As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Humanism vs Nihilism

zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
This is a thread about the debate between moral nihilists, who think there is no such thing as objective moral facts, and humanists, which I'm using as shorthand for people that share many metaphysical beliefs with moral nihilists but do believe in objective moral facts.
Alinius133 wrote: »
Let assume I were to renounce my faith, and embrace Atheism today. Along with rejecting my former Theism, I also reject all of the moral lessons that I learns alongside my Theism. I choose to not embrace Humanism, and land squarely among the Nihilists. I now proceed to go about my life being an amoral asshole while loudly proclaiming myself to be an Atheist. The problem is that other Atheists have no grounds to tell me I am doing it wrong, because I am, in fact, an Atheist. At best, you can say that I am not the same kind of Atheist as you.
this is pretty naff

an atheist might tell another atheist to behave differently based on moral or ethical reasoning, just as christians might do to one another. Why do you choose to embrace a nihilist framework vs. a humanist one? Let's talk about that.

I've been thinking about this for a couple days, and this seems like a really interesting conundrum. Let's assume we have two folks who are not just atheists but also naturalists, physicalists, and existential nihilists, which I think describes many members of the forum. The moral nihilist's half of the argument seems pretty straightforward:
Nihilist wrote:
I believe in the principle of parsimony: we should choose the simplest beliefs that are consistent with the available evidence. This is why I don't believe in deities or any unphysical beings: no one is able to supply me any evidence for them. Likewise, no one can supply me with any evidence of right and wrong, good and bad, or categorical imperatives. It seems to me that describing murder as wrong is no different from describing country music as bad: it's a personal preference, socially indoctrinated and dressed up as a universal claim. Moral nihilism is simpler than positing some bizarre, nonphysical, universal moral law, and I find on adopting nihilism that my belief system is still perfectly internally and externally consistent. Moreover, just as with theism, one cannot simply end with supposing that objective moral facts exist; one must then pick from a menagerie of specific moral beliefs, which vary widely with place and time and seem curiously to resemble the products of random cultural evolution.

I'm struggling with the humanist's response to this, however. In fact, the first humanist response I found while googling was really a straight-up admission that nihilism is true and humanism is hypocritical. Here's another person who describes themselves as humanist and yet seems to take moral nihilism as true.

Is there a better response possible for humanists? Can it be logically consistent to accept the nihilist's line of argument when applied to God, fairies, and immortal souls, but not to the notions of good and bad?

Account not recoverable. So long.
«13456735

Posts

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    The nihilist argument assumes parsimony is true, which, like democracy, is statistically good advice with no better alternative. However, like most assumptions, parsimony is false. There are a few situations in which simpler versions of reality can exist than the actual truth. When considering everything that happens in the universe, the concept of simplicity becomes relative as our monkey brains cannot comprehend the possibilities involved in the real high numbers that exist in the cosmic spectrum.

    Unfortunately, parsimony is probably a central tenet to the philosophy you want to keep.

    What exactly bothers you about executing someone for making a bad movie? Is it sanctity of human life? You can say, parsimoniously, that there is no reason to kill someone over something with no higher meaning, but you have to find out why it's not okay to kill them anyway if humans aren't special either. But that you should have an answer to if you're a humanist.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    No sir, nihilism is not practical.

    steam_sig.png
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    It should be pointed out that not believing in objective morals doesn't make is so you can't believe in subjective morals.



  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    The argument that moral nihilism is wrong because you don't like the conclusion is as intellectually honest as that same standard being applied to anything. Eating too much cake still makes you fat even if you don't like the fact that it does.

    Now, the solution to "Why don't moral nihilists devolve into a genocidal cannibal orgy?" is firstly that humans are psychologically / socially conditioned against such things, for the most part, and the second is that it's entirely possible to have a rigorous and selfless moral code that you don't demand is built into the very fabric of the universe as objectively true.

    If you're asking, "How can someone live their lives by a moral code that isn't objectively true?" Well, ask any religious person. There is no god, and even if there was, he doesn't care about you eating shellfish. The difference is that moral nihilists are more honest with themselves.

  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    Go with moral rationalism.

    As pointed out by Paladin, the principle of parsimony does not lead to the truth per se. While simplicity is a good practical reason to adopt a view it is not an actual truth claim. "The most simple theory that is consistent with the available evidence is true." is not the claim made.

  • Squidget0Squidget0 Registered User regular
    I think that whether you accept divine rulings or not, the concept of "murder is objectively wrong" still ends up not being very objective in practice. Most people have at least a few cases where killing another human is not seem as objectively wrong - self defense, killing soldiers in wartime, state executions, abortions, or what have you. Of course, different people end up drawing the category boundaries of murder in different places, and the whole thing ends up looking a lot like a subjective system. Two people might agree "murder is objectively wrong", but disagree over whether something is considered a murder. Ultimately they end up having the same discussion as subjective moralists would, just making it ostensibly about category disputes rather than the act itself.

    But it seems like even for an Atheist with no concept of objective morality, there are still mountains of subjective evidence that you shouldn't kill people for making bad movies. The entire history of human civilization is an object lesson on all the good things that can happen to you when you renounce certain forms of barbarism in favor of community and civilization. You don't have to believe in god to understand why people killing each other over meaningless disputes is wrong, you can just note that every society that has allowed for such things is terrible to live in, and that societies which do not allow such things tend to be massively better for everyone living there, including the would-be murderers.

