By Emmitt Forbush
An examination of the notion that free-willed beings are under no moral obligations in life
How much time have you spent pondering what is right or wrong in life? Have you ever done something you didn't want to do simply because you believed it to be the moral thing to do? Have you ever felt guilty for failing to do something that society made you feel obligated to do? Everyone faces times in their lives when they question what the true moral code that governs us as humans is, and how important it is to adhere to that code. In this article, we will examine a Meta-Ethical theory known as Moral Nihilism that argues the non-existence of moral laws and the advocates for the freedom of all beings to make choices based on their own desires.
The Theory:
In order to understand Moral Nihilism, it is important to have an idea of the basis of Meta-Ethics. This is a branch of philosophy that seeks to understand the moral laws and obligations of the universe. Many theories have been introduced into this field in attempts to pin down exactly what choices we, as moral agents, ought to make in order to contribute to the world around us. These theories can generally be sorted into one of two categories. Theories classified as Moral Realism present a set of moral laws that are inherently true and should be followed. Some suggest that these laws govern all people, while others claim that the laws we should follow can vary based on the culture we live in. Moral Anti-Realism takes a different approach, claiming that moral laws are neither true or false, and should not apply to all people. Rather, these laws are merely laid out to explain each individuals moral preferences, but should not be used to guide actions of all people.
For a more in-depth look at Meta-Ethics and some of the dominant theories among philosophers, feel free to watch this video by Crash Course.
Moral Nihilism is a theory on the extreme Moral Anti-Realism end of the spectrum. It rejects the notion of any moral laws at all. This theory claims that no action is necessarily preferable to any other action for any reason. Practically speaking, this means that committing murder is no more wrong than donating all of your money to the poor, because no action is ever right or wrong.
Some Moral Nihilists suggest that moral laws may exist, but only as human constructs and not natural laws, which render them inconsequential. This viewpoint is by far the most sound moral theory in terms of logical basis. As with all philosophical theories, the merit lies in the assumptions that the theory rests on. All theories in the moral realism category presuppose a set of assumed rules about what is inherently right or wrong in the universe. These are easily rejected because cultural views vary widely about the notion of right and wrong. The concept of morality is so vague and open to interpretation that there is no way for all people to agree on one set of moral laws.
Moreover, even if all people in the world agreed on one set of rules that should govern behavior, there would never be a scientific basis to explain why those rules existed. This is the fundamental problem with the study of morality. All natural laws in the universe are backed by scientific findings. Physics and math account for things like gravity, time, chemistry and biological life, thermodynamics, and all other known truths about the world around us. Morality can never be explained by science, making it impossible to ever confirm a set of natural moral laws. Our human views of ethics and morals are completely based in preference and intuition, making them non-falsifiable and thus, scientifically impossible to prove.
To solve this issue, Moral Nihilism posits that no true moral laws exist at all. Derived from the works of influential meta-physicists such as Søren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Albert Camus, Moral Nihilism is a branch of metaphysical Nihilism, which is a skeptical view of the universe suggesting that no knowledge we hold is certain. These views stem from the work of René Descartes who was the original skeptic, proposing that the whole universe may not exist at all and everything we think we know could be an illusion. In the field of ethics, Moral Nihilism narrows this down to the argument that since there can be no scientific basis for moral laws, none can exist. Because no moral laws can exist in the universe, there is no reason for any being to feel obligated to follow a moral code. This is what leads to the conclusion that any action is permissible and the ideas of right and wrong are simply human constructs with no true merit.
One of the best tests of any ethical theory is its ability to address ethical dilemmas such as the trolley problem, shown below.
Aside from Mill's Utilitarianism, which is impossible to fully implement due to its complex and unending equation of expected utility, Moral Nihilism is the only ethical theory that effectively addresses every ethical dilemma. Simply put, no choice is ever a dilemma for a Nihilist because nothing actually matters ethically. Some Nihilists, such as Sartre, stress the importance of living authentically. This means that when faced with a choice, the correct decision is whatever decision the individual makes, provided they make that decision based on what they truly value.
Social Implications:
One of the leading questions in the social psychology of helping others is egoism versus altruism. Egoism refers to actions that are completely self serving. Actions that are egoistic, regardless of there positive or negative effects on others, are motivated purely by the individuals desire to better their own life. Altruistic actions are the opposite of egoistic actions, motivated purely by a desire to help others. Studies on human motivation such as Batson et al (1981) suggest that actions are typically egoistic, though high levels of empathy can cause individuals to act in altruistic ways. Further research my Batson found that higher costs to the individual acting would outweigh empathy, causing them to revert to egoistic behaviors.
