Nihilism

[Lozzer]

Okay, so the three basic tenants expounded by the nihilist corner of philosophy are:

-Objective morality does not exist; therefore no action is logically preferable to any other.

-In the absence of morality, existence has no higher meaning or goal.

-There is no reasonable proof or argument for the existence of a higher ruler or creator.

I understand the first and third, but how do we jump from 'objective morality doesn't exist!' to 'existence is pointless'? Why assume that a 'higher meaning' or 'goal' would be morally centred and driven?

[charlou]

Higher than what? What does 'higher' mean?

[Lozzer]

Higher than what? What does 'higher' mean?

Some grand objective, like, collecting enough nice person points to get into Heaven.

[Rum]

Okay, so the three basic tenants expounded by the nihilist corner of philosophy are:

-Objective morality does not exist; therefore no action is logically preferable to any other.

-In the absence of morality, existence has no higher meaning or goal.

-There is no reasonable proof or argument for the existence of a higher ruler or creator.

I understand the first and third, but how do we jump from 'objective morality doesn't exist!' to 'existence is pointless'? Why assume that a 'higher meaning' or 'goal' would be morally centred and driven?

There may be no meaning or purpose to existence, however it is not logical to suggest that this is the case because there is no such thing as 'objective' morality.

While I agree there is no meaning or purpose to existence I do believe that there is such a thing as social and subjective morality. Most moral codes across the millennia have had a remarkable degree of similar characteristics, arising I would suggest from some very common social environments.

It is even conceivable to the need for social cohesion and cooperation, which arguably is where social morality arises has an evolutionary advantage and is genetically programmed into us.

Nihilism is valid despite this of course and is, in my view, a perfectly reasonable world view. It is a coldly non-socially oriented world outlook which makes perfect sense, but it is about the futility of any action in the face of lack of meaning and purpose.

[RuleBritannia]

-Objective morality does not exist; therefore no action is logically preferable to any other.

That's a non-sequitur.

I would say that murder being wrong is both subjective and logically preferable in any community, giving the illusion of objectivity, but is in fact just subjectivly agreeing.

[the PC apeman]

I understand the first and third, but how do we jump from 'objective morality doesn't exist!' to 'existence is pointless'?

I don't think that is quite the jump being made. That there isn't an objective morality is a conclusion drawn from the idea that all preferences are subjective. (EDIT: More clearly, that all value is subjective.) It is this premise that is important to understand, rather than the meta-ethics that follows from it. From that premise we also get that all goals are subjective. (As a goal requires a preference.) So there are no objective goals - which can be expressed as existence is (objectively) pointless.

PS. Your third bullet is atheism, not nihilism. It is possible for there to be a creator without there being objective preferences.

[Trolldor]

You've done a brilliant job over simplifying it to the point of being misleading, but anyway:
In the absence of an objective ontological being, existence is pointless because there is nothing to create for us objective purpose.
Existence is meaningless in so far as no action we do is any different from any other.
No action is any different from any others as there is no 'right' or 'wrong' action in any circumstance, only percieved to be right and wrong.

[Hermit]

-Objective morality does not exist; therefore no action is logically preferable to any other.

The premise (objective morality does not exist) is correct, but the inference (no action is logically preferable to any other) is not. Living, as we do, as social beings, we want to be happy. You can't be happy if you feel that you can have your throats cut at any moment, your personal property stolen or your liberties impinged on in any other way. You also can't realistically hope that nobody will do those things to you unless you reciprocate by not cutting the throats, steal property or otherwise impinge on liberties of others just because you feel like doing so. It's called 'the social contract'. Logical, no?

Well, that's why the "do unto others as you wish them to do unto you" type of admonishment is so common in societies all over the planet throughout recorded history, and very likely beyond. I'd say it probably dates back to any group of beings that discovered that cooperation improves chances of survival of each individual. That is why I regard nihilism as a delusional and deranged point of view, and why I maintain that some actions are logically preferable despite the fact that objective morality does not exist.

[FBM]

A comet smashes into a planet and obliterates 90% of life on it. Nothing evil or wrong has occurred, and the universe is no worse off for it, as there doesn't seem to be any teleological motive behind the physical processes that govern the universe.

If 90% of life were wiped out, the remaining 10% would almost certainly suffer terribly. It's only from the viewpoint of sentient beings that there is any value at all. Values only exist in the mind and can't exist without a mind. As far as we can tell, all minds eventually cease to exist with the breakdown of the brain functions. It follows that so does the value-making function cease.

That doesn't mean that tragedy doesn't exist or that there are no values; it only means that they're not fundamental or universal aspects of existence. There's nothing wrong with positing one's own meaning to existence, but it's an error to claim that one's own or one's group's values are somehow fundamental or universal.

As far as I can tell.

[Trolldor]

Saying something is meaningless doesn't make it irrelevant or unreal. Acknowledging something as pointless doesn't mean that you, therefore, must object to do it. Whether we live or die is irrelevant, our world and eventually our species will cease to exist, and not necessarily in that order. Everything we do means nothing, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

[Hermit]

A comet smashes into a planet and obliterates 90% of life on it. Nothing evil or wrong has occurred, and the universe is no worse off for it, as there doesn't seem to be any teleological motive behind the physical processes that govern the universe.

If 90% of life were wiped out, the remaining 10% would almost certainly suffer terribly. It's only from the viewpoint of sentient beings that there is any value at all. Values only exist in the mind and can't exist without a mind. As far as we can tell, all minds eventually cease to exist with the breakdown of the brain functions. It follows that so does the value-making function cease.

That doesn't mean that tragedy doesn't exist or that there are no values; it only means that they're not fundamental or universal aspects of existence. There's nothing wrong with positing one's own meaning to existence, but it's an error to claim that one's own or one's group's values are somehow fundamental or universal.

As far as I can tell.

Yes. And looking even further, what is the best case scenario for life anywhere at all? Perhaps we will avoid poisoning this planet beyond habitation, perhaps we will avoid annihilation of homo sapiens sapiens via a nuclear conflagration or some other means. Perhaps we will be able to colonise other planets before it gets smashed to pieces by some comet. Perhaps we will be able to migrate to planets of other star systems before our sun becomes a supernova that turns the local planets into blobs of magma. Perhaps we will be able to escape this galaxy before it gets torn up like confetti when it collides with another one. Ultimately, though, no life form can escape the dissipation of the entire universe into nothingness. That may take hundreds of billions of years, but by looking at the red shift we know it will happen.

Moral values are contingent on the existence of life forms. They will not last beyond it. We need to consider them within that limit, and as far as I am concerned, that is good enough.

[charlou]

Moral values are contingent on the existence of life forms. They will not last beyond it. We need to consider them within that limit, and as far as I am concerned, that is good enough.

And that's a logical preference, despite the lack of any objective morality. The key word here is logical .. ie it's of thought, and therefore subjective.

[Coito ergo sum]

-In the absence of morality, existence has no higher meaning or goal.

Existential Nihilism is the view that life has no intrinsic meaning, and therefore the only "purpose" in life is to live. Life has no intrinsic meaning because there is no objective morality or objective purpose to life. That is, there is no purpose, meaning, or even good/evil that is inherent in "being." We just are.