    Certain ethical principles (such as charity and self-sacrifice) are a little harder to derive from purely subjective evidence. But murder seems like a pretty easy one.

  • Grey PaladinGrey Paladin Registered User regular
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    ..
    Certain ethical principles (such as charity and self-sacrifice) are a little harder to derive from purely subjective evidence. But murder seems like a pretty easy one.
    To a nihilist morality is aesthetic. Some might prefer what we would call conventionally moral behavior because they just like it more in the same way one likes blue more than red. As social animals humans have a natural tendency toward empathy (to varying degrees). Put together these two facts help explain why nihilists are not, by and large, murderous jerks.

    "All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
  • BubbyBubby Registered User regular
    edited February 2015
    Bubby was warned for this.
    Moral nihilists are fucking abhorrent assholes, since when did we have a lot of them here?

    Jacobkosh on
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Im not 100 percent sure that humanist believe in absolute moral truths.

    8. We practice our ethics in a living context rather than an ideal one. Though ethics are ideals, ideals can only serve as guidelines in life situations. This is why we oppose absolutistic moral systems that attempt to rigidly apply ideal moral values as if the world were itself ideal. We recognize that conflicts and moral dilemmas do occur and that moral choices are often difficult and cannot be derived from simplistic yardsticks and rules of thumb. Moral choices often involve hard thinking, diligent gathering of information about the situation at hand, careful consideration of immediate and future consequences, and weighing of alternatives. Living life in a manner that promotes the good, or even knowing what choices are good, isn’t always easy. So when we declare our commitment to a humanist approach to ethics, we are expressing our willingness to do the intensive thinking and work that moral living in a complex world entails.

  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    But it seems like even for an Atheist with no concept of objective morality, there are still mountains of subjective evidence that you shouldn't kill people for making bad movies. The entire history of human civilization is an object lesson on all the good things that can happen to you when you renounce certain forms of barbarism in favor of community and civilization. You don't have to believe in god to understand why people killing each other over meaningless disputes is wrong, you can just note that every society that has allowed for such things is terrible to live in, and that societies which do not allow such things tend to be massively better for everyone living there, including the would-be murderers.

    Certain ethical principles (such as charity and self-sacrifice) are a little harder to derive from purely subjective evidence. But murder seems like a pretty easy one.

    I think it's important to remember that mere intellectual agreement with moral nihilism isn't sociopathy. You can still empathize with, feel compassion for, and genuinely enjoy helping others in and of itself.

    I think Kant's idea of a universal maxim is useful. You perform charity both because it's a nice thing to do, but also because you benefit from a society in which charity is common. If everyone is charitable and community minded, then you also tend to benefit, both directly and indirectly.
    Bubby wrote: »
    Moral nihilists are fucking abhorrent assholes, since when did we have a lot of them here?

    Tell us how you really feel.

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited February 2015
    Debates about moral nihilism are, like those about its little brother relativism, kinda pointless. In that there is very little positive argument from those positions. The answer for every ethics question is either 'there is no answer' or 'it depends'.

    The truthfulness of their assertions is somewhat irrelevant because as a tool for decision making the later is nothing more than a coin flip, and the former uses an non-existent coin for the toss. It's like listening to a doctor whose only advice is 'it doesn't matter everyone dies sometime', technically true and practically useless.


    Additionally humanism is a pretty broad net, that includes philosophies that explicitly define what 'good' is. For example utilitarianism is a humanist philosophy. When making a utilitarian argument one generally doesn't account for pleasing or displeasing a god. Being constructed around a stated set of axioms doesn't undermine a philosophy in my view any more than it undermines mathematics.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    I think Kant's idea of a universal maxim is useful. You perform charity both because it's a nice thing to do, but also because you benefit from a society in which charity is common. If everyone is charitable and community minded, then you also tend to benefit, both directly and indirectly.

    Kant is explicitly a moral realist and universalist and doesn't care about the benefits or the niceness of morality. You must act moral because reason itself tells you to regardless of the consequences or your desires.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    edited February 2015
    Debates about moral nihilism are, like those about its little brother relativism, kinda pointless. In that there is very little positive argument from those positions. The answer for every ethics question is either 'there is no answer' or 'it depends'.

    The truthfulness of their assertions is somewhat irrelevant because as a tool for decision making the later is nothing more than a coin flip, and the former uses an non-existent coin for the toss. It's like listening to a doctor whose only advice is 'it doesn't matter everyone dies sometime', technically true and practically useless.


    Additionally humanism is a pretty broad net, that includes philosophies that explicitly define what 'good' is. For example utilitarianism is a humanist philosophy. When making a utilitarian argument one generally doesn't account for pleasing or displeasing a god. Being constructed around a stated set of axioms doesn't undermine a philosophy in my view any more than it undermines mathematics.

    I think that moral nihilism is useful in that it allows us to discard moral arguments that are invalid.

    Like let's say we are building a boat. I want it have one engine and you another. You say "this engine is closer to the perfect ideal of a boat".

    If I say "that concept doesn't exist" and you could say that it doesn't get us closer to a finished boat but if you let go of your idea we can start talking about the trade offs for our different ideas.

    Same with morality.

