Download Report

Nihilism
By: Robert G. Edwards II &
Paul R. Shockley
Nihilism
• The term comes from the Latin nihil, which
means nothing.
• It is a theory that claims there is no
meaning or value to life, though this is
often amended to mean that there is no
overarching meaning or value under which
all persons are subjected.
Nihilism
• There is often a distinction made between
ontological nihilism (the metaphysical
claim about the nothingness of reality)
and existential nihilism (makes claims
about the lack of meaning in human
existence).
• It is guided by the rejection of objective
moral values and the hope of the eternal.
Nihilism
• It is often associated with philosopher
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), who
claimed that God was dead.
• Others are the French existentialist
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and
Albert Camus (1913-1960).
• Both Sartre and Camus were affected
by the catastrophic world wars.
Nihilism
• The two of them proposed
the utter hopelessness of life.
• Camus compared life to the Greek myth of
Sisyphus who was eternally condemned by
the gods to push a heavy ball up a slope, only
to have them kick back down.
• Sartre suggested that there was no purpose
to the “accident” of human existence.
Nihilism
• Nietzsche was the son of devout
Lutheran parents. His father was a
Lutheran minister and his mother
was the daughter of a Lutheran
minister.
• He studied theology and philology
for one year before giving up his
faith. He continued his studies in
philology and was given an
associate professorship at the age
of 24.
Nihilism
• He believed that humanity needed a Socratic figure
that was free from all moral constraints and universal
standards.
• He distinguished between master morality and slave
morality.
• Master morality is basically affirmative and defines
itself by its own terms; good is defined as that which
is noble, powerful and beautiful belonging to
greatness.
Nihilism
• Slave morality is basically negative and claims otherworldly values
ordained by God. It is resentful and defines good as humility and
pity.
• It uses the vindictive term “evil” to castigate those opposed to it.
• Nietzsche claimed that Jews and Christians had poisoned all of
Europe with this morality.
• He proposed a “transvaluation of all values” in order to move us
“beyond good and evil.”
• This transvaluation of values is possible when the ressentiment of
the lower classes for the superior becomes so great that they find
compensation only in imagining or creating a different moral code.
Nihilism
• The creative genius must begin by declaring the
death of God.
• This allows all values related to slave morality to
collapse and the individual to be free to create
his/her own values.
• The individual is freed to become an Übermensche
as humans are to apes, who acknowledges the will
to power.
• All human relationships are to be understood in
terms of power.
For Nietzsche, life is simply the will
to power.
• True morality is that which conforms to nature and
condemns that which has oppressed the unfettered spirit of
humanity.
• He condemns as bad whatever is contrary to the
conformity of nature.
• Nature is essentially the will to power; it is brutal, harsh,
cruel, frightful, tragic, and beautiful.
• We must say yes to life as it is.
The moral person “lives dangerously” by
increasing its mastery.
Morality is located in nature and its process; it is empirical,
what we will; it is not metaphysical.
Struggle, through which individuals achieve a degree of
power commensurate with their abilities is the basic fact of
human existence.
Morality is not located in forms; it does not have a starting
point; it is a nature-process.
It is earthly as opposed to spiritual; it is empirical, not
metaphysical. Moral terms are vacuous.
Nietzsche:
• Nietzsche posits the will to power as the dominant
value that human, like all creatures caught in the
evolutionary struggle for survival, desire most.
• Genuine morality is based on this will to power, but
there is a constant tendency on the part of the
mediocre, “the herd,” to convert morality and
promulgate a morality that promotes the passive
virtues of self-denial, tolerance, humility, and
resignation. This slave morality is opposed to the
higher life of the excellent and noble, who will
eventually win out in the struggle.
Criticisms:
• While some believe that an advantage of Nietzsche’s views
is his critique of social structures, his position is selfdefeating; it can’t stand up to logical strength.
• Perspectivalism is also self-defeating.
• Nietzsche’s ideas have had destructive consequences in
history.
• It promotes hatred, bigotry, and discrimination.
• Radical empiricism is unwarranted.
Consider the following…
The Moral Law Argument by William Lane Craig in debate with
Paul Kurtz titled, Goodness without God is good enough
which took place at Franklin & Marshall College, Oct. 24, 2001.
1.
If the Theist is wrong, this doesn’t mean the humanist is right by
default. Nihilism must be considered as well. Nihilism says there is
no basis for morality.
2.
If Theism is true, then we have a sound foundation for morality.
a. If Theism is true, then we have an objective basis for moral values.
b. If Theism is true, then we have objective moral duties.
c. If Theism is true, then we have objective moral accountability.
