Non-existence of Value and the Rational Nihilist Response The most confusion and contention in the realm of nihilism lies in how nihilism is construed to justify the consequent behavior. Existential nihilism is the doctrine that denies all value judgements. Under this heading falls similar terms such as “quality,” “intrinsic values,” and any sort of similar judgement which proclaims that any one thing or act is somehow better than another. If this is true, and there is no reason to choose one thing over another, what is the appropriate action to be taken? First of all, the issue of value must be clarified. What does it mean to say that value doesn’t exist? A traditionalist view tells us that all values are objectively handed down through a benevolent God. If a thing is good now for one person, it will be good for all people for eternity. Yet common sense and history give us another story. Moral codes differ from person to person, state to state, and time period to time period. In what sense then may morality – which is the study of value – be considered objective? A quick reply from the objectivist will state something like: the simple fact that moral systems have and do differ is no proof for the non-existence of one overarching objective moral system. True. In order to find this supposed objective moral system, all that is needed is an objective instrument to discover it. As objectivists are rationalists, of course the objective tool will be rationality. Differing moral systems are indicative of the fact that reason has not reached many places in the modern world. Conveniently, we in the western world do have reason, and hence also maintain the one omnipotent objective morality. Current trends in ethical theory seem to voice a differing theory than this overly simple objectivism. Of the myriad of ethical theories, it is impossible to point a finger at one and say “you are not using your rationale correctly.” In fact, each uses to laws of objective logic to provide evidence for their conclusions, which are often subjective. Take utilitarianism for example. Through its rational inquiry, it states that values are nothing more than the values of human desires – they are definitely not eternal. Objective reason has provided little consolation to the fighters on the virtue/consequentialist ethical war front. Surely, using high sounding terms like “rationality” is not a viable route to finding this elusive objective morality. Perhaps then, morals are only subjective? What’s right may be right because it’s right for me or because it’s right for my country or culture and most likely wrong for someone else or another country or culture. At this point we should differentiate between objective and subjective morality and objective and subjective value judgements. Morality is the study of what is right, what one should do. Value judgements are the personal or communal judgements of what things are “better” or more important than other things and activities. How do these two ideas relate? Basically, what one considers valuable is what one should do. So value judgements are the prerequisites to morality. So what is the difference between valuing objectively or subjectively? Something is considered objectively valuable if the entirety, or at least majority of humans agree that it is valuable. For example, the judgement that the killing of innocent people is wrong. Something subjective is less agreed upon. For example, the judgement that killing fetus’ is wrong. The problem with this subjective/objective dichotomy is that is misguided. We say that something is subjectively valuable if at least one person - but less than most – find it valuable. We say that something is objectively valuable if most people find it valuable. To end the discussion here bespeaks both an anthropocentric bias and a biocentric bias. The dichotomy is anthropocentrically biased because it disregards the perspectives of other life forms such as the animal and plant kingdoms. Objectivity, you see, is an escape from the individual perspective and an attempt at looking at things from all perspectives. This explains why objectivity is so important to have in seeking knowledge – by seeking multiple perspectives, it gains the most generalizable knowledge and hence the most knowledge. Defining objectivity as what humans consider right and wrong is clearly misguided. Even if the anthropocentric bias is accounted for, we must still beware of the even less visible bias of biocentrism. If someone is attempting to devise a truly objective morality, clearly it must contain all perspectives, even those of the non-living. Through this somewhat eastern reasoning, we catch our first glimpse of existential nihilism. The one assumption that all mainstream moral theorists agree with is that life is good and that anything that prolongs life is also good. Objectively speaking, this conclusion is entirely unwarranted. It’s ironic that the much praised objectivity of rationalists actually leads to the abyss of moral nihilism. From the perspective of nature, it is in no way “better” to be a human than a rock, they just are. Objectively, the world is devoid of value judgements. So, remembering our statements concerning the relationship between value and morality (what is deemed valuable is deemed the morality correct action to perform), it follows that objectively speaking, value does not exist and therefore no morally correct behavior exists. The only possibility for the existence of values and morality is subjectively, in people’s heads. Basically, it’s the placebo effect. If patient 3 believes wholeheartedly that the sugar pill is actually a wonder cure for his malady, there is a chance that this belief alone will cure his woes. Yet the analogy is problematic. No matter have fervent patient 3’s faith in values are, his faith will not result in a physical change as it did in his body. Values will not suddenly emerge into our world. There is another sense in which the placebo analogy holds true however. If the patient believes in value, value will not be created, but certain corollaries of value will. For example, faith and other such life-affirming states which are impossible in a