    If you let go of the idea that there is some absolute definition out there of murder we can talk about the trade offs that come with the different definitions.

    rockrnger on
  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    I think Kant's idea of a universal maxim is useful. You perform charity both because it's a nice thing to do, but also because you benefit from a society in which charity is common. If everyone is charitable and community minded, then you also tend to benefit, both directly and indirectly.

    Kant is explicitly a moral realist and universalist and doesn't care about the benefits or the niceness of morality. You must act moral because reason itself tells you to regardless of the consequences or your desires.

    Yeah, I should have connected some dots there. I think the idea of a universal maxim, or similar, but not exactly the same, golden rule approach to morality is correct because it will tend to produce better consequences than the alternatives. In a hypothetical case where nothing good would come from one's actions, either in the short or long term, I'd say there is no moral weight to said actions, whereas Kant would say you should do the right thing regardless.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    zakkiel wrote: »
    I'm struggling with the humanist's response to this, however. In fact, the first humanist response I found while googling was really a straight-up admission that nihilism is true and humanism is hypocritical. Here's another person who describes themselves as humanist and yet seems to take moral nihilism as true.

    Is there a better response possible for humanists? Can it be logically consistent to accept the nihilist's line of argument when applied to God, fairies, and immortal souls, but not to the notions of good and bad?

    @Rizichard Rizorty This is the one time when your project will help an actual human being. Do not fail him!

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    I guess by the going definition on this thread I count as a moral nihilist. I do not believe morals are anything more than a social structure we develop to keep behavior in check.

    As for why I don't eat babies, I have this little thing called empathy. I care at least a little about every living thing, especially people. I don't need right or wrong to want to help or protect others, and on occasion I've risked bodily harm for complete strangers.

    I don't actively work against morality in society because many people lack a decent sense of empathy, but it isn't necessary to be a functional or helpful member of society.

  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    I think Kant's idea of a universal maxim is useful. You perform charity both because it's a nice thing to do, but also because you benefit from a society in which charity is common. If everyone is charitable and community minded, then you also tend to benefit, both directly and indirectly.

    Kant is explicitly a moral realist and universalist and doesn't care about the benefits or the niceness of morality. You must act moral because reason itself tells you to regardless of the consequences or your desires.

    Yeah, I should have connected some dots there. I think the idea of a universal maxim, or similar, but not exactly the same, golden rule approach to morality is correct because it will tend to produce better consequences than the alternatives. In a hypothetical case where nothing good would come from one's actions, either in the short or long term, I'd say there is no moral weight to said actions, whereas Kant would say you should do the right thing regardless.

    I don't know how you could evaluate what would be 'better' or 'worse' consequences for adopting some maxim other than appealing to some further (perhaps unstated) set of moral claims which determine what consequences count as better and which count as worse.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    I think Kant's idea of a universal maxim is useful. You perform charity both because it's a nice thing to do, but also because you benefit from a society in which charity is common. If everyone is charitable and community minded, then you also tend to benefit, both directly and indirectly.

    Kant is explicitly a moral realist and universalist and doesn't care about the benefits or the niceness of morality. You must act moral because reason itself tells you to regardless of the consequences or your desires.

    Yeah, I should have connected some dots there. I think the idea of a universal maxim, or similar, but not exactly the same, golden rule approach to morality is correct because it will tend to produce better consequences than the alternatives. In a hypothetical case where nothing good would come from one's actions, either in the short or long term, I'd say there is no moral weight to said actions, whereas Kant would say you should do the right thing regardless.

    I don't know how you could evaluate what would be 'better' or 'worse' consequences for adopting some maxim other than appealing to some further (perhaps unstated) set of moral claims which determine what consequences count as better and which count as worse.
    Wouldn't that work with everything tho?

    To use the quote in the OP, wouldn't saying country music is bad require an absolute standard of good music that all music could be judged against?

  • davidsdurionsdavidsdurions Your Trusty Meatshield Panhandle NebraskaRegistered User regular
    Feel free to link some questionable music. I'll let you all know if it's good or bad.

  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited February 2015
    rockrnger wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    I think Kant's idea of a universal maxim is useful. You perform charity both because it's a nice thing to do, but also because you benefit from a society in which charity is common. If everyone is charitable and community minded, then you also tend to benefit, both directly and indirectly.

    Kant is explicitly a moral realist and universalist and doesn't care about the benefits or the niceness of morality. You must act moral because reason itself tells you to regardless of the consequences or your desires.

    Yeah, I should have connected some dots there. I think the idea of a universal maxim, or similar, but not exactly the same, golden rule approach to morality is correct because it will tend to produce better consequences than the alternatives. In a hypothetical case where nothing good would come from one's actions, either in the short or long term, I'd say there is no moral weight to said actions, whereas Kant would say you should do the right thing regardless.

    I don't know how you could evaluate what would be 'better' or 'worse' consequences for adopting some maxim other than appealing to some further (perhaps unstated) set of moral claims which determine what consequences count as better and which count as worse.
    Wouldn't that work with everything tho?

    To use the quote in the OP, wouldn't saying country music is bad require an absolute standard of good music that all music could be judged against?

    Not that I can see. I can say country music is bad, and by doing so just mean to express my own distaste for the genre. So far all fine. The problem comes when we try to say something further, that there is some standard which my disliking the genre satisfies well (and which other choices wouldn't). If such a standard exists, then what is it but the 'objective' aesthetic or moral standard we started out denying the existence of?