3.
If Theism is false, then there is no sound foundation for morality.
a. If Theism is false, then why think human values are special?
b. If Theism is false, then where is the basis for objectivity duty?
c. If Theism is false, then what is the basis for moral accountability?
The Standard of Justice
[As an atheist] my argument
against God was that the
universe seemed so cruel
and unjust. But how had I
got this idea of just and
unjust? A man does not call
a line crooked unless he
has some idea of a straight
line. What was I comparing
this universe with when I
called it unjust?
C.S. Lewis
Mere Christianity, p 45.
Straight Line = Standard
We know it, but we can deny it.
It seems then we are forced to
believe in a real Right and
Wrong. First, human beings all
over the earth have this curious
idea that they ought to behave
in a certain way. Second, they
do not in fact behave in that
way. The truth is, we believe in
decency so much that we
cannot bear to face the fact that
we are breaking it, and
consequently we try to shift the
C.S. Lewis
responsibility.
Mere Christianity, p 21.
How to use the Moral Law Argument in
Discussion of Evil
Consider the following argument from Ravi Zacharias:
“One of the strongest arguments against the existence of God
is the presence of evil and suffering in the world. Can you not
the see what is brought in through the back door in that
question? Because if there’s evil, there’s good. If there’s good
there has to be a moral law. If there’s a moral law there has to
be a transcendent moral lawgiver. But that’s what the skeptic
is trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there is no
moral law giver, there’s no moral law. If there’ no moral law
there’s no good. If there’s no good there’s no evil. So what’s
the question, really? The strongest argument against the
existence of God actually assumes God in the objection.”
The Moral Law Argument by Hastings Rashdall
(1858-1924):
Beginning with the objectivity of the moral law, Rashdall reasons
to an absolutely perfect Mind:
1.
An absolutely perfect moral ideal exists (at least
psychologically in our minds).
2.
An absolutely perfect moral law can exist only if there is an
absolutely perfect moral Mind:
(a) Ideas can exist only if there are minds (thoughts depend on
thinkers).
(b) And absolute ideas depend on an absolute Mind (not on
individual [finite] minds like ours).
3.
Hence, it is rationally necessary to postulate an absolute Mind
as the basis for the absolutely perfect moral idea.
The Moral Law Argument by Hastings Rashdall:
Rashdall’s argument for the objectivity of the absolute moral
ideas is argued this way:
1.
Morality is generally understood as objectively binding.
2.
Mature minds understand morality as being objectively binding
(i.e., binding on all, not just some).
3.
Moral objectivity is a rationally necessary postulate (because
something cannot be judged as better or worse unless there is
an objective standard of comparison).
4.
Objective moral ideals are practically necessary to
postulate.
The Moral Law Argument by Hastings Rashdall:
Rashdall’s argument for the objectivity of the absolute moral
ideas is argued this way:
If an objective moral law exists independent of
individual minds, then it must ultimately come from
a Mind that exists independently of finite minds. It is
rationally necessary to postulate such a Mind in
order to account for the objective existence of this
moral law.
The Moral Law Argument by W. R.Sorley:
British idealism is generally distinguished by several ideas:
1.
A belief in an Absolute (a single allencompassing reality that in some sense formed a
coherent and all-inclusive system);
2.
3.
A high view of reason as both the faculty by
which the Absolute's structure is grasped and as that
structure itself;
A rejection of a dichotomy between thought and
object. Rather, reality consisting of thought-andobject together in a strongly coherent unity.
The Moral Law Argument by W. R.Sorley:
Introduction to Sorley’s argument:
1.
It depends on the objectivity of the
moral law.
2.
Since there exists a moral ideal prior to,
superior to, and independent of all finite
minds, there must be a supreme moral
Mind from which this moral ideal is
derived.
The Moral Law Argument by W. R.Sorley:
1.
There is an objective moral law that is independent of human
consciousness of it and that exists in spite of human lack of
conformity to it:
(a) Persons are conscious of such a law beyond themselves;
(b) Persons admit its validity is prior to their recognition of it;
(c) Persons acknowledge its claim on them, even while not
yielding to it;
(d) no finite mind completely grasps its significance;
(e) all finite minds together have not reached complete
agreement on its meaning, nor conformity with its ideal.
The Moral Law Argument by W. R.Sorley:
“
2.
But ideas exist only in minds.
3.
Therefore, there must be a supreme Mind (beyond all
finite minds) in which this objective moral law exists.
