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, 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.
So how can one discover the objective moral truth?

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.
Each view is morally right to the individual that holds it (obviously). What they think of other's views is moot, though it seems reasonable that if you think your view is correct for someone else but they have a different view, you will tend to think their view is wrong.

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.
The common usage is that morals differ between cultures and each culture's morals are correct for that culture. There is another approach, that of moral constructivism, where you construct your moral framework by reasoning from practical human experience (rather than theoretical reasoning, e.g. Kant). In this case you can acknowledge descriptive moral relativism, i.e. that other cultures have different moral frameworks, but still criticise them for not being correct (well-reasoned) - although there is the problem of how to establish that another culture's moral framework fails when you may not have practical experience of their situation from which to reason.

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.
I suspect that most people are not moral subjectivists or relativists (in the sense above), or simply haven't formed an opinion on their moral stance. But suppose they all say that their moral code/values are objectively morally true? What difference would that make?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So how can one discover the objective moral truth?
I think the moral truth is in all of us. It there to be discovered and acknowledged. The think about moral values is they are not some object that we can pick up and measure. So it is the language we use, the claims, and the values we appeal to whether one thinks that these values are subjective or not. The fact that we appeal to them and are even forced to go along with them even when we don't want to via our conscience is support for objective morals.

Each view is morally right to the individual that holds it (obviously). What they think of other's views is moot, though it seems reasonable that if you think your view is correct for someone else but they have a different view, you will tend to think their view is wrong.
Technically if people were to follow subjective morality properly they would be saying that they have a particular view but they understand and accept that others have their own views and none are really wrong. But as mentioned above most don't do that and impose their view on others like they hold the moral truth. Society does it in the laws they impose, organisations do it in the codes of conduct they impose on employees and international organizations do it in the Universal codes they impose on all cultures.

The common usage is that morals differ between cultures and each culture's morals are correct for that culture. There is another approach, that of moral constructivism, where you construct your moral framework by reasoning from practical human experience (rather than theoretical reasoning, e.g. Kant).
Or consequentialism which would be more relevant for reasoning what is best for a given situation or culture. Kantian ethics is more rule-based and doesn't allow reasoning. The moral right equates to following the rules or duties regardless of any reasoned outcome.
In this case, you can acknowledge descriptive moral relativism, i.e. that other cultures have different moral frameworks, but still, criticize them for not being correct (well-reasoned) - although there is the problem of how to establish that another culture's moral framework fails when you may not have practical experience of their situation from which to reason.
Not just that but how do we determine the basis for reasoning as what can be used to measure morality is also subjective. Human wellbeing may be the basis but as with consequentialism, the who and what can be subjectively determined. Also one can ask who says that human wellbeing should be the basis.

Not that consequences or human wellbeing are not a way to determine what is moral. It is just hard to determine the 'what' and 'who' under subjective or relative morality beyond the individual or culture.
I suspect that most people are not moral subjectivists or relativists (in the sense above), or simply haven't formed an opinion on their moral stance. But suppose they all say that their moral code/values are objectively morally true? What difference would that make?
It makes a difference now in the way society uses certain moral standards for all despite subjective views in which some laws are based on, or for organization ethical codes or international codes. I think it allows for us to have some clear and common moral values that we can base things on rather than being open to having morality undermined by whoever can make the best case not necessarily what is best or morally right. Or having morality bought by those in power or with money.

In some ways, we are seeing morality being more and more objectified in the way people are taking stands that behaviour should conform to certain moral standards and not allowing any subjective views. We see it on social media in movements like MeTo, WOKE, shame culture and how people are virtue signalling. Everyone knows there are moral truth and people are acknowledging this more and more.

Though there is also a modernistic movement happening at the same time where people are questioning and criticizing everything claiming that there is no moral truth to the point that any traditional values are being rejected especially by the young and in Universities.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
... post #411, which came just before post #415. I was just adding and addendum of sorts, for the sake of clarification. ;)
Oops! That one got lost in my alerts.
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.
So each of the qualities you talked about before have their own individual reasons for being good? Okay. We don't need to agree on anything, you aren't making an argument, you're just explaining things to me. So you can just tell me what you consider justice to be and what's good about that. If you don't mind, I'd like to hear about at least two things like justice though, just to see if I can spot some overarching connection.
 