    MrMister on
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    I think Kant's idea of a universal maxim is useful. You perform charity both because it's a nice thing to do, but also because you benefit from a society in which charity is common. If everyone is charitable and community minded, then you also tend to benefit, both directly and indirectly.

    Kant is explicitly a moral realist and universalist and doesn't care about the benefits or the niceness of morality. You must act moral because reason itself tells you to regardless of the consequences or your desires.

    Yeah, I should have connected some dots there. I think the idea of a universal maxim, or similar, but not exactly the same, golden rule approach to morality is correct because it will tend to produce better consequences than the alternatives. In a hypothetical case where nothing good would come from one's actions, either in the short or long term, I'd say there is no moral weight to said actions, whereas Kant would say you should do the right thing regardless.

    I don't know how you could evaluate what would be 'better' or 'worse' consequences for adopting some maxim other than appealing to some further (perhaps unstated) set of moral claims which determine what consequences count as better and which count as worse.
    Wouldn't that work with everything tho?

    To use the quote in the OP, wouldn't saying country music is bad require an absolute standard of good music that all music could be judged against?

    Dub Step exists.

    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    I think Kant's idea of a universal maxim is useful. You perform charity both because it's a nice thing to do, but also because you benefit from a society in which charity is common. If everyone is charitable and community minded, then you also tend to benefit, both directly and indirectly.

    Kant is explicitly a moral realist and universalist and doesn't care about the benefits or the niceness of morality. You must act moral because reason itself tells you to regardless of the consequences or your desires.

    Yeah, I should have connected some dots there. I think the idea of a universal maxim, or similar, but not exactly the same, golden rule approach to morality is correct because it will tend to produce better consequences than the alternatives. In a hypothetical case where nothing good would come from one's actions, either in the short or long term, I'd say there is no moral weight to said actions, whereas Kant would say you should do the right thing regardless.

    I don't know how you could evaluate what would be 'better' or 'worse' consequences for adopting some maxim other than appealing to some further (perhaps unstated) set of moral claims which determine what consequences count as better and which count as worse.
    Wouldn't that work with everything tho?

    To use the quote in the OP, wouldn't saying country music is bad require an absolute standard of good music that all music could be judged against?

    Not that I can see. I can say country music is bad, and by doing so just mean to express my own distaste for the genre. So far all fine. The problem comes when we try to say something further, that there is some standard which my disliking the genre satisfies well (and which other choices wouldn't). If such a standard exists, then what is it but the 'objective' aesthetic or moral standard we started out denying the existence of?

    The point being that we make value judgments all the time about non "moral" things without an absolute standard to so why couldn't murder be the same?

  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    I think Kant's idea of a universal maxim is useful. You perform charity both because it's a nice thing to do, but also because you benefit from a society in which charity is common. If everyone is charitable and community minded, then you also tend to benefit, both directly and indirectly.

    Kant is explicitly a moral realist and universalist and doesn't care about the benefits or the niceness of morality. You must act moral because reason itself tells you to regardless of the consequences or your desires.

    Yeah, I should have connected some dots there. I think the idea of a universal maxim, or similar, but not exactly the same, golden rule approach to morality is correct because it will tend to produce better consequences than the alternatives. In a hypothetical case where nothing good would come from one's actions, either in the short or long term, I'd say there is no moral weight to said actions, whereas Kant would say you should do the right thing regardless.

    I don't know how you could evaluate what would be 'better' or 'worse' consequences for adopting some maxim other than appealing to some further (perhaps unstated) set of moral claims which determine what consequences count as better and which count as worse.
    Wouldn't that work with everything tho?

    To use the quote in the OP, wouldn't saying country music is bad require an absolute standard of good music that all music could be judged against?

    Not that I can see. I can say country music is bad, and by doing so just mean to express my own distaste for the genre. So far all fine. The problem comes when we try to say something further, that there is some standard which my disliking the genre satisfies well (and which other choices wouldn't). If such a standard exists, then what is it but the 'objective' aesthetic or moral standard we started out denying the existence of?

    The point being that we make value judgments all the time about non "moral" things without an absolute standard to so why couldn't murder be the same?

    What you lose is the ability to resolve disagreements. In the OP @Alinius133 claims atheists forfeit the ability to convince other atheists that a given action is wrong - that they give up not just the existence of a divine moral authority, but any moral authority. @Eat it You Nasty Pig. disagrees and says there is some basis remaining for disputing about fundamental moral claims without a religious text.

    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I guess by the going definition on this thread I count as a moral nihilist. I do not believe morals are anything more than a social structure we develop to keep behavior in check.

    As for why I don't eat babies, I have this little thing called empathy. I care at least a little about every living thing, especially people. I don't need right or wrong to want to help or protect others, and on occasion I've risked bodily harm for complete strangers.

    I don't actively work against morality in society because many people lack a decent sense of empathy, but it isn't necessary to be a functional or helpful member of society.

    I don't think people who lack a decent sense of empathy are all that apt to be moral anyway, unless out of fear of divine punishment. But there are many acts one can perform which would be immoral but not engage empathy at all. For example, say you were convinced you could cheat on an important test and not get caught. Would you do it?

    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    zakkiel wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    I think Kant's idea of a universal maxim is useful. You perform charity both because it's a nice thing to do, but also because you benefit from a society in which charity is common. If everyone is charitable and community minded, then you also tend to benefit, both directly and indirectly.

