INTRODUCTION
You can breathe a sigh of relief as this is the last discussion on moral philosophy. We've studied the two families of moral thinking: moral objectivism and moral nonobjectivism. Today's topic doesn't fit well into either family, but is still a popular moral framework. I'm sure you've been exposed to this idea and could probably briefly explain it. Today is utilitarianism.
UTILITARIANISM DEFINED
Here's our working definition. Utilitarianism: the doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct."
You're probably familiar with Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill who are the famous proponents of the idea. John Stuart Mill said of utilitarianism "[T]he creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest-Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure."
So utilitarianism suggests that what is moral is what creates the greatest good. And therefore, the ends justify the means.
EVIDENCE FOR UTILITARIANISM
How can we defend this idea? Here's some thoughts:
First, seeking the greatest good is how we make day-to-day decisions. We're constantly weighing the pros and cons to make conclusions of what to do. Utilitarianism simply applies this process to morality.
Second, utilitarianism is always seeking the good of others. This is a very appealing idea as we all consider that to be a good thing.
And third, utilitarianism provides a reasonable framework for a society to operate morally and simultaneously eliminate the need for God. One of my friends proposed to me that, because of our secular society and non-theistic government, we should find an ideology for basing our morality on that doesn't include God. He submitted utilitarianism to be a plausible option.
PROBLEMS WITH UTILITARIANISM
Although utilitarianism may sound good, it has it's drawbacks.
To begin, it requires too much of people. If it's wrong to not seek the greatest good, then you must always be seeking the greatest good if you want to live morally. So, even though it would be good to give $100 to charity, if you could give $150 dollars it would be wrong for you to only $100. It would also make you feel guilty for relaxing and doing some things for yourself.
Also, the greatest good can be too difficult to calculate. Continually factoring the overall affects of your decisions on the planet can be time-consuming and nearly impossible because you must assign values to certain results and weigh every positive and negative value and you'd better get it right or else you risk committing a moral fault. Besides, who assigns the numbers and values in the first place? What can you appeal to to learn if you value someone's life, happiness, comfort, emotional stability, or physical safety more or less than one of the others. In short, it's no easy task to know the "greatest good."
Who determines "the greatest good"? This is a similar argument, but consider a hypothetical example. Suppose I'm in line somewhere (let's say for Black Friday shopping) and there's a thousand people in line behind me and one homeless man in front of me who, let's suppose, has no family and who will not be missed by anyone. If I were to kill the man (or to be less morbid: shove him out of the way), my happiness may increase as well as the thousand people behind me because we will all get through the line faster. No one will miss the man though his happiness may decrease (though you could argue that since he's dead he wouldn't care). In the end, wouldn't be best to kill the man for the sake of the masses or should I wait? Who decides what's better in that scenario from a utilitarianism standpoint?
The example above raises another problem for utilitarianism. It seems to allow for all kinds of "evil" to be acceptable. Since the ends justify the means, if killing or stealing or lying or abuse will bring about a greater good, it should be good to do.
During the discussions, it was also mentioned that utilitarianism, while serving the majority, would, in fact, ignore the minority which could be problematic.
RULE UTILITARIANISM DEFINED
To resolve some of these difficulties. Some have proposed a variant of "normal" utilitarianism (clarified as "act utilitarianism") called "rule utilitarianism." Rule utilitarianism takes into account "rules" which are determined to include actions that, when broadly applied, would generally promote happiness or unhappiness. Thus, since murder generally promotes unhappiness a "rule" under rule utilitarianism would be "don't murder." And since helping others generally promotes happiness, "help others" would be a rule under rule utilitarianism.
BENEFITS OF RULE UTILITARIANISM
The benefits of this idea are that it takes into account commonly held moral beliefs like not murdering, stealing, lying, etc. Also, it resolves some of the tensions of [act] utilitarianism (like killing to promote good).
PROBLEMS WITH RULE UTILITARIANISM
However, some problems remain.
Most noticeably, the question arises, "where do these rules come from?" There's two possible sources: either independently of utilitarianism or simply from concluding "this rule promotes the greatest good." Let's examine each of these.
If the source is outside of utilitarianism, then utilitarianism is not the over-arching and final authority on morality. Perhaps they're appealing to natural law or divine command or cultural beliefs or something else. Making rules from anything other than utilitarianism undermines rule utilitarianism.
