Moral Nihilism

[Tiberius]

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.

True, a future society may accept murder again, but I do have arguments to stop it. I do have reasons why I am against murder, same as most people on this planet. The result is hardly stalemate, the result is a majority wins situation. Change the majority, change the result.

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.”

I do have ground to condemn the actions. I don't find them moral, hence my condemnation. Granted, the people at the time who were doing these acts thought they were moral, but the fact they are not considered moral today is reason enough to condemn them. Likewise, I can come up with many arguments why such butchery is wrong.

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.

It only gives such licenses if the majority give them the license. You are trying to argue against relative morality by assuming absolute morality. The majority morality of Hitler's Germany found the gassing of the Jews to be perfectly moral. The rest of the world didn't. The rest of the world just happens to be a lot bigger than Germany, hence the majority morality (of the world) wins. Trans-cultural morality counts for nothing if one country has the larger power.

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.

Was it right or wrong to kill innocent people to bring down Saddam? Simple enough question, I'd like to hear your answer (and your justification).

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.

We are very much smarter than our forefathers; only an ignorant man would argue against that fact. As I've said before, science is a self-correcting process. It evolves over time, but is rarely ever wrong on a big scale. Small parts might be wrong, but the general level of evidence cannot be so easily refuted. The examples you gave were simply not examples of "leading scientific lights at the time getting it wrong", they were examples of science improving a current theory. Newtonian physics is not wrong on a large scale, neither is abiogenesis. Whether you include alchemy in "modern" science is a matter of opinionl; I personally don't, since it wasn't based on any scientific principles.

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.

Atheism does not entail nihilism since atheism does not have anything to do with morality. That has been my point from the beginning. Now, we know we have a sense of morality, a sense of right and wrong, so I attempt to explain that. In explaining why we have morality, I reject nihilism. I could just as easily say you are assuming the universe has a purpose when you argue your moral code. Unless you can prove God exists, your insistence that the universe has a purpose is nothing but assumption. I do not assume, I simply do not see an objective purpose to the universe.

As I previously stated, your inconsistency.

That doesn't answer the question. You are assuming I have an inconsistency, yet you have offered no proof or argument that stands in support of your view. You assume the universe has a purpose, I do not. I see morality as an attribute all humans have in order to function as a species, you see it as a god-given gift. You could just as easily substitute morality for "legs" in your argument, and claim that I should not use my legs, since I do not believe in God, and therefore there is no objective purpose to the universe or my legs. Your argument boils down to "If you don't believe in God, you don't believe in anything" which is fallacious. I say my legs have a subjective purpose, and my morality has a subjective purpose. We can observe both legs and morality, hence my reasons for believing in both of them.

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.

1 is an assumption not based on any argument at all (all of your attempts have been refuted)
2 is based on the assumption that 1 is correct.
3 is based on the assumption that 2 is correct.
Since 1 is an assumption, your argument falls to pieces.

It’s a petitio principii. Moving along.

So is your argument above. You assume atheism entails nihilism without offering any proof.

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.

Again, Dawkins is talking objectively. There is no objective design, purpose, evil, good. There exists a subjective version of each of these however, because we feel they exist. We feel some things are good and some things are evil, yet different people find different things good and evil. This is a contradiction if good and evil are objective, hence the subjectivism. Wishing doesn't make it so, but the evidence suggests it is so.

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?

It's not a standard, it's an function of morality itself. We only work as a society if we do good and not evil, hence why morality has us doing these things. Saying "One ought to move legs forward to move" is not a standard of walking, it is a function of our legs. You see morality as something that exists separate to us, but we see morality as something that exists in our species. Morality is as much a part of homo sapiens as our legs are.

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.”

I never said it was ok for the Nazis to do it. I said the Nazis themselves thought it was ok. There is a difference which you can't seem to wrap your head around. Of course the Nazis thought it was ok, that is a fact of history. The fact that the Nazis thought it was ok does not mean I think it is ok for Nazis to kill people but others not to. I don't think anyone should kill anyone else. Hence why we impose our morality on others; why we stop genecide.

