Moral nihilism

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Moral nihilism begins with a proposition that stops most people cold: nothing you have ever done was morally right, and nothing was morally wrong. Not because ethics is complicated or culturally relative, but because morality, in the traditional sense, does not exist at all. This is not a fringe provocation. It is a serious metaethical position with a rigorous philosophical history, defenders at the highest levels of academic philosophy, and real stakes for how we should speak and live. What does it mean to say that murder is not truly wrong? How can a philosopher hold that view and still function in a moral community? And what do we do with all the moral language we use every day, once we accept that it points to nothing real? Those are the questions that drive this story.

• 2. What Nihilism Is Not

  ›

  Moral nihilism gets confused with two neighboring positions, and the distinctions matter. Moral relativism holds that actions can be wrong relative to a particular culture or individual. That view still preserves wrongness; it just makes it local rather than universal. Moral nihilism says there is no wrongness anywhere, not even local wrongness. Expressivism is another neighbor. It holds that moral claims are expressions of emotions, desires, and intentions rather than factual statements. An expressivist saying "murder is wrong" is venting disapproval, not making a claim that could be true or false. Nihilism rejects that too. For the nihilist, moral claims do try to state facts. They simply fail, because the facts they are trying to describe do not exist. That failure is precisely what makes nihilism distinctive among metaethical views.

• 3. Mackie and the Error Theory

  ›

  J. L. Mackie gave moral nihilism its most influential modern form in his 1977 book Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, though the position had been prefigured by the Swedish philosopher Axel Hägerström as early as 1911. Mackie's version is called error theory, and it rests on three interlocking claims. First, there are no moral features in the world; nothing is right or wrong. Second, no moral judgments are therefore true. Third, and crucially, our sincere moral judgments do try to describe moral features of things. They just always fail. We are reaching for a truth that does not exist. The result is that all moral thinking lapses into error, and since knowledge requires truth, there can be no moral knowledge at all. Mackie described what objective moral properties would have to be like if they did exist: they would need to be intrinsically motivating, capable of guiding us just by the fact of our being aware of their truth. No such properties are found anywhere in the natural world, which is why he concluded they do not exist.

• 4. False Versus Not Truth-Apt

  ›

  Within nihilism itself, philosophers divide over a technical but important question: are moral claims false, or are they simply not the kind of thing that can be true or false at all? Mackie's own position is that moral assertions are false. If there were moral properties they would have to be objective, and since there are none, every moral claim is systematically in error. Richard Joyce argues for a different formulation, which he calls fictionalism. On this view, moral beliefs and assertions presuppose the existence of moral facts, and when those facts are absent, the claims suffer from what philosophers call presupposition failure. The analogy Joyce uses is the claim that the present king of France is bald. That sentence is neither true nor false; it collapses because it assumes a king of France currently exists, and there is not one. Moral language, on Joyce's account, collapses in the same way. The debate between the false-claims camp and the not-truth-apt camp is an internal dispute about the exact shape of the error, not about whether the error is real.

• 5. The Argument from Queerness

  ›

  The most prominent argument for nihilism is the argument from queerness, and it comes directly from Mackie. His formulation is blunt: if objective values existed, they would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe. This strangeness, he argues, gives us reason to doubt them. Mark Timmons, in his 1999 book Morality without Foundations: A Defense of Ethical Contextualism, reconstructed Mackie's argument in terms of philosophical naturalism, the view that everything is part of the natural physical world that science investigates. Timmons traces the appeal of naturalism to the rise of modern science and the belief that science is our best avenue for discovering the nature of reality. Against that backdrop, objective moral properties look suspicious on three fronts. They would purport to be intrinsically prescriptive, motivating us independent of our desires; the relation between moral properties and natural properties would be metaphysically mysterious; and anyone who accepted them would need to posit some special faculty for perceiving them, a faculty science has never found. Philosopher Christine Korsgaard pushes back by pointing out that the world already contains entities that can tell us what to do and make us do it: people, and other animals. Akeel Bilgrami has offered a further criticism, noting that if such properties would exist outside our sphere of experience, we cannot have prior reason to either doubt or affirm them without independent grounds.

• 6. Living With Nihilism

  ›

  Accepting that morality is an error does not automatically tell you how to live, and nihilists have landed in very different places on that question. Mackie's own answer was pragmatic: moralizing is an inherently useful practice, and everyone is better off behaving in a moralistic manner even knowing the underlying theory is false. Richard Joyce agrees, defending the continued use of moral talk and action even in full knowledge of its fundamental falsity. The legitimacy of this position is itself an open debate in philosophy. Richard Garner took a sharply different view under the banner of moral abolitionism. For Garner, if there are no objective morals, then engaging in moralism is a form of deception. It harms what he called epistemological integrity. His proposed alternative was what he called informed, compassionate amoralism: a blend of compassion, non-duplicity, and clarity of language that he believed would nurture tolerance, creation, and cooperation. Garner also argued a social benefit: stripped of moral framing, conflicts would be seen for what they truly are and become easier to address and resolve. The gap between Mackie's pragmatic moral fictionalism and Garner's abolitionism represents one of the deepest fault lines in applied nihilist thought.