But suppose the rules come from the conclusion that "this rule promotes the greatest good" then it would seem that rule utilitarianism simply boils down to act utilitarianism since that's how act utilitarianism determines morality: by determining what promotes the common good.
In the end, rule utilitarianism doesn't seem to be that much better since it runs into philosophical troubles and doesn't eliminate all the problems of act utilitarianism.
CONCLUSIONS
Here's what we can conclude.
- Utilitarianism CAN be helpful as it can guide in decision making. But...
- Complete utilitarianism is nearly impossible to live by.
- Utilitarianism doesn't hold water as an all-encompassing moral philosophy.
- Utilitarianism has the potential to allow almost anything.
Friday, October 28, 2016
Friday, October 21, 2016
Moral Subjectivism & Pluralism
INTRODUCTION
The ideas we'll talk about this time are similar to last's as moral relativism and moral subjectivism are similar ideas.
MORAL SUBJECTIVISM DEFINED
However, unlike moral relativism states that morality originates from a society, moral subjectivism can be defined as "the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to an individual standpoint and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over any other; thus, morality originates from the individual."
Thus, whatever you as an individual believe to be right or wrong, it is so.
Robert Anton Wilson, a self-described agnostic mystic, described this kind of thinking in this way: "'Is,' 'is,' 'is,' - the idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don't know anything 'is'; I only know how it seems to me at the moment." In other words, he's asserting that whatever a person tends to believe or think at a given time is just as valid as what another believes or thinks in another moment.
EVIDENCE FOR MORAL SUBJECTIVISM
How would you defend this idea? During the discussion, people mentioned that such an idea can free someone from guilt and would be attractive because it allows them to do what they want.
Here's some other ideas that are used to support moral subjectivism. However, they can be refuted.
Moral Beliefs Are Based on Feelings. Therefore, since feelings are subjective, so is morality. Response: This is a false assertion. Yes, peoples feelings do impact their beliefs and vice versa. But that does not mean that feelings are the only standard by which morality can be measured.
People Disagree about Moral Issues. Thus, morality must be subjective. Response: So? Just because there's disagreement does not mean that there is no standard. It obviously doesn't mean that there IS a standard, but it's not a sufficient argument.
No One Can Prove Who Is Correct in a Moral Dispute. Since it can't be proved, you can't tell people that they must abide by... well... anything. Response: this idea already assumes that there is no standard. But if there is a standard, you are able to "prove" who is correct and incorrect in a moral dispute by referring to the standard.
PROBLEMS WITH MORAL SUBJECTIVISM
As for the problems with moral subjectivism, there are several.
Subjectivism Violates Logical Laws. As we discussed with moral relativism, if you consider the two claims "murder is moral" and "murder is immoral," logic would dictate that one is correct and one is false because they are opposites. However, subjectivism allows for both to be true if separate individuals hold each to be true for them. This flies in the face of logic and reasoning.
Believing Doesn't Make It So. Just because one believes in subjectivism doesn't mean it's correct. Nor is it true that you're correct if you are100% genuine in your belief about some moral issue.
"Moral Inquiry" and "Moral Improvement" Can't Exist. How can you learn what the "right thing to do is" or learn how to "improve" if there's no standard to refer to?
The Problem of the Real World. It's not hard to imagine the chaos that this world would be in if everyone decided to live as moral subjectivists. It doesn't hold up.
The Problem of God. If there is a God who's established laws to be obeyed, then moral subjectivism is automatically negated.
PLURALISM
I want to quickly connect subjectivism to the idea of pluralism. Pluralism is a much more common belief that's held by people compared to moral subjectivism.
Let's begin with a definition. Though there are many other practical ways to define Pluralism, for our purposes, we'll define it as "the idea of extending acceptance and even validity to a variety of worldviews."
In other words, moral subjectivism accepts multiple understandings of JUST morality. Pluralism accept multiple worldviews which includes morality, but also views of God, eternity, purpose, holy texts, etc. We all know people like this: people who think there are many ways to God, people who think there are many ways to go to heaven, people who think that many religions have elements of truth, and people who are accepting of almost everyone and all ideas.
COMBATING PLURALISM
How do we combat this idea? Here's a few points.
