Moral nihilism: what is it and what does this philosophical position propose?

Let us see what moral nihilism, a philosophical current centered on ethical statements, consists of.

Defining what is morally correct has been something really difficult throughout history and, in fact, there are those who consider that the idea of something being ethically correct or incorrect is false.

This is the view of moral nihilism, which considers that one cannot affirm that something is morally right or wrong.which considers that it is not possible to affirm that something is true, given that morality is somewhat difficult to base on morally true facts.

What is moral nihilism?

Moral nihilism, also called ethical nihilism, is the metaethical view of morality. (i.e., of the part of ethics in charge of studying about the origin of ethical principles) that indicates that ethical principles are generally false.

It is the metaethical view that nothing is morally right or wrong. According to this view there are no moral propositions that are true, nor is the idea conceived that there are propositions that are morally good, bad, wrong or right. It considers that there are no moral truths. For example, a moral nihilist would say that murder is neither right nor wrong.

Morality is arbitrary

Defining what morality is is something that has proven to be very difficult, although there has been some consensus among philosophers that there are certain judgments that could be considered impartial and universal. Finding a solid foundation as to whether these judgments are true or false is even more difficult.It is difficult to use a universal aspect of ethics to create an ethical theory that can allow the human being to be certain about which moral aspects are correct and which are not.

A clear example of this is the debates about whether abortion, euthanasia and, experimentally investigated, the streetcar dilemma are acceptable. These are issues on which people do not agree. There are those who defend the right of women to decide about their bodies and the terminally ill to stop suffering, while others maintain that life is something sacred and to take it away is an attack against morality.

All this would support the idea that moral statements are not right or wrong, but a matter of absolute subjectivity. It is culture that induces us to have a system of beliefs and values that makes us justify our actions and the actions of others. justify our actions and the actions of others as right or wrong.. Depending on how inconsistent the actions of others are with respect to our moral principles, this will produce more acceptance or rejection of their behavior.

Proposals of this philosophical current.

As we were saying, the followers of this current defend that ideas such as, for example, "murder is morally wrong" are not true. However, there are differences regarding how to interpret this idea. It is not the same to regard something as not true as it is to regard it as false. This may not seem to be the case, that they are essentially the same, and in fact, one of the two ways of thinking within the current sees it that way. The nuance is quite minor, but it is still there.

One of the two views considers that every moral statement, whether it specifies what is right or what is wrong, is neither true nor false.. That is to say, and in relation to the example of murder, the act of taking another person's life would neither be a bad thing, as it is shaped according to the moral vision of most people, but it would not be a good thing either. It would simply be the action of taking another person's life, objectively speaking.

On the other hand, we have the view that any statement, whether it describes a morally right or wrong action, is necessarily false. The reason for this is that there is no way of morally grounding absolutely nothing, therefore, to affirm what is morally right or wrong.Therefore, to affirm what is right and what is wrong implies lying, thus telling a falsehood.

The theory of error

John Leslie Mackie is known to be the most famous thinker on moral nihilistic ideas.. He is known to be a proponent of error theory, a theory that combines moral nihilism with cognitivism, the idea that moral language consists of truth-false statements. The view of error theory is that ordinary morality and the discourse associated with it commit a great and profound error, whereby all moral statements are false ontological claims.

Mackie argued that moral statements could only be true if moral properties were found to give them force, i.e., to be their foundation. The problem is that such moral properties did not exist, therefore all moral statements must necessarily be false. There are no pure and hard properties that allow us to determine that an action is right or wrong..

In short, the theory of error is based on the following:

• There are no true moral properties, nothing is right or wrong.
• Therefore, no judgment is true.
• Our moral judgments fail to describe the moral characteristics of things.

The fact that we consider murder wrong is not because there is an unquestionable, objective truth that tells us it is wrong. We consider it morally wrong because culture has made us think that way.We do not want someone to take our lives, so killing other people arouses our empathy. It is wrong because we don't want them to do it to us.

Evolution is the origin of morality

Based on all this, how can we explain that human beings have had the need to attribute morality to actions? As we have already mentioned, empathy, a product of evolution, has a lot to do with morality. It is a fact that culture influences and shapes our moral principles.But it is curious how in many cultures there are ideas that are universally seen as good or bad, and there are very few who dare to question them.

Many evolutionary psychologists consider that the innate ideas of sympathy, empathy, give and take and other behaviors related to reciprocity implied a great evolutionary advantage at the time of conceiving the human being as he is today. Sharing has been related to a greater chance of survival.

This would also be attributable to the idea of morality. It would have appeared as a series of behaviors to avoid, especially those that would imply a great harm to everyone.In other words, by establishing which aspects are correct and which are not, the freedom of individuals is limited, which prevents everyone from doing what they want and, therefore, decreases the chances of vengeful behavior.

Let us return to the previous idea of murder. If in a society murder is conceived as something neutral, neither good nor bad, it implies that there are no laws prohibiting it. This means that a person who has a quarrel with someone can commit it and, in turn, a relative of the victim kills the murderer. As a counter-response, a loved one of the murderer, now murdered, will try to kill the one who took revenge, and thus murder would escalate, escalating and making society unviable.

On the other hand, the existence of morality implies the concreteness of good actions and bad actions.. In the same way that killing could be seen as a bad thing, so would sharing and being charitable be seen as a good thing. Sharing food, resources and protecting others would increase the survival of the group, having more individuals who could cope with various threats, from beast attacks to natural disasters.

Bibliographical references:

• Garner, R. T.; Rosen, B. (1967). Moral Philosophy: A Systematic Introduction to Normative Ethics and Meta-ethics, New York: Macmillan.
• Shafer-Landau, R. (2003). Whatever Happened to Good and Evil?, Oxford University Press.
• Joyce, R. (2001). The Myth of Morality, Cambridge University Press.
• Mackie, J. (1977). Ethics: inventing right and wrong. London. ISBN 0140135588. OCLC 24729622.
• Krellenstein, M. (2017). Moral nihilism and its implications. Journal of Mind & Behavior. 38. 75-90.