For some reason I am drawn to philosophical views that are typically considered ‘undesirable.’ One such view is moral nihilism; simply put, I don’t believe that moral principles have any objective backing. For those who have read The Brothers Karamazov, the favorite catchphrase might be “everything is permitted.” I think this is the truth, at least as a metaphysical statement. Moral ‘facts’ come from our social and personal beliefs and don’t reflect anything in the objective world. However, does this mean that the nihilist needs to be an ‘evil’ person? This certainly isn’t necessary; just because I do not believe that there is inherent ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ doesn’t mean that my actions will be antisocial. I have the freedom to commit such acts, but a lack of moral reasons not to do them doesn’t preclude their being other types of rational reasons.
We must remember that there are practical reasons for our actions. I do not drive on the left side of the road here in the US, because it is dangerous, and I am the sort of creature that is compelled to minimize danger (whenever feasible). There is no moral backing for this way of acting (there is no objective reason not to drive on the left side) but it is a matter of fact that I do not want to die, therefore I obey traffic laws. This is also true for decisions that are typically considered moral. I do not kill my neighbor for two reasons; firstly, I have an aversion to such an action and secondly, society would deal with my transgressions in a very severe way. My aversion is the product of social conditioning and perhaps, evolutionarily produced through my genotype. Thus, we can think of my not wanting to commit a certain act as a fact of the world. It is likely the case that these sorts of facts allow society to be stable, so that action tendencies of individuals do not undermine the society as a whole. On the other hand, the fact that I don’t do a certain action because of societal sanctions is based upon pragmatic reasoning on my part. It is a fact of the world that I want to preserve my health and freedom; this would be undermined by me murdering my neighbor because I would likely be put in prison. The above description is certainly just a sketch, but I believe that something like this can explain ‘moral’ behavior.
Of course, there could be a nihilist who lacks any aversion to murder and does not value their own well-being (or thinks they can get away with the crime, so as to avoid society’s punishment). This person’s actions are against my own self interest, but not immoral from their standpoint. I don’t see anything wrong with their action; I just have different goals than they do. In fact because our goals compete in a certain way, I feel like I must stop their action given the bad outcomes it means for me (based on my goals). So in a sense, I can say that their actions are bad, but it seems like to use a word like wrong would convey the improper meaning.
So, I’m a nihilist but I can act ‘morally’…seems to work out for me. More later.