Moral Nihilism

[Edwardo Piet]

The universe doesn't care if all the homo sapiens kill each other, why should you or I?

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

Empathy? Human feelings?

Sorry - I had to pick this one out.

EvF

[Giff]

And? It says nothing about not killing being "in our backbone" which is my only point of disagreement with you.

Psychopaths, which lack empathy, have no problem killing people. They don't feel bad about it and don't see it something wrong. This what probably everybody would if moral is made up by society. The no one naturally would feel it to be wrong to kill someone wihtout any reason.

Firstly so what? And secondly who are you to decide what people do and don't find tasty?

Right, I can't decide whats tasty or not. But I still you wouldn't eat another person and not concider to do that. Personally just the thought is discusting. Naturally so. We also dislike certain things natrually to avod poiseness things. That's why we think the thought of eating another person to be discusting, not because it's posiness but because it's something that would be a dissadvantage to our species. Like many other instincts tells us.

Cannabalism is just practised within diffrent religion which are jsutifieng it. Or by insantiy and during severe starvation.

As previously stated, I don't agree and I think you'll be hard pressed to find anything more than opinion to back that up.

Check above. Cannbalism have been studied and show that it's no occuring as something that's natural. Except the reasons I mentioned.

You do. I do. You and I no doubt know of many others who do but that by no means supports your assertion because we are of similar cultures, modern, western cultures and that assertion, whilst seemingly reasonable to you, may not transcend the barriers of time and civilisation.

Not because of cultural things but because of emotions. Emtions are not something is easily manipulated. Also emphaty is something that we have and are fact that make us feel bad seeing other people suffer. As I said those who lack empathy don't feel bad seeing other suffer but those who have do.

Again so what? It may be true, it may not be true but it doesn't support your assertion that we have an inbuilt need to avoid killing children.

Maybe not this example. But by looking at animals do they not kill children, except predators who hunt other's children. BUt that have to do with what is an advantage and what's not.

Also by looking at our closely relatives the monkeys can we see that they take care of their children. That in itself isnt' strange, but if a childs parents dies to the other take care of it. Some animals don't do these things and instead let them die.

Since humans are cloesly related to monkeys can we make the assertion that we do the same, since we also is doing that.

Also looking back in the hisory of man have such thing always occured. If we hadn't felt that it was wrong killing children, then the early man wouldn't help children without parents and so on.

You can call it what you like Giff but your wish and/or belief that it is so does not make it so. Humans are animals with brains, we are capable of great beauty, great achievements, great love and so on but by the same token we are also capable of great "evil", appalling acts of inhumanity and brutality which (to me) clearly indicate that we are nothing special in whatever great scheme of things there might be. Maybe religion is involved, maybe it isn't but as Dawkins said "Good people do good things, bad people do bad things but it takes religion to make good people do bad things" ... I would later that from religion to ideology and I would further add that religions/ideologies CAN make bad people do good things. But then again who decides what is good and what is bad?

AS you say what is god and what is bad? It's nothing society can decide always, often are they violationg themselves, it was what humans decide by what they naturally feel. Without that wouldn't the society have anything to base their moral view which the society would have.

If soceity alone where making up moral then people wouldn't be able to tell if it right or wrong. A society like the nazis who make up moral that they thing is good for the function of the society is not lasting because people can tell that it is wrong and not amoral that they want to follow.

Some don't and in some cases I would support them.

Clearify that.

Which is all very well but it DOES NOT prove we have any inbuilt moral concepts, it simply demonstrates that we will act in some very self-sacrificing ways ... why has yet to be established.

As you sakd before we are animlas with brains. Or atleast hihly evolved brains. I agree with that. We have emtions that control us, we have part of our brains whos function is feeling empathy.

I said it before those who lack these parts, or atleast are underdeveloped, will be crule and not tell the diffrence between right and wrong. Also lacking conscience and don't having a moral. They can't understand why a person is sad, or have very hard understanding it, and don't feel bad about killing someone.

And again it DOES NOT prove that morals are built in and not learned.

Many moral values are learned. Like stealing for an example. If we wouldn't allready feel that a certain thing like killing or hurting someone allready is wrong then it wouldn't matter if the society says it wrong. We would do it anyway.

Sigh! Marvellous! Peachy! Very nice! Moving and whatever else but none of that proves that we have any kind of built in moral conscience.

But it does show that some animals do help other, even outside of their own species. It's an emtional impulse that they get.

It's like we think that puppies are cute or that small things are cute. It's becuase they have the same proportion as a baby, our brain give us thereofre the impulse to think such thing are cute. That's because we should think babies are adoble and not throwing them to a wolf if they gets to annoying.

A women don't really have any feelings for her baby the first time, that's because she shall not get to emtionally involved and like that child to much. The reason is that most children died during the birth or a short time after. So to like them in the beginning would make tough to accept their death. But after a time those the women love her child, very much and seemingly overprotective, which is a natural thing to protect it.

To protect children is something that is built in to help them survive. That's our great advantage as humans. We have very many who suvive which make us grow. It shows amongst monkeys, humans and so on.

The mantis it's there own if they don't get away quickly enough. Which is advange for them because then they get rid of the weak. Which are very importent for mantis as a spieces to only have the strongest. Also the female eats the male mantis while mating, which is advantage becuase the female get's food and get's to mate at the same time.

[Charles]

Kyuuketsuki wrote:

That's not what I said, I said that atheism says nothing about anyone except that (that person) does not believe in current (or past) claims to the existence of gods ... it's nothing but a label, no philosophy! This isn't rocket science you know and I'm sure even you are capable of understanding the idea.

