Magazine.

Lets imagine a river. Now we know the river doesn't have an objective purpose other than to transport water downhill (via laws of gravity).

A river doesn’t have objective purpose, it simply exists.

However humans can place a subjective purpose on the river (giving them drinking water, swimming, etc). This is the difference between objective and subjective...

And both are still purposeless since they are constituents of a purposeless universe. Multiplying analogies doesn’t advance your case.

See way above where I showed the difference between taking a universe as a single entity and then the sum of it's parts. The universe is objectively purposeless, but is not subjectively purposeless. We are objectively purposeless, but not subjectively purposeless.

It doesn’t matter how you “take” the universe (indeed the universe conceived as a "single entity" is precisely "the sum of it's parts"); its still purposeless. Inventing ideas like “subjective purpose” and then exempting them from the universe is 1) special pleading, and 2) a failure to comprehend what is meant by “universe.”

Evolution itself has purposeless forces, but the purpose of Evolution is quite clear: to adapt species to their habitat. Again, these are the differences between objective and subjective purposes, but since you don't seem to understand the difference I recommend you read a dictionary.

Evolution does not have a purpose, its merely a description of how evolutionists think life changed over time. The theory of evolution is itself part of the universe, ipso facto it too has no purpose.

Not an argument. Why should I believe it?

Because you said “Can't believe people think the god who endorsed slavery is the god who creates our moral law.” But it is a fact that people do think that, so not believing that fact is irrational.

Fine, then I expect you to drop your obviously fallacious argument which relies on you constantly going around in circles and not knowing what certain words mean.

The circle I’m following (viz. objective/subjective purpose) is the one you drew. The sooner you hop off, the sooner you can clear your dizzy head.


Regarding all the chatter on freewill, I am a compatibilist, so I affirm both (soft) determinism and compatibilist (as opposed to libertarian) freewill. But I’m also a theist, not a nihilist, so I believe the issue really does matter.

---

LukeMC wrote:

It is a necessary inconsistency. To draw an analogy to your position, you seem to be stating the following:

Shit smells bad in your opinion
Your opinion is meaningless and the shit really doesn't smell "good" or "bad"
To live consistently with your beliefs, you must smell neither good nor bad in the shit, regardless of your brain and sensory organs.

There is a difference in the way we perceive the world through our senses (does it really smell bad in and of itself, or is that a learned response to an otherwise neutral stimulus, or is smell an external quality that we superimpose on the stimulus, etc.) and the purpose of a thing. But I’m not a nihilist, so I have no consistency problem with the way something smells and my response to that smell.

It's out of my control Charles. Whether or not the things have meaning, I cannot possibly abandon them on the grounds of my disbelief in their meaning. You propose that I could just choose to switch off my brain and nervous system and all of my emotions at a whim. I can't. Thanks to my hotwiring, it wouldn't be possible for me to see things as they are; I can only perceive of things in whatever way my body is wired to allow (enter subjectivity and Adrian's points).

I’m not proposing you switch off your brain and nervous system, for that clearly is impossible. I’m proposing that you live your life according to your convictions, which is within your control.

Imagine this rather extreme scenario. I decide my life is worthless and want to end it because "it doesn't matter anyway". I put my hands around my own throat and try to strangle myself. No matter how little I value my life, my body will always take control and force me to let go. This example is just to show how logical conclusions cannot override the basic functions of the body. "Digestion is meaningless. Stomach, shut down please... please? Oh come on "

You could pull the trigger of a gun pointed at your temple. Unfortunately people do it all the time. That is not beyond your control.

I am not suggesting you actually do that! Its just a counterexample.

So in the same way I cannot shut down my systems by choice, I cannot switch off my empathy, my love for happiness or my concept of "meaning". It may indeed be an inconsistency, but it isn't one which we can help. This may indeed have been your original point

Clearly you cannot command your body’s involuntary systems to do anything, and you cannot change your emotions at will. But you can lead a life in accordance to your beliefs. People who do not we usually label hypocrites, a derogatory term, implying that they could and should change their ways.

If you extend your argument, then you cannot help being an atheist because you’re hardwired that way, and I cannot help being a Christian because I’m hardwired that way. If that is true, how do we account for people changing their belief systems? And why bother debating the issue to begin with?

Beliefs are subject to change via reasoning, involuntary bodily systems are not (hence the term).

One thing is for certain though, us atheists aren't making a hypocritical incosistency, as it is beyond our control. If we could live life without being tied to our ingrained perceptions of meaning I think we'd choose nonexistance, as this life would truly be meaningless and not worth living. Consistency 101 (Y). So while I agree objective moral nihilism is the logical following of a-supernaturalism, and it does follow that we might aswell kill people, I disagree that we as humans should start introducing a bunch of new genocidal blueprints for the future. In the real meaningless universe we might aswell, but under or delusionary (subjective) view of things we wouldn't be able to do such things anymore. Living a fairy tale is the only life we can know, and for all it's worth, we like feeling happy.

Perhaps your delusionary view of things includes the delusion that living out a consistent nihilism is beyond your control.

Look! The atheists admit they are inconsistent! Their belief contains a hole which we can exploit! God wins!.

Haha, I'd hate to see a fundementalist get hold of this post and start spouting it to the masses. "Look! The atheists admit they are inconsistent! Their belief contains a hole which we can exploit! God wins!".

Dang!

Although, I don't think God would solve this problem by any stretch of the imagination.

A theistic worldview necessarily excludes nihilism. The problems you’re confronting are the result of a-theism.

It's just one of those funky things in the universe. Living a fairy tale being the price for happiness sounds so ridiculously like a criticism of religion that I hesitated to use it. But at the end of the day, religion isn't a necessary delusion for happiness, it's a delusion built upon a delusion (In my worthless opinion of course).

I see your nihilistic delusion and raise you a theistic delusion. Who cares, if everything is meaningless?

As a final note, the discussion of morality, meaning, etc, may be intrinsically worthless, but under our bubble of delusion I don't believe we should/could abandon this given only the conclusion we've drawn about nihilism. We will continue to operate under a system of value, meaning and whatnot for as long as our brains force us to see things in this way. We are not omnipotent, we must bow to our limited capacity.

If you truly believe this, why bother discussing it? I applaud your willingness to affirm that atheism entails nihilism, so few others do, but the fact that we’re having this absurd conversation makes me doubt that you do truly believe it.