Download
1 / 36
390 likes | 904 Views
Nihilism. By: Robert G. Edwards II & Paul R. Shockley. Nihilism. The term comes from the Latin nihil , which means nothing .
E N D
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 self-defeating; 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.
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. 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. 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 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.
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? Straight Line = Standard C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity, p 45.
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 responsibility. C.S. Lewis 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.”
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 (1858-1924):Beginning with the objectivity of the moral law, Rashdall reasons to an absolutely perfect Mind:
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 Hastings Rashdall:Rashdall’s argument for the objectivity of the absolute moral ideas is argued this way:
British idealism is generally distinguished by several ideas: 1. A belief in an Absolute (a single all- encompassing reality that in some sense formed a coherent and all-inclusive system); A high view of reason as both the faculty by which the Absolute's structure is grasped and as that structure itself; 3. A rejection of a dichotomy between thought and object. Rather, reality consisting of thought-and- object 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. The Moral Law Argument by W. R.Sorley:“
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
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 Elton Trueblood:
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 MindFaith. President of the Society of Christian Philosophers; 2004-7. The Moral Law Argument by Linda Zagzebski:An argument from moral order.
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 extra-human, divine source of moral wisdom. The Moral Law Argument by Dr. Zagzebski: Zagzebski's version is rooted in the idea that naturalism entails moral skepticism.
If there is no source of moral order morality will collapse. In other words, morality cease to be a sustainable enterprise. 1. It would be demoralizing not to believe there is a moral order to the universe. 2. Demoralization is morally undesirable. 3. There is a moral advantage in believing that there is a moral order in the universe. 4. Theism provides the best theory of the source of moral order. 5. Therefore there is a moral advantage in accepting theism. (Adams, Virtues of Faith, 151) . A Practical Moral Law Argument by Dr. Robert Adams
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. A Practical Moral Law Argument by Dr. Douglas Drabkin: Atheism is demoralizing.
1. Morality demands that we ought to aspire to become as good as we can be. 2. 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. 3. These difficulties would be taken away if we were assured of the truth of theism. 4. 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) The Moral Law Argument by Dr. Douglas Drabkin: Atheism is demoralizing.
Adams, Robert, The Virtue of Faith, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987) 144-163; 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. BIBLIOGRAPHY