That's exactly what you said since I quoted you, now you're backpedaling. This isn't rocket science you know.

No they don't, they tend to take the assumptive position that there is no god unless there is evidence to support the claim and it is YOU and your cronies that are making the claim, the extraordinary claim therefore it is YOU and your cronies that need to provide the evidence.

Ad hominem is the tactic employed by one who can't reason his way thru a discussion.

I have every right because morality is a system of ethics, ethics are social and it is against a given culture's ethical/moral systems that we evaluate out behaviour and that of others. Obviously that also means I do not believe in evil or in absolute wrong or right but it doesn't stop me finding the behaviour of some individuals either morally uplifting or morally repugnant.

But your warrant for making moral judgments is mere emotivism or societal convention, both of which are fungible. You cannot obligate anyone beyond yourself or those who agree with you to affirm that mass murder is immoral. The whole basis for the Nuremberg Trials is thus eliminated. Did we not have the moral right to try Nazi war criminals (even though their personal moral compass and that of their society's dictated that their actions were acceptable) by appealing to transcendent moral standards like Crimes Against Humanity?

[Giff]

Ethics is a teaching of moral, which a soceity have. Moral is you personal view of right and wrong, which can be affected of what the ethics of the society is.

People feel an intinct that it's wrong to kill another human. We feel an instinct that it's wrong when children get abused and so on.

Other ethics that we should not do crminal things like donwloading music for free at pirate bay and such. If our intincts and emotions don't match what ethics the society have, then that ethic will change or not work. The nazis didn't work because of that. Soviet didn't last and other similar societies.

Alla people have the same basic moral principles. Then it can have alot of variations. In some its ethical wrong if people don't wear cloths on there upper bodies, in other's is it natural for them. In some is it ethical wrong with a man having a lot of wifes, in some is it not.

But all have the same principle that killing another innocent human being, is wrong and punishble. Also children and women in nearly all cultures need to be protected. It's a natural instinct that we have.

You are right Kyu that ethics is created by society, and most are based on what till make the society work. But many fundamental are based on what we allready know is right and wrong. That's why we have empathy, which can't be taught. But some moral values things are taught by your parents and the society.

If it involves something that can hurt or affect another human in a negative way then we will feel that such thing is wrong, because of our empathy. But downloading music which don't effect someone in that way, must be taught to be morally wrong and so on.

Like I said we are not a bunch of psycopaths. Soceity don't need to tells us that raping someone wil probably be traumatic for that person. A person with a normal brain and empathy will understand that allready.

To say ethics and moral is just an invention is therefore false. Even though it in some ways are right.

[Sam]

But your warrant for making moral judgments is mere emotivism or societal convention, both of which are fungible. You cannot obligate anyone beyond yourself or those who agree with you to affirm that mass murder is immoral. The whole basis for the Nuremberg Trials is thus eliminated. Did we not have the moral right to try Nazi war criminals (even though their personal moral compass and that of their society's dictated that their actions were acceptable) by appealing to transcendent moral standards like Crimes Against Humanity?

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 ...

First you arrived here and asserted (without any supporting logic, let alone evidence) that atheists are all nihilists with no right to have an opinion on moral matter 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 b) suggest that without religion you would have no self control whatsoever.

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.

Sam

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

You do not need absolute morals to be moral - in fact, what if you believe in absolute morals but those morals are actually flawed and mistaken, not correct? 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.

But there are no evidence for absolutes anyway, and I don't think I'd want there to be - I think the freedom is important...

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

EvF

[g-mark]

I will agree with Giff. Morals are learn't, but they are also built into our genes. Also, they have developed during the evolution of the species, and will continue to do so.

There is now a new intelligence that is being discussed by psychologists and involves this subject. The intelligence is called 'Emotional Intelligence' or EI. Some can understand the concept of morals better than others.

[Edwardo Piet]

Hmmm, I dunno if it's accurate at all, but I did a test for that, EI...EQ instead of IQ...

And I got really high, 138 - higher than my mum I believe who was 129 or something.

I bet my Mum's IQ is a lot higher tho...think it's higher than my Dad's and his is 154 (one lower than Adrians I believe?).

My EQ I think is higher than my IQ...but then I dunno if the test was accurate or if I got lucky or whatever.

It's about being in-tune with others' emotions....but it's ALSO about being in-tune with your OWN I believe, and being aware of your own feelings etc - rather than repressing them all and being ignorant of your fears and desires etc; and postponing them for later, etc, etc.

EvF

P.S: It was on some website I forget the name of...oh - just rememberd just now...I think it's tickle.com - so I have no idea if it is accurate at all or not - but you could get a more detailed and accurate one if you paid money, and get print outs - so I would hope it's not a complete waste of time.

[Giff]

It's about being in-tune with others' emotions....but it's ALSO about being in-tune with your OWN I believe, and being aware of your own feelings etc - rather than repressing them all and being ignorant of your fears and desires etc; and postponing them for later, etc, etc.

In my culture do we keep most of our feelings ot ourselves. Specially men, like me. We are not suppose to show emotions in public, in general. Happiness and anger is allowed, but in a control manner. Someone who shut in happniess to people give weird looks and so on.

Ignorance of your own fear is someting that also is quite common. Of do people not express them or show it, since it can interputated that the person is weak.

Crying something a man shouldn't do. I have acctually not done that myself in avery long time and never when someone could see.

So many wouldn't score so good on such test, atleast not from here.

[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?