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
Technically if people were to follow subjective morality properly they would be saying that they have a particular view but they understand and accept that others have their own views and none are really wrong.
So you object to moral subjectivists because they are not doing subjective morality properly, the way you think they should be?
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Technically if people were to follow subjective morality properly they would be saying that they have a particular view but they understand and accept that others have their own views and none are really wrong.
There is no correct way to act under subjective morality!
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
I think the moral truth is in all of us. It there to be discovered and acknowledged. The think about moral values is they are not some object that we can pick up and measure. So it is the language we use, the claims, and the values we appeal to whether one thinks that these values are subjective or not. The fact that we appeal to them and are even forced to go along with them even when we don't want to via our conscience is support for objective morals.
How is that fact that our wishes can differ from our consciences support for objective morals?

If one person believes their conscience tells them a certain action is moral and another person believes their conscience tells them it is not, how can the objective moral truth be established? How can they determine which of them is correct or incorrect?

It's easy to claim that there is an objective moral truth, but if there is no way to determine what it is, it seems that you either acknowledge moral uncertainty, or assert moral certainty.

Technically if people were to follow subjective morality properly they would be saying that they have a particular view but they understand and accept that others have their own views and none are really wrong.
No. All subjectivity means is that individuals have their own moral views. Some think views that differ are wrong, some think views that differ are right for the individual that holds them, and some think it depends on the circumstances.

But as mentioned above most don't do that and impose their view on others like they hold the moral truth. Society does it in the laws they impose, organisations do it in the codes of conduct they impose on employees and international organizations do it in the Universal codes they impose on all cultures.
Society and organizations impose the rules they do for a variety of reasons, to maintain order, safety, to provide a sense of justice and recourse, to increase prosperity & well-being; to protect themselves, to maintain a good image, for efficiency and profit, etc. There may be moral grounding for some of those rules, but in general, only fundamentalist societies make a claim to moral truth, and that, I suspect, more for political and propaganda purposes than sincerity (although some of the population may take it literally).

Or consequentialism which would be more relevant for reasoning what is best for a given situation or culture.
Consequentialism, where, 'the ends justify the means', has its own problems.

Kantian ethics is more rule-based and doesn't allow reasoning. The moral right equates to following the rules or duties regardless of any reasoned outcome.
On the contrary, Kantian deontology is based on reason and requires reason in its application - the 'perfect duty not to act by maxims that result in logical contradictions' requires that you reason whether your choice of action would be self-contradicting if universally mandated or followed.

Not just that but how do we determine the basis for reasoning as what can be used to measure morality is also subjective.
See the Kantian 'Categorical Imperative' (above).

Human wellbeing may be the basis but as with consequentialism, the who and what can be subjectively determined. Also one can ask who says that human wellbeing should be the basis.
Human well-being (or at least the predisposition not to do harm without good reason) is often accepted as a universal (captured in the 'golden rule') and hence the dehumanisation of victim groups, but I agree, who says what should be the basis? In practice, moral frameworks are generally built on the innate sense of fairness, enlightened self-interest (e.g. the golden rule), and the requirements for group success (cooperation, reciprocity, etc).

It makes a difference now in the way society uses certain moral standards for all despite subjective views in which some laws are based on, or for organization ethical codes or international codes. I think it allows for us to have some clear and common moral values that we can base things on rather than being open to having morality undermined by whoever can make the best case not necessarily what is best or morally right. Or having morality bought by those in power or with money.
Sure, codifying some moral views into group rules and laws clarifies the situation, but following a rule or law doesn't mean you share its moral values, it's contractual - follow the rules - whatever your opinion - and you will share in the benefits; a contract more honoured in the breach...

But what about my question? People have differing moral views; if they all claim that their various views represent objective moral truths, what difference would that make? e.g. how is it different from subjective morality?

In some ways, we are seeing morality being more and more objectified in the way people are taking stands that behaviour should conform to certain moral standards and not allowing any subjective views. We see it on social media in movements like MeTo, WOKE, shame culture and how people are virtue signalling. Everyone knows there are moral truth and people are acknowledging this more and more.
And yet society is more polarised on what is and isn't right than it has been for many years...

Though there is also a modernistic movement happening at the same time where people are questioning and criticizing everything claiming that there is no moral truth to the point that any traditional values are being rejected especially by the young and in Universities.
The young have always questioned and criticised traditional values.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,776
3,377
✟242,011.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
  • Informative
Reactions: Speedwell
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Fortuitously, an article on the topic was published yesterday in Public Discourse. I think it is solid even if he papers over some differences among natural law theorists:

On the First Principles of Moral Reason - Public Discourse
Yes, making some moral principles axiomatic is the only way to make it work, but it's a pity no examples were given, nor any description of how a moral framework can be constructed on them.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Yes, making some moral principles axiomatic is the only way to make it work, but it's a pity no examples were given, nor any description of how a moral framework can be constructed on them.
I disagree. Even as a subjectivist who believes nothing holds inherent value, in practice, why does that matter? Simply recognizing a shared opinion on some desired value is enough to build a moral framework. It's like people think that if someone recognizes that some thing isn't in itself actually and really objectively good, then he won't like it anymore.