First, when it comes to understanding God, heaven, hell, sin, salvation, and all other wordlview questions, someone has to be right. Logic and truth demand that not everyone can be right. Only the correct are correct. So it's logically problematic to just accept everyone.
Second, consider this actual quote about someone describing an aspect of pluralism: "You're allowed to believe what you choose." To clarify, the context of this quote suggests that this individual sees validity in whatever belief is chosen. My question to the person would immediately be "Can I believe that you're wrong? Or can I believe that only my way is right? Or can I believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation?" This assertion that the individual made opens the door to a plethora of logical errors.
Third, consider another actual quote. "There's more than one truth out there." Granted, there is not just a single truth that exists, but the connotation here is that multiple ideas on the same thing can all be correct. That's ridiculous! That's not how that works! Anyways.....
What can we say from Scripture about this? We don't have to go very far to find a convincing verse that relates. John 14:6 quotes Jesus to say "I am THE way and THE truth and THE life. NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT through me" (my emphasis). Jesus makes it very clear which, honestly, is a blessing.
CONCLUSION
In the end, we can conclude that moral relativism, moral subjectivism, and pluralism just aren't plausible. However, in a world that rejects the idea of God, a lifestyle and worldview of relativity is a very reasonable course of action. It's wrong, but it's a situationally sensible way to live.
The ideas we'll talk about this time are similar to last's as moral relativism and moral subjectivism are similar ideas.
MORAL SUBJECTIVISM DEFINED
However, unlike moral relativism states that morality originates from a society, moral subjectivism can be defined as "the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to an individual standpoint and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over any other; thus, morality originates from the individual."
Thus, whatever you as an individual believe to be right or wrong, it is so.
Robert Anton Wilson, a self-described agnostic mystic, described this kind of thinking in this way: "'Is,' 'is,' 'is,' - the idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don't know anything 'is'; I only know how it seems to me at the moment." In other words, he's asserting that whatever a person tends to believe or think at a given time is just as valid as what another believes or thinks in another moment.
EVIDENCE FOR MORAL SUBJECTIVISM
How would you defend this idea? During the discussion, people mentioned that such an idea can free someone from guilt and would be attractive because it allows them to do what they want.
Here's some other ideas that are used to support moral subjectivism. However, they can be refuted.
Moral Beliefs Are Based on Feelings. Therefore, since feelings are subjective, so is morality. Response: This is a false assertion. Yes, peoples feelings do impact their beliefs and vice versa. But that does not mean that feelings are the only standard by which morality can be measured.
People Disagree about Moral Issues. Thus, morality must be subjective. Response: So? Just because there's disagreement does not mean that there is no standard. It obviously doesn't mean that there IS a standard, but it's not a sufficient argument.
No One Can Prove Who Is Correct in a Moral Dispute. Since it can't be proved, you can't tell people that they must abide by... well... anything. Response: this idea already assumes that there is no standard. But if there is a standard, you are able to "prove" who is correct and incorrect in a moral dispute by referring to the standard.
PROBLEMS WITH MORAL SUBJECTIVISM
As for the problems with moral subjectivism, there are several.
Subjectivism Violates Logical Laws. As we discussed with moral relativism, if you consider the two claims "murder is moral" and "murder is immoral," logic would dictate that one is correct and one is false because they are opposites. However, subjectivism allows for both to be true if separate individuals hold each to be true for them. This flies in the face of logic and reasoning.
Believing Doesn't Make It So. Just because one believes in subjectivism doesn't mean it's correct. Nor is it true that you're correct if you are100% genuine in your belief about some moral issue.
"Moral Inquiry" and "Moral Improvement" Can't Exist. How can you learn what the "right thing to do is" or learn how to "improve" if there's no standard to refer to?
The Problem of the Real World. It's not hard to imagine the chaos that this world would be in if everyone decided to live as moral subjectivists. It doesn't hold up.
The Problem of God. If there is a God who's established laws to be obeyed, then moral subjectivism is automatically negated.
PLURALISM
I want to quickly connect subjectivism to the idea of pluralism. Pluralism is a much more common belief that's held by people compared to moral subjectivism.
Let's begin with a definition. Though there are many other practical ways to define Pluralism, for our purposes, we'll define it as "the idea of extending acceptance and even validity to a variety of worldviews."
