Moral Nihilism: Cattle and Murder Have you heard about how modern humanity and animal compassion have combined forces to revolutionize the cattle killing industry? In olden days, the cattle killing grating was made in a perfectly straight line, so that each cow would see its destiny and live its last few minutes in a state of extreme, hysterical fear. Now, the grating has been made to be curved, so that the cow has a relaxing trot, and dies completely calmly and unexpectantly. Even the actual killing itself is instantaneous and painless. How humane we humans are, but would we subject humans to similar practices? If one were to instantly kill a human being in the same fashion, would you be harming that person? Although you are not physically hurting this person because the death is instantaneous, objectors would say, you are harming him in that you are preventing him from performing future actions that would be beneficial to him. I had thought this was obvious and concrete, but I recently heard an interesting reply. The murdered victim is not harmed precisely because he does not exist and cannot receive future benefits. For example, consider the joy our victim receives from his pet dog. Yet he is in college and was forced to leave his beloved pet at home. If the dog is murdered, is our victim harmed as well? He is very attached to this dog, and if it is harmed, he will go through severe emotional trauma. But there is a catch: he will not face any emotional pain if he is unaware of the loss. For both physical and mental pain, consciousness is a prerequisite. An athlete in an intense competition may finish the match before realizing he has a fractured bone. We are not pained during surgery because the anesthesia blocks it from our consciousness. The same holds for emotional pain. Unconsciousness is synonymous with death. A dead person cannot possibly feel either physical or emotional pain because when pain is unconscious it is not pain. The death of our fictional victim does not harm him whatsoever because he is never conscious of either pain or loss of future benefit.  He could have been harmed if the bullet slightly missed the mark and the death was prolonged. Both physical and emotional pain would result, harming the victim very much so. Or, if he knew ahead of time that you were planning on killing him he would experience some emotional pain. But, as performed, the victim is completely unharmed by his own murder. However, just as he would have been pained by knowledge of the death of his dog, those closest to him would be pained by his death if they knew about it. So, as Raskolnikov realized in 'Crime and Punishment,' if the victim has no family and friends, neither the victim himself nor anyone else is harmed by his murder. What about mankind in general? Are they harmed by the knowledge of the murder of an innocent man? People are pained by the unease resulting from the feeling that they could be next. So murder is still "bad," I guess. The point is that most people - though not a moral nihilist - regard physical and emotional pain as "bad" and base their moral philosophies on this ideal. Yet even when this ideal is not broken with the quick death of an innocent man, it is still considered wrong. They will propose that there is something intrinsic in a human being, that although he may be completely worthless to the population at large and no pain is receieved, his murder is still morally wrong. The moral nihilist gets his nihilism as a result of atheism. It is God who is conceived of to give Man ths inherent value. Man is made in the image of a perfect deity and is thus valuable in himself. Is this intrinsic value compatible with an atheistic mindset? There is nothing prior to man, just monkeys. "Existence preceds essence." Is there any difference between a god-given intrinsic value and an equal value given to man by man? Certainly a nihilist may say, "I would prefer not to be murdered or robbed or mutilated," but does this saying so make these crimes wrong? A moral nihilist does not believe that a moral system can be founded on ideas about lack of pain or security, because he sees that at times pain and chaos may be beneficial. Now I'm just rambling, but the main point is that the intrinsic value is completely incompatible with a moral nihilists stand point; and more so, I'm not sure how convincing the humanist stand is either.