Supporters of moral objectivism have strong reasons for disagreeing with moral nihilists. First, let's explain what moral nihilism means. Moral nihilists believe that moral values are not real, absolute, or universal. They argue that since different cultures have such different moral beliefs, this shows that there are no objective moral truths. But moral objectivists have several important counters to this argument.
To start, just because people have different moral beliefs doesn’t mean there aren’t any objective moral truths. For example, there are many opinions about scientific topics, like climate change. However, just because people disagree does not change the fact that climate change is real. In the same way, differing moral views do not eliminate the existence of morality. Objectivists believe that moral truths can exist on their own, regardless of what people think, and that we can discover these truths through careful thinking and discussions.
Objectivists also say that disagreements in moral views among cultures often come from different ways of interpreting the same basic principles. For instance, cultures might have unique ideas about justice or what makes a good life, but they usually agree on important moral ideas like fairness, reducing suffering, and valuing community. This suggests that rather than lacking objective morality, cultures apply shared moral truths in different ways.
Another point is about moral progress. Supporters of moral objectivism often highlight changes in morals throughout history, like ending slavery and movements for civil rights and women's rights. These examples show that people can evolve collectively in their understanding of justice and human dignity. If morality were completely subjective and nihilistic, such progress wouldn’t make sense. Without some objective moral truths to aim for, moral systems wouldn’t have a foundation for growth or change.
Moreover, objectivists believe that our strong feelings about right and wrong—like guilt and empathy—show that humans are naturally aware of moral truths. They argue that these feelings are not just cultural but represent a deeper, universal moral framework that everyone can recognize. For example, most societies agree that murder is wrong, suggesting there might be a moral truth that goes beyond individual cultures.
Supporters of moral objectivism can also talk about the practical problems that come with believing in moral nihilism. If someone accepts that no moral claims are valid, it might make it hard to make ethical choices. Believing that nothing matters morally might lead to indifference about serious issues like inequality or injustice. Objectivists argue that believing in objective morality gives us a solid base to tackle these issues and encourages us to work toward a fairer society.
Additionally, objectivists can point out a problem with moral nihilism regarding authority. If all moral claims are just opinions and not based on anything solid, it’s really hard to defend any moral viewpoint. For example, if all views are equal, how can we say that torture is wrong? On the other hand, moral objectivism allows for a stronger defense for moral claims by connecting them to universal truths that can be explained and supported.
In summary, supporters of moral objectivism effectively counter the ideas of moral nihilism by highlighting key points: the difference between having diverse opinions and having no morals at all, the idea of moral progress as proof of objective truths, the moral feelings we observe that align with objective values, the need for a stable moral framework, and the justified authority behind moral claims. Through these arguments, objectivists make a strong case for believing in objective moral truths that challenge moral nihilism. They show that moral truths are not just feelings or cultural habits; they can help guide us toward a better, more harmonious society.
Supporters of moral objectivism have strong reasons for disagreeing with moral nihilists. First, let's explain what moral nihilism means. Moral nihilists believe that moral values are not real, absolute, or universal. They argue that since different cultures have such different moral beliefs, this shows that there are no objective moral truths. But moral objectivists have several important counters to this argument.
To start, just because people have different moral beliefs doesn’t mean there aren’t any objective moral truths. For example, there are many opinions about scientific topics, like climate change. However, just because people disagree does not change the fact that climate change is real. In the same way, differing moral views do not eliminate the existence of morality. Objectivists believe that moral truths can exist on their own, regardless of what people think, and that we can discover these truths through careful thinking and discussions.
Objectivists also say that disagreements in moral views among cultures often come from different ways of interpreting the same basic principles. For instance, cultures might have unique ideas about justice or what makes a good life, but they usually agree on important moral ideas like fairness, reducing suffering, and valuing community. This suggests that rather than lacking objective morality, cultures apply shared moral truths in different ways.
Another point is about moral progress. Supporters of moral objectivism often highlight changes in morals throughout history, like ending slavery and movements for civil rights and women's rights. These examples show that people can evolve collectively in their understanding of justice and human dignity. If morality were completely subjective and nihilistic, such progress wouldn’t make sense. Without some objective moral truths to aim for, moral systems wouldn’t have a foundation for growth or change.
Moreover, objectivists believe that our strong feelings about right and wrong—like guilt and empathy—show that humans are naturally aware of moral truths. They argue that these feelings are not just cultural but represent a deeper, universal moral framework that everyone can recognize. For example, most societies agree that murder is wrong, suggesting there might be a moral truth that goes beyond individual cultures.
Supporters of moral objectivism can also talk about the practical problems that come with believing in moral nihilism. If someone accepts that no moral claims are valid, it might make it hard to make ethical choices. Believing that nothing matters morally might lead to indifference about serious issues like inequality or injustice. Objectivists argue that believing in objective morality gives us a solid base to tackle these issues and encourages us to work toward a fairer society.
Additionally, objectivists can point out a problem with moral nihilism regarding authority. If all moral claims are just opinions and not based on anything solid, it’s really hard to defend any moral viewpoint. For example, if all views are equal, how can we say that torture is wrong? On the other hand, moral objectivism allows for a stronger defense for moral claims by connecting them to universal truths that can be explained and supported.
In summary, supporters of moral objectivism effectively counter the ideas of moral nihilism by highlighting key points: the difference between having diverse opinions and having no morals at all, the idea of moral progress as proof of objective truths, the moral feelings we observe that align with objective values, the need for a stable moral framework, and the justified authority behind moral claims. Through these arguments, objectivists make a strong case for believing in objective moral truths that challenge moral nihilism. They show that moral truths are not just feelings or cultural habits; they can help guide us toward a better, more harmonious society.