One of the Many Aspects in which Moral Nihilism is Dumb

By Matt Pike

            Moral Nihilism claims that moral judgments and, for that matter, values do not have a place in times of war because of the extreme nature of war. Given that war is a time when all active participants have their lives on the line and could be killed at any time, geneticly predisposed tendencies dictate extreme actions that the person might not normally take. In a kill or be killed situation, it is to be expected that people will take actions normally outside of their normal scope of behaviors. This appears to be part of what motivates people to separate war from moral judgments. This is a prime example of our societal tendencies to appeal to "extenuating circumstances". We like to believe that there are situations where one rule or another that would normally apply does not. The question that needs to be asked is: is morality a "rule" that is applied to a situation, and therefore suspendable?

            Rules are generally something that has been agreed upon by numerous persons in a population and is therefore imposed. Morality seems to be an extension of this, given that most people in the world agree in the "Golden Rule" of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". The one problem with this is the observation that the Golden Rule has existed for a long time in many (all?) cultures that had no contact with each other. This makes one wonder where this "rule" originates, and raises it to a higher level than just a governmental body arbitrarily assigning 50 MPH as the speed limit. Morality is not a law which we formed, it is a state of existence inherent in what it is to be human. If it is capable for us to suspend morality, then we are suspending our humanity as well.