Four Simple Questions For Ethical Nihilists

In My Humble Opinion
1

Hopefully there are at least one on these boards. As you may already know, ethical nihilists believe nothing is inherently good or bad (obligatory Wiki article). And what we call ethical statements, are essentially all false. Or without objectivity in any event.

Ethics are in many ways a human convention. And they do differ wildly between time and time, or even culture and culture today. But I for one, still believe they are rational, and can be proven. Although I do tell you I am very openminded. And I realize I may be wrong, since if nothing else, IANAPhilosopher.

But there are four questions I always wanted to ask an ethical nihilist, in any event:

1.) How do you avoid the fact that there are situations that call for answers. Like I said some place (I forget exactly where), there is a little girl trapped down in a well (not literally of course, just hypothetically). Do you save her? Or just leave her there? An ethical nihilist might say, I don’t care. Just leave her there. But wouldn’t that be a moral decision of course? Science offers answers for everything else. Why not this situation too?

2.) Ethics are arguably the most important thing in human life. They tell us how to live. They tell us how resources are to be allocated. They resolve important disputes. Do you deny this fact?

3.) As human cultures advance, they often become more merciful and compassionate. And some people may argue too, that certain traits, like mercy and kindness, are superior to traits like hate and cruelty. Do you deny this too?

And finally,

4.) When people say that things like the Nazi holocaust (just to cite one horrible example) were really terrible, they are not just emoting. They are referring to the horrible pain and suffering the people endured in those tragedies. Do you deny that pain is always experienced as horrible? I don’t know if that could be called objective (little help?). But it certainly is universal. Do you deny that?

Thank you in advance for your help, whoever answers my questions. And thank you to whoever just posts. I am opening the discussion to laymen too, of course, and other board members.

:slight_smile:

2

IANAEN and so far as I know I have never met one, but I don’t think that ethical systems can be proven absolutely to be valid.

Ethical rules and judgments are a reflection of values. The more generally held the values, the more valid the rules and judgments are deemed to be by society. The values may (and should) be supported logically from first principles, but that is not the same as saying they are derived or proven scientifically.

So ethical rules depend on first principles, and those can be very different from one person or group to the next. Therefore, there is some truth to the idea that these things are unprovable, and therefore one set of rules is no better than another. That does not give anyone a free pass, however, because this is truly a case where majority rules in terms of accountability.

For myself, I operate on a couple of assumptions: one is that I am nothing special, I am just one among many human beings in the world; the other is to judge my own actions by whether I would want to live in a society in which everyone behaves the same way I do (I think of this as a simplification of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, or perhaps just the Golden Rule). This covers not only actions that I ought not to do, but also actions that I should do. But as good a system as I think that is, I doubt that anyone, philosopher or otherwise, has proven that it is universally valid. It still depends on deeper principles, which I am not well able to articulate.

Somewhat tangentially, I also think it is true that, while ethical systems reflect values, actions reveal values. Every action you or I take shows the world who we are.

3

David Hume had a good argument that you’re right about that. I like how it’s called “Hume’s Guillotine” following after Occam’s Razor.

4

I have a few questions:

What do you mean here? What answer does science offer for the moral question “should I save this girl in the well”?

More importantly - what does the applicability of science have to do with morality?

Is it arguable, or is it a fact?

I disagree - the degree of mercy and compassion in a society seems orthogonal to its state of advancedness - unless you’re meaning “cultural advance” in some tautological sense, and not technological advancing. It’s hard to tell show strongly you consider this point since you’re using the indefinite “often” rather than anything indicating probability.

I don’t understand the distinction you’re making here - you seem to be saying that empathy is not an emotional response, do I have that right?

5

@MrDibble I am not actually sure I understand all your questions. Maybe I got whooshed (as we used to say here). Hopefully not.

But I think science offers a way of doing everything else. Why not a better way of acting? It tells us how to build a better car. Even a better cow, if you want more meat. Maybe I’m missing something here.

And yes, I think society seems to become more merciful as it becomes more scientifically advanced. This certainly has been the case for Western cultures and modern Industrial cultures. Actually though, that is not always a given. So maybe that point needs a little more study.

On the pain issue, it just seems to me that it is universally experienced as being bad and horrible. That is basically my only point. You don’t need empathy even to acknowledge that point. But empathy may be necessary to treat your fellow man with kindness, I guess. I have to emphasize again. I am not a philosopher or scientist. But I also think that gives me a unique perspective to things. :slight_smile:

6

You’re missing that you’re using the word “better” in two (or more) different senses - in philosophy-speak, you’re committing the fallacy of equivocation. A better car might be a more efficient one, or a faster one, both of which science (and engineering) can tell us how to do. A better cow may have more meat, or have more marbling. Again, science can do that.

But by “a better way of acting” you don’t mean more efficient, or faster, or larger, or using less antibiotics or emitting less methane or with a more resistant paintjob or any of the myriad ways science can make cows and cars better. You mean “more moral”. And science and morality don’t really mix well.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/021/467/i_am_become_death.jpg

I disagree. I would point to how much less merciful the Nazis were than medieval Germans, and leave it at that.

I know some masochists who would disagree, but besides that, yes, empathy is the issue. It absolutely is necessary.