nihilistic worldview. The problem with this is that although beliefs have changed, nothing in reality has changed. I refer to these types as delusional. Their imagination runs so completely rampant that it eventually molds their entire view of things. Yet this delusion is surely better than our nihilistic alternative, you might reply. There are two reasons why I disagree with the rebuttal. First, the delusional state represents a state of irrationality and weak mindedness. It would be impossible for me to merely discard my one consistent companion in my travails with nihilism (reason). You could say that nihilism is a brutal commitment to honesty, no matter what the consequences. I can’t lie to you about the reality of things and there is absolutely no way I could lie to myself. Rationality also deals with my second reason for dismissing the delusional call for value. Basically, if one still has his reason, he sees that things such as hope and life-affirmation are as valueless as any other thing. Why discard my reason for something like that? The fact is that most people do live in this delusional state, though of no choice of their own. Most likely, they have never experienced the objective realism of nihilism. If they had, they would not be able to give up reality for a dream state. But is ignorance bliss? Obviously it is not from a rational standpoint. I am not able to say for sure if it is from an ignorant standpoint because I have no experience in the matter. I am sure though that any bliss would be entirely subjective and a result of the placebo effect. Perhaps I and my nihilist comrades would be “better” if we never met with this creed, it seems impossible to say – and irrelevant, as it is too late for us. So the question now thrust before us is the one we began with: how does an existential nihilist justify any action or non-action he happens to take? Maybe we should just do what we feel is best for us since others don’t matter. That’s egoism, not nihilism; we don’t matter either. Maybe we should saunter around attempting to gratify each of our senses. That’s hedonism, not nihilism. Hedonism is rejected for the same reason the delusional subjective values are: it is irrational and sense pleasures are meaningless too. What if we just follow each and every whim of ours? Again, that speaks of irrationalism and is not an option for the audience of the latter part of this paper (or at least the author). A typical reply is to claim that a real nihilist cannot do anything. He is forced into a kind of eastern renunciation. If all things are equally meaningless, one must spend their days sitting and staring into space without a thought in their mind. It’s even better if they gain some body control and in addition to their external non-movement become internally static as well. This answer seems plausible and its plausibility is evinced by the masses of both nihilists and non-nihilists who claim that a nihilist cannot do anything. The difficulty in taking this perspective is that it is simply taken in because it sounds right. In actuality, no reason has been given as to why non-action should be taken because both non-action and action are equally meaningless. We are left at an impasse. In an attempt to overcome said impasse, there is the Camusian solution. Camus is one of a host of modern writers who have realized the meaninglessness of quality (value). Since, he says, quality does not exist, quantity should be our justification for behavior. Life should be lived so that the greatest possible number of diverse actions may be experienced. This ideology is antithetical to the renunciationist one spoken of earlier. Instead of doing nothing, do everything! Yet the trouble still remains. This view, like all the others examined thus far, gives no reason or justification to act in this way. “Gives no reason;” that gives us our sought after answer. All along our life, through our complacent acceptance of traditional, to our initial blasphemies and rebellions, to our complete acceptance of the nihilist worldview, reason has been our leader and companion. Note that this reason is not the unreasonable rationalism of some philosophers. Rationality does not become an object of worship for us, … us rational nihilists. We take it skeptically and with an understanding falsificationism and other such boundaries on reason, and at the same time realize that reason is the only consistency in our lives. Sounds like worship, let me explain. We realize both that value exists, all things are equally meaningless, and that it is too late for us to do anything about the state of affairs with ourselves. So why choose reason? What justification is there? There is an ironic discrepancy in nihilism. Nihilism states that all things are equally meaningless and that values fail too exist, but nihilism is also seen as bleak and pessimistic (value judgements). Even nihilists fall prey, why? We’ve all been force fed since birth on ideas of man’s special place in the universe which is all good because it’s been created by an all-good entity just for man’s happiness. Less conspicuous ideas such that life is good and anything that prolongs life is also good have crept in unnoticed by most. Basically, if we’d been taught the truth from the beginning, the idea that the universe is value neutral would not be so hard to swallow. Instead, our hopes and fears have been teased for years and these things are not easily forgotten. With these past beliefs near in mind, the nihilist realization comes hard and is unbearable for some. Results of this are modern existentialist ideas such as fear and trembling, anxiety, and dread. So how does rationalist nihilism abate these mind states? One word: distraction. Every aspect of our lives is basically used as a distraction against thoughts of the nihilist abyss. The majority of the population are easily amused and things such as sports and soap operas and public service serve as adequate distractions. For those who have seen past these trivialities, reason is the only act which takes the necessary extreme about of mental attention left to distract us. Rational nihilism: distraction for those with a high need of stimulation.