Is There a Point To Living a Moral Life?

[FallentoReason]

Ahem... nihilism is self-defeating. Even the most fervent nihilist has found meaning in their life: telling others that life has no meaning.

[FlyingNarwhal]

Ahem... nihilism is self-defeating. Even the most fervent nihilist has found meaning in their life: telling others that life has no meaning.

Life has no meaning.

[FallentoReason]

Ahem... nihilism is self-defeating. Even the most fervent nihilist has found meaning in their life: telling others that life has no meaning.

Life has no meaning.

...is the meaning your existence has taken.

[Jackalope]

Ahem... nihilism is self-defeating. Even the most fervent nihilist has found meaning in their life: telling others that life has no meaning.

How about the least fervent? Those who don't tell others that life has no intrisic meaning?

Checkmate, Deist!

[max-greece]

How about the thing called "conscience"?

As a by-product of evolution conscience would be no different than any other animal’s instinctual behavior, like bird migration. If conscience is an accidental feature of our species then it is not a reliable guide for ethical behavior.

To avoid the equivocation between conscience and instinct, you need not consider conscience an evolved instinct, per se, even if the means by which it appeared is evolutionary. You could say that it is a product of Man’s capacity to reason. This affords various solutions like enlightened self-interest, tit-for-tat, the “golden rule”, social contract theory, etc.
The problem is that you have started a regress that needs a termination point. By making reason the evolutionary by-product from which conscience gets its force, you must likewise explain how reason, itself being an accidental feature is reliable. First, you could say that the efficacy of reason is axiomatic. While I agree this presupposition is needed, the fact that you can reason at all is itself in need of an explanation. The required explanation forces the regress further back into the deeper prior causes.

The efficacy of reason presupposes that you live in a world with inherit rational order. This appears to be the case. Now either the rational order of the world is essential, a brute fact, or it is accidental, a contingent feature. In my estimation, the four fundamental forces and handful of known constants have all the characteristics of accidental attributes. First you can imagine a world with more or fewer forces and one in which the constants have different values, or even change within this universe. Second, even if the universe did indeed come “out of nothing” on its own, then so also must its physical laws come with it “out of nothing.” In this scenario, the secular response to “out of nothing, nothing comes” amounts to “out of absurdity, something comes.” Any morality that, at root, derives from absurdity is really no morality at all.
So the de-nihilists, atheists who deny that they are nihilists, must, if they are to be taken seriously, show that their favored ethical system is ultimately supported by something other than pure chance.

Kind of ambitious here aren't we?

It would appear that what you are looking for is a link from the formation of the universe to our morality. That's quite an ask with so many unknowns in the way isn't it?

Further, to take a pap phrase like "Out of nothing, comes nothing," and then attempt to apply that to such unintelligible fields as the Quantum Universe is simplistic to say the least.

Having established, therefore, that the request is ludicrous we come to the point of the piece:

"So the de-nihilists, atheists who deny that they are nihilists, must, if they are to be taken seriously, show that their favored ethical system is ultimately supported by something other than pure chance."

No. Here you are assuming that morality is absolute- the only logical conclusion from the formation of the universe, which is not what de-nihilists have to argue at all. Moral relativists merely have to show that there are, potentially biological benefits to their position - and even that would be tenuous.

If we look at the flipside - a theist view of the universe - morality is based upon the concept of a good God. The only evidence we have that God is good is what he tells us.

Therefore:

"So the theists who deny that they are nihilists, must, if they are to be taken seriously, prove that their favoured ethical system is ultimately supported by a good God.

[FallentoReason]

Ahem... nihilism is self-defeating. Even the most fervent nihilist has found meaning in their life: telling others that life has no meaning.

How about the least fervent? Those who don't tell others that life has no intrisic meaning?

Checkmate, Deist!

Their short-lived interest in metaphysics that led them to that conclusion is still a stain they can't remove from their allegedly empty lives
Conclusion: nihilism is for the brain-dead!