The vast majority of people like being alive and happy; that's sufficient to build a moral framework that is objectively effective at maximizing those values. The nature of morality and values being purely subjective is nothing more than a curiosity. Ironically, it should be noted, that fact holds no inherent importance just like everything else.

The only real use I can see for believing in an objective morality is to make a fallacious argument from tradition.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,776
3,377
✟242,011.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I disagree. Even as a subjectivist who believes nothing holds inherent value, in practice, why does that matter? Simply recognizing a shared opinion on some desired value is enough to build a moral framework. It's like people think that if someone recognizes that some thing isn't in itself actually and really objectively good, then he won't like it anymore.

The vast majority of people like being alive and happy; that's sufficient to build a moral framework that is objectively effective at maximizing those values. The nature of morality and values being purely subjective is nothing more than a curiosity. Ironically, it should be noted, that fact holds no inherent importance just like everything else.

The only real use I can see for believing in an objective morality is to make a fallacious argument from tradition.

Although I'm not sure I agree with Frumious' first assertion in that post, why couldn't an axiom be based on intersubjective agreement? You seem to think that an axiomatic moral principle is an objective moral principle, yet axioms aren't necessarily objective.
 
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

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Although I'm not sure I agree with Frumious' first assertion in that post, why couldn't an axiom be based on intersubjective agreement? You seem to think that an axiomatic moral principle is an objective moral principle, yet axioms aren't necessarily objective.
Hmmm... I do think axioms are objective. They aren't necessarily true, but they are the sort of thing that is true or false, I believe. I suppose we could axiomatically treat "stealing is bad" as true simply because a lot of people feel that way, but I don't think that's necessary.

What I'm saying about subjective morals though, is that even if we treat values as the likes and dislikes and preferences that I think they are, we can make factual arguments while eliminating "shoulds" and "oughts".

For example, if you like the security of knowing that when you purchase something you'll generally get to maintain possession of it, then you'll like making an agreement with your neighbors not to steal from one another because people generally like fairness and promising not to steal from your neighbors is the most effective way to motivate them to not steal from you.

Is that security objectively factually inherently good? No, but it is a fact that you like it, so it's a fact that you'll like being in a "no stealing" pact.

If you don't like that security, then we can safely disregard your opinion because there aren't enough people like that to affect change. I'll simply go to your neighbors and argue why they'll like having a police force.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,413
15,560
Colorado
✟428,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
.....The vast majority of people like being alive and happy...
When the vast vast majority of people, over all times, agree on something, its probably because of some reason thats objectively natural to the human species, and not just an outrageously unlikely coincidence of subjective opinion.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,776
3,377
✟242,011.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Hmmm... I do think axioms are objective. They aren't necessarily true, but they are the sort of thing that is true or false, I believe. I suppose we could axiomatically treat "stealing is bad" as true simply because a lot of people feel that way, but I don't think that's necessary.

Technically axioms aren't true or false, and truth and falsity are considered functions of a logical system, including functions of its axioms. This is at least how it is understood in mathematical logic. In any case I'm not sure you actually disagree with what Frumious said.

What I'm saying about subjective morals though, is that even if we treat values as the likes and dislikes and preferences that I think they are, we can make factual arguments while eliminating "shoulds" and "oughts".

For example, if you like the security of knowing that when you purchase something you'll generally get to maintain possession of it, then you'll like making an agreement with your neighbors not to steal from one another because people generally like fairness and promising not to steal from your neighbors is the most effective way to motivate them to not steal from you.

How does making an agreement to not-steal eliminate "shoulds" and "oughts"? Rather, it seems to establish them.

When the vast vast majority of people, over all times, agree on something, its probably because of some reason thats objectively natural to the human species, and not just an outrageously unlikely coincidence of subjective opinion.

I do think this strong argument is overlooked.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,413
15,560
Colorado
✟428,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Technically axioms aren't true or false, and truth and falsity are considered functions of a logical system, including functions of its axioms. This is at least how it is understood in mathematical logic. In any case I'm not sure you actually disagree with what Frumious said....
Interesting. I woulda thought we have to stipulate that axioms are true rather than false. Its just that we cant prove they are true.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,776
3,377
✟242,011.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Interesting. I woulda thought we have to stipulate that axioms are true rather than false. Its just that we cant prove they are true.