Many psychologists and philosophers believe all actions to be egoistic in nature, suggesting that altruism is only a method used to improve social standing or self-esteem of the individual acting. Both of these causes are supported by the idea of the selfish gene, as described by Nicola Davis' 2017 book "The Selfish Gene". This theory suggests that all of our actions can be tied back to the natural desire to ensure our genes survive for generations to come. There is a biological basis for this theory, as it has been observed across all living species in their conscious and instinctual behaviors and in the natural actions of non-intelligent species such as plants and bacteria.
Following the logical train once again, biological studies support the selfish gene theory, which supports egoism as a basis for all human decisions. Egoism supports the idea of Ethical Nihilism. As it effects our day to day actions, Ethical Nihilism posits that because there is no right or wrong, we are free to make any choice we desire at any junction. As intelligent beings who chose to live in societies, we are likely to analyze each situation and make a decision that will better our lives (ultimately in the support of our genes being furthered). Even if these choices seem to be altruistic, even if we feel that our motives are totally in the service of others, it seems likely that there is truly an egoistic cause deeper down in our minds.
Conclusion:
What does this all mean for us as moral agents? Basically, the take away message is that when we are making choices that we feel are ethically based, we need to understand that there is no reason to follow a set of moral laws because there is no logical basis for the laws that we follow. We should make all of our decisions based on the outcomes they are likely to produce. If helping others is going to work out well for us, then we should do it. Even if the only benefit to altruism is a boost in self-esteem or a feeling of accomplishment, that can be valuable to us. However, we should not do anything simply because we believe it to be "the right thing to do". Such actions simply do not exist. Logically speaking, this universe is not one of morality or ethics. It is simply a cosmic play ground for beings like us to exist in. We choose to exist in whatever way fits us, and we should not feel obligated to follow a set of arbitrary rules simply because others believe them to be important.
References:
Batson, C. D., Duncan, B. D., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., & Birch, K. (1981). Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation?. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), 290.
Batson, C. D., O'Quin, K., Fultz, J., Vanderplas, M., & Isen, A. M. (1983). Influence of self-reported distress and empathy on egoistic versus altruistic motivation to help. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(3), 706.
Camus, A. (1989). The Stranger, trans. Stuart Gilbert (New York, 1954), 142-43.
Course, C. (Director). (2016). Metaethics: Crash Course Philosophy #32[Video file]. Retrieved April 5, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOoffXFpAlU
Davis, N. (2017). The selfish gene. Macat Library.
Descartes, R. (1993). Discourse on method; and, Meditations on first philosophy.
Kierkegaard, S. (1959). Either/or.
Mill, J. S. (2016). Utilitarianism. In Seven Masterpieces of Philosophy (pp. 337-383). Routledge.
Nietzsche, F. W. (1927). Beyond good and evil. Prabhat Prakashan.
Deeply philosophical to say the least! I enjoyed reading this but, I still feel conflicted whether to believe that morality and ethics are important or not because reading this blog post causes me to question far greater things such as, does the universe actually exist, and what does it actually mean to be human?
ReplyDeleteThe debate could go on and on but, one thing is certain, the human brain constructs a reality based on it's perception of the world. So, this may actually support the debate concerning moral nihilism - an individual decides what they feel is right or wrong based on their perceptions of the world, in their own version of reality. It seems that many people construct a reality that may support the same underlying perceptions or beliefs in what is right or wrong however, it is scientifically impossible to prove - but is that the underlying goal, i.e. do we need evidence for why something is right or wrong? For example, do we decide that torture is right or wrong based on our perception of someone "suffering" and deciding that "suffering" is painful, is this based on empathy?
I think you bring up some important points - not every culture or society can agree that something is morally or ethically right or wrong however, this does not stop people from being ostracized or 'punished' for acting against what others' believe are morally/ethically right or wrong. What can society or humanity in general, do to address this debate if there are no real implications for it?
I am glad that this post opened up greater questions, as that was the intent. While the much larger scope of this question does revolve around skepticism of all things and emphasis on critically examining all of our beliefs under the microscope of logic, that conversation could go on for days. You are certainly correct, we all create our own reality based on what we perceive. However, since we can't know if anything we perceive is true, it seems unwise to place full value in those things. It seems to us that most people construct similar ideas of right and wrong, and that suggests that there must be some basis for what is truly moral. But, again, other people may not actually see the world the same way we do. This could just be another illusion.
