CreateDebate


Debate Info

21
35
For Against
Debate Score:56
Arguments:65
Total Votes:57
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 For (19)
 
 Against (24)

Debate Creator

WinstonC(1225) pic



Moral Nihilism: For and Against

Moral Nihilism is the assertion that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. Is this view of morality correct or incorrect?

For

Side Score: 21
VS.

Against

Side Score: 35

Logically speaking, yes.. I think morality is interlinked to emotions, and while morality may be subjective to all of us in different topics, (which involves our opinion on the issue), but such as that of basic survival issues involve morality that's centered somehow to "survival" in that scenario.. morality doesn't exist on a life threatening scenario, or I'd rather say there's a different sense of morality in such conditions.. which might be wrong to your otherwise non threatened state.. what was wrong becomes right and hence morality fails as a whole, morality is formed with the conditions surrounding you, which means an "act" cannot be "wrong" or "right" intrinsically, but it depends on the conditions you think in.

Side: For
1 point

I'd say yes, because there is no set of moral rules which one could claim to be unquestionable. Even if religions claim to have a set of rules laid down by the creator of everything, or something like that, it is still questionable - things couldn't be wrong simply because a god says so, right? That would be arbitrary. Right and wrong is really just a figment of our imagination, perhaps even if a god exists, which I doubt. I still think we should do what we subjectively think to be "right", but it's hard to say why for any logical reason.

Side: For
Dermot(5736) Clarified
1 point

You say .......Right or wrong is just a figment of our imagination...

Well that's easy to say but in the real world if a wrong is done on you it will be seen as a wrong by you wouldn't it ?

You think it's hard to say why we should do what's deemed right ?

Well the survival of humans surely depends on very basic ideas of what we deem rights or wrongs , would you disagree ?

Side: For
Mack(531) Clarified
1 point

-In the real world if a "wrong" is done to me, sure I would see it as wrong, but the person who did it might not. I don't see how any of that translates to something being intrinsically wrong.

-I agree that the survival of humans depends on our "very basic ideas of what we deem rights or wrong," but that alone doesn't make something objectively right or wrong, especially to a non-human.

Side: For

The law of reason is firmly on the side of Nihilism. There is no evidence that good or evil predate humanity and therefore there is no reason to believe morality is anything other than a word invented to describe the value (or lack of value) of certain human social behaviours.

In fact, humanity does not even agree with itself about which behaviours are socially acceptable and which are not, since this is often dependent on culture, history, religion and politics.

Side: For
1 point

In my view, Moral Nihilism is "Technically" true, and "Practically" false.

My position is somewhat of a Absolute Moral Relativism if you will!

The best way of explaining it is using the game of monopoly. This game has a predefined set of rules, and allowable actions. Think of this as the "Moral code" of monopoly, you can collect $200 when passing go, buy properties, etc.

If two people play and one person decides to collect $500 and not $200, there will be objection and accusations of cheating. But, if the first person has always played the game collecting $500, and the other collecting $200, the issue is not entirely that one is breaking the rules and the other is not: it's the case that they're both playing by different sets of rules.

Now, imaging that the game is stopped, and everyone gets up and starts doing their own thing in real life. The concept that the rules of the game apply universally, is ridiculous. One does not go through life trying to collect $200 just by passing Go.

That may seem like a clunky analogy (and it somewhat is), but what I'm trying to illustrate is this:

As humans, we are all "playing a game" using a set of moral rules. Those moral rules are a product partly of genetics and partly of social upbringing, but on the whole other humans mostly play by similar rules. The concepts of Good and Bad, Moral or immoral are defined using those rules; not the other way around.

What that would mean, is that if you removed yourself from the human experience, removed those learned rules and replace them with something else, what we would consider moral or not would immediately and vastly change.

This leads to the conclusion that outside of humanity, or a moral frame of reference, the world is amoral.

Indeed, this makes sense when you look at nature, or the universe: Lions eat competitors Cubs, there is significant wanton violence and death; cats are assholes in general.

That's okay, because Morality isn't objective, or meaningful outside of our own experience.

Side: For
4 points

if you say that there can be no such thing as moral rights or wrongs there can be no such thing as rational actions , if so how ?