Maybe I am just muddying the waters with mathematical logic, but in that field an unprovable proposition could never be considered a truth. You prove something to be true by reference to the closed logical system, and the system itself is not considered to be "true" (at least not in that same way). Of course some systems of philosophy attempt to bridge that gap.

Mathematical logic aside, my reading of Frumious' statement about axioms in #428 is that morality requires axiomatic "ought" statements that are agreed upon but unprovable--underivable from "is" statements. So I think Orel is largely in agreement with him.
 
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

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
I disagree. Even as a subjectivist who believes nothing holds inherent value, in practice, why does that matter? Simply recognizing a shared opinion on some desired value is enough to build a moral framework. It's like people think that if someone recognizes that some thing isn't in itself actually and really objectively good, then he won't like it anymore.
What I meant was that it seems that the closest you can get to objectivity in a moral framework is to build it on axiomatic moral principles, i.e. principles taken to be self-evidently true (as the article suggested). Given those axioms, it should be possible, in principle, to build an 'objective' moral framework as a formal system. I said it was a pity there were no examples because I have doubts about its feasibility in practice.

The vast majority of people like being alive and happy; that's sufficient to build a moral framework that is objectively effective at maximizing those values. The nature of morality and values being purely subjective is nothing more than a curiosity. Ironically, it should be noted, that fact holds no inherent importance just like everything else.

The only real use I can see for believing in an objective morality is to make a fallacious argument from tradition.
Yes, I agree.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
When the vast vast majority of people, over all times, agree on something, its probably because of some reason thats objectively natural to the human species, and not just an outrageously unlikely coincidence of subjective opinion.
Yes, but on a different scale you could say the same about moral diferences between groups that have internal moral agreement - it's objectively natural that each group comes to have the particular moral agreements they do as a result of their natural predispositions (genetic heritage) and life experiences (including exchanging moral opinions). I'm not sure it really gets you anywhere.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,413
15,560
Colorado
✟428,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
What I meant was that it seems that the closest you can get to objectivity in a moral framework is to build it on axiomatic moral principles, i.e. principles taken to be self-evidently true (as the article suggested). Given those axioms, it should be possible, in principle, to build an 'objective' moral framework as a formal system. I said it was a pity there were no examples because I have doubts about its feasibility in practice.

Yes, I agree.
Stripped to the bare bones I see it working per this example:

1 Humans naturally like personal security.
...(objective fact)
2 Neighbors murdering each other hinders that and renders society unstable.
...(objective fact)
3 Therefore we develop the social rule "dont murder your neighbor"
...(reasonable to argue this objectively happened)
4 We call it "bad" and build up myths around it so it lives in the individual's subjectively experienced conscience.

Seems like those who think morality is subjective only appreciate step 4. But I find the whole basis for not murdering your neighbor to be completely objective.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,413
15,560
Colorado
✟428,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Yes, but on a different scale you could say the same about moral diferences between groups that have internal moral agreement - it's objectively natural that each group comes to have the particular moral agreements they do as a result of their natural predispositions (genetic heritage) and life experiences (including exchanging moral opinions). I'm not sure it really gets you anywhere.
At the core, I think basic morals are almost completely universal.

But there's also all kinds of culturally or geographically contingent morality also in play, a level or two up from the basics. But even that doesnt just emerge out of the individual subjective imagination. I think there's reasons that are objectively demonstrable, in principle at least.
 
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

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Stripped to the bare bones I see it working per this example:

1 Humans naturally like personal security.
...(objective fact)
2 Neighbors murdering each other hinders that and renders society unstable.
...(objective fact)
3 Therefore we develop the social rule "dont murder your neighbor"
...(reasonable to argue this objectively happened)
4 We call it "bad" and build up myths around it so it lives in the individual's subjectively experienced conscience.

Seems like those who think morality is subjective only appreciate step 4. But I find the whole basis for not murdering your neighbor to be completely objective.
Sure, there are some basic universals for which you can make such objective arguments (e.g. the sense of fairness seems to be a feature of cognitively sophisticated social mammals). But the differences in moral views seem to be in the practical application of these universals - e.g. exactly what do we mean by murder? when is it permissible to kill? etc. There are many variations of interpretation & application that don't inherently destabilise societies yet are sufficiently different for them to cause deep animosity between societies.
 
Upvote 0