DeleteAs for the practical applications, you are right. Even without a scientific basis, societies do put heavy emphasis on acting in accordance with a certain code. Moreover, every subculture has its own code to follow as well, all the way down to family norms at a dinner table. Logically speaking, these things are all baseless. They don't matter as far as universal laws are concerned. However, we may still choose to follow these codes. We do so not because the codes themselves hold value, but because there is a logical and inherent value in being a part of a society. Nihilists choose to base our decisions on consequences to our lives, because they are the only things that we can control or truly understand. Is it wrong to steal whatever I want for my own pleasure or hurt people that I don't like? No. There is no "right" or "wrong". However, doing these things in a society that subscribes to a moral code, no matter how illogical, will have real negative impacts on my life.
It's also important to note that the punishment of others isn't the only enforcer of behavior for nihilists. There are plenty of times that I act in ways that many would consider altruistic. I can be kind and charitable and compassionate without any concrete rewards much like everyone else. As someone who sees no basis for morality, I have several other reasons to act this way. First, I know that people are more likely to do kind things for each other if they live in a place where others are kind to them. I am happier as an individual living in an ordered society than in chaos. Second, my self view is impacted by how others perceive me. This is true of all people, though we rarely admit it. I will make choices that help others and don't benefit me, not because they are "the right choice", but because they make people like me, and that makes me feel good about myself.
We don't need to abandon all actions of help, we just need to understand that there is no reason to act unless there is a truly a reward in it. Don't blindly follow an arbitrary code, but act in accordance with what will benefit you. As an individual in this universe, your life is the only thing you can ever be certain of, and even if your reality is only an illusion, it is all you can experience. Make that experience the best you can for yourself while you are in it.
Very interesting topic. It really does make you think about why we chose certain things to be right or wrong in the world. It begs the question where did these traditions of right and wrong come from. When did we first decide that it is morally wrong to murder. If there were no consequences for our actions, would we see something like the movie The Purge, where people cave to some of their inner most desires that do not conform to what society thinks is right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteGood questions. It is fair to assume that a lot of our current "morality" came from logic that was twisted over thousands of years. Killing is bad because no one wants to die. That isn't a natural law, but it holds value to an individual. I don't want to die, therefor, in my reality, dying is bad. If enough people agree that dying is bad, then they will agree not to kill each other because it affords them some protection against dying. Universally, dying is not bad. It is natural on our planet. Beyond that, even nature is neither good or bad as far as the universe is concerned. But for individuals like us, it is easy to begin making codes to guide action in order to benefit ourselves.
DeleteThe trouble comes when people from different backgrounds collide with different codes and have trouble reconciling them. Old norms and behaviors are held onto without any real reason and new explanations are created to help newcomers understand the reason for the code. Take something simple like a handshake. It used to be a sign of peace and proof that you weren't carrying a weapon when you met someone new. It had a purpose. Today it serves no purpose. It's origin is outdated. However, it is still rude to refuse a handshake. Traditions are held onto without reason.
At the risk of sounding controversial, I would argue that many religions grew out of attempts to explain moral codes to newcomers. If someone doesn't understand or agree with your reason's to do something, tell them that a deity commands it and there are incomprehensible cosmic punishments for not abiding by the code. If you believe something is right or wrong and can't figure out why, it is easier to tell yourself "God commands it, and that makes it so" than it is to critically analyze the situation and perhaps abandon a belief that you have held for all of your life.
Of course, as Kira and I talked about, there are still consequences for actions. There is still a reason to abide by the norms of your culture. However, there is no reason to feel that you "ought to" act in a specific way simply because it is the right or wrong way to act.
Disclaimer: I don't claim that religion is inherently false. As a skeptic, I doubt all things and choose not to take a hard stance on issues that can't be proved. There are a lot of logical explanations for religion that don't imply the existence of a higher power, and there are plenty that do. I freely admit that there may be a God and in fact, there may be a universal moral code that we are supposed to follow. However, until those things are backed up by solid evidence, I will continue to doubt them as with everything else, and I will continue to encourage others to do the same. Believe whatever you choose, but have a reason to do so.