And I was a Deist at the start of the year. I left that bandwagon after getting bored of a god that doesn't like having fun with humans :/

[genkaus]

I haven't really participated in this thread because I don't expect any deep insights here - but what the hell. Let's jump in anyway.

Given the natural cynicism and nastiness of Atheists [here] in general... is there any reason to live a "Moral" life?

Sure there is. Without the right moral code, living a happy and fulfilling life is not possible.

"Moral", in terms of [Good, Honest] deemed by traditions through time.

You mean religious traditions through time? Yeah, I don't buy that morality.

Maybe to include a few slightly general commandments: Lies, stealing, adultery, etc.

I don't accept moral commandments either.

I mean... if there is no one or nothing to [say you are wrong, but you] about; a little swing w/ your buddies wife, or that $10 the acne faced kid gave you extra w/ your change at the Walmart; or telling your wife you were out w/ your buddy instead of his wife... How do you keep it in check? Or do you?

By using my conscience. Which is determined by my worldview and belief system.

What do you have to answer to? Is there a point to living any kind of "honest" life?

To yourself. With the point being all the emotional rewards.

As an observation as a Christian... Your words are pretty mean spirited to any religious. And I've witnessed a lot of hate here. Maybe you feel you have that right?

We do.

But also people are individuals, and deserve at least to be heard for their ideas, and concepts relating to just about anything.... religious or otherwise.

No, you don't. Nobody deserves to be heard just because they happen to have ideas. Hearing someone out is a courtesy extended - don't confuse it with something you deserve.

---

Why should you lead a moral life? Because you fear jail? Being Raped in prison? Those are my reasons.

Typically Christian of you.

---

People get away with it all the time.

Not if there is a just God. Which is the whole point of the thread in case you missed it.

So, I guess you don't buy into the whole forgiveness and mercy schtick that Christians peddle?

[Jackalope]

How about the least fervent? Those who don't tell others that life has no intrisic meaning?

Their short-lived interest in metaphysics that led them to that conclusion is still a stain they can't remove from their allegedly empty lives

I'm not a nihilist (or am I? Beats me.), but I do play one on TV.

Perhaps you're aware that there a many forms of nihilism (metaphysical, moral, epistemological, ontological, metaphysical, etc). I'm not sure I'd want to try arguing that any were necessarily self-refuting - because they all depend on an *objective* source of intrinsic meaning / morality / knowledge / reality.

Also note that one can take a nihistic view (say, an existential one) without necessarily taking such a metaphysical position.

You'll have to forgive me if I'm reading too deeply between the lines - I've had a bit to drink and may be babbling.



It's that "objective" qualifier that buggers up the works.

[MindForgedManacle]

I don't think a nihilist would say that the purpose of their life is to to tell people there is no such thing. At best, that'd be something they are affirming is true.

[FallentoReason]

Their short-lived interest in metaphysics that led them to that conclusion is still a stain they can't remove from their allegedly empty lives

I'm not a nihilist (or am I? Beats me.), but I do play one on TV.

Perhaps you're aware that there a many forms of nihilism (metaphysical, moral, epistemological, ontological, metaphysical, etc). I'm not sure I'd want to try arguing that any were necessarily self-refuting - because they all depend on an *objective* source of intrinsic meaning / morality / knowledge / reality.

Also note that one can take a nihistic view (say, an existential one) without necessarily taking such a metaphysical position.

You'll have to forgive me if I'm reading too deeply between the lines - I've had a bit to drink and may be babbling.



It's that "objective" qualifier that buggers up the works.

Hah, touché. I mainly just had the "life has no meaning" crowd in mind. To me "nihilism" is synonymous with that sentence, which is obviously a stupid connection to make. I guess it's due to my lack of understanding of the word "nihilism" itself. It's not something I've heavily looked into clearly.

---

I don't think a nihilist would say that the purpose of their life is to to tell people there is no such thing. At best, that'd be something they are affirming is true.

And thus, meaning was born; they are on this earth to carry that one belief around with them.

Bottom line is that whatever you have committed to believing/being *is* the meaning that your life has taken on. For a painter, mechanic and astronaut it's a rather trivial realisation, but for the nihilist...