Moral Nihilism

[Ancient Aliens]

Most people I encounter on the forum, such as SignifierOne and XIII, who rightly assume that atheism leads to moral skepticism, or the atheists who debate with them, refer to moral nihilism in a pejorative manner. My question is why? Do people understand what it means to be a moral nihilst? Is there some sort of misconception about moral nihilsts? Is there a some sort of general impression that we are all amoralists?

Please enlighten me as to the situation, so that I can address whatever misconceptions are out there.

[Hilarion]

Most people I encounter on the forum (particularly people such as SignifierOne and XIII, who rightly assume that atheism leads to moral skepticism) refer to moral nihilism in a pejorative manner. My question is why? Do people understand what it means to be a moral nihilst? Is there some sort of misconception about moral nihilsts? Is there a some sort of general impression that we are all amoralists?

Please enlighten me as to the situation, so that I can address whatever misconceptions are out there.

How about you give your definition of what it means to be a moral nihilist, then we can go from there.

[Ancient Aliens]

How about you give your definition of what it means to be a moral nihilist, then we can go from there.

Specifically it means one has come to the realization that morals are both abstract and subjective in nature.

[Hilarion]

Specifically it means one has come to the realization that morals are both abstract and subjective in nature.

If you believe in subjective morals, you're probably confusing it with moral relativism.

[Ancient Aliens]

If you believe in subjective morals, you're probably confusing it with moral relativism.

Let me clarify: I believe that morals are both meaningless and abstract, and this is the essence of moral nihilism.

[Claudius Gothicus]

On nietzschean terms nihilism is one of humanity's greatest dangers... it drives us away from belief in reality and leads us to think in a world separated from real experience. Christianity, Positivism and Dialectical Materialism would all fall within the category of Nihilism according to him, and he's kinda right.

[Lysimachos11]

"Moral nihilism is the belief that there aren't any actually "true" morals, and that no morals really "matter" in some ultimate sense."

Wouldn't the basis of morality found in every living thing be "mature and reproduce", which is a very basic ethical standard? It cannot not matter what you do in life or how you live it, cause you have an obligation at least towards yourself. People not reproducing are failing their basic mission in life. Or does morality necessarily involve interaction with others?

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

There is nothing wrong in a strictly personal belief in ultimate moral meaninglesness.

[Denny Crane!]

Well it becomes heated with me because it is an argument from ignorance when people assume that I as an atheist automatically become a moral nihilist. I am an atheist and somewhat aligned with buddhist thought which means I believe in objective morality but one that I find more appealing philosophically than Christian morality which runs into logical holes as far as I am concerned.

So the annoyance if you could call it that stems from there because I view it as an ethnocentric conceited position though I have to admit I haven't been rushing to explain it myself as no one has expressed genuine curiosity in it so I tend to keep schtum.

[SigniferOne]

Moral nihilism is not the same thing as existential nihilism of Nietzche.

Moral nihilism is the belief that there aren't any actually "true" morals, and that no morals really "matter" in some ultimate sense. What this translates to, at best, is following the morals of the larger society in order to pursue one's base desires -- a Machiavellian Prince is the best ideal of this. It all doesn't matter, and nothing is true anyway, so who has the right to tell me what's right and wrong? I will comply with the worthless and meaningless morals of the society around me, on an external level, to get what I want. And what I want doesn't have to be defined or bounded by the worthless and meaningless morals of said society.

That's at best.

At worst, it becomes living as a psychopath, refusing to follow those "unsubstantiated" morals, doing what you want without externally conforming to these fake morals of the outside society.

SignifierOne and XIII rightly assume that atheism leads to moral skepticism

Thanks.

[Jack04]

At worst, it becomes living as a psychopath, refusing to follow those "unsubstantiated" morals, doing what you want without externally conforming to these fake morals of the outside society.

Equally, to posit a hypothetical situation regarding objective morality. We have discussed on here that the source of reference for objective morality for Christianity (for example) is not the Bible, correct (by which I mean, the Bible is not entirely correct/complete in its moral dictation)? That is, morality has developed since Biblical times into something rather different from the accepted morality of the age (which was that largely posited in the Bible). I believe we're in agreement on this fact (please do correct me if I'm wrong).

