Atheism and nihilism

Is atheism inherently nihilistic?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Yes. But I wouldn't say in any given circumstance as some situations are more complicated and need more reasoning. But on many big issues yes we all know what is right and wrong. Anyone who tried to claim that it was OK to abuse a child or take what was rightfully someone's property for no good reason for example we can rightfully say is just plain wrong and if they cannot see that they are either unsound or are denying the truth.
The 'big issues' you mention are broad enough to be universals, but will have differing interpretations (e.g. what constitutes abuse? what is a good reason?) in different cultures. If you've ever spent time in an Asian honour-based culture, you'll know that their moral values are generally very strong and can be strikingly different from Western values.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
We can be 100% certain of formal (analytic) truths, but I wouldn't group in "states of affairs in the world."
That's what I said; they're both objective, but we can only guarantee certainty of analytic truths.

Sure, but the spectrum holds. The very firmest moral truths are things like, "Do good and avoid evil," where good and evil are, at this stage, defined according to the agent's perception. Yet that is all but analytic.
If the concepts are defined according to the agent's perception, they're necessarily subjective.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The 'big issues' you mention are broad enough to be universals, but will have differing interpretations (e.g. what constitutes abuse? what is a good reason?) in different cultures. If you've ever spent time in an Asian honour-based culture, you'll know that their moral values are generally very strong and can be strikingly different from Western values.
Abuse is abuse and there is no way to make it non-abuse in unjustified situations. If there is good reason to put someone through some hurtful situation then its, not abuse. The meaning of abuse according to the dictionary is 'to use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse'. So really there is no such thing as good abuse or justified abuse. It is just an act that is done to bad effect and purpose and has no good reason for being done. So the broad understanding you are talking about doesn't exist and is just an attempt to justify abuse.

If you said to 100 people from different cultures do you think it is OK to abuse a child they would all agree that it was wrong. What possible reason could they say that abusing a child was OK if that abuse was for no good effect or purpose? Therefore anyone who claims that it is OK to abuse a child is wrong.

It is often the different factual understandings between cultures that people mistake as the relative moral differences rather than them actually disagreeing about the moral value itself. Like with the moral of respect for people in greeting them. Different cultures approach this differently where some kiss, others embrace, and others shake hands. But to some kissing or not embracing may seem immoral and therefore they have a different moral value.

But that is not the moral value. The moral value is to greet someone with respect and all cultures agree in this moral. They just have a different way of expressing that. If you strip away these different cultural approaches you will usually find that we all have pretty similar moral values. Those who claim they have good reasons for doing something alien to what we all know is wrong don't really make much sense when you examine it and nor can they really justify things.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
That is what I was saying about how subjective morality cannot use harm as a measuring tool for morality as people will also have subjective views about what harm is. So the same for abuse. Therefore using abuse as a measure for morality, to begin with, is irrelevant and doesn't equate to moral values in the first place.
You were the one that mentioned abuse as an example of right/wrong, i.e. morality.

Abuse is abuse and there is no way to make it non-abuse in unjustified situations. The meaning of abuse according to the dictionary is 'to use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse'. So really there is no such thing as good abuse or justified abuse. It is just an act that is done to bad effect and purpose and has no good reason for being done. So the broad understanding you are talking about doesn't exist and is just an attempt to justify abuse.
That's just begging the question - people's views about what is a bad effect or bad purpose differ, so their views about what constitutes abuse will differ. For example, some people say making a child go to school and learn stuff they may never use is an abuse; the child could be out with its parents learning about real life and picking up skills and crafts; others say not sending a child to school if there is the opportunity is an abuse. Some think the child's wishes are very important, some think they're not very important. The nature of the culture and the family situation will make a difference. Some mothers think that a slap on the leg when a child does something wrong or dangerous is abuse; others think that it is an effective way to establish an important lesson. In many such cases, it's very difficult to establish the short & long term benefits and/or harms because there is so much variation in circumstances - and there are cultural biases associated with benefit and harm evaluation.

