Shafer-Landau in chapter 20 of the
Fundamentals of Ethics describes moral nihilism as those who “deny that there
are any moral qualities (Shafer-Landau 306).” To simplify what Shafer-Landau
said moral nihilism is the belief that says that nothing is right or wrong that
there are no good or bad moral actions only facts. Shafer-argues this point by
expressing that “Facts exists; values don’t” like the table is made of wood
would be an acceptable fact, but since “values cannot be factual, and so cannot
be true (Shafer-Landau 306).”
Take a moment close your eyes and
think of a World without morals. To today’s standard it would be a world of
chaos and something straight out of one of the many post apocalyptic movies
where the value of human life is the cost of a bullet or a movement of a blade
through human flesh. Every man, woman, and child exist in a world where they
have to take what you can for yourself before some one else takes it for
themselves World. This is what I believed was the fatal flaw “if widespread
acceptance of a moral theory would
yield disastrous results, then that theory is false (Shafer-Landau 310).” As you can see from how I picture it moral
nihilism would result in disastrous results and therefore has proven to be
false.
But Shafer-Landau points out a very
interesting argument. For instance if celibacy is moral and everybody practiced
it and refrained from having sex, then no babies would be born, therefore the
worlds population would start decreasing. With a continued decrease in
population and no babies to fill the void of the dead, towns would die out
followed soon by cities then countries and finally the entire human population
of the World. This is if I am not mistaken a disastrous result from following a
moral theory that is widely accepted and hasn’t been proven to be false yet.
Therefore the argument of disastrous result cannot be used to disprove of the
moral theory of moral nihilism.
The next way I tried to disprove
moral nihilism is the fact that people are moral in their ways of life but some
are just more apparent than others. So I sat down by the Hub and watched people’s
actions for a while. I saw a guy pick up a book that a girl dropped talked to
her for a while wrote down her number and parted ways surely that is a sign or
morals, helping someone without asking for anything in return. But then after
thinking for a while this action could be interpreted as a guy trying to get
something for himself, in this case the woman’s number, instead of helping
someone else out.
I agree with the post-apocalyptic example Jack gave and how widespread acceptance would cause utter chaos, outcry, and uproar. According to Shafer-Landau, this falsifies the moral theory (310). A key distinction I would like to point out, however, is the fact that there is not necessarily a moral theory that is being disproven. Rather, it is just an examination of a world without morals. I am not saying that I disagree with the criticisms of moral nihilism, because I actually hold the opinion of some form of moral objectivity, nevertheless I just wanted to play devil’s advocate and point out the questionability pertaining to the so-called moral theory. As far as the example pertaining to celibacy, I want to give my opinion on this argument. First, I understand the point Shafer-Landau is portraying, but want to share my thinking (not necessarily logically disproving the argument). These extreme circumstances that cause someone to question the objectivity of a moral code will never happen. I understand that in the perfect world of ethical theory, moral objectivity also applies to imaginary circumstances, but this belief is a bit troubling to me. If moral objectivity has to apply to imaginary, impossible circumstances, why can’t there be exceptions to fake situations? It’s not like these would ever be encountered in a real-world debate over morality so why is this even considered a plausible counter? I understand my argument/premises probably would not hold in an academic examination of my opinion, but I just wanted to reveal how I feel about this topic.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Jack's post-apocalyptic example and the assumption that the nonexistence of an objective morality automatically leads to a non-functional, chaotic and uncaring world. Morals do not have some invisible pull over us that forces us to act in a certain manner. It can easily be argued that human instincts, the desire for success and survival and our species' intelligence factor into the creation and maintenance of a productive society. This reminds me of a common argument against atheism that those who reject God ignore the obvious benefits of religion for society and that the disintegration of religion would surely lead to the disintegration of society. However as atheism continues to gain popularity, there is no substantive proof that society is declining because of this shift towards a rejection of religious beliefs. The mere existence of morals does nothing to preserve a functional society. The functioning of society depends on individuals acting on these beliefs. For the supposed existence of morals to be the sole driving factor behind a successful society, human instincts and the innate desire for the success of the individual and of the group would have to be nonexistent.
ReplyDelete