Philosophy Now Forum

There Will Be Blood
Terri Murray tells us about a Hollywood hero beyond good and evil.

The central conflict of There Will Be Blood is between Plainview, who is a plain-speaking businessman with big ambitions in the burgeoning oil industry, and a hypocritical Christian preacher, Eli Sunday, who shares Plainview’s ambition for wealth but doesn’t want to get his hands dirty earning it.

Indeed, there are any number of "prosperity gospel" Christians out there -- in here? -- who are more than willing to rake in the big bucks while never even coming close to having to scrub dirty hands at the end of the day. And not just the Pope, of course.

There is no dialogue during the opening scenes, and our attention is drawn instead to the raw, uncivilized physicality of man as animal struggling against the elements.

What are we to make of that? What ought we to make of that? We all come into the world hardwired to have gone in that direction. And only given the particular life we live often determines if we might or might not go there ourselves. It's like sex. Some eschew it in turn as just another manifestation of raw, naked, animalistic behavior. Civilized fucking? Right. If only we didn't have to reproduce ourselves...in that way. If only God had created us without genitals to put on a leash, without assess to wipe, without periods to contain, without all this: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5764584/

Without ids?

Then the part where some will insist that, "in no way could I even imagine myself behaving in such an uncivilized manner"

And not just those living in one or another "gilded age". Besides, that sort of thing is why God created the working class.

Also, consider any number of posters here who are entirely civilized until someone posts something that so infuriates them, they rage and rage and rage.

Several years pass, and again we see Plainview prospecting for oil, this time with a team of colleagues, one of whom is killed in an accident at a primitive drilling site, leaving a son. Plainview adopts the orphaned boy, who goes by the name ‘H.W.’. These early scenes of injury and death set the contours of what will follow: destruction, loss and injury is seen throughout the film as an integral part of all that is exceptional, energetic, life-affirming and productive, not as antithetical to it. It is a means to greatness, progress and flourishing.

Go ahead, fit yourself in there somewhere. Then get back to us.

Greatness, progress and flourishing without a ton of destruction, loss and injury? Well, not so far. Though clearly some embody destruction, loss and injury far, far more so than others.

So, Is that just the way the world is?

There Will Be Blood
Terri Murray tells us about a Hollywood hero beyond good and evil.

This cynicism shows us parallels between Plainview and Nietzsche. Nietzsche, whose father was a Lutheran pastor, thought we would do better to study the motives that drive philosophers and preachers to their particular moral conclusions than to concern ourselves with their ‘truth’.

Of course, by now we recognize there are hundreds of different One True Paths out there all espousing hundreds of at times conflicting conclusions about, well, many, many things that may be anchored anywhere up and down the moral, political and spiritual spectrum.

And it's not what motivates us so much as confronting the reality that people are motivated by beliefs that, over the centuries, have never been reconciled or resolved. Then what?

And there's also this part:

Plainview quickly brings wealth and progress to the people of Little Boston. Where once bread was scarce, now they will have it in abundance – along with water wells, irrigation, education, employment and new roads.

On the other hand, the socialists will insist they can accomplish the same thing. And without exploitation or oppression or alienation.

You tell me.

Nietzsche thought that, like everything else, philosophy and religion were expressions of self-interest. Plainview too does not even entertain the possibility that Eli’s desire might be motivated by anything other than his will-to-power. There is no question in Plainview’s mind that Eli uses religion merely to rationalise his motives and dispositions.

Of course, all of this is predicated on the crucial assumption that the self itself can be wholly grasped given one or another One True Path. God or No God. So, whose assessment of human identity is the "real deal"? If any of them are.

Not to worry though. If you're able to convince yourself that who you think you are and what you think is always the right thing to do, then that, uh, settles it, right?

As for the sociopaths, well, where to draw the line between them and, say, the Übermensch? Who, however, would call Plainview a sociopath?

However, Plainview’s form of advancement has a distinctly Nietzschean flavour. In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche asserts that a “good and healthy aristocracy” must be founded on the belief that society does not exist for its own sake, but as a scaffolding upon which a select kind of being can raise itself to a higher existence, much as a climbing vine wraps its tendrils around an oak tree to ascend until it emerges into the sunlight and unfold its coronas.

How about a good and healthy plutocracy?

There Will Be Blood
Terri Murray tells us about a Hollywood hero beyond good and evil.

This cynicism shows us parallels between Plainview and Nietzsche. Nietzsche, whose father was a Lutheran pastor, thought we would do better to study the motives that drive philosophers and preachers to their particular moral conclusions than to concern ourselves with their ‘truth’.

Of course, by now we recognize there are hundreds of different One True Paths out there all espousing hundreds of at times conflicting conclusions about, well, many, many things that may be anchored anywhere up and down the moral, political and spiritual spectrum.