    Kant is explicitly a moral realist and universalist and doesn't care about the benefits or the niceness of morality. You must act moral because reason itself tells you to regardless of the consequences or your desires.

    Yeah, I should have connected some dots there. I think the idea of a universal maxim, or similar, but not exactly the same, golden rule approach to morality is correct because it will tend to produce better consequences than the alternatives. In a hypothetical case where nothing good would come from one's actions, either in the short or long term, I'd say there is no moral weight to said actions, whereas Kant would say you should do the right thing regardless.

    I don't know how you could evaluate what would be 'better' or 'worse' consequences for adopting some maxim other than appealing to some further (perhaps unstated) set of moral claims which determine what consequences count as better and which count as worse.
    Wouldn't that work with everything tho?

    To use the quote in the OP, wouldn't saying country music is bad require an absolute standard of good music that all music could be judged against?

    Not that I can see. I can say country music is bad, and by doing so just mean to express my own distaste for the genre. So far all fine. The problem comes when we try to say something further, that there is some standard which my disliking the genre satisfies well (and which other choices wouldn't). If such a standard exists, then what is it but the 'objective' aesthetic or moral standard we started out denying the existence of?

    The point being that we make value judgments all the time about non "moral" things without an absolute standard to so why couldn't murder be the same?

    What you lose is the ability to resolve disagreements. In the OP @Alinius133 claims atheists forfeit the ability to convince other atheists that a given action is wrong - that they give up not just the existence of a divine moral authority, but any moral authority. @Eat it You Nasty Pig. disagrees and says there is some basis remaining for disputing about fundamental moral claims without a religious text.

    So are all non absolute things impossible to argue about?

    And are people that claim an absolute moral standard able to convince people with (theoretically) the same moral standard that what they are doing is wrong?

  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    I think Kant's idea of a universal maxim is useful. You perform charity both because it's a nice thing to do, but also because you benefit from a society in which charity is common. If everyone is charitable and community minded, then you also tend to benefit, both directly and indirectly.

    Kant is explicitly a moral realist and universalist and doesn't care about the benefits or the niceness of morality. You must act moral because reason itself tells you to regardless of the consequences or your desires.

    Yeah, I should have connected some dots there. I think the idea of a universal maxim, or similar, but not exactly the same, golden rule approach to morality is correct because it will tend to produce better consequences than the alternatives. In a hypothetical case where nothing good would come from one's actions, either in the short or long term, I'd say there is no moral weight to said actions, whereas Kant would say you should do the right thing regardless.

    I don't know how you could evaluate what would be 'better' or 'worse' consequences for adopting some maxim other than appealing to some further (perhaps unstated) set of moral claims which determine what consequences count as better and which count as worse.
    Wouldn't that work with everything tho?

    To use the quote in the OP, wouldn't saying country music is bad require an absolute standard of good music that all music could be judged against?

    Not that I can see. I can say country music is bad, and by doing so just mean to express my own distaste for the genre. So far all fine. The problem comes when we try to say something further, that there is some standard which my disliking the genre satisfies well (and which other choices wouldn't). If such a standard exists, then what is it but the 'objective' aesthetic or moral standard we started out denying the existence of?

    The point being that we make value judgments all the time about non "moral" things without an absolute standard to so why couldn't murder be the same?

    What you lose is the ability to resolve disagreements. In the OP @Alinius133 claims atheists forfeit the ability to convince other atheists that a given action is wrong - that they give up not just the existence of a divine moral authority, but any moral authority. @Eat it You Nasty Pig. disagrees and says there is some basis remaining for disputing about fundamental moral claims without a religious text.

    So are all non absolute things impossible to argue about?

    And are people that claim an absolute moral standard able to convince people with (theoretically) the same moral standard that what they are doing is wrong?

    Well sure it's possible. Isn't that the reason the forum has a ban on anime threads? What I'm asking is whether it's possible to argue with someone who rejects morality in some sense that doesn't reduce to monkeys throwing poo at each other.

    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    The point being that we make value judgments all the time about non "moral" things without an absolute standard to so why couldn't murder be the same?

    "I dislike chocolate ice cream." is a value judgement. "I dislike murder." is a value judgement.

    Most people think they are saying more than "I dislike murder" when they say "murder is wrong".

    The same if you set moral claims as breeches of etiquette. Putting forks on the right side of a dinner plate is a breech of etiquette. Most people take murder to be different in kind than misplacing forks.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    zakkiel wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    I think Kant's idea of a universal maxim is useful. You perform charity both because it's a nice thing to do, but also because you benefit from a society in which charity is common. If everyone is charitable and community minded, then you also tend to benefit, both directly and indirectly.

    Kant is explicitly a moral realist and universalist and doesn't care about the benefits or the niceness of morality. You must act moral because reason itself tells you to regardless of the consequences or your desires.

    Yeah, I should have connected some dots there. I think the idea of a universal maxim, or similar, but not exactly the same, golden rule approach to morality is correct because it will tend to produce better consequences than the alternatives. In a hypothetical case where nothing good would come from one's actions, either in the short or long term, I'd say there is no moral weight to said actions, whereas Kant would say you should do the right thing regardless.

    I don't know how you could evaluate what would be 'better' or 'worse' consequences for adopting some maxim other than appealing to some further (perhaps unstated) set of moral claims which determine what consequences count as better and which count as worse.
    Wouldn't that work with everything tho?

