Moral Nihilism
154
Moral Nihilism
Chapter 20
2nd OBJECTION
(to Error Theory)
Error theorists are untrustworthy, self-interested, and potentially destructive; therefore, their theory is false.
1st OBJECTION
(to Error Theory)
It is also mistaken because it commits the ad hominem fallacy.
[Don't like the message? Attack the messenger instead of the reasoning.]
This is mistaken because nothing in error theory dictates that its adherents will act this way.
In fact, why might an error theorist want to avoid nasty behavior?
The Argument from Disastrous Results:
Can you think any other EXAMPLES of this fallacy (real or contrived)?
P1: If widespread acceptance of a view would lead to disastrous results, then that view is false.
P2: Widespread acceptance of error theory would lead to disastrous results.
C: Therefore, error theory is false.
ANALOGY:
MODIFICATION: If widespread acceptance of a moral theory led to disastrous results, then that theory would be false.
The first premise is clearly false.
What are some decisive counterexamples?
Is this a successful modification?
Nihilism is NOT a moral theory.
What do moral nihilists and atheists have in common?
(this is only an analogy, atheists aren't necessarily moral nihilists)
Error theorists about MORALITY claim that the vast majority of moral discourse is founded on the mistaken belief that morality exists.
They assert...
ERROR THEORY
Generally speaking, ANY ERROR THEORY will involve the claim that there is a fundamental error in a widely accepted world view.
NO MORAL FEATURES IN THE WORLD
NO MORAL JUDGMENTS ARE TRUE
What it means to be a moral nihilist:
2 Forms of Moral Nihilism:
MORAL JUDGMENTS ALWAYS FAIL TO DESCRIBE
NO MORAL KNOWLEDGE
1. ERROR THEORY
2. EXPRESSIVISM
- Nihilists oppose objectivism (just like the relativists).
- Nihilists deny all moral properties (unlike the relativists).
- For nihilists, facts exist, and values don't.
3 Options for the
STATUS of MORALITY:
EXPRESSIVISM
The expressivist accepts the
first two claims of the error theorist:
Morality as RELATIVISTIC
Moral claims are true relative to the beliefs of a person or grouped set of people, but they are not true objectively.
Recall the two types:
- subjectivism
- cultural relativism
Morality as IMAGINARY
To talk about morality is a mistake or fiction. Morality does not exist.
This is the central tenet of
MORAL NIHILISM.
Morality as OBJECTIVE
What morality dictates is true regardless of what any person thinks or believes.
NO MORAL FEATURES IN THE WORLD
NO MORAL JUDGMENTS ARE TRUE
Unlike error theorists, expressivists reject the third feature of error theory:
~[MORAL JUDGMENTS ALWAYS FAIL TO DESCRIBE]
- they agree that the judgments fail to describe the the thing in question
- however, these judgments still describe our feelings about that thing
EXAMPLE: Torture
When we make moral judgments about torture, we're not saying anything about torture itself, we're expressing our reactions to and convictions about torture.
Other Objections
Objections we've seen from relativism...
Expressivism denies the possibility of amoralism
(but amoralism is possible)
Under expressivism, we can't argue logically about morality
(but it seems like we can)
Aaaaah, torture!
So, moral judgments don't tell us the truth about morality. Instead, they are meant to:
- Vent our feelings.
- Give a command.
- Express our commitments.
- etc.
We don't really mean:
- Torture is immoral.
Instead we mean things like:
- Aahh! Torture!
- Don't torture!
- Boo, torture.
- Won't everyone refrain from torturing?
Does the expressivist encounter the problem of moral equivalence?
Does the expressivist encounter the problem of contradictions?
[P & ~P]