From a philosophical standpoint, there are different principles that characterize the morality that underlies moral judgements. Unfortunately, philosophers in general have yet to justify moral judgements ( Krellenstein, 2017) . Furthermore, an error theory that would justify the failure has not been accepted. In contrast, evolutionary psychologists have been successful in explaining the origins and evolution of morality. Unfortunately, they have yet to justify why human beings developed such values. The result is a state of moral nihilism (anti moral realism), which Krellenstein (2017) defines as the “absence of any unarguable values or behaviours we mush or should adopt” (p. 2). In other words, moral nihilism posits that there are no objective moral values or normative facts, which is the opposite definition of moral realism. The purpose of this essay is to provide the arguments in support of and against anti moral realism. Yet, that cannot be done without defining moral realism.
Arguments Against Anti Moral Realism
From the polar differences between moral and anti moral realism, any argument in support of the former opposes the latter. In other words, the central theme for any argument against moral nihilism will support the view that there exists moral values or normative facts. For instance, moral anti realism is hard to conceive and intuitively understand because it rejects common sense phenomena (Santos & Schmidt, 2018). In contrast, moral nihilism relies on the view that mind-dependent reasoning changes intuition (relativism), resulting in multiple truths about a common-sense phenomenon. Rather than accepting that they are all true, the moral nihilist will reject them all. Effectively, the burden of proof will fall to the moral nihilist, who has to justify every maxim, supposition, and assumption. From a methodological point of view, moral realism is sensible and precise compared to the philosophical premise that a moral nihilist uses to base their views on.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The second argument against moral nihilism is that taking it as the truth does not explain how human society emerged and has been able to sustain and develop itself over countless millennia. From a moral naturalist point of view, moral values exist independent of the mind (Santos & Schmidt, 2018). Furthermore, most morals are objective so as to allow for the existence of society (Joyce, 2017). For instance, accepting the sanctity and dignity of human life is essential to the continuation of the human race. Without such an objective value, humans would not have evolved to be social creatures. Instead, they would be enemies who attempt to kill each other out of self-interest than their shared values. After all, moral nihilism posits that there are no objective moral values.
A corollary to the argument is that everyone has their own moral values which are superior to anyone else’s. Objectively speaking, the human race is one of the most vulnerable species on the planet, and the threat comes from within. Without a universal valuing of human life, they all would go extinct in a few generations. After a child is largely dependent on their parents, especially the mother, for a significant period of time (over one decade). During this period, the mother has to feed them, protect them, and even heal them from any ailments. In contrast, most animals in the wild are born with the ability to protect themselves right from birth. Wildebeests are a good example of animals whose calves can identify predators and flee immediately after being born (Carmichael, 2018). As a result, if the world was dominated by moral nihilists, infant survival rates would become an existential threat to the species continued survival. All because no one agreed on the existence of universal moral values or normative facts. In other words, the continued success of human society is the biggest direct evidence against moral nihilism. Any anti moral realist who claims otherwise will have to bear the burden of truth. Yet, being an anti realist, no one will accept their arguments or any proof they provide simply because it goes contrary to their beliefs. Such is the innate contradiction with moral nihilism and one of the arguments against it.
Arguments for Anti Moral Realism
As discussed previously, there is an evolutionary benefit towards moralism. For instance, a sense of empathy, the need to reciprocate all bad things (tit for tat) and other universally applicable moral arguments increased the likelihood that an individual or a group will survive in a harsh environment ( Krellenstein, 2017) . However, while certain values are genetically coded through evolution, “it does not justify particular behaviours without agreement on the underlying value of what is innate or productive of survival or pleasure” ( Krellenstein, 2017, p. 6). In other words, different values can be shared, and when done by almost all humans, they may be perceived as universal or objective. However, the fact that they are widely shared does not imply an inherent compulsion or obligation to pursue them. Anti moral realist arguments accept the existence of shared values, but are pro-choice, in that they accent because they want to (mind-dependent values), not because they have to. For example, there is nothing stopping someone from killing another. It is an objective fact that they can do it in multiple ways. Simply because others (moral realists) cannot understand or accept the fact does not deter from the premise of a moral nihilist’s sentiment.
Note that while there is an evolutionary basis for moral realism, one also exists for moral nihilism. For instance, evolution by natural adaptation is probabilistic and is sustained by its value to ensure the survival of an individual and the species as a whole. Krellenstein, (2017) summarizes Pinker’s argument on the subject matter as follows.
the fact that we benefit overall from certain behaviors and that it is hard to argue that someone has an obligation without being similarly obliged. Pinker adds that even if there is not an objective morality, our moral sense is “real for us” and cannot simply be dismissed (p. 10).
Note, however, that reciprocal obligation only applies if we accept the obligation rather than making it a desirable outcome. Furthermore, simply because you are obliged to me does not imply the reverse. The other argument that morality is still real does not adequately refute moral anti realism.
The other argument for moral nihilism holds the premise that morality is not about principles and objective truths. Instead, it is about emotional approval and disapproval. A good example is with ethical reasoning, which generally starts with the conclusion, not the premise (Krellenstein, 2017). Another example given by Haidt (2012) is that the main drivers for morality are intuitions and emotions. As a result, while moral discourse (supported my moral realists) is excellent in persuading other people, that is a secondary use. The primary purpose is to determine and establish what is moral. Psychologically speaking, that is all about emotional approval and disapproval. Furthermore, it is only when a moral discourse wins the approval of many that it gets perceived as an objective value.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper has defined both moral realism and nihilism and argued for and against the latter. For instance, it was argued that the central theme for any argument against moral nihilism will support the view that there exists moral values or normative facts. Moral anti realism is hard to conceive and intuitively understand because it rejects common sense phenomena. The moral nihilist counters by stating that being hard to intuitively understand is not adequate justification to refute its existence. The premise is extended to the supposedly objective values or normative facts. The fact that they are widely shared does not imply an inherent compulsion or obligation to pursue them.
References
Carmichael, L. E. (2018). Wildebeest: A Savanna Journey . Weigl Publishers.
Joyce, R. (2017). Arguments from moral disagreement to moral skepticism. Moral skepticism: new essays , 141-62.
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion . Vintage.
Krellenstein, M. (2017). Moral nihilism and its implications. The Journal of Mind and Behavior , 75-90.
Santos, R. ., & Schmidt, E. E. (2018). Realism and antirealism in Kant's moral philosophy: New essays . Berlin: De Gruyter.