    To use the quote in the OP, wouldn't saying country music is bad require an absolute standard of good music that all music could be judged against?

    Not that I can see. I can say country music is bad, and by doing so just mean to express my own distaste for the genre. So far all fine. The problem comes when we try to say something further, that there is some standard which my disliking the genre satisfies well (and which other choices wouldn't). If such a standard exists, then what is it but the 'objective' aesthetic or moral standard we started out denying the existence of?

    The point being that we make value judgments all the time about non "moral" things without an absolute standard to so why couldn't murder be the same?

    What you lose is the ability to resolve disagreements. In the OP @Alinius133 claims atheists forfeit the ability to convince other atheists that a given action is wrong - that they give up not just the existence of a divine moral authority, but any moral authority. @Eat it You Nasty Pig. disagrees and says there is some basis remaining for disputing about fundamental moral claims without a religious text.

    So are all non absolute things impossible to argue about?

    And are people that claim an absolute moral standard able to convince people with (theoretically) the same moral standard that what they are doing is wrong?

    Well sure it's possible. Isn't that the reason the forum has a ban on anime threads? What I'm asking is whether it's possible to argue with someone who rejects morality in some sense that doesn't reduce to monkeys throwing poo at each other.

    I wouldn't say that theological arguments are particularly civil or fruitful. At least with Christianity they have been at some pretty basic questions for 1700 years or so without figuring it out.

    _J_ wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    The point being that we make value judgments all the time about non "moral" things without an absolute standard to so why couldn't murder be the same?

    "I dislike chocolate ice cream." is a value judgement. "I dislike murder." is a value judgement.

    Most people think they are saying more than "I dislike murder" when they say "murder is wrong".

    The same if you set moral claims as breeches of etiquette. Putting forks on the right side of a dinner plate is a breech of etiquette. Most people take murder to be different in kind than misplacing forks.

    True but just in degrees.

    Like a fed interest rate change is a much bigger deal than lying to your spouse but for one we need an absolute moral compass to make headway on.

    Or you could say they are both moral questions but then what isn't a moral question.

  • Grey PaladinGrey Paladin Registered User regular
    edited February 2015
    MrMister wrote:
    ..
    I don't know how you could evaluate what would be 'better' or 'worse' consequences for adopting some maxim other than appealing to some further (perhaps unstated) set of moral claims which determine what consequences count as better and which count as worse.
    ...
    Not that I can see. I can say country music is bad, and by doing so just mean to express my own distaste for the genre. So far all fine. The problem comes when we try to say something further, that there is some standard which my disliking the genre satisfies well (and which other choices wouldn't). If such a standard exists, then what is it but the 'objective' aesthetic or moral standard we started out denying the existence of?
    I may have my terminology mixed up but I was under the impression that moral nihilism does not imply that man-made standards of morality do not exist (they self-evidently do), but that any given internally consistent standard is as correct as any other and thus preference for one over another is purely aesthetic. One would choose to follow one standard over another because a given standard matches what the chooser values, which is ultimately arbitrary.

    Grey Paladin on
    "All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
  • Rizichard RizortyRizichard Rizorty Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    I'm struggling with the humanist's response to this, however. In fact, the first humanist response I found while googling was really a straight-up admission that nihilism is true and humanism is hypocritical. Here's another person who describes themselves as humanist and yet seems to take moral nihilism as true.

    Is there a better response possible for humanists? Can it be logically consistent to accept the nihilist's line of argument when applied to God, fairies, and immortal souls, but not to the notions of good and bad?

    "Rizichard Rizorty" This is the one time when your project will help an actual human being. Do not fail him!

    Let's start by granting the nihilist's point: there is no arbitrating locus of independent values. There may have been once, but further inquiry showed us this was a trick by the confidence-men we call priests. The values so presented kept us weak and afraid, and this fear kept us in line. But now God is dead and we have killed him.

    Who did this? We did.

    Nihilism is often mistakenly presented as a discovery, a finding-out that there never was objectivity. Not so. There was objectivity insofar as we held ourselves in thrall to something that was not us. And now there's not, because we can no longer make sense of this hierarchy: the world does not present to us a plan for what it is to be good, and insofar as it does, we see this as the tricks of those who would be our contemporary priests. We have moved on from that order of moral knowing. So what's left?

    We are.

    The OP characterizes humanism as believing that there are objective moral facts or values. Not so. Rather, it is a belief that in the void left by spurning the priests, human things matter. This should not be understood as all human things mattering, or that all human things matter in the same way. Rather, it stands as a toe-hold, an insistence that if there is to be value, it will be ours; after all, it always has been.

    Modernity gave us the idea of individuals who can know, judge, and shape independently of anyone else. This is fantasy, and an important one at that. It helped us to kill God, and then it endangered our sense of ourselves together. It helps us to forget our histories, both individual and social. It helps us to forget our biological basis. And it helps us to think of moral judgment as only "personal preference." This account fails to give an account of our commonalities and plays up only the differences. It disregards the great stability at the core of most contemporary humanists' moral thinking: we're all liberals, we all favor justice, and we all want the future to be better than the past.

    But we dispute the bounds and meanings of these categories. We accept there are no ready-made answers, and yet we hope to get along together. Objectivity has ceased to be a name for what binds us and became a name for what we hope: that someday the pushes and pulls of our lives together will resolve in agreement about what should be done. Until then, as always, morality is to be found in what's to be done. By whom? As ever, by us.

