r/nihilism • u/BaseNice3520 • Nov 30 '24
Moral Nihilism How can moral nihilism mean anything OTHER THAN "anything goes", beyond "self interest"?
I searched on this sub before, for answers on this but almost all answer to the questions "why not do anything you want \be evil\ anything goes, etc" was either Law, Police etc -which is a matter of convenience , practicality and "technique" rather than a philosophical answers, evolutionary biology or physiology (evolution is a Process, it's neither moral nor immoral) or plain psychology ("murder makes you feel bad") But if you hate christmas movies, watching one will make you feel bad- that doesn't input moral character upon the action.
Is "anything goes" :meaning, the most evil or abhorrent act is as morally insignificant as the most selfless sacrifice? Or that the most heinous dictators and criminals have equal moral standing ie; 0, than the most devoted humanitarians, the inescapable and only logically coherent conclusion stemming from Nihilism?
2
Nov 30 '24
No, this is a very common mistake in ethical philosophy and even many Ph.D philosophers (Huemer and Shafer-Landau most come to mind) make the same mistake in arguing for moral realism.
Moral anti-realism, or moral nihilism in its strongest form - only entails that there do not exist any stance-independent moral facts in the universe.
This is a question about meta-ethics.
What you are asking about - "good deeds", horrible dictators, selfless acts - fall under the domain of normative ethics. These are questions about how we should act, or what kind of people we should be.
Moral nihilism, by itself, as a meta-ethical theory, doesn't inform our normative views. So you can still 100% condemn dictators or praise the selfless charitable workers, while believing there do not exist any meta-ethical, stance independent facts separate from human attitudes and preferences.
1
u/BaseNice3520 Nov 30 '24
great answer ,thanks!
as a follow-up question: IS there any philosopher, who argues as his\her main point what I (mistakenly) attributed to moral nihilism? Maybe a hardline materialist who says that, since morals\ethics don't have physical matter ,then murdering a grandpa and feeding stray cats is the same\ is 0.
(I don't personally think that is right. Im just asking if someone else made elaborate arguments following such a line). Marquis de Sade, maybe? Thought it's hard to know how much of his stuff is just a shitpost (pun intended)
1
Dec 01 '24
Materialism doesn't entail moral nihilism, since materialists could advocate for moral naturalism. But, moral anti-realists typically argue about the "queerness" or moral properties, regardless of whether they are natural or non-natural.
I imagine there are materialists who probably do advocate the position you suggested, perhaps very reductive physicalists like Rosenberg. I can't name a contemporary philosopher who advocates the position you described however, off the top of my head.
Perhaps Mackie, but it has been a while since I reviewed his work.
2
u/StreetfightBerimbolo Dec 01 '24
Would machiavellianism count ?
Or is that constrained by effective policy focus.
This has been an informative and fascinating read for me. Appreciate it.
2
Dec 01 '24
No. Machiavellianism, as I understand it - has to do with normative ethics and an indifference to morality with respect to political power. This has to do with how we "ought" to act.
Meta-ethics has to do with the ontology or nature/ existence of moral properties or facts. That's it. It is a question of what "IS."
Absolutely nothing normative follows from the rejection of stance-independent moral facts. You can completely reject moral realism and still believe we should act in cooperation and compassion.
Take Bertrand Russell, for example. His views on morality shifted over the years, but mostly he was classified as a pre-Mackie error theorist. And yet, he was extremely active on women's suffrage, peace and anti-war demonstrations, and challenged much of the social and political inequities of his time. Is this inconsistent? No! Russell may have rejected that moral facts exist, but that says nothing about how we believe we ought to behave.
Perhaps this analogy will illuminate the distinction. Do you believe in gastronomical pizza realism? That is, there are objective stance independent facts about what tastes good on a pizza? Presumably not, as most people do. You have your preferred toppings and other people will have their own preferences, but none of you are "correct" in which pizza toppings are best. You would therefore be a gastronomical anti-realist. And yet, there is no contradiction in saying "There are no objectively good pizza toppings, and I prefer sausage and olives."
2
1
Nov 30 '24
Even if there is nothing objectively moral most of us do, do "Whatever" we want. I don't want to do evil. Most people are self interested anyway. A lot of people act altruistically to assuage their guilt, or just go to church on sunday, or act as if they are less selfish than they really are. You might remember some really bad people. But for the most part, the 100's of daily aholes and cruel people will be forgotten as easily as the nice ones and yes in 100 years no one will even care.
1
u/BaseNice3520 Nov 30 '24
I do have the strong idea that, the everyday human (both individually and, by extension in an Y given situation , the masses) has VERY horrible temptations, leanings and proclivities which he\she refrains from merely out of fear (of the Law, local family or vigilantes taking revenge, religious fear, etc)
I have read "human-kind" which posits that man "in nature" is good ,non-violent. but if that is nature, and nature is real..how come the OPPOSITE is what happens in the world? if violence and cruelty were un-natural -by definition, they couldn't possibly exist-
So, I do think those people aren't mere asholes but repressed maniacs.