In other words, moral subjectivism accepts multiple understandings of JUST morality. Pluralism accept multiple worldviews which includes morality, but also views of God, eternity, purpose, holy texts, etc. We all know people like this: people who think there are many ways to God, people who think there are many ways to go to heaven, people who think that many religions have elements of truth, and people who are accepting of almost everyone and all ideas.
COMBATING PLURALISM
How do we combat this idea? Here's a few points.
First, when it comes to understanding God, heaven, hell, sin, salvation, and all other wordlview questions, someone has to be right. Logic and truth demand that not everyone can be right. Only the correct are correct. So it's logically problematic to just accept everyone.
Second, consider this actual quote about someone describing an aspect of pluralism: "You're allowed to believe what you choose." To clarify, the context of this quote suggests that this individual sees validity in whatever belief is chosen. My question to the person would immediately be "Can I believe that you're wrong? Or can I believe that only my way is right? Or can I believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation?" This assertion that the individual made opens the door to a plethora of logical errors.
Third, consider another actual quote. "There's more than one truth out there." Granted, there is not just a single truth that exists, but the connotation here is that multiple ideas on the same thing can all be correct. That's ridiculous! That's not how that works! Anyways.....
What can we say from Scripture about this? We don't have to go very far to find a convincing verse that relates. John 14:6 quotes Jesus to say "I am THE way and THE truth and THE life. NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT through me" (my emphasis). Jesus makes it very clear which, honestly, is a blessing.
CONCLUSION
In the end, we can conclude that moral relativism, moral subjectivism, and pluralism just aren't plausible. However, in a world that rejects the idea of God, a lifestyle and worldview of relativity is a very reasonable course of action. It's wrong, but it's a situationally sensible way to live.
Friday, October 14, 2016
Moral Relativism
INTRODUCTION
We continue our look at moral nonobjectivism. The plan was to discuss both moral relativism and moral subjectivism because they are similar. However, there was lots of good discussion during Dinner and Dialogue and so we spent time only on moral relativism.
MORAL RELATIVISM DEFINED
We can define moral relativism as "the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to a cultural standpoint and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over any other; thus, morality originates from society." So what society says is good, is good.
William Graham Sumner, a sociologist, said this: "In the folkways [customs, traditions, and moral beliefs], whatever is, is right... 'Immoral' never means anything but contrary to the mores of the time and place. [T]here is no permanent or universal standpoint by which right and truth in regard to these matters can be established and different folkways compared and criticized."
EVIDENCE FOR MORAL RELATIVISM
If we were to defend moral relativism, how would we back it up? Here's some "evidences" for their case. As we go through them, see if and how we can possibly refute them.
God May Not Exist. Thus, if God has not established laws, there's nothing all cultures have to follow. Response: First, God does exist. But secondly, even if he doesn't it doesn't logically follow that a societal decision of morality is correct. In fact, without God to instruct us what is and is not moral, how are we to say that societal relativism is moral?
There Are No Moral Principles That All Societies Accept. If all societies have different ideas, how can there be an over-arching morality? Response: Whether they agree or don't (and you could argue that most cultures do agree on general ideas) it still doesn't follow that moral relativism is correct.
No One Can Prove Who's Correct in a Moral Dispute. So since we can't know what's moral, relativity must be true. Response: this "evidence" presumes that moral relativism is correct. However, if Christianity or some other morally objective philosophy is correct, then we CAN know who's correct in a moral dispute.
Tolerance is a Virtue. So we should be tolerant of other culture's ideas. Response: How do you know "tolerance is a virtue." What if my culture defines "virtue" as not a good thing? Besides, what's the virtue of being tolerant of wrong ideas like killing and rape if that's what a culture embraces?
People Should Conform to the Moral Code of Their Society. Response: according to who/what? You can't appeal to some idea of what one "should" or "shouldn't" do when you say that culture's can decide what's right for them.
PROBLEMS WITH MORAL RELATIVISM
Now that we've turned the "evidence" into potential problems, let's look at some points that are straight-up troublesome for the moral relativists view.
Relativism Violates Logical Laws. Consider these two statements: "murder is moral" and "murder is immoral." They are both opposite and logic would dictate that one has to be true and one has to be false. However, a relativist could claim that they could both be true in different cultures or both be false. This defies logic.