  • BubbyBubby Registered User regular
    I'm struggling to see the point in justifying Nihilism. Human beings are not coldly logical pieces of machinery.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Well there are multiple posts in here from people at least partially identifying or agreeing with nihilism without being coldly logical pieces of machinery. Perhaps you should start there.

    Though also a bunch of people are making it clear that they're talking about moral nihilism and not the generic dictionary definition of nihilism.

    Also definitions and English in general are screwy.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I guess by the going definition on this thread I count as a moral nihilist. I do not believe morals are anything more than a social structure we develop to keep behavior in check.

    As for why I don't eat babies, I have this little thing called empathy. I care at least a little about every living thing, especially people. I don't need right or wrong to want to help or protect others, and on occasion I've risked bodily harm for complete strangers.

    I don't actively work against morality in society because many people lack a decent sense of empathy, but it isn't necessary to be a functional or helpful member of society.

    I don't think people who lack a decent sense of empathy are all that apt to be moral anyway, unless out of fear of divine punishment. But there are many acts one can perform which would be immoral but not engage empathy at all. For example, say you were convinced you could cheat on an important test and not get caught. Would you do it?

    Some people can get pretty freaked out over moral guilt even if it's not enforced by external punishment.

    Things like cheating on tests tend to be more of a social contract thing, but empathy often still applies. "If I cheat on this test I'm lying to the test taker and whoever bases decisions about me on this test, which may result in me being picked over someone who has put more who worked harder for it and was honest about their work" and so on.

    Our choices usually do affect other people, even if not in the most obvious ways. The visible difference between someone who uses morals and someone who uses empathy will usually come down to really private things like "Adultery is bad" vs. "Adultery without consent by all parties is potentially hurtful" or really trivial things like which TV shows you watch.

  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    zakkiel wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    I think Kant's idea of a universal maxim is useful. You perform charity both because it's a nice thing to do, but also because you benefit from a society in which charity is common. If everyone is charitable and community minded, then you also tend to benefit, both directly and indirectly.

    Kant is explicitly a moral realist and universalist and doesn't care about the benefits or the niceness of morality. You must act moral because reason itself tells you to regardless of the consequences or your desires.

    Yeah, I should have connected some dots there. I think the idea of a universal maxim, or similar, but not exactly the same, golden rule approach to morality is correct because it will tend to produce better consequences than the alternatives. In a hypothetical case where nothing good would come from one's actions, either in the short or long term, I'd say there is no moral weight to said actions, whereas Kant would say you should do the right thing regardless.

    I don't know how you could evaluate what would be 'better' or 'worse' consequences for adopting some maxim other than appealing to some further (perhaps unstated) set of moral claims which determine what consequences count as better and which count as worse.
    Wouldn't that work with everything tho?

    To use the quote in the OP, wouldn't saying country music is bad require an absolute standard of good music that all music could be judged against?

    Not that I can see. I can say country music is bad, and by doing so just mean to express my own distaste for the genre. So far all fine. The problem comes when we try to say something further, that there is some standard which my disliking the genre satisfies well (and which other choices wouldn't). If such a standard exists, then what is it but the 'objective' aesthetic or moral standard we started out denying the existence of?

    The point being that we make value judgments all the time about non "moral" things without an absolute standard to so why couldn't murder be the same?

    What you lose is the ability to resolve disagreements. In the OP @Alinius133 claims atheists forfeit the ability to convince other atheists that a given action is wrong - that they give up not just the existence of a divine moral authority, but any moral authority. @Eat it You Nasty Pig. disagrees and says there is some basis remaining for disputing about fundamental moral claims without a religious text.

    You can interpret religious texts however you want.

    Quakers and Fundy Southern Baptists both base their beliefs in the Bible.

    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    I'm going to hijack the great and wonderful @MrMister and use a version of his argument here:

    The very same arguments that moral nihilists use against moral facts apply equally well to non-moral facts (i.e. logical - the law of non-contradiction - and empirical facts - there is a cat on the mat, it has sat).

    If they are not sufficient reason to reject non-moral facts then why would we reject moral facts upon that basis?

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited February 2015
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    I think that whether you accept divine rulings or not, the concept of "murder is objectively wrong" still ends up not being very objective in practice. Most people have at least a few cases where killing another human is not seem as objectively wrong - self defense, killing soldiers in wartime, state executions, abortions, or what have you. Of course, different people end up drawing the category boundaries of murder in different places, and the whole thing ends up looking a lot like a subjective system. Two people might agree "murder is objectively wrong", but disagree over whether something is considered a murder. Ultimately they end up having the same discussion as subjective moralists would, just making it ostensibly about category disputes rather than the act itself.

    But it seems like even for an Atheist with no concept of objective morality, there are still mountains of subjective evidence that you shouldn't kill people for making bad movies. The entire history of human civilization is an object lesson on all the good things that can happen to you when you renounce certain forms of barbarism in favor of community and civilization. You don't have to believe in god to understand why people killing each other over meaningless disputes is wrong, you can just note that every society that has allowed for such things is terrible to live in, and that societies which do not allow such things tend to be massively better for everyone living there, including the would-be murderers.

    Certain ethical principles (such as charity and self-sacrifice) are a little harder to derive from purely subjective evidence. But murder seems like a pretty easy one.
    There's a distinction between "moral rules must be stated universally" and "there are objective moral rules".