Moral Law Argument according to
Dr. David Elton Trueblood:
Popular 20th Century American Quaker,
philosopher, & Evangelical theologian.
Chaplain to both Harvard & Stanford
University.
Senior advisor to President David
Eisenhower; close friends with
President Hoover.
Founder of the Yokefellow Movement
Author of 33 books including the Humor of
Christ, The Predicament of Modern
Man, Abraham Lincoln: Theologian of
American Anguish; Trustworthiness of
Religious Experience
The Moral Law Argument by Elton Trueblood:
1.
There must be an objective moral law; otherwise:
(a) There would not be such great agreement on its meaning.
(b) No real moral disagreements would ever have occurred,
each person being right from his own moral perspective.
(c) No moral judgment would ever have been wrong, each
being subjectively right.
(d) No ethical question could ever be discussed, there being no
objective meaning to any ethical terms.
(e) Contradictory views would both be right, since opposites
could be equally correct.
The Moral Law Argument by Elton Trueblood:
2.
This moral law is beyond individual persons and beyond
humanity as a whole:
(a) It is beyond individual persons, since they often sense a
conflict with it.
(b) It is beyond humanity as a whole, for they collectively
fall short of it and even measure the progress of the whole
race by it.
The Moral Law Argument by Elton Trueblood:
3.
This moral law must come from a moral Legislator because:
(a) A law has no meaning unless it comes from a mind; only
minds emit meaning.
(b) Disloyalty makes no sense unless it is to a person, yet
people die in loyalty to what is morally right.
(c) Truth is meaningless unless it is a meeting of mind with
mind, yet people die for the truth.
(d) Hence, discovery of and duty to the moral law make sense
only if there is a Mind or Person behind it.
4.
Therefore, there must be a moral, personal Mind behind this
moral law.
The Moral Law Argument by Linda Zagzebski:
An argument from moral order.
Dr. Zagzebski is Linda is
Kingfisher College Chair of the
Philosophy of Religion and
Ethics & George Lynn Cross
Research Professor at
University of Oklahoma.
Author of approx. 8 books
including Virtues of the Mind
Faith.
President of the Society of
Christian Philosophers; 2004-7.
The Moral Law Argument by Dr. Zagzebski:
Zagzebski's version is rooted in the idea that
naturalism entails moral skepticism.
1.
Morality is a rational enterprise.
2.
Morality would not be a rational if moral skepticism
were true.
3.
There is much too much unresolved moral
disagreement for us to suppose that moral skepticism
can be avoided if human sources of moral knowledge
are all that we have.
4.
Therefore we must assume that there is an extrahuman, divine source of moral wisdom.
A Practical Moral Law Argument
by Dr. Robert Adams
If there is no source of moral order morality will collapse. In other
words, morality cease to be a sustainable enterprise.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
It would be demoralizing not to believe there is a moral order
to the universe.
Demoralization is morally undesirable.
There is a moral advantage in believing that there is a moral
order in the universe.
Theism provides the best theory of the source of moral order.
Therefore there is a moral advantage in accepting theism.
(Adams, Virtues of Faith, 151) .
A Practical Moral Law Argument by Dr. Douglas
Drabkin: Atheism is demoralizing.
In essence, Douglas Drabkin argues that the moral
problems and ills that would afflict humanity if there
was no God give justification to pause and seriously
investigate, not for the belief that there is a God, but
whether one's reasons for rejecting belief in God has
been carefully thought out.
The Moral Law Argument by Dr. Douglas
Drabkin: Atheism is demoralizing.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Morality demands that we ought to aspire to become as good
as we can be.
If there is no source of moral order in the world, then the
project of becoming as good as we can be is fraught with
difficulties.
These difficulties would be taken away if we were assured of
the truth of theism.
Therefore we have a moral reason for getting ourselves in a
state whereby we can come to be believe in the truth of theism.
(Drabkin, “A moral argument for undertaking theism”, 169)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, Robert, The Virtue of Faith, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987) 144163;
Budziszewski, J., Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law (Downer’s Grove:
InterVarsity Press), 1997.
Drabkin, Douglas, 1994, “A moral argument for undertaking theism”, American
Philosophical Quarterly, 31: 169-175 .
Geisler, Norman L.: Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids,
Mich. : Baker Books, 1999 (Baker Reference Library), 498-99.
______ & Frank Turek: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist (Wheaton:
Crossway, 2004), 169-83.
Linda Zagzebski, “Does ethics need God?”, Faith and Philosophy (1987) 4: 294-303.