If this is the case (which, in order to justified the development of Christian morality since the Bible's conception, it must be), what is to stop our psychopath from stating that his "morality" is that objective morality? After all, even if God defines what is good and what is not, it still remains up to the individual to interpret whether his actions are in agreement with God's ideals, correct? Our psychopath is still convinced that his actions are not wrong (actually, more worryingly, he may be convinced they are objectively right), it is just that he believes that he is basing those actions on an objective morality, as opposed to ignoring morality because it does not exist in an objective sense.

As long as the objective morality is not directly dictated to society, individuals will still be open to their own interpretations of that objective morality. Psychopaths will still be psychopaths, princes will still act as they please (through, perhaps, their interpretation of their divine right to provide insight into some "objective" morality). Nothing changes. As long as the objective morality remains undefined, it is no stronger than a subjective morality.

If I have misinterpreted your previous comments on the source of Christian morality being the Bible, please feel free to correct me (I do seem to remember that is what you said, however).

Edit: Though the alternative is to assume that the Bible (or your religious text of choice) got everything correct, which (at the very least) stifles any potential moral debate.

Edit 2: I should clarify also that I am not arguing that an objective morality is worse (or better) than a subjective morality. I am simply arguing that the choice between the two makes absolutely no difference to an individual's actions. People (your psychopath or your prince) will manage to morally justify their actions whether they think there's an objective morality or not.

Edit 3 (): So, effectively, I propose the following options for an individual's interpretation of an objective morality:
a) The individual takes all morals from a religious (or otherwise) text (prevents moral debates).
b) The individual takes morals from religious concensus (no better than subjective morality).
c) The individual takes morals from individual "exchanges" with moral arbiter (in which case, what is to prevent the individual's morality being misguided by misinterpretation of such exchanges (bearing in mind that your example dealt with a psychopath)?).
d) The individual believes objective morality cannot be known (in which case, what is the point in morality? May as well be nihilist).

If you feel there is another option, please feel free to point it out.

[Ancient Aliens]

Moral nihilism is not the same thing as existential nihilism of Nietzche.

Agreed, but you are associating moral nihilism and existential nihilism in your next topic, I will embolden it:

Moral nihilism is the belief that there aren't any actually "true" morals, and that no morals really "matter" in some ultimate sense. What this translates to, at best, is following the morals of the larger society in order to pursue one's base desires -- a Machiavellian Prince is the best ideal of this. It all doesn't matter, and nothing is true anyway, so who has the right to tell me what's right and wrong? I will comply with the worthless and meaningless morals of the society around me, on an external level, to get what I want. And what I want doesn't have to be defined or bounded by the worthless and meaningless morals of said society.

Yes, moral nihilism specifically impies that morals and ethics are false. You are implying here, though, that moral nihilists believe that nothing is objective. This is false, and is existential nihilism. Existential nihilism implies moral nihilism (because it implies that existence is meaningless), but the transverse is not true.

At worst, it becomes living as a psychopath, refusing to follow those "unsubstantiated" morals, doing what you want without externally conforming to these fake morals of the outside society.

You mean one would become an amoralist. A person with an antisocial personality disorder is very different from someone who chooses to live without morals.

Thanks.

It is a point that both you and I agree on. The real question then becomes, what are the implications of moral skepticism?

[SigniferOne]

Agreed, but you are associating moral nihilism and existential nihilism in your next topic

If even doing the right thing is fictitious/doesn't matter anymore, it's hard to see how anything else would.

The real question then becomes, what are the implications of moral skepticism?

I thought I had outlined it quite clearly before:

In the best case, it creates an amoral creature that pursues its base animal ends, a Machiavellian prince, who because he is amoral, becomes immoral (though externally still conforming to the norms of society to avoid punishment).

And in the worst case, it is a person who refuses to put on a fake front and conform to the norms of society. It is a person who defecates on the street when he wants to, who kills whomever he wants to, and in short order becomes a psychopath.

[The spartan]

I thought I had outlined it quite clearly before:

In the best case, it creates an amoral creature that pursues its base animal ends, a Machiavellian prince, who because he is amoral, becomes immoral (though externally still conforming to the norms of society to avoid punishment).

And in the worst case, it is a person who refuses to put on a fake front and conform to the norms of society. It is a person who defecates on the street when he wants to, who kills whomever he wants to, and in short order becomes a psychopath.

I would think it takes a large amount of simple-mindedness to require a divine being to avoid being a nihilist. There is plenty of "legacy" motivation around; such as securing a good environment for your children, or a strong duty to the success of the human race. All it takes is the knowledge that what you do will matter (even if it isn't to you) even after you die.