Believing Doesn't Make It So. Just because you believe that cultures can/should determine their own morality doesn't mean that that's the way it is.
The Problem of Subgroups. The point here is that it's very difficult to know what to abide by if your a moral relativist. Do you abide by the U.S's morality? What if your state's morality is different? Or what if your city's morality is different or even your neighborhood? What do you do? This is a difficult matter for the moral relativist.
The Problem of God. If there is a God who's established laws to be obeyed, moral relativism is immediately negated.
CONCLUSION
I think that after looking at both sides of moral relativism, we can simply conclude that it's not plausible.
We continue our look at moral nonobjectivism. The plan was to discuss both moral relativism and moral subjectivism because they are similar. However, there was lots of good discussion during Dinner and Dialogue and so we spent time only on moral relativism.
MORAL RELATIVISM DEFINED
We can define moral relativism as "the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to a cultural standpoint and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over any other; thus, morality originates from society." So what society says is good, is good.
William Graham Sumner, a sociologist, said this: "In the folkways [customs, traditions, and moral beliefs], whatever is, is right... 'Immoral' never means anything but contrary to the mores of the time and place. [T]here is no permanent or universal standpoint by which right and truth in regard to these matters can be established and different folkways compared and criticized."
EVIDENCE FOR MORAL RELATIVISM
If we were to defend moral relativism, how would we back it up? Here's some "evidences" for their case. As we go through them, see if and how we can possibly refute them.
God May Not Exist. Thus, if God has not established laws, there's nothing all cultures have to follow. Response: First, God does exist. But secondly, even if he doesn't it doesn't logically follow that a societal decision of morality is correct. In fact, without God to instruct us what is and is not moral, how are we to say that societal relativism is moral?
There Are No Moral Principles That All Societies Accept. If all societies have different ideas, how can there be an over-arching morality? Response: Whether they agree or don't (and you could argue that most cultures do agree on general ideas) it still doesn't follow that moral relativism is correct.
No One Can Prove Who's Correct in a Moral Dispute. So since we can't know what's moral, relativity must be true. Response: this "evidence" presumes that moral relativism is correct. However, if Christianity or some other morally objective philosophy is correct, then we CAN know who's correct in a moral dispute.
Tolerance is a Virtue. So we should be tolerant of other culture's ideas. Response: How do you know "tolerance is a virtue." What if my culture defines "virtue" as not a good thing? Besides, what's the virtue of being tolerant of wrong ideas like killing and rape if that's what a culture embraces?
People Should Conform to the Moral Code of Their Society. Response: according to who/what? You can't appeal to some idea of what one "should" or "shouldn't" do when you say that culture's can decide what's right for them.
PROBLEMS WITH MORAL RELATIVISM
Now that we've turned the "evidence" into potential problems, let's look at some points that are straight-up troublesome for the moral relativists view.
Relativism Violates Logical Laws. Consider these two statements: "murder is moral" and "murder is immoral." They are both opposite and logic would dictate that one has to be true and one has to be false. However, a relativist could claim that they could both be true in different cultures or both be false. This defies logic.
Believing Doesn't Make It So. Just because you believe that cultures can/should determine their own morality doesn't mean that that's the way it is.
The Problem of Subgroups. The point here is that it's very difficult to know what to abide by if your a moral relativist. Do you abide by the U.S's morality? What if your state's morality is different? Or what if your city's morality is different or even your neighborhood? What do you do? This is a difficult matter for the moral relativist.
The Problem of God. If there is a God who's established laws to be obeyed, moral relativism is immediately negated.
CONCLUSION
I think that after looking at both sides of moral relativism, we can simply conclude that it's not plausible.
Thursday, October 13, 2016
"Creed"
I read this brilliantly written poem at Dinner and Dialogue because it exposes some of the absurdities of a world without God and simultaneously demonstrates what horrors such a world would entail.
"Creed" by Steve Turner
We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy is OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything is getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there's something in horoscopes,
UFO's and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man
just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher
although we think His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same--
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love goodness.
They only differ on matters of
creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied,
then it's compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.
We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
and the flowering of individual thought.
If chance be the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.