And it's not what motivates us so much as confronting the reality that people are motivated by beliefs that, over the centuries, have never been reconciled or resolved. Then what?

And there's also this part:

Plainview quickly brings wealth and progress to the people of Little Boston. Where once bread was scarce, now they will have it in abundance – along with water wells, irrigation, education, employment and new roads.

On the other hand, the socialists will insist they can accomplish the same thing. And without exploitation or oppression or alienation.

You tell me.

Nietzsche thought that, like everything else, philosophy and religion were expressions of self-interest. Plainview too does not even entertain the possibility that Eli’s desire might be motivated by anything other than his will-to-power. There is no question in Plainview’s mind that Eli uses religion merely to rationalise his motives and dispositions.

Of course, all of this is predicated on the crucial assumption that the self itself can be wholly grasped given one or another One True Path. God or No God. So, whose assessment of human identity is the "real deal"? If any of them are.

Not to worry though. If you're able to convince yourself that who you think you are and what you think is always the right thing to do, then that, uh, settles it, right?

As for the sociopaths, well, where to draw the line between them and, say, the Übermensch? Who, however, would call Plainview a sociopath?

However, Plainview’s form of advancement has a distinctly Nietzschean flavour. In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche asserts that a “good and healthy aristocracy” must be founded on the belief that society does not exist for its own sake, but as a scaffolding upon which a select kind of being can raise itself to a higher existence, much as a climbing vine wraps its tendrils around an oak tree to ascend until it emerges into the sunlight and unfold its coronas.

How about a good and healthy plutocracy?

But a plutocracy is not a society, but a regime rather like the Mafia.
'Society ' relates to the level to which a regime and its subjects are social or antisocial.

There Will Be Blood
Terri Murray tells us about a Hollywood hero beyond good and evil.

Eli Sunday sets about trying to make converts of the new arrivals to Little Boston but is met with indifference. He seems to have nothing to offer men and women whose bellies are full of bread and whose days are filled with productive work.

Doesn't surprise me a bit. How about you? The more your life is in the toilet, the more likely it is that you will seek comfort and consolation before it's, well, flushed and gone forever.

He attempts to siphon off some religious currency from the new oil well by requesting that Plainview allow him to give a blessing at the public opening of the new well. Plainview appears to give his assent, but when the townspeople are gathered in front of the well, he gives his own ‘blessing’:

“Let’s forget the speech; I’m better at digging holes in the ground than making speeches, so let’s forget the speech for this evening. Just make it a simple blessing. You see, one man doesn’t prospect from the ground, it takes a whole community of good people such as yourselves, and uh, this is good – we stay together. We pray together, we work together, and if the good Lord smiles kindly on our endeavour, we share the wealth together.”

Perfect!
Right?
Prosperity gospel meets trickle down economics meets the white working class. The part where, even to this day, Trump and his ilk are able to dupe any number of working class folks into believing that he really is on their side. Praise the Lord and leave it to beaver.

At this juncture he says, “God bless you all, Amen,” the well is opened, and drilling commences. Eli has been rendered impotent and silent. Plainview has demonstrated that he knows the true source of power in Little Boston, and that any religiosity to be drawn from the well will be under his authority, not Eli’s.

Of course, by in large, in the world today, nothing much has changed. The ruling class still knows the value of bread and circuses, of divide and conquer, of letting "the people" dope themselves on "religion and sex and TV"

In other words, to the ruling class, "they think they're so clever and classless and free, but they're still fucking peasants as far as I can see."

Well, sort of. Each of us, of course, has our own rooted existentially in dasein spin on that.

There Will Be Blood
Terri Murray tells us about a Hollywood hero beyond good and evil.

Plainview is not against the use of religion as a means to power; and neither was Nietzsche.

Nor, of course, do countless ruling classes down through the ages. Still, when it comes to keeping "the people" doped on religion no other nation comes as close to perfecting this as America.

Well, not counting the theocracies, perhaps.

For Nietzsche, the responsibility of the ‘free spirit’ is to his own development. For this, the free spirit may use religion, in the same way that that he might exploit political or economic circumstances.

Then the part where Nietzsche's perspective on all this stops and Machiavelli's begins?

Those who are strong, independent and of a noble nature can use religion to remove obstacles. Nietzsche also saw that religion tends to make the drudgery of life bearable for those powerless to change their circumstances. It gives meaning to their suffering and allows them to remain content with the circumstances of their lives by assuring them that they have a place in an illusory higher order.

See, didn't I tell you? Only there are any number of folks who, in my view, embrace the myth of the Übermensch much like others embrace God. Okay, they can't take it with them because God is dead. But all the way up to the grave they can convince themselves that they really are...super men?

But to Nietzsche, religion goes wrong when seen as an end in itself, or when it celebrates or exalts what is weak and ought to die out.