[SigniferOne]

I would think it takes a large amount of simple-mindedness

Nice little ad hominem. Why not mix a little misplaced faux-intellectual superiority into the conversation? If Christianity required simple-mindedness and if a little thinking would solve all these problems, then atheists would already long-replace all of the intellectual fruits produced by Christianity. They haven't, and seemingly won't.

to require a divine being to avoid being a nihilist.

Like I said, no replacement for the Christian system has been found. The typical challenger asks "why can't it be done? Watch me do it!" and then ends up not succeeding.

moral skepticism as I've seen it defined does not necessarily make for amorality, so your "best case" doesn't really hold. It merely means that you question moral norms instead of blithely abiding by them, not that you reject them outright.

You misunderstand what subjective means.

Subjective does not mean "free thinking and independent-minded". Objective does not mean "dogmatic and unthinking".

I am not quite sure that I see sociopathic behaviour as being all that wrong or counterproductive. People already attend to their own self interests; most laws, morals, and ethics are based around this simple truth.

Morals and ethics are based on each person attending to his own self-interest? If I'm understanding what you say properly here, then surely this shows, if nothing else does, that you haven't looked too long into morals and ethics.

If everyone was a "moral sociopath" as you claim, would people really be less productive than they are now?

You mean if people laughed at all norms of morality, decency and propriety, followed them only in cases where it preserved them from punishment, that's a productive and "normal" society for you?

[Jack04]

I thought I had outlined it quite clearly before:

In the best case, it creates an amoral creature that pursues its base animal ends, a Machiavellian prince, who because he is amoral, becomes immoral (though externally still conforming to the norms of society to avoid punishment).

And in the worst case, it is a person who refuses to put on a fake front and conform to the norms of society. It is a person who defecates on the street when he wants to, who kills whomever he wants to, and in short order becomes a psychopath.

Firstly, as a I raised earlier, I don't see how these (extreme) consequences differ from a subjectively viewed objective moral system.

Secondly, moral skepticism as I've seen it defined does not necessarily make for amorality, so your "best case" doesn't really hold. It merely means that you question moral norms instead of blithely abiding by them, not that you reject them outright. I, for example, consider slavery to be wrong, not because that is the nature of the moral truth, but because I have considered its implications to other individuals. I still hold a moral position, I just do not think that that moral position should be accepted without question.

[XIII]

Firstly, as a I raised earlier, I don't see how these (extreme) consequences differ from a subjectively viewed objective moral system.

It wouldn't because that's what we're claiming. A moral system based upon a presupposition that our subjective moral intuitions are reliable and thus able to reliably perceive a realm of objective moral values and duties that should be believed rather than disbelieved in the absence of a defeater.

Don't backpedal now. You weren't arguing for this, we were. What you were arguing for was that the moral values and duties were subjective full-stop.

Secondly, moral skepticism as I've seen it defined does not necessarily make for amorality, so your "best case" doesn't really hold. It merely means that you question moral norms instead of blithely abiding by them, not that you reject them outright. I, for example, consider slavery to be wrong, not because that is the nature of the moral truth, but because I have considered its implications to other individuals. I still hold a moral position, I just do not think that that moral position should be accepted without question.

You didn't just question moral norms, you threw them out. You completely rejected the existence of any sort of objectivity when it comes to moral norms. Interestingly, you consider slavery to be wrong. If I may ask why?

[Ancient Aliens]

Sorry, I just took notice of your post.

And in the worst case, it is a person who refuses to put on a fake front and conform to the norms of society. It is a person who defecates on the street when he wants to, who kills whomever he wants to, and in short order becomes a psychopath.

I am not quite sure that I see sociopathic behaviour as being all that wrong or counterproductive. People already attend to their own self interests; most laws, morals, and ethics are based around this simple truth. If everyone was a "moral sociopath" as you claim, would people really be less productive than they are now? Would human society really be any less functional? I am not so sure that it would.

Still, I think it's certainly possible to create a system of morals without any kind of god. Obviously the greater good of society would be an important aspect of those norms but there should also be values that are above "mob rule". What I mean is, things like freedom of speech, dignity of the individual, right to privacy etc. should exist regardless of what some people think of them. Therefore, they need to be codified in some sort of constitution or basic law (such as the German Grundgesetz) and altering or removing them should be next to impossible.

