I am a Moral Nihilist

[Wayfarer]

None of which amounts to we

@Restitutor

Maybe it’s beyond your capabilities.

It’s more that I can’t see any point, as you’ve plainly failed to understand mine.

I looked at the article, it’s very long, so I didn’t read all of it, but I have read something of Dobzhansky. He is one of the architects of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and also coined the famous saying ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution’.

But unlike, say, Richard Dawkins, who is an evangelising atheist, Dobzhansky was a faithful Orthodox Christian, who disagrees with atheism. He writes:

It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and ana evolutionist. Evolution is God’s, or Nature’s, method of Creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 в.с.; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way

The essay concludes:

One of the great thinkers of our age, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, wrote the following: “Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more -it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow-this is what evolution is.” Of course, some scientists, as well as some philosophers and theo- logians, disagree with some parts of Teilhard’s teachings; the acceptance of his world view falls short of universal. But there is no doubt at all that Teilhard But there is no douht was a truly and deeply religious man and that Christianity was the cornerstone of his world view. Moreover, in his world view science and faith were that they not segregated in watertight compartments, as they are with so many people. They were harmoniously fitting parts of his world view. Teilhard was a creationist, but one who understood that the Creation is realized in this world by means of evolution.

I daresay very few evolutionary biologists would concur with his ‘creationism’, but then, it’s very much an individual matter. In any case, with a quick scan, I couldn’t see anything in that article claiming that mores can be explained in evolutionary terms, in fact, I’d be surprised if he would say that evolution was the source of his moral orientation. Otherwise, why would he profess a Christian faith?

@Restitutor

I didn’t see any references when you dropped your incredibly hot take that ethics isn’t evolutionary relevant. Rather hypocritical.

I did provide a link to the quote I provided, by Richard Polt, a professor of philosophy, in a New York Times opinion piece, called Anything But Human. You will notice that he’s making basically the same argument I offered — which is why I quoted him.

[Michael]

@Banno

What is the word “objective” doing? it’s not a word I used anywhere in my reply.

And if it causes you to baulk at agreeing, what happens if we just drop it?

So, can we agree that one ought not kick the puppy?

I ought not greet my superior officer with a high five when on duty and I ought not kick the puppy.

There certainly seems to be a substantive difference between these two obligations, and that substantive difference is what the word “objective” is being used to capture. The former obligation is established by and dependent on social and cultural and institutional norms, whereas the latter is putatively not established by or dependent on such things but obtains even if everyone were to believe otherwise.

If you don’t like the word “objective” then you don’t have to use it. You can use another word if you like, or deny that there is a substantive difference between these two obligations.

[Joshs]

@Banno

Ought they behave in this way?

You see where I am going here: I wonder if even with your Moral Nihilism, there remains a space in which there are truths about the sorts of things people should do, how they might best behave towards one another?

What if one were to argue that constituting any situation is a preferred and a non-preferred dimension, and one has no choice but to ‘choose’ what is preferred? In other words, one always does what one ‘ought’ to do. In such a scenario, what you’re calling ‘ought’ is superfluous.

[MoK]

@Existism

That is not the definition of moral nihilism.

What is the definition?

[Restitutor]

@Wayfarer

It’s more that I can’t see any point, as you’ve plainly failed to understand mine.

Look your point, obviously sucks. I told you all the reason it sucks instead of addressing the reasons it sucks. You mischaracterised a thought experiment I asked you to engage in as it just so story which is a sucky thing to do.

Can you not understand how simply asserting that ethics doesn’t impact peoples chances of replication is wrong. There is obvious many ways in which ethics and your willingness to engage in it is going to affect your ability to replicate. I gave examples which you haven’t addressed. I gave the thought experiment you miss characterised.

@Wayfarer

Dobzhansky was a faithful Orthodox Christian, who disagrees with atheism

Are you saying because Dobzhansky cut some things right I have to believe that he got everything right from the standpoint of intellectual consistency? Because he was right that nothing in biology makes sense except the light of evolution I now need to be an orthodox Christian. To believe in gravity do I also have to believe in alchemy like Newton did. This is a joke of an argument.

@Wayfarer

I did provide a link to the quote I provided, by Richard Polt, a professor of philosophy, in a New York Times opinion piece, called Anything But Human. You will notice that he’s making basically the same argument I offered — which is why I quoted him.

@Wayfarer

I daresay very few evolutionary biologists would concur with his ‘creationism’, but then, it’s very much an individual matter.

When I said you hadn’t provided a quote, I meant you hadn’t provided a quote from anybody who had any credibility or relevant expertise.

If you think actual scientist are going to disagree with this know nothing philosopher why in the world would you quote the philosopher? You obviously prefer the opinion of this philosopher to the Reserch of scientists because he makes a point that you find psychologically comforting.

The idea that it’s an individual matter is also bizarre. We’re having conversations about how the world is and how the world is not. This is obviously not an individual matter. Either ethics has a basis in evolution or it doesn’t, there is nothing individual about it.

