We should take the Moral Highground

[mediamogul]

What is the basis for nihilism absent the existence of god?

We can and do deem things as moral or immoral. The question lies in who or what serves as the ultimate standard or arbiter for determining which is which. In the absence of an ultimate standard or arbiter, each person is left on their own. The individual then becomes their own ultimate authority, each with equal claim for what is right and wrong, rational or irrational. While I could appeal to ideals like human dignity and ‘the golden rule’, another could deny both, and there would be no common thing to which either of us could point to prove the other wrong. The alternative is to assert the existence of some transcendent authority, principle or standard that applies to all individuals. Absent that true morality does not exist. No one has the ‘right’ to demand others behave in a particular way, because right do not exist. Appealing to reason is also insufficient. Saying that everyone should follow reason is just another unfounded assertion. Why should anyone be rational? This leaves power as the only ultimate authority. I call that nihilism.

That is a good basis for rational nihilism. It basically states that because there is no ultimate standard of morality that morality has no ultimate value. Each person basically "invents" their own morality and because it is an individual invention is has no inherent validity, especially when we apply this "arbitrary" morailty to others who have equal claim to a moral standard of their own.

A couple of points: First I would seperate the idea of "ethics" from the idea of individual "ethics" in practice. In reality people act upon what they believe morality/ethics to be. Ethics corresponds to what people ought to do based upon what is good or bad. Simply because people have wrong beliefs, doesn't mean that ethics itself is not valid.

Human nature and rationality can provide us with a basis for ethics external to individual wrong beliefs. Ethics based upon sentience (a being's ability to suffer) provide a standard for human conduct. Suffering is self-defined as a state that human beings seek to avoid and conversely happiness is a state that humans seek and value. Individual conceptions of happiness and suffering exist and a person is free to pursue then insofar as they do not treat another person as a means to their end (happiness), cause unwarranted suffering, or impinge upon another person's reasonable pursuit of happiness. Humans inevitably come in contact with other human beings and therefore there is the inevitability of social contact. This is where the specifics of human interaction come into play which is the source of most of the grey, indistinct feeling of many conventions. This is another conversation regarding ethics in practice but in a nutshell that is my refutation of nihilism. In my early philosophy days I wrestled with this question of values without god. I read Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor and was very convinced by the "If god does not exist then everything is allowed." argument. This was the rational response I developed after a few years of philosophy. Incidentally this is also what led me to vegetarianism. Many animals are sentient and thus afforded the protection of ethics and rights.

[Neo-Scholastic]

A couple of points: First I would seperate the idea of "ethics" from the idea of individual "ethics" in practice.

Intresting that you say that, because I think the same way. For me transcendent values serve more as a philisophical background. It is one thing to believe in an ultimate good and quite another figuring out what it is.

Human nature and rationality can provide us with a basis for ethics external to individual wrong beliefs.

In principle I agree with you. The only difference is this. I believe that aligning our selves more closely with our humanity and our rationality more completely reflects divine aspects. Genkaus and I are having a long and involved conversation about this and he's helping me to use my words more precisely. So my idea is a work in progress and not something I am yet prepared to defend in a coherent way.

Ethics based upon sentience (a being's ability to suffer) provides a standard for human conduct. Suffering is self-defined as a state that human beings seek to avoid and conversely happiness is a state that humans seek and value. Individual conceptions of happiness and suffering exist and a person is free to pursue then insofar as they do not treat another person as a means to their end (happiness), cause unwarranted suffering, or impinge upon another person's reasonable pursuit of happiness.

I do believe you are on to something. It needs to be fleshed out a bit more, but overall it's a good approach. It's the last part (about not impinging on others) that I find a bit shakey.

[mediamogul]

A couple of points: First I would seperate the idea of "ethics" from the idea of individual "ethics" in practice.

Intresting that you say that, because I think the same way. For me transcendent values serve more as a philisophical background. It is one thing to believe in an ultimate good and quite another figuring out what it is.

Human nature and rationality can provide us with a basis for ethics external to individual wrong beliefs.

In principle I agree with you. The only difference is this. I believe that aligning our selves more closely with our humanity and our rationality more completely reflects divine aspects. Genkaus and I are having a long and involved conversation about this and he's helping me to use my words more precisely. So my idea is a work in progress and not something I am yet prepared to defend in a coherent way.

Ethics based upon sentience (a being's ability to suffer) provides a standard for human conduct. Suffering is self-defined as a state that human beings seek to avoid and conversely happiness is a state that humans seek and value. Individual conceptions of happiness and suffering exist and a person is free to pursue then insofar as they do not treat another person as a means to their end (happiness), cause unwarranted suffering, or impinge upon another person's reasonable pursuit of happiness.

I do believe you are on to something. It needs to be fleshed out a bit more, but overall it's a good approach. It's the last part (about not impinging on others) that I find a bit shakey.

This is the condensed version. I wrote many a term paper during my college years in my struggle with ethics. I do see your point that one could argue that the nature of humans is a case of essence preceding existence (the inverse of existentialism) in that man's nature was preconcieved in the "mind of god" and thus by aligning our morality with human nature one is as a byproduct obeying "god's law". It's an interesting concept but not one I subscribe to because I am in the existentialist camp of thinking that existence precedes essence. Humans exist and then as a result their nature is defined. I must admit I like your line of argument MUCH more than I like the divine command theory.

Admittedly when we start talking of impinging on another's reasonable expectation of happiness is where it gets a bit more tricky. It's more like their reasonable ability to pursue happiness, as in one can never garuanty another's happiness only their right to pursue it, which is well within the scope of ethics and rights theory. This obviously must be amended in the case of those who themselves violate other's rights or cause suffering. their rights change when they do that in order for society and individuals to protect themselves from such people.

[houseofcantor]

What's a "Highground?"

The only absolute morality is zero-state, local to the individual. Any cat with half a brain cell can see that "morality" in terms of culture must be relative; considering something like a god, the ends always justify the means. Peeps don't go there because of social evolution; game playing and spin doctoring. In words, it's all a popularity contest until the unwritten line is crossed and the dictatorial standard is breached and a new paradigm moves forward with the force of inertia. That's the only way "names" such as Santorum and Perry cross my conscious worldview; carried on the wings of idiocy by the sheeple for whom thought is the undiscovered country...

But "morality" in itself is chemical intelligence - I'm sure of it, and the science is catching up - so while we may be able to dismiss the symptom, I do not feel we can ever rid ourselves of the disease. Much better, in my book, to understand what it is and how it can be made to work to the benefit of all.

And atheists always have the moral high ground, in my view. By removing the idolatry of "god," one must then base "right" upon observation and experimentation. Right becomes logic and compassionate ethics, and wrong becomes ignorance and pandering to the hive mind in thrall to idols.

[kılıç_mehmet]

I believe in the moral high ground of my ideology, for my people. Other people have other customs and traditions. They have their own moral high ground amongst themselves.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

They have their own moral high ground amongst themselves.

I believe you,most people think they moral. I think that could be called 'moral relativism'. A cynical person might call it "self serving rationalistation",something at which all human beings are expert.

[kılıç_mehmet]

They have their own moral high ground amongst themselves.

I believe you,most people think they moral. I think that could be called 'moral relativism'. A cynical person might call it "self serving rationalistation",something at which all human beings are expert.

I think this not in terms of individuals. Individuals have to obey the minimum bare moral standards of society, and may extend and stretch this only as much as society allows this.
Indeed, the extent to which these limits may be extended are different for each society.