Is it true that Metaphysical Naturalism logically implies Nihilism?

[AyJSimon]

I know you copied the “world of maximum possible suffering” argument from Sam Harris. The problem with that argument is that nothing in it implies that I have a duty to try and alleviate that suffering. Why should I? Maybe I gain power or money from this suffering.

Harris does address this point, as have I. Your position here is a result of philosophical confusion. If you grant the “world of maximum possible suffering argument” - as I argue you must, then as a result you must grant its implications. Again, the analogy from physical health - it is not arbitrary to simply value the attainment and maintenance of good physical health as a first principle. We don’t need to dig deeper to justify this.

Now we take the next step. If a world of maximum possible suffering is Bad, what does it mean to say we have no obligations to alleviate that suffering? What does it mean for, say a doctor, to grant the value of gaining and maintaining good physical health, but be utterly confused on what steps will best help you achieve that? Witch doctors don’t get a vote on the standards of medicine. And sociopaths don’t get a vote on the standards of morality.

You are further mistaken in believing that Harris’s argument boils down morality = pleasure. It is not that simple. Harris is quick to point out why that’s problematic. Sitting on your coach, blissed out on heroin everyday might feel very good, but it’s not difficult at all to see how such a lifestyle would quickly turn against you. Your drug-induced happiness will be worth very little as your children starve, your bills pile up, and your house falls down around your ears. A broader conception of well-being is the key here, and it’s not a zero-sum game. Your well-being is actually linked to that of others, and most sane people realize this, given enough time. Would you be better off in a world where you have $10 million, and everyone in your society is well-educated, employed and free to pursue fulfilling and creative interests? Or in a world where you have $10 Billion dollars - making you the 100,000 times richer than the next wealthiest person - and in a society where, partly because of this wealth inequality, unemployment is rampant, and predictably, so is crime. A sane person would choose the former, and not lose sleep over the missing $9,990,000,000. A lunatic would choose the latter, but so what?

You may think I’m nuts for suggesting that. But consider how Genghis Khan now has the most living descendants of any historical figure. We both know he didn’t accomplish that by the Golden Rule. Quite the contrary, he did so by annihilating any people he couldn’t rape or enslave. What humans call “evil”, lions call “dominance”.

Would Genghis Khan have wanted to live in a world where everybody was just like him? Probably not. Diagnosed psychopaths typically get asked this question in prison interviews - and as self-interested as their worldviews tend to be, they have little trouble seeing the liabilities of this scenario.

It’s not at all difficult for sane people to imagine scenarios where they’d have to forgo immediate, superficial pleasures in the service of a long-term, more substantial, broader well-being.

 

[schaeffer]

Rationally speaking, no. No meaning is valid if metaphysical naturalism is true.

You can’t say “thats not fair” in a Universe where fairness has no meaning. Only irrational people say those kinds of things if the atheist is correct.

True “fairness” is a concept dreamed up by people to organize society or ‘explain’ some things that are hard to accept.

 

[dmar198]

True “fairness” is a concept dreamed up by people to organize society or ‘explain’ some things that are hard to accept.

Can you give an example? Because I think I must be misunderstanding you. When I read that sentence, one thought I had was that this would render the entire system of justice invalid. If there is no true fairness, can we say that it is unjust for one person to take another person’s property? Should courts say so if it isn’t really true?

 

[schaeffer]

Can you give an example? Because I think I must be misunderstanding you. When I read that sentence, one thought I had was that this would render the entire system of justice invalid. If there is no true fairness, can we say that it is unjust for one person to take another person’s property? Should courts say so if it isn’t really true?

Yes, justice is a human concept to order society, ultimately societies define what they consider just and how they are going to enforce it. Societies determine their own laws and norms of behavior.

The system isn’t invalid, we set it up, and we enforce it.

So “we” can say whatever we decide we want to order our society by. The courts are there to enforce the laws the society has made, no more and no less.

An individuals idea of what is just may or may not agree with the current laws of the land. The laws change according to the beliefs of society.

Most people feel that there are both just and unjust laws. There are various means by which we hash that out. Politics is one of them.

 

[dmar198]

Yes, justice is a human concept to order society, ultimately societies define what they consider just and how they are going to enforce it. Societies determine their own laws and norms of behavior.

Does that mean whatever the law says is always morally equivalent to any other society’s law? I ask because that would seem to make a good law just as arbitrary as a bad law. For example, under your system, are the 8th Amendment and Nazism morally equivalent because both are decided and enforced by societies?

 

[schaeffer]

Does that mean whatever the law says is always morally equivalent to any other society’s law? I ask because that would seem to make a good law just as arbitrary as a bad law. For example, under your system, are the 8th Amendment and Nazism morally equivalent because both are decided and enforced by societies?

Laws are about what a society allows, expects and punishes. Clearly not always in synch with morality, which is about what people feel is right and wrong.

Morality seems to come from the smaller tribe a person belongs to, family, faith community, things that impact us intimately and early in life. Our sense of morality continues to be informed, again, by our more intimate tribe.

Some people have stronger internal moorings than others. Some people have a very strong sense of morality (inner compass) others are much more prone to blowing in the wind.

Our desire to belong to a group is very strong, instinct. Peer pressure. Sometimes “tribes” form a very tight set of beliefs and practices which heavily influence the members personal sense of morality.

Because I too have a sense of morality that stems from my family, faith community, ethnic back round etc, I do not consider all laws, choices or behaviors to be morally equivalent.

I believe that is true for most people. There are things that other people consider moral and good that scare the **** out of me and disgust me, but to them these things are considered good.