If you said to 100 people from different cultures do you think it is OK to abuse a child they would all agree that it was wrong. What possible reason could they say that abusing a child was OK if that abuse was for no good effect or purpose? Therefore anyone who claims that it is OK to abuse a child is wrong.
Again, it's a question of what is judged to constitute abuse. I submit that if you asked 100 people from different cultures to judge a range of examples of what their various cultures think is child abuse you'd get a range of different responses; they wouldn't all agree on all examples.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You were the one that mentioned abuse as an example of right/wrong, i.e. morality.
Yes, and abuse is a way of measuring objective morality. But when you use it or harm for measuring subjective morality it then raises the question as to what constitutes harm or abuse. Not because it can never be measured but because for subjective morality there is no grounding so abuse and harm can be arbitrary.

That's just begging the question - people's views about what is a bad effect or bad purpose differ, so their views about what constitutes abuse will differ. For example, some people say making a child go to school and learn stuff they may never use is an abuse; the child could be out with its parents learning about real life and picking up skills and crafts; others say not sending a child to school if there is the opportunity is an abuse. Some think the child's wishes are very important, some think they're not very important. The nature of the culture and the family situation will make a difference.
I don't think the nature and culture of a family makes a difference to the moral truth. It may make a difference in how they have to deal with the situation but it should not prevent them from finding the moral truth. It just may be more difficult to see. At the end of the day, all parents agree that they want the best for their child but different circumstances may make achieving that difference.

But that doesn't change the fact they all want the best for their child and not putting them in an abusive situation should be avoided. If one family in certain circumstances has to do that differently than another that doesn't mean that there is a different moral value going on. That is where people get confused in interpreting the different ways people have to negotiate to achieve the moral standard are the actual morals when it's not.
Some mothers think that a slap on the leg when a child does something wrong or dangerous is abuse; others think that it is an effective way to establish an important lesson. In many such cases, it's very difficult to establish the short & long term benefits and/or harms because there is so much variation in circumstances - and there are cultural biases associated with benefit and harm evaluation.
But still what is it that each parent is wanting to achieve. It is not to abuse their child. The fact that there may be a difference in opinion based on an understanding of the facts about what constitutes abuse or not is not a difference in the opinion of the moral itself. They both agree that abusing a child is wrong. It is the same as the greeting example. The fact that different cultures have different understandings of how to greet doesn't change the fact they all have the same morals to greet people with respect.

Again, it's a question of what is judged to constitute abuse. I submit that if you asked 100 people from different cultures to judge a range of examples of what their various cultures think is child abuse you'd get a range of different responses; they wouldn't all agree on all examples.
Like I said that has nothing to do with the moral itself as explained above. But the other thing is that unlike the example you gave above where some may have subtle differences like should a child be made to go to school or see the world there may not be obvious differences and there may be benefits for having both.

But in many cases of culture, the difference is obvious and there is usually no rational or justified reason for why they believe that it is not abuse. They just believe it is OK and even contradict their own position. So when we examine all these differences in factual understanding and reasons I think you will find that we all believe similar morals and when we don't there is no rational reason for the moral position.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Yes, and abuse is a way of measuring objective morality. But when you use it or harm for measuring subjective morality it then raises the question as to what constitutes harm or abuse. Not because it can never be measured but because for subjective morality there is no grounding so abuse and harm can be arbitrary.

I don't think the nature and culture of a family makes a difference to the moral truth. It may make a difference in how they have to deal with the situation but it should not prevent them from finding the moral truth. It just may be more difficult to see. At the end of the day, all parents agree that they want the best for their child but different circumstances may make achieving that difference.

But that doesn't change the fact they all want the best for their child and not putting them in an abusive situation should be avoided. If one family in certain circumstances has to do that differently than another that doesn't mean that there is a different moral value going on. That is where people get confused in interpreting the different ways people have to negotiate to achieve the moral standard are the actual morals when it's not. But still what is it that each parent is wanting to achieve. It is not to abuse their child. The fact that there may be a difference in opinion based on an understanding of the facts about what constitutes abuse or not is not a difference in the opinion of the moral itself. They both agree that abusing a child is wrong. It is the same as the greeting example. The fact that different cultures have different understandings of how to greet doesn't change the fact they all have the same morals to greet people with respect.