Moral Nihilism is a very eye-opening theory and I appreciate how in-depth you went with this post. Towards the end, you brought up the concept of the "selfish gene". Humans are the only beings that seem to go by a moral code. Of course this can be argued, but in nature, animals only do things that benefit themselves. Their main goal is to reproduce, which brings us back to the selfish gene. If animals started giving their food away to other animals just for the sake of being nice, they would die off and the concept of natural selection would be irrelevant. Animals are first come first serve when it comes to food, water, and shelter whereas humans are very charitable.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if you read the blog post about the GoFundMe website, but the author discussed how people donate to a cause and it's almost never anonymous. This is because these people are donating to someone else in hopes of a returned benefit, whether that benefit be that people like them or that maybe one day the person they donated to will help them out in the future. As for people who donate anonymously, maybe they're doing it to feel good about themselves. No one would ever donate a large sum of money without some sort of benefit, even if it is small.
Great job on this post, it really made me contemplate life in a new way. One question I thought of while reading this post is; do you think everyone is a moral nihilist without knowing it? We all do things that will hopefully benefit us in some way, whether it be direct or indirect. I can't think of a situation where a person isn't getting some sort of benefit out of their own actions.
That's a good point about actions of animals. There are some cases ( look up prairie dogs for an example ) of reciprocal altruism in the animal kingdom. However, all of those examples are explained by the survival of closely related members of the species in order to protect the similar genetics in the pool.
DeleteI don't think that everyone is a nihilist (though I believe it would benefit us). Everyone is egoistic whether they know it or not. However, many people act in ways that they believe to be altruistic. They also do so in service of some moral code that they believe it is important to follow. Nihilism doesn't necessitate a change in action, only a deeper analysis of why we choose to act.
*screeches* NOTHING IS REAL
ReplyDeleteeyyy, you got the point!
DeleteVery nice blog post! It's interesting to take a look at philosophy be amazed at how much discussion can be spawned from a topic that essential has no real answer. Morals aren't a tangible thing, and as we can't prove that any sort of moral code actually exists it all comes down to debating over what is "right", which of course is in itself a definition that changes per person. I'm a fan of things like nihilism or utilitarianism because I feel like they are decent rules of thumb for morality and ethics, two topics that are pretty low on my actual list of concerns when I take all aspects of my life into consideration.
ReplyDeleteAs far as morality and ethics go, there are a lot of interesting theories that people choose to believe or live by. Personally, I like nihilism because I prefer not to truly believe in anything that can't be proven. The fact is that nothing can be proven (see the link to Descartes for more on this). However, from a societal stand point, it would be very bad to use nihilism to guide actions. Factually, there is no such thing as a moral law. They simply don't exist. However, as people who live together and strive to enjoy our existence, it makes sense to construct morality and teach people to follow it. Especially due to the fact that so few people will ever actually study ethics or grasp concepts like nihilism, skepticism, or absurdism. In this sense, utilitarianism, though very different from nihilism, is the code I prefer to follow (or rather, to have society follow). While it still rests on the flawed notion or moral laws, it is by far the most logically sound approach to determining what those laws are.
DeleteI really liked your conclusion and have an interesting question to pose to you: Does moral nihilism support people who murder for enjoyment? So if a certain person, let's call him Chaden, believes that murdering somebody else is going to give him the best outcomes possible he is perfectly in the right to murder that person? Even if that person being alive allows for better outcomes for the whole of society. I.e. is Chaden in the wrong for harming the society as a whole or is he right in the sense that he is doing the best thing for him?
ReplyDeleteNihilism does't support or reject anything. That is the whole point. Chaden wouldn't be in the right or the wrong. There is no right and wrong. Practically speaking, it makes sense for Chaden to do whatever he wants to do, especially if it benefits him. But this isn't utilitarianism. Not on a societal level or an individual one. Even if murdering that person is the worst possible choice for what Chaden wants in life and what the rest of the world wants, it is still neither right nor wrong. Those concepts are simply unfounded and should not be applied to any actions. The whole point is that we are all free to do whatever we want from a moral perspective because morals are totally a social construct with no logical basis to them.
DeleteThat is not to say that it is wise for Chaden to commit that murder. However, regardless of who benefits or suffers, it is not right or wrong. There is no right or wrong. A good analogy posed to understand this concept goes like this:
True or False: The current King of France is bald.
The fact is that the statement is neither true nor false because there is no King of France. The foundation of the question is flawed, and therefor attempting to answer it is futile. The same goes for Moral Nihilism. You can't classify actions as "in the right" because there simply is no such thing as right.