There cannot be rational or irrational actions . One would have to drop all such references to judgements of this nature . One could not judge it rational to follow ones own likes or dislikes You cannot even judge it rational . That is merely arbitrary.

Side: Against
Mack(531) Clarified
1 point

That's a good point, but I don't see how that answers the topic at hand. It just leads onto the question of whether or not rational actions can exist. I might be misinterpreting you, but it seems that you assume rational actions already exist, therefore moral nihilism is wrong. I kind of understand your point if the assumption is correct, but I would like a reason why the assumption that rational actions exist is valid.

Side: For
Dermot(5736) Clarified
2 points

We bring rational or irrational actions into existence I'm not following you as in the .... whether or not rational actions can exist.

Would you agree that if moral absolutes do not exist that a nihilist would have descriptive morals that reflect cause and effect ?

Side: For
Quantumhead(749) Disputed
1 point

if you say that there can be no such thing as moral rights or wrongs there can be no such thing as rational actions

That's a total, spectacular, raging non-sequitur. You honestly believe that if there is no such thing as moral rights or wrongs then I can't rationally decide not to stick my head in a bucket of lava?

Wow. I would honestly love to do a long case study of your diseased mind.

Side: For
Dermot(5736) Disputed
3 points

Shhhh , there's adults talking , this is a bit too deep for you isn't it ?

Side: Against
2 points

Looking objectively at morality it is clear that it is concerned with the experience of conscious entities. An action that causes a net positive effect for present and future experiences of conscious entities is a morally good one.

When one causes another conscious entity negative experience that isn't necessary or helpful this is a moral wrong. The same goes for depriving another conscious entity of positive experience. In other words, killing someone is a moral wrong, unless the person is in great suffering, has no future and wants to die. Putting children through school may not be morally wrong because it provides a greater quality of life later. Eating meat is (at least in my view) necessary to a balanced diet, as such the humane slaughter of animals may not be morally wrong.

Giving other conscious entities positive experience or greater ability to court positive experience is a moral good. On the other hand giving conscious entities positive experience that causes them harm in the long term is a moral wrong. So letting your children watch TV all day instead of learning is morally wrong because later in life they will be less able to court positive experience (despite the immediate positive experience). Stroking a cat in a manner that it enjoys is a moral good.

Further causing other conscious entities to be willing and/or able to cause others to have positive experiences and greater ability to court positive experience is a moral meta-good. Causing other conscious entities to be unwilling and/or unable to do so is a moral meta-evil. For example, one might inspire people to volunteer for a charity and provide the means to do so. This would be a moral meta-good. It is also possible to go to higher levels of moral meta-good; whereby conscious entities are inspiring conscious entities to inspire conscious entities and so on.

It can often be difficult to determine if an action is moral. However even if absolutely everyone is ignorant of the morality of the action, it's morality or immortality doesn't change.

Side: Against
Dermot(5736) Clarified
1 point

You say ......An action that causes a net positive effect for present and future experiences of conscious entities is a morally good one.....

How can can you decide an action is going to have a net positive effect and who decides ?

Hitler and his followers thought their policies were going to give a net positive effect to future generations that didn't turn out very well did it ?

Side: For
WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

I clearly explained this here:

"It can often be difficult to determine if an action is moral. However even if absolutely everyone is ignorant of the morality of the action, it's morality or immortality doesn't change."

Side: For
Mack(531) Disputed
1 point

Can you give a reason why these assertions about objective morality, and net positive effects are correct? I agree with Dermot in that you cannot detect something as being morally wrong/right, and perhaps that just means objective morality doesn't exist? If morality comes from humans or a god or something then it is just arbitrary and subjective, right, especially since I don't think it can be measured? If morality is just floating around without the need for humans, etc, then were could it have come from? Does it have to come from somewhere? I think this topic is the most confusing one out there.

Side: For
1 point

It's is confusing but fascinating 😊 You and I talked about non -humans regarding morality yesterday .

Imagine if aliens landed on earth with 5 senses like us but they could not detect wrongness and they asked us how do humans detect wrongness ?

By which of your senses do you perceive it ?