Like I said that has nothing to do with the moral itself as explained above. But the other thing is that unlike the example you gave above where some may have subtle differences like should a child be made to go to school or see the world there may not be obvious differences and there may be benefits for having both.

But in many cases of culture, the difference is obvious and there is usually no rational or justified reason for why they believe that it is not abuse. They just believe it is OK and even contradict their own position. So when we examine all these differences in factual understanding and reasons I think you will find that we all believe similar morals and when we don't there is no rational reason for the moral position.
Yes, moral subjectivists are cheating by acting as if their morality was objective while at the same time avoiding the consequences of objective morality, that is, acknowledging the existence of God. Of course, not all moral subjectivists realize this, because they consider their morality sufficiently autonomous to justify their behavior with respect to it, so it's up to you to explain the matter to them.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,779
3,378
✟242,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
If the concepts are defined according to the agent's perception, they're necessarily subjective.

Except that the intention includes objectivity. The subject is perceiving that something is objectively good or bad. So we could restate the principle, "Do what you perceive to be objectively good and avoid what you perceive to be objectively evil." So long as there is some correlation between that perception and the actual state of affairs it won't be entirely subjective.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,947
The Void!
✟1,126,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Okay, let's see. You would say that Jesus/God is good because He possesses good qualities, although identifying what those qualities are is difficult and differs to some degree between what you recognize and what the ancients recognized. For instance, justice is good, God is inherently just, so God is good. And further, you'd probably say that God possesses all of the good qualities.

Correct.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,947
The Void!
✟1,126,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What makes things like "justice" good?

What exactly is Justice? We can't ask what makes justice 'good' until we know ontologically what justice truly and fully "is." So, I wouldn't want to get ahead of myself in answering a question with no clear and agreed upon application, let alone definition, of an anterior context.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Yes, and abuse is a way of measuring objective morality. But when you use it or harm for measuring subjective morality it then raises the question as to what constitutes harm or abuse. Not because it can never be measured but because for subjective morality there is no grounding so abuse and harm can be arbitrary.

I don't think the nature and culture of a family makes a difference to the moral truth. It may make a difference in how they have to deal with the situation but it should not prevent them from finding the moral truth. It just may be more difficult to see. At the end of the day, all parents agree that they want the best for their child but different circumstances may make achieving that difference.

But that doesn't change the fact they all want the best for their child and not putting them in an abusive situation should be avoided. If one family in certain circumstances has to do that differently than another that doesn't mean that there is a different moral value going on. That is where people get confused in interpreting the different ways people have to negotiate to achieve the moral standard are the actual morals when it's not. But still what is it that each parent is wanting to achieve. It is not to abuse their child. The fact that there may be a difference in opinion based on an understanding of the facts about what constitutes abuse or not is not a difference in the opinion of the moral itself. They both agree that abusing a child is wrong. It is the same as the greeting example. The fact that different cultures have different understandings of how to greet doesn't change the fact they all have the same morals to greet people with respect.

Like I said that has nothing to do with the moral itself as explained above. But the other thing is that unlike the example you gave above where some may have subtle differences like should a child be made to go to school or see the world there may not be obvious differences and there may be benefits for having both.

But in many cases of culture, the difference is obvious and there is usually no rational or justified reason for why they believe that it is not abuse. They just believe it is OK and even contradict their own position. So when we examine all these differences in factual understanding and reasons I think you will find that we all believe similar morals and when we don't there is no rational reason for the moral position.
You seem to be saying that if people think that doing wrong (e.g. abuse) is bad and doing right is good, then if they do right and not wrong by their definitions, they're being moral regardless of how they define what is right and what is wrong.

So if two people agree that child abuse is wrong and they abhor it, their actions towards their children are moral even if each thinks the other is abusing their child?

If this isn't what you mean, please clarify. If it is what you mean, that's what I mean by subjective morals.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Except that the intention includes objectivity. The subject is perceiving that something is objectively good or bad. So we could restate the principle, "Do what you perceive to be objectively good and avoid what you perceive to be objectively evil." So long as there is some correlation between that perception and the actual state of affairs it won't be entirely subjective.
How does the agent know what is objectively good and objectively evil? What objective standard can they use?
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,779
3,378
✟242,026.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
How does the agent know what is objectively good and objectively evil? What objective standard can they use?