"Creed" by Steve Turner
We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy is OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything is getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there's something in horoscopes,
UFO's and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man
just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher
although we think His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same--
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love goodness.
They only differ on matters of
creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied,
then it's compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.
We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
and the flowering of individual thought.
If chance be the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.
Moral Nihilism & Atheism
MORAL NONOBJECTIVISM
We've spent the last couple of weeks on Moral Objectivism which states that morality exists outside of opinion. Now we'll cover the other family of moral philosophy: Moral Nonobjectivism.
Moral Nonobjectivism: "a family of theories that maintain that no moral claim, belief, or principle is either objectively true or objectively false (or objectively better justified than another) - that is, morality either doesn't exist or originates from opinion."
The corresponding expressions of Moral Nonobjectivism that we'll cover this week and next week are moral nihilism, moral subjectivism, and moral relativism.
MORAL NIHILISM DEFINED
As we examine moral nihilism this week, we can define it as "the idea that nothing is morally right or wrong, good or bad, required or prohibited." Nihilism comes from the Latin word nihil which means "nothing."
It was discussed what evidence could be found for this idea and why people would go for this idea. Among the ideas mentioned, some mentioned that because of the constant moral disagreements people have, they may adopt this idea to explain that fact. Additionally, it was stated that this is an attractive idea because it allows you to do what you want and frees you from guilt and possibly from consequences.
MORAL NIHILISM PROBLEMS
The problems with a nihilistic morality are rather obvious.
First of all, the fact that it eliminates morality and allows for anything is repulsive to the average human and seems to contradict what they know, feel, and believe. It simply doesn't seem plausible or true.
Second, moral nihilism allows for logical contradictions. Consider these two statements: "slavery is immoral" and "slavery is not immoral." Logic would dictate that because these are opposing statements one must be true and the other must be false. However, under moral nihilism, neither one is true or false. Thus, logic is defied.
Third, I will quote what I read in Moral Philosophy: Theories and Issues by Emmett Barcalow. "Moral Nihilists cannot have moral beliefs or make moral claims. For example, a moral nihilist who is being tortured to death for the amusement of a sadistic friend cannot believe or claim that what the friend is doing is wrong because the nihilist is committed to the view that nothing anyone does is wrong (or right). Similarly, a nihilist cannot have the belief that it would be wrong to start a nuclear war or to exterminate whole societies of people because one disagrees with their religion." Thus, although it's very much the natural inclination of people to make moral claims (arguably because they know there's morality in the universe), a moral nihilist is out of line to make such claims. (However, I suppose "out of line" doesn't exist in the moral nihilists' world)
ATHEISM
I want to take the rest of this time to talk about atheism because I think it connects. Here's how: moral nihilism is the only logically sound moral stance that an atheist can take. Because Atheists believe that there is no God or supreme Being, THERE IS NO ULTIMATE BASIS FOR MORALITY. You can't legitimately appeal to anything for your morality. Nihilism is the only sound option.
Consider this quote from the famed atheist Richard Dawkins: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we would expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." Dawkins points to a very dismal picture of the universe. However, if you believe in no morality and no God, this is pretty much what your stuck with. I wholeheartedly disagree with Dawkins' assessment, but your worldview absolutely changes your outlook on life in this universe.
As we consider to continue this idea of morality (or the lack there of) in the atheistic framework, I would propose this as one of the weakest points in their worldview. A discussion using Scripture or science or arguments for God's existence may sometimes work, but if you explain the moral problem well, I believe it can be rather convincing.
If you begin by demonstrating that atheism offers no true standard, you can lead them to understand the logical hopelessness of their moral reasoning. Then, you can lead them to the point where they realize that what they claim flies in the face of what they intuitively know (that morality exists). Once they concede the need for an originator of morality, you can them point them to the reality of God.
A WORLD WITHOUT GOD
Often times we forget the destructive power of the atheistic ideas.
First, pause for a moment to imagine the implications of everyone living with moral nihilism. Pretty horrible, right?
Second, realize that societies built upon Nazism and Communism during the 20th century (which were built upon atheism) resulted in the bloodiest century of all time. 94 million were killed by communist regimes. 21 million were killed by Nazi Germany. And many more were killed in the wars revolving around the horridness of these societies.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Moral nihilism results in logical contradictions
2. Moral nihilism eliminates any kind of moral claim
3. Atheism offers no basis for morality
4. Atheism, when taken to it's cultural extent, has proven to be massively destructive
We've spent the last couple of weeks on Moral Objectivism which states that morality exists outside of opinion. Now we'll cover the other family of moral philosophy: Moral Nonobjectivism.