Wrongness to them would not be observable in the same way as greenness as in the the greeness of grass .

How can objective morality exist ? I know there are different approaches to this problem so let's see what comes of it

Side: For
WinstonC(1225) Disputed
1 point

"Can you give a reason why these assertions about objective morality, and net positive effects are correct?"

Morality emerged as a concept to describe the phenomenon of causing conscious entities a net negative or positive experience (and the related phenomena i described). Since these phenomena can be objectively defined, as above, an action can be objectively moral or immoral.

"especially since I don't think it can be measured?"

In terms of our ability to measure such outcomes, if we had complete information (and the ability to process it all) we would be able to do so with complete accuracy. As it stands, however, we can still get pretty accurate in our measurement, especially in simpler situations. To quote my post to Dermot on this point of measurement:

WinstonC: We aren't always able to gauge the objective morality of an act. We can, however, through using our social awareness, empathy and other skills, get a good idea of the effect our actions have on others. For example, when one strokes a cat and it purrs, the purring is indicative of it having a positive conscious experience. When one gives a starving child food and they scoff it up in front of you, then beam up at you and hug you in gratitude it is clear one has gifted the child a positive experience. In addition, we can utilize our ability to empathize and put ourselves in other people's shoes. We know we would like to be given food if we were starving and so we can estimate that by giving a starving person food we are doing a good thing.

Interestingly when a non-psychopathic, non-autistic individual watches another, they vicariously experience what the other is experiencing (source 1). This is why watching somebody step on a nail is so horrible and why watching TV shows and pornography is so enjoyable. As such, we do have an in-built means of gauging the effect of our actions on others, because we vicariously experience what any person or animal we are observing experiences.

I hope this has spoken directly to your question.

Sources:

(1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4942880/

Side: Against
1 point

This is close enough, in principle to something I would have posted. I have argued this position on this site multiple times, and I find that it is more complex than it appears when stated the way you have.

I contend that our sense of morality has evolved. Just as any surviving feature, it evolved and persisted because it is beneficial. As such, any code or sense of morality that is detrimental, does not serve the purpose for which morality evolved, and is morally incorrect. Just as eyes that don't see well are not good eyes, moral codes that are detrimental are not good moral codes, objectively speaking.

I hear echoes of Sam Harris in your position. He uses health as an analogy, and I find this very useful in debate.

Side: Against
1 point

"I contend that our sense of morality has evolved. Just as any surviving feature, it evolved and persisted because it is beneficial. As such, any code or sense of morality that is detrimental, does not serve the purpose for which morality evolved, and is morally incorrect. Just as eyes that don't see well are not good eyes, moral codes that are detrimental are not good moral codes, objectively speaking. "

The thing I'd note about this is that evolutionarily speaking our moral code would only make sense to apply to our own family and tribe. Holding one's species well being as a whole as important when another tribe comes to kill your tribe could be counterproductive. All the evolutionary forcings would seem to push for tribal favor, though I suppose we still have this, particularly considering political parties as tribes. In addition, sufficient time has not passed to select exclusively for tribal favor over species favor. I do appreciate that the whole human race has genetic similarity though and therefore the safeguard of the species makes evolutionary sense. Of course strangely people seem to apply morality even to animal welfare which is an interesting diversion. Perhaps this stems from our past of utilizing animal husbandry for our survival.

"I hear echoes of Sam Harris in your position. He uses health as an analogy, and I find this very useful in debate."

I've had Sam Harris' work in my to listen/watch/read list for a long time but keep putting it off since I listen to a lot of center-left atheists already. I'll make sure to give him a listen soon.

Side: Against
1 point

Let's get one thing crystal clear, you can oppose absolutism without going to the other extreme of moral nihilism. Just because you object to black and white, good and evil, my way or the highway analysis of every topic doesn't mean you're loosey goosey anything goes nothing is immoral. That's a bunch of crap. In fact that's just a slippery slope scare tactic used most often by the absolutists to scare or object to anyone who tells them to chill out a little.

Side: Against
1 point

I completely agree. I merely put forth my ideas on morality as they are diametrically opposed to moral nihilism.

Side: Against