I think most people include things like harm, justice, flourishing, and freedom in their analysis.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,947
The Void!
✟1,126,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What makes things like "justice" good?

... and my earlier comment would go for "things" in general too, I suppose, and not just for the concept of justice.

Personally, though, I began life as a young boy thinking that a 'good' thing was something that benefits me and/or my family. The upshot of this thinking on my part is that now, in retrospective, I'm not sure that thinking of mine ever made for a really great definition of "good" ... :sorry:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The happy Objectivist

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2020
909
274
56
Center
✟58,419.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
OK, so your needs are the needs of all human beings, and you say that they are objective because those needs are objective, which suggests your morals should be the morals of all humans; but people do differ about how those needs may be morally fulfilled (and they differ over the morality of actions that are not related to their own survival needs - or do you think morals only apply to existential needs?).

Yes, the Objectivist ethics should be the ethics of all Human beings. If only that were the case the world would be a much better place to live. If someone differs from me on a moral principle then reality is the final arbiter. I'm trying to come up with an example of a non-existential need. Could you give me an example of one. I mean existential means concerned with Human existence.

If your morals are objective because they relate to objective needs, then other people's morals are objective when they relate to their objective needs, even if they differ from your morals. Is this what 'objective morality' means - that morals concerning objective needs are objective, even if they differ between individuals, so everyone can have their own objective morals?
This question is incoherent. You've already said that my needs are the needs of all Human beings. My needs are determined by my nature, a nature I share with all fellow human beings. So their objective needs are the same as mine if they want to live. Moral values are a type of fact, so no, I don't think everyone can have their own objective morals any more than one can have one's own set of facts or one's own truth.

What about morals unrelated to your existential needs, such as the morality of corporal and capital punishment, sexual behaviour, abortion, theft, lies, etc. - in what sense are they objective?
I don't think there is such a thing as a value unrelated to my life needs. It's only in the contect of life and it's requirements that anything can have value. Morals are objective if they are based on facts.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You seem to be saying that if people think that doing wrong (e.g. abuse) is bad and doing right is good, then if they do right and not wrong by their definitions, they're being moral regardless of how they define what is right and what is wrong.

So if two people agree that child abuse is wrong and they abhor it, their actions towards their children are moral even if each thinks the other is abusing their child?

If this isn't what you mean, please clarify. If it is what you mean, that's what I mean by subjective morals.
Yes, that is the definition of subjective morality. But what I am saying is that this does not mean that what each person thinks is morally right is actually morally right as the 'truth' or as being objective. That is why you can have two different views about what is moral or what is abuse or harm yet each view is still morally right under subjectivism. The same as with relative morality except in that case each culture believes their morals are right from their standpoint as opposed to their being an absolute moral that applies to all cultures.

But what seems to happen is that most people will act as though their moral view is "truth' or culture will act like their moral position is absolute and say that the other view or standpoint is wrong and that they should be living according to what the person/culture is claiming is morally right. That is actually being hypocritical as far as their own moral position of subjectivity or relativism because they are taking what should be a personal or cultural position and making it a world or universal moral. It has moved from within the person to outside and beyond.

People do this because they know that certain moral acts are wrong no matter what individuals or cultures believe. It can be shown that the rational or justification people claim doesn't make sense or even is consistent with their own beliefs/values. But technically this should not matter to a subjectivist or relativists. But ironically it does as we see in the way people behave.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Yes, the Objectivist ethics should be the ethics of all Human beings. If only that were the case the world would be a much better place to live. If someone differs from me on a moral principle then reality is the final arbiter. I'm trying to come up with an example of a non-existential need. Could you give me an example of one. I mean existential means concerned with Human existence.
I was using 'existential' in the sense of necessary for existence. So that point concerned moral issues that are not matters of survival.

Morals are objective if they are based on facts.
It's individual actions in response to the facts that are moral or immoral.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,947
The Void!
✟1,126,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sorry, which earlier comment?

... post #411, which came just before post #415. I was just adding and addendum of sorts, for the sake of clarification. ;)
 
Upvote 0