I agree that it is possible. Morals and ethics don't have to be based on objectivity, and I (and many others) would go so far as to say that none truly are based on objectivity.

Personally, I would like to see morals and ethics extend beyond "the good of society": I would like to see morals and ethics be developed for the betterment of humanity as a whole. This is why I am so opposed to utilitarianism, time and time again the gain of the individual has allowed humanity to progress where the gain of the collective society did not.

[Claudius Gothicus]

I am not quite sure that I see sociopathic behaviour as being all that wrong or counterproductive. People already attend to their own self interests; most laws, morals, and ethics are based around this simple truth. If everyone was a "moral sociopath" as you claim, would people really be less productive than they are now? Would human society really be any less functional? I am not so sure that it would.

Well, this is more of a Sociological Inquiry than a Moral one.

Yes, societies and communities can endure several dysfunctional behaviors. In fact, modern societies have large reserves from where to draw when a particularly behaviors becomes widespread and is at the same time dysfunctional. The problem is a society that allows for the continued reproduction of said behaviors will be risking herself to enter a Vicious Spiral.

I'll give you Buenos Aires case. Back in 2001/02 we where as a a country in the verge of collapse, in a situation that's very similar to that of now days Spain and Greece.

In said social context(economic depression, reduction of GDP, 25% unemployment rates, no governmental answers, political dispersion and paralysis, rampant disbelief in politicians due to corruption) a new form of social expression ''protest'' emerged, ''El piquete''. Basically a bunch of unemployed suburban low class with no real answers to their crescent problems that stationed themselves in the middle of Vital Buenos Aires traffic arteries and stopped traffic for hours. The country was in a chaotic state and piquetes were so widespread and politicians lacked so much legitimacy that after the first 2 or 3 resulted in deaths and injured the new official policy became that of ''not repressing social protests''. The direct consequence was obvious, everyone resorted to ''piquetes'' in order to get their demands fulfilled(which were a lot taking into account how deep in the we were).

By 2004/05 things had improved significantly, unemployment had gone down from 25% to 10% and real salaries were starting to grow again. But the ''piquete'' still existed, of course there were like 3.5 million Argentinians without a job and a lot of poverty issues had not been answered(and persist until our days) and of course the main policy continued to be ''not repressing social protests''. Therefore Buenos Aires continued(and continues) to be a chaotic mess. Every Buenos Aires citizen knows that getting out of Downtown can eventually become one big Odyssey and that reaching home after 18:00 can take at least one and a half hours even by underground.

Basically there's a catalyzing effect for all of this traffic mess, a policy that's already outdated yet still persists, ''no repressing the social protest''. The problem is that nowadays we have a 7% unemployment rate(more or less) politicians have regained some legitimacy and traffic messes should be way ahead on the agenda, there's many things conditioning the persistence of the ''piquete''(and this is not a room for expanding on this issue since it would take more or less a basic history course on the Argentina of the last 15 years) a clearly dysfunctional form of protest, I mean unexpectedly cutting traffic in main arteries of the city equals a complete chaos yet governments allow these to continue. My main argument is, yeah a dysfunctional behavior(in this case a distinct form of social protest) when made widespread and extending over large periods of time can reduce the well being of individuals and society as a whole. This doesn't mean that functional sociological theory is in some way a moral standard, it's not.

this are some of the main arteries that get blocked every time a ''piquete''(usually numbering 200 to 300 very well organized persons that usually respond to political bosses) occurs.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Imagine a politically active day, complete utter chaos.

[justicar5]

Moral nihilism is not the same thing as existential nihilism of Nietzche.

Moral nihilism is the belief that there aren't any actually "true" morals, and that no morals really "matter" in some ultimate sense. What this translates to, at best, is following the morals of the larger society in order to pursue one's base desires -- a Machiavellian Prince is the best ideal of this. It all doesn't matter, and nothing is true anyway, so who has the right to tell me what's right and wrong? I will comply with the worthless and meaningless morals of the society around me, on an external level, to get what I want. And what I want doesn't have to be defined or bounded by the worthless and meaningless morals of said society.

That's at best.

At worst, it becomes living as a psychopath, refusing to follow those "unsubstantiated" morals, doing what you want without externally conforming to these fake morals of the outside society.


Thanks.

Sig: when are you going to follow new testament law and start killing children and buying slaves? Until then your own bible calls you immoral.