Moral Nonobjectivism: "a family of theories that maintain that no moral claim, belief, or principle is either objectively true or objectively false (or objectively better justified than another) - that is, morality either doesn't exist or originates from opinion."
The corresponding expressions of Moral Nonobjectivism that we'll cover this week and next week are moral nihilism, moral subjectivism, and moral relativism.
MORAL NIHILISM DEFINED
As we examine moral nihilism this week, we can define it as "the idea that nothing is morally right or wrong, good or bad, required or prohibited." Nihilism comes from the Latin word nihil which means "nothing."
It was discussed what evidence could be found for this idea and why people would go for this idea. Among the ideas mentioned, some mentioned that because of the constant moral disagreements people have, they may adopt this idea to explain that fact. Additionally, it was stated that this is an attractive idea because it allows you to do what you want and frees you from guilt and possibly from consequences.
MORAL NIHILISM PROBLEMS
The problems with a nihilistic morality are rather obvious.
First of all, the fact that it eliminates morality and allows for anything is repulsive to the average human and seems to contradict what they know, feel, and believe. It simply doesn't seem plausible or true.
Second, moral nihilism allows for logical contradictions. Consider these two statements: "slavery is immoral" and "slavery is not immoral." Logic would dictate that because these are opposing statements one must be true and the other must be false. However, under moral nihilism, neither one is true or false. Thus, logic is defied.
Third, I will quote what I read in Moral Philosophy: Theories and Issues by Emmett Barcalow. "Moral Nihilists cannot have moral beliefs or make moral claims. For example, a moral nihilist who is being tortured to death for the amusement of a sadistic friend cannot believe or claim that what the friend is doing is wrong because the nihilist is committed to the view that nothing anyone does is wrong (or right). Similarly, a nihilist cannot have the belief that it would be wrong to start a nuclear war or to exterminate whole societies of people because one disagrees with their religion." Thus, although it's very much the natural inclination of people to make moral claims (arguably because they know there's morality in the universe), a moral nihilist is out of line to make such claims. (However, I suppose "out of line" doesn't exist in the moral nihilists' world)
ATHEISM
I want to take the rest of this time to talk about atheism because I think it connects. Here's how: moral nihilism is the only logically sound moral stance that an atheist can take. Because Atheists believe that there is no God or supreme Being, THERE IS NO ULTIMATE BASIS FOR MORALITY. You can't legitimately appeal to anything for your morality. Nihilism is the only sound option.
Consider this quote from the famed atheist Richard Dawkins: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we would expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." Dawkins points to a very dismal picture of the universe. However, if you believe in no morality and no God, this is pretty much what your stuck with. I wholeheartedly disagree with Dawkins' assessment, but your worldview absolutely changes your outlook on life in this universe.
As we consider to continue this idea of morality (or the lack there of) in the atheistic framework, I would propose this as one of the weakest points in their worldview. A discussion using Scripture or science or arguments for God's existence may sometimes work, but if you explain the moral problem well, I believe it can be rather convincing.
If you begin by demonstrating that atheism offers no true standard, you can lead them to understand the logical hopelessness of their moral reasoning. Then, you can lead them to the point where they realize that what they claim flies in the face of what they intuitively know (that morality exists). Once they concede the need for an originator of morality, you can them point them to the reality of God.
A WORLD WITHOUT GOD
Often times we forget the destructive power of the atheistic ideas.
First, pause for a moment to imagine the implications of everyone living with moral nihilism. Pretty horrible, right?
Second, realize that societies built upon Nazism and Communism during the 20th century (which were built upon atheism) resulted in the bloodiest century of all time. 94 million were killed by communist regimes. 21 million were killed by Nazi Germany. And many more were killed in the wars revolving around the horridness of these societies.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Moral nihilism results in logical contradictions
2. Moral nihilism eliminates any kind of moral claim
3. Atheism offers no basis for morality
4. Atheism, when taken to it's cultural extent, has proven to be massively destructive
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)