    If the statement "murder is objectively wrong" it is wrong, according to your argument not because it isn't objective but because it isn't sufficiently nuanced to take into account the situations in which murder is permissible (though there's also a case to be made that murder is by definition those cases where killing is not permissible).

    Also, I don't understand what you mean by "subjective" in the second paragraph, because it seems like it is objective in principle.

    Apothe0sis on
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    I'm going to hijack the great and wonderful @MrMister and use a version of his argument here:

    The very same arguments that moral nihilists use against moral facts apply equally well to non-moral facts (i.e. logical - the law of non-contradiction - and empirical facts - there is a cat on the mat, it has sat).

    If they are not sufficient reason to reject non-moral facts then why would we reject moral facts upon that basis?

    That's too concise for me. Can you expand?

    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I guess by the going definition on this thread I count as a moral nihilist. I do not believe morals are anything more than a social structure we develop to keep behavior in check.

    As for why I don't eat babies, I have this little thing called empathy. I care at least a little about every living thing, especially people. I don't need right or wrong to want to help or protect others, and on occasion I've risked bodily harm for complete strangers.

    I don't actively work against morality in society because many people lack a decent sense of empathy, but it isn't necessary to be a functional or helpful member of society.

    I don't think people who lack a decent sense of empathy are all that apt to be moral anyway, unless out of fear of divine punishment. But there are many acts one can perform which would be immoral but not engage empathy at all. For example, say you were convinced you could cheat on an important test and not get caught. Would you do it?

    Some people can get pretty freaked out over moral guilt even if it's not enforced by external punishment.

    Things like cheating on tests tend to be more of a social contract thing, but empathy often still applies. "If I cheat on this test I'm lying to the test taker and whoever bases decisions about me on this test, which may result in me being picked over someone who has put more who worked harder for it and was honest about their work" and so on.

    Our choices usually do affect other people, even if not in the most obvious ways. The visible difference between someone who uses morals and someone who uses empathy will usually come down to really private things like "Adultery is bad" vs. "Adultery without consent by all parties is potentially hurtful" or really trivial things like which TV shows you watch.

    This is a twist on an argument that goes back to Nietzsche: all apparently moral behavior is the consequence of selfishness, just selfishness with motives like guilt included. As an actual explanation of behavior I don't find it convincing. The prospect of guilt is one of the feeblest motivations imaginable. And yes, you can construct a hypothetical person who might hypothetically be hurt by your cheating, but it's not a terribly convincing scenario, is it? I can believe empathy can prevent you from bludgeoning someone to death, but cheating on a test? Again, psychologically implausible. I think a moral nihilist has to characterize broad swaths of moral behaviors as irrational, fitting her conviction that the underlying moral beliefs held by those people are also irrational.

    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    Don't worry about nihilists, @zakkiel , there's nothing to be afraid of.

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    I'm struggling with the humanist's response to this, however. In fact, the first humanist response I found while googling was really a straight-up admission that nihilism is true and humanism is hypocritical. Here's another person who describes themselves as humanist and yet seems to take moral nihilism as true.

    Is there a better response possible for humanists? Can it be logically consistent to accept the nihilist's line of argument when applied to God, fairies, and immortal souls, but not to the notions of good and bad?

    "Rizichard Rizorty" This is the one time when your project will help an actual human being. Do not fail him!

    Let's start by granting the nihilist's point: there is no arbitrating locus of independent values. There may have been once, but further inquiry showed us this was a trick by the confidence-men we call priests. The values so presented kept us weak and afraid, and this fear kept us in line. But now God is dead and we have killed him.

    Who did this? We did.

    Nihilism is often mistakenly presented as a discovery, a finding-out that there never was objectivity. Not so. There was objectivity insofar as we held ourselves in thrall to something that was not us. And now there's not, because we can no longer make sense of this hierarchy: the world does not present to us a plan for what it is to be good, and insofar as it does, we see this as the tricks of those who would be our contemporary priests. We have moved on from that order of moral knowing. So what's left?

    We are.

    The OP characterizes humanism as believing that there are objective moral facts or values. Not so. Rather, it is a belief that in the void left by spurning the priests, human things matter. This should not be understood as all human things mattering, or that all human things matter in the same way. Rather, it stands as a toe-hold, an insistence that if there is to be value, it will be ours; after all, it always has been.

    Modernity gave us the idea of individuals who can know, judge, and shape independently of anyone else. This is fantasy, and an important one at that. It helped us to kill God, and then it endangered our sense of ourselves together. It helps us to forget our histories, both individual and social. It helps us to forget our biological basis. And it helps us to think of moral judgment as only "personal preference." This account fails to give an account of our commonalities and plays up only the differences. It disregards the great stability at the core of most contemporary humanists' moral thinking: we're all liberals, we all favor justice, and we all want the future to be better than the past.

    But we dispute the bounds and meanings of these categories. We accept there are no ready-made answers, and yet we hope to get along together. Objectivity has ceased to be a name for what binds us and became a name for what we hope: that someday the pushes and pulls of our lives together will resolve in agreement about what should be done. Until then, as always, morality is to be found in what's to be done. By whom? As ever, by us.

    I have a different take on what's left without object morals: the strong do as they will and the weak suffer what they must.

    Account not recoverable. So long.
Sign In or Register to comment.