You didn’t engage with all the examples of how ethics or morality could affect our ability to replicate which suggests that you can’t.

@Restitutor

Believing in morality has two 3 massively positive effects. 1) you are not sanctioned by your community for ether not being sufficiently deferential to there’s morals and you are less likely to be sanctioned for the immoral act. The sanctions imposed can be evolutionary very problematic especially in none modern western societies. 2). It means you are more likely to not live in a society where rape, murder and theft is common which translates to reproduction 3). Your society is likely to be more functional meaning it is more likely to be successful meet challenges such as failed harvests and competition.

I have focussed on morals but same arguments work for ethics in general.

You didn’t engage with my explanation of why morels may vairy but still be genetic

@Restitutor

Consider the variation in the food that people eat. My grandad would love tripe he would boil it and eat it and it grossed me out. I like really spicy food. My wife doesn’t some people eat insects I don’t. Despite this variation, I think it’s fairly obvious but we evolved to eat food.

You don’t engage with the thought experiments I suggested you engage with.

@Restitutor

Immaagion two species of human identical in every way except one of them is capable of ethics and morality to their own species of human and the other isn’t. If you fast forward 1000 years, which one of them is more likely to still be there? If you imagine somebody in Hunter gatherer tribe who happily went round telling people if both ethics and morality of bullshit who are they gonna get married to, how many children are they going to have, might they not get kicked at the tribe?

You haven’t explained anything even close to a positive argument for how morality and ethics came to exist in a way that negates evolution.

@Restitutor

If not evolution where do ethics come from? If not the brain where is the information associated with ethics kept?

You are not engaging in meaningful discussions of the actual pints I am making all the questions I am asking. You are not in any way defending the point that you are making. Instead you are telling me I should be a an orthodox Christian if I quote Dobzhansky an evolution.

[MoK]

@AmadeusD

I can see this as a thesis, but you’re not an automaton. You make decisions.

Are you talking about free will here? Most of our decisions are not free.

@AmadeusD

This is extremely wrong. Morality is the consideration of what’s right and wrong. If those are not motivating factosr (they aren’t for Existism) then there’s no moral calculus occurring and so moral nihilism, on those terms, goes through.

I cannot understand what you are trying to say here. Could you please rephrase?

@AmadeusD

As you see, no he did not. At all.

If it is so, then I don’t understand his position. You cannot be human and not at least a consequentialist.

@AmadeusD

A moral nihilist does what feels best.

A moral nihilist is at least consequentialist since he is interested in getting what feels best.

@AmadeusD

That’s not a moral choice.

It is since feeling is the only thing that is left to a moral nihilist to do moral calculation.

[Restitutor]

@Wayfarer

I daresay very few evolutionary biologists would concur with his ‘creationism’,

I would add, quoting a creationist on evolution is like quoting a flat earther on geology.

Ridiculous

[Leontiskos]

@Michael

The former obligation is established by and dependent on social and cultural and institutional norms, whereas the latter is putatively not established by or dependent on such things but obtains even if everyone were to believe otherwise.

Right, and that’s why it is an odd example. To focus on puppies is to focus on something which is extremely culturally conditioned and emotionally-influenced. Heck, @Banno’s central premise is, “Most folk would hopefully agree that this is wrong.”

Besides, nothing that Jack Black does can be wrong.

[Existism]

I would not kick the puppy, because I like puppies, but that is just my subjective opinion. I don’t think there is an ought to not kick it outside of wants and opinions of the individual.

[Existism]

Denying the existence of moral facts.

[MoK]

@Existism

I would not kick the puppy, because I like puppies, but that is just my subjective opinion. I don’t think there is an ought to not kick it outside of wants and opinions of the individual.

What will you do if you see a guy kicking a puppy and enjoying his act?

[Existism]

I would want to stop him.

[MoK]

@Existism

Denying the existence of moral facts.

To be clear, what do you mean by moral facts?

[Existism]

Moral facts are just any moral statements that have an objective truth value. At least that is how I might define it, but there might be a more professional definition.

[MoK]

@Existism

I would want to stop him.

Do you try to stop him?

[Existism]

yeah, I would probably

[MoK]

Why do you try to stop him? The guy certainly enjoys his act!

[Existism]

Because I like dogs, and would act selfishly, caring more about my wants than his.

[Wayfarer]

@Restitutor

I would add, quoting a creationist on evolution is like quoting a flat earther on geology.

But you’re the one who introduced said creationist into the discussion!

@Restitutor

You are not in any way defending the point that you are making

I’ve made the point perfectly clear and I stand by it. Evolutionary biology is a biological theory about the evolution of species and can’t be extended to account for morality, so as to say that moral codes can be understood as a result of evolution. Moral codes are constituted from many factors, of which biology is one.

[MoK]

But the guy probably hates dogs or enjoys hitting dogs, so how do you give yourself the right to stop him?