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.

Yet you have shown me no examples of any moral standards (i.e. an example of something that someone can feel moral about) that are trans-cultural. Show me one and I will change my mind. Since the concepts of "good" and "evil" are part of morality itself, you cannot simply say "One must be good and not evil" is a cultural moral standard. It isn't a standard at all. A standard is something which people can either class as "good" or "evil".

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.

It hardly ends the discussion, I can reason with him and get him to change his moral attitudes. This is how we rehabilitate people in prison. I doubt very much that a prisoner would be rehabilitated if you just told them over and over again that "You know this was wrong". You have to actually show someone how it is wrong in order to rehabilitate people. You have to reason with them.

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

And how do you know that your creator is the right one to be obeyed? There are an infinite number of possible creators, so how do you know you are following the correct one? I hold that you cannot know for sure, and thus you cannot impose any "commandment" since it may be completely incorrect.

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.

Wow. So you can't think of any arguments that could change my mind, or change my morality? I honestly feel pity for you.

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

Yet you cannot think of any other arguments that would convince me? Shame.

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.

You do realise that opinions can change? That chocolate ice-cream is tastier than vanilla is a fact to me (by my senses) and so not an opinion. However my opinion on abortion is only set in my mind, and is not based on my senses, so I don't see how you could not change my mind.

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

Irrelavent. I was talking about the state of the world in general, nothing to do with race. If we had exterminated all the Jews and black people, how do you know the world wouldn't be a better place to live? You don't. Hitler evidently thought so, and maybe if he'd won we would be talking about him as a hero rather than a villain. This is the point of relative morality. Nobody is correct, nobody is incorrect, but the majority morality always holds.

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.

Assumption, and bad logic. If trans-cultural morality or absolute morality existed, we would all know it, and we would all have the same morality. Your only answer to this is "rejection of a creator" which is a baseless assertion.

I'm not cool with that possibility at all. But if it had happened, I wouldn't know any different would I? Try and think about these things 4th dimensionally (or 5th, whatever) for a while.

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

I'm pretty sure he'd be glad that the majority morality was against Hitler, and acted against him. Don't you?

Let me see if I follow your argument

You didn't.

1. The universe is objectively purposeless.
2. We are part of the universe, therefore we have no objective purpose.
3. Other individuals place a subjective purpose on me.
4. Therefore I have a subjective purpose.

Subjective purpose exists soley in the mind (beauty is in the eye of the beholder). To have a subjective purpose doesn't require the universe to have an objective purpose, but for an entity within that universe to place a subjective purpose on something.

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.

Your point was that there was some kind of link between atheism and evolution. I agree there is a relationship, but since it is not causal I fail to see the relavance of any such link. One could link theism with Hitler in the same way, or X with Y (where X is anything and Y is anything). A link doesn't prove anything.

Of course I am! See the above syllogism.

Arguing with sematics gets you nowhere, so you shouldn't be proud of it.

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

If there is no distinction there wouldn't be separate definitions. A subjective purpose is created, an objective purpose already exists. A subjective purpose is in itself objectively purposeless, but that doesn't stop it from being a purpose that someone has created for something.

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.

The reasoning is only irrational if you don't understand the different between objective and subjective purposes.

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

Objectively purposeless purposes are still purposes if they are subjective.

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.

Oh come on now, my asking why I should believe was directed at the belief itself (that god endorses slavery and created our moral law), not the fact that people believe it. You are just messing around now.

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.

Well since it's clear that you will never understand the words, I see no point in continuing it. I'll clear my dizzy head of all the circular arguments you made!

Anyway, I'm going to wrap up now. It takes me a good hour to write these responses since the conversation has gone completely off track to cover everything under the sun. It's been good talking to you though.