Meta-Ethics Neo -Nihilism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Meta-Ethics Neo -Nihilism » Meta-Ethics Neo -Nihilism

Meta-Ethics Neo -Nihilism

Nihilism
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 90

Posted 10/28/09 - 02:51 PM: Subject: Meta-Ethics Neo -Nihilism	#1
Following the death of faith in God non believers have become confused over the issue of ethics and morality. I shall seek to end their confusing thereby offering the honest answer to view on ethics to which a liberated atheist thinker would arrive. It is not humanism, but a qualified form of nihilism. I shall look at confused responses that is: evolutionary psychology, humanism, utilitarianism, contractarianism and cultural relativism and find them lacking. To begin with it is essential to understand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive ethics. A dichotomy conflation of which has been the cause of most of the confusion regarding ethics. Descriptive ethics then, describes the behaviour of humans and other species amongst themselves. We can say describe the compassion and altruism amongst mankind. But describing behaviour does not logically entail that one prescribes or advocates that behaviour. Prescriptive ethics prescribes values that others "ought" to have, it prescribes behaviour one "ought" not to do this or that. For religions prescriptions are given by God. David Hume made clear it is logically impossible to derive prescriptive ethics from descriptive ethics. It is logically impossible to derive an "ought" prescription from an "is" description or a value from a fact. For example it may be a fact that we have evolved compassion to aid our survival. But from this fact it is impossible to derive the value that one "ought" to be compassionate. Such a transgression of logic is as invalid as deriving the value that one "ought" to be aggressive from the fact that we have evolved aggression. Morality then is not based on reason but on sentiment which is both biologically and culturally conditioned. As Hume stated : "It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger." (Its not contrary to reason, its just highly unusual) Following this understanding to those who claim that we have a moral sense within us from what is good and what is evil I will reply with the following. It may be a fact that we have the characteristics of compassion, empathy, altruism etc But these are universal characteristics NOT universal values. They are facts not values. Different cultures value different characteristics for example the characteristic of "pride" was the highest value for Aristotle in Greece 2500 years ago. But was one of the lowest vices for medieval christianity being one of the seven deadly sins. So the characteristic of "pride" is a fact but it is merely culture not logic which decides whether it is a value. Like wise, Plato considered compassion to be a womenly vice. The Spartans considered aggression to be a virtue. The Vikings considered death in battle to be the only way of entering their heaven valhalla. Again characteristics, facts and values must be separated. With this understanding here are some responses to the question of our values. Evolutionary psychology, we can explain characteristics through evoltion. But we cannot explain which characteristics we "ought" to value from evolution. Evolution describes the facts, but it cannot prescribe values or bridge the "is", "ought" gap. We have evolved both aggression and compassion, evolution cannot tell us which we should value the more. Likewise humanism claims there are certain human characteristics that aid our survival and thus are universal values (human rights) However this again derives values from facts. Moreover other facts such as anger, aggression and manipulation have also aided and still aid our survivial. There is no way of proving them to be true and rights can only exist within a legal frame work. Outside of countries such notions are absurd. Utilitarianism also suffers from logical inconsistency, it derives the value of the utility principle (increase everyones pleasure and decrease the pain) from the fact that we seek pleasure and avoid pain. Even if this were a fact it does not entail how we "ought" follow it. On may seek pain and avoid pleasure without contradiction. Facts do not lead to values. Contractarianism states that values are derived from certain characteristics such as altruism as they help society acheive peace and stability. However this assumes what it seeks to prove it begs the question, as it values peace and stability as a condition from which values are derived. Many cultures have valued war and battle, both cultural evaluations are subjective not objective. What has been said in no way leads to cultural relativism , they state that one "ought" not to criticise other cultures. This itself is a value and prescription (and "ought") that itself is relative to their culture and thus not an objective moral imperative either. Rather if we want to be rational we must criticise other cultures based on our subjective preferences and be conscious of the fact. This does not lead to classical nihilism as we understand that it is a fact that we value things whatever they maybe. Even perception itself is an evaluation. We perceive what is a value to us. Nihilism per say is impossible due to human nature. But different things are valuable to different people and different creatures. Therefore this account is known as neo nihilism. Objective morality is an illusion and like religion is a means to control others. Edited by Nihilism on 10/29/09 - 10:59 AM
To criticize is only to establish that a concept vanishes when it is thrust into a new milieu, losing some of its components, or acquiring others that transform it. But those who criticize without creating, those who are content to defend the vanished concept without being able to give it the forces it needs to return to life, are the plague of philosophy. All those debaters and communicators are inspired by resentment. They speak only for themselves when they set empty generalizations against one another. Philosophy has a horror of discussions. It always has something else to do.

Klas Wullt
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 18, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 64

Posted 10/30/09 - 11:11 AM: Subject: NIHILISM	#2
This great. A very correct description of those philosophies. It's very important to discuss if simple perception of things like deduction are "values". Personally I suggest that thinking intelligent allows possibilities other than "valued". If a person have an theoretical problem and jumps directly to apply preferable valued solutions. That is a conditoned learned response. It is not valid. An intelligent person begins with an idea of his problem and can exploring develop deductions beyond what is preferable. Humans have an tendency to read meanings into everything and mix their emotions with facts. What they don't like or don't know doesn't exist and the world revolves around their culture, their social class and their belief. Cultural roles and religion etc have a purpose to act as "information" and organise society into jobs. It doesn't have a symbolic meaning. People do think they follow cultures becouse of something other than fact but that is just becouse the cultures are outdated. Religion-culture and more are nothing but false facts. That is why I think humans so often read "cultural values" into emotionless facts and then deny them.

Klas Wullt
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 18, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 64

Posted 10/30/09 - 11:29 AM: Subject: nihilism	#3
Another thing I realised. All those moral philosophies have the common problem that they prescripe the same things without explaining why. They fail to create "new moral guidelines" becouse they do not solve anything. They prescripe something "positive" for other persons which often is to vague and to similar. Natural Right ethics say that everyone has right to what rescourses they need. What rescourses anyone need is an objective statement that comes from natural observation. Utilitarianism has hedonism but that hedonism is not very different from altuistic compassion. Natural Right is vague. Utilitarian joy is vague. They do not answer to why those things are positive to begin with. It is easy to find flaws in them. They defend "new rights" or remove "old rights". They do not really solve any moral problems instead they more or less adapt the same values again and again. As long as those philosophers wants anything they formulate that within ethics but how can they just take any random idea that only apply to them and apply on the rest of the world.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.