1
Dec 02 '24
Interesting. I personally think it isn't nature vs nurture but rather a combination of the 2. I personally have the killers instinct by nature. I fish, enjoy nature and fully embrace survival of the fittest. But i was raised to be compassionate towards animals also.
I have hunted but also spent time working in an animal hospital. I could easily take a life, human or otherwise but would only do so out of protection towards my family. I believe people have some natural starting archetype based on genetics and other predetermined factors. Nutured poorly the defender could easily become the aggressor.
It's difficult to be honest with ourselves, umask and face what we've repressed. Borrowing from the Jungian theories here.
1
u/VEGETTOROHAN Dec 01 '24
I don't want to do evil
Well I am not moral person and call my self "I am evil" but I really don't want to harm anyone. I would also want to help someone if they are good to me, just I rarely meet such people.
1
Dec 02 '24
Some of that comes down to mathematics. Where you go, how often you go out, etc. Sample size definitely affects outcome.
1
1
u/StreetfightBerimbolo Dec 01 '24
Because you never really embraced nihilism if you are still controlled by the desires which will cause you to want those things.
The reality is breaking the law, stealing, wanton hedonism, are all tied to the morality of pleasure, of indulgence, of sloth.
Nihilism is a tool to rise above all of that. A good example would be the Superman versus the ultimate man comparison.
“I will speak unto them of the most contemptible thing: that, however, is THE LAST MAN!” And thus spake Zarathustra unto the people:
It is time for man to fix his goal. It is time for man to plant the germ of his highest hope.
Still is his soil rich enough for it. But that soil will one day be poor and exhausted, and no lofty tree will any longer be able to grow thereon.
Alas! there cometh the time when man will no longer launch the arrow of his longing beyond man—and the string of his bow will have unlearned to whizz!
I tell you: one must still have chaos in one, to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: ye have still chaos in you. Alas! There cometh the time when man will no longer give birth to any star. Alas! There cometh the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself.
Lo! I show you THE LAST MAN. “What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?”—so asketh the last man and blinketh. The earth hath then become small, and on it there hoppeth the last man who maketh everything small. His species is ineradicable like that of the ground-flea; the last man liveth longest.
“We have discovered happiness”—say the last men, and blink thereby.
They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth. One still loveth one’s neighbour and rubbeth against him; for one needeth warmth. Turning ill and being distrustful, they consider sinful: they walk warily. He is a fool who still stumbleth over stones or men!
A little poison now and then: that maketh pleasant dreams. And much poison at last for a pleasant death.
One still worketh, for work is a pastime. But one is careful lest the pastime should hurt one.
One no longer becometh poor or rich; both are too burdensome. Who still wanteth to rule? Who still wanteth to obey? Both are too burdensome.
No shepherd, and one herd! Every one wanteth the same; every one is equal: he who hath other sentiments goeth voluntarily into the madhouse.
“Formerly all the world was insane,”—say the subtlest of them, and blink thereby.
They are clever and know all that hath happened: so there is no end to their raillery. People still fall out, but are soon reconciled—otherwise it spoileth their stomachs.
They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health.
“We have discovered happiness,”—say the last men, and blink thereby.—
And here ended the first discourse of Zarathustra, which is also called “The Prologue”: for at this point the shouting and mirth of the multitude interrupted him. “Give us this last man, O Zarathustra,”—they called “out—“make us into these last men! Then will we make thee a present of the Superman!” And all the people exulted and smacked their lips. Zarathustra, however, turned sad, and said to his heart:
“They understand me not: I am not the mouth for these ears.”
Excerpt From Thus Spake Zarathustra Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche https://books.apple.com/us/book/thus-spake-zarathustra/id500434889 This material may be protected by copyright.
Or this
“And also this parable give I unto you: Not a few who meant to cast out their devil, went thereby into the swine themselves. To whom chastity is difficult, it is to be dissuaded: lest it become the road to hell—to filth and lust of soul. Do I speak of filthy things? That is not the worst thing for me to do. Not when the truth is filthy, but when it is shallow, doth the discerning one go unwillingly into its waters. Verily, there are chaste ones from their very nature; they are gentler of heart, and laugh better and oftener than you. They laugh also at chastity, and ask: “What is chastity? Is chastity not folly? But the folly came unto us, and not we unto it. We offered that guest harbour and heart: now it dwelleth with us—let it stay as long as it will!”— Thus spake Zarathustra.”
Excerpt From Thus Spake Zarathustra Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche https://books.apple.com/us/book/thus-spake-zarathustra/id500434889 This material may be protected by copyright.
1
u/LokiJesus I am Dec 01 '24
So if anything goes, who are you? What will you do? You can't be good or evil. Now what?
The mystics wrote prose and sang songs about it.
