Nihilism

1
Nihilism

• By Robert G. Edwards II
• Paul R. Shockley

2
(No Transcript)
3
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.

4
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.

5
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.

6
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.

7
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.

8
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.

9
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.

10
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.

11
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.

12
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.

13
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.

14
Criticisms

• While some believe that an advantage of
  Nietzsches views is his critique of social
  structures, his position is self-defeating it
  cant stand up to logical strength.
• Perspectivalism is also self-defeating.
• Nietzsches ideas have had destructive
  consequences in history.
• It promotes hatred, bigotry, and discrimination.
• Radical empiricism is unwarranted.

15
Consider the following
16
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.

• If the Theist is wrong, this doesnt 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?

17
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.
18
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.
19
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 theres evil, theres good.
  If theres good there has to be a moral law. If
  theres a moral law there has to be a
  transcendent moral lawgiver. But thats what the
  skeptic is trying to disprove and not prove.
  Because if there is no moral law giver, theres
  no moral law. If there no moral law theres no
  good. If theres no good theres no evil. So
  whats the question, really? The strongest
  argument against the existence of God actually
  assumes God in the objection.

20
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.

21
The Moral Law Argument by Hastings
RashdallRashdalls 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.

22
The Moral Law Argument by Hastings
RashdallRashdalls 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.

23
The Moral Law Argument by W. R.Sorley

• 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.

24
The Moral Law Argument by W. R.Sorley

• Introduction to Sorleys 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.

25
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.

26
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.

27
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

28
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.

29
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.

30
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.

31
The Moral Law Argument by Linda ZagzebskiAn
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.

32
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
  extra-human, divine source of moral wisdom.

33
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. 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)
  .

34
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.

35
The 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)

36
BIBLIOGRAPHY

• 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 (Downers 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 Dont 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.