Do I believe that ultimately there is ONE moral code that is “set in stone”? No, there isn’t. It would be nice if there was, and if it was similar to my own, but no, there isn’t.

Like so many other things in life, morality is a struggle that we must engage in, and differences in moral codes are part of that struggle. (as is being true to our own moral code)

Generally we humans recognize that we need codes/order to maintain a functioning society, but we still want to bend the rules to our own convenience. Ironically both these tendencies contribute to the survival/success of the species.

 

[dmar198]

Laws are about what a society allows, expects and punishes. Clearly not always in synch with morality, which is about what people feel is right and wrong.

Do you think it is reasonable to force other people to follow the majority’s feelings? Because I think this attitude is a denial that laws and government have a basis in objective reason. Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[GEddie]

Do you think it is reasonable to force other people to follow the majority’s feelings? Because I think this attitude is a denial that laws and government have a basis in objective reason. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Government is ultimately based on irrationality, which doesn’t make it wrong. The irrational is as much a part of human life and mind as the rational. Most or all of our subconscious mind is irrational.

Government, at root, stems from the need of the first humans to band together to stave off predators. But this required a rubric to limit the stronger taking advantage of the weaker.

Many generations later, the stronger learned to use that rubric to advantage (kingdoms, etc.)

Laws should be rational, but end up too often based on feelings. Not always a majority’s feelings, either, but those of the far smaller contingent at the head of governance.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[dmar198]

Government is ultimately based on irrationality, which doesn’t make it wrong.

What about the laws telling people not to steal and kill? Are those based on irrationality, in your system?

The irrational is as much a part of human life and mind as the rational. Most or all of our subconscious mind is irrational.

That may be true, but is it okay to force people to follow an irrational system? If it’s not just the government that’s irrational, but even its supposedly moral laws, then maybe I’m asking the wrong question. “Is it okay” is a moral question. But suppose all morals, law, and government are ultimately irrational – if all of that is true, then why should Sammy Sociopath obey the government if he thinks he can get away with murder? It seems to me there is no reason in your law system to which we can appeal against Sammy Sociopath’s desires, because your law system, unless I’m misunderstanding you, isn’t even based on reason, it’s based only on the desires of the majority.

I don’t think a law system based ultimately on irrationality can ever be persuasive to a thinker. The Christian law system is based on publicly knowable reasons. I think that can be persuasive.

What am I missing?

 

[GEddie]

What about the laws telling people not to steal and kill? Are those based on irrationality, in your system? That may be true, but is it okay to force people to follow an irrational system? If it’s not just the government that’s irrational, but even its supposedly moral laws, then maybe I’m asking the wrong question. “Is it okay” is a moral question. But suppose all morals, law, and government are ultimately irrational – if all of that is true, then why should Sammy Sociopath obey the government if he thinks he can get away with murder? It seems to me there is no reason in your law system to which we can appeal against Sammy Sociopath’s desires, because your law system, unless I’m misunderstanding you, isn’t even based on reason, it’s based only on the desires of the majority.

I don’t think a law system based ultimately on irrationality can ever be persuasive to a thinker. The Christian law system is based on publicly knowable reasons. I think that can be persuasive.

What am I missing?

Government is ultimately prior to law.

Government, at root, is someone empowered to tell everybody, “Do as I say or I will hurt you.” This is not rational, it is pre rational, but only with someone (or a number of someones) in that position, is a rational law code possible. Law isn’t possible without physical force. Force isn’t rational.

Rationality is often the first thing to go out the window when laws are made. The law that sent Daniel to the Lions’ den was not a rational one. Or consider the debate over firearms after a mass-killing in an American city, with one side screaming about the safety of children and the other screaming about freedom from tyranny. Neither side has a lock on rationality.

Rationalism may be the ideal in the Christian moral code, but the waters are by no means unmurky. Consider the emotions that are raised in this system whenever the death penalty, firearms, or the just-war theory are brought up.

GOD Bless and ICXC NIKA.

 

[schaeffer]

But suppose all morals, law, and government are ultimately irrational – if all of that is true, then why should Sammy Sociopath obey the government if he thinks he can get away with murder? It seems to me there is no reason in your law system to which we can appeal against Sammy Sociopath’s desires, because your law system, unless I’m misunderstanding you, isn’t even based on reason, it’s based only on the desires of the majority.

I don’t think a law system based ultimately on irrationality can ever be persuasive to a thinker. The Christian law system is based on publicly knowable reasons. I think that can be persuasive.

What am I missing?

Sammy Sociopath is probably not a good ‘test case’ because sociopaths don’t care much about obeying, or anyone trying to “appeal” to, for, against or anything else about their desires. That’s why they are called sociopaths.

There have been and are law systems based on all sorts of things. Religion, reason, charity, an insane leaders whims and hatreds, astrology…you name it.

Some people are persuaded by a deep sense of morals. Others by superstition, others by the threat of harm or the promise of reward. Others from a sense of reason.

And many times the reasons for a particular system of law are known, but not agreed with or respected.

Enter insane dictator. 99% of the people believe this person is an insane dictator. But they follow the law because they are afraid, or have been promised a reward, or they DON’T follow the law because they hold their internal beliefs as more important. Or they believe it’s important to resist, or they are sociopaths and just do their own thing no matter what. Then the 1% actually believe the dictator is a wise and just leader.

knowing from where a law system stems isn’t the main factor in whether or not the people obey the law.

The thing that motivates people to follow a law varies with the people and the law. For some people believing that the law is a reflection of Divine justice is a very strong motivation.