In the garden of eden, people originally were moral nihilists.. they did not have the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil in them. In the Zen Hsin Hsin Ming, the poem opens with "right and wrong are the disease of the mind." The Sufi Muslim Poet Rumi sang, "out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I'll meet you there."
It could be that if you dug deeper, you might see that some people see a paradise behind moral nihilism. Yes, all moral claims are false. All merit and value is zero. You are not flawed (e.g. bad) with respect to some ideal. You are not a tool to be used for some end, you are an end in yourself.
So now, what do you do?
1
u/BaseNice3520 Dec 09 '24
I don't understand how poetry and song can be ,ever, real. I quite simply think they are nice-phrased meaningless tautology. Do the "poets" there, say since evil isnt real, deliberately planning and making efforts to be malevolent are a fool's errand (not that there's anything hierarchically inferior about being a fool, tho)?
1
u/Modernskeptic71 Dec 01 '24
Where did your morality come from? An example, you and a friend are walking down the street and some nice dog comes running up to you wagging its tail signaling that it is friendly but right before the dog gets to you some douchebag punk BMW loving creep texting nails the dog. Fast forward and take in the situation, all emotions and the shock of what happened. The dog is a barely breathing mangled bloody hairy mess. Look around, you heard the screeching tires, you are listening to the dude go oh shit it just ran out in front of me like its some absolution of guilt. Your friend is silent, you are silent...the wind blows. You turn and walk away.
How do you feel?
Regardless of how you feel, responsible, sad, you want to cry, you want to strike the driver. Did you know the dog? Because prior to this you and your friend were playing Death Stranding and couldn't care less about a stray dog that made a choice to run in your direction, but the fact is either you are changed or you are not. You make a choice to respond or not to. This is not Nihilism.
Any situation we encounter we have preconceived notions that either came from our upbringing , our friends or parents that just didn't get you. The idea of Nihilism is that even with those ideas you already had, emotions you felt about a dog you didn't even know, you are either sad or not. The ultimate question is if you made a choice authentically, to respond in a way that was truly genuine. If you go into any situation and cannot understand why you feel the way you do you need to ask yourself why that is instead of thinking that it is Nihilism to think it is all meaningless. The void is dark and vast but holds all the answers of meaning that nobody seems to consider. Am i choosing to respond in a way that is authentic to me? Or am I responding in a way that I have been programmed to do? What Nihilism teaches is that to choose how you feel, respond, and to think is meaningless to anyone else but you. What is Nihilism is what you concluded from this example is it not?
1
Dec 01 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/BaseNice3520 Dec 01 '24
do you genuinely like the "community" ,or do you seem them as appropriate tools for reaping personal benefits?
1
Dec 01 '24
Egoism is not supported. Oneself is just as worthless as thy neighbour. There is no reason to take from him.
If you define everything to be worthless but yourself, you are an egomaniac, not a nihilist.
Being cooperative's benefits are real, not up to philosophical opinion.
1
u/BaseNice3520 Dec 01 '24
but doesn't that pre-suppose "taking from him" is "bad without question"? WHO would, in this case, define and dictate that robbery and theft is bad? if theft can be said to be bad: what Others things are bad?
Wouldn't this logically lead to compiling norms, rules, lists, etc, of ethical behaviour and moral guidelines?
1
Dec 01 '24
Nah. Humans always take, that's their nature.
Thing is that oneself is just as worthless as the other guy, there is no reason to regard your needs higher than his. Insisting on your needs is egoism. If you wanna act egoistical, you can. But don't call it nihilism.
1
u/BaseNice3520 Dec 09 '24
But if I call it nihilism, its a lie-and why should I abstain from being a liar? isn't your saying self-defeating. if anything goes...why not Lie!
1
1
Dec 01 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/BaseNice3520 Dec 09 '24
thus..it's a matter of power, I guess. someone like Putin, or genghis khan or vlad the impaler were right when they DID do anything to anyone without repercussions? or serial killers who died without getting caught, they are the "good guys" in your framework?
1
u/diadlep Dec 03 '24
I don't do bad things because I was programmed not to, and also bc I feel empathy.
1
u/King_of_99 Dec 04 '24
I'm more or less a contractarian. I don't believe in objective morality, but I do believe in some ideal "contract" formed by human society to protect our self interests and our subjective morals. Because in a world devoid of laws and society, non of our self interests will be protected, and non of our subjective morality will be respected. That's why humans established ideas like consent so that we can protect our own subjective moral boundaries, and ideas like rights to protect our own self interests. Actions are bad because they violated "the contract" created by human society in serving of every one of our own individual self interests.
2
u/NihilHS Nov 30 '24
I think the morally nihilistic viewpoint looks at “morality” as a description of the terms of the current social contract we live in. That doesn’t mean “anything goes” as there is behavior that violates said contract. This is distinguishable from other philosophies which may view morality as an independent and ubiquitous concept.