Now all the Übermensch need do is to advise us on what constitutes weakness and who should be the first to go. Maybe not all the way to the gas chambers, perhaps, but each Übermensch has his or her own rendition of "or else".

He thought that Christianity was nihilistic to the core, sacrificing everything of value in others and ourselves, ultimately even God himself. Christianity sacrifices everything real – life – for a non-existent future. But for the church, Nietzsche’s life-affirming values are sins.

This is something that Satyr and his ilk always bring up. Religion as a manifestation of nihilism. Whereas from my own perspective it is just the opposite of nihilism. The entire point of religion is to insist that reality can be wholly understood as a manifestation of God. There may be hundreds of Gods to choose from, perhaps, but they will assure us that their own path is the One True Path.

Just ask them.

There Will Be Blood
Terri Murray tells us about a Hollywood hero beyond good and evil.

One evening there is a fatal accident at the well, and Plainview is forced to shut down until the middle of the next day. When he learns that the deceased was a devout Christian, he feels obliged to visit Eli to ask whether he would give the man a Christian burial. When he arrives at the Church of the Third Revelation, he finds Eli in the throes of a ‘healing’. Eli Sunday is transparently false, and we are positioned to identify with Plainview’s point of view on his disingenuous antics, which swing between extremes of saccharine sweetness and uncontrollable rage.

Of course, when it comes down to religion there are countless agendas you can pursue in order to further your own wants and needs. Think of all the disgraced evangelicals -- Baker, Swaggert, Haggert -- piling up the money by duping the faithful into believing they were the real deal. Prosperity gospel on steroids. And, indeed, any number of politicians know the value of that. Trump is just the most flagrant.

On the other hand, as long as the flocks keep on bleating for more, don't expect anything to change any time soon.

This also fits Nietzsche’s description of the religious disposition. Nietzsche noted that repression and denial of the will leads to “spasms” of “extravagant voluptuousness” followed by penitence and “denial of the world”. Nietzsche diagnosed this tendency to swing back and forth between extremes as a kind of ‘neurosis’.

And what would one expect once, historically, capitalism and Christianity became...mates? On the one hand, it's all about salvation; and, then, on the other hand, it's all about the Benjamins.

Plainview just recognizes how this can be used to further his own considerably more secular interests.

When Eli Sunday has finished the ‘healing’, Plainview says, “That was one Goddamn hell of a show.” Eli launches into a diatribe about how the accident could have been avoided if Plainview had only let him bless the well – suggesting that not only Eli but divine providence had been displaced from the well. He continues to taunt Plainview with accusations, but the older man interrupts him with a reminder that the well cannot “blow gold all over the place” if the men are too tired from listening to Eli’s gospel. At last this silences Eli, whose bluff has been called by Plainview’s acute discernment of where his true motives lie.

And, indeed, from time to time still today there will be new scandals in one of another church exposing what is really going on behind the curtains. On the other hand, where else can the flock go? Okay, the scandals are exposed -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... s_scandals -- but there's still the part where God is the only game in town if, say, immortality and salvation are important to you?

There Will Be Blood
Terri Murray tells us about a Hollywood hero beyond good and evil.

Both men are ambitious for wealth and power, they have simply chosen different means of getting it. Like Nietzsche, Plainview knows that the will-to-power works in many ways, but is always the underlying explanation for men’s actions and thinking.

Right, like one day neuroscientists will be able to pinpoint this "will to power". Wholly embedded in the soul perhaps?

Really, given the vast and varied historical and cultural parameters of human interactions, maybe the will to power is just a philosophical description of testosterone.

Though even here there are any number of men who have no interest at all in becoming one of Nietzsche's Übermensch. And given their own accomplishments and achievements, it is rather ludicrous to refer to them as one of the "last men".

Nietzsche observed that the saint is a fascinating riddle to us because we wonder at how anyone can have such strength of will. Surely the asceticism must be being endured for a reason? Nietzsche suggests that the ascetic is also exercising his will-to-power, but simply using an indirect means, and that is why powerful people sense a “strange unconquered enemy” when he approaches.

On the other hand, how many saints did Nietzsche actually know? And ascetics often sustain their own rendition of the "will to power" because, well, they expect to be rewarded "spiritually" "in the end".

Right?

Not long after the first accident, an equally horrible one occurs at the well, leaving the young H.W. deaf. In the midst of the tragedy, with H.W. still lying injured, oil shooting out of the ground and raining down on everything, and fires burning the rig, Plainview says to his assistant, “What are you looking so miserable about? There’s a whole ocean of oil under our feet. No one can get at it except for me!”

Let's call this the "bottom line". In other words, Plainview basically represents those who can be admired for what they are able to achieve and accomplish. On the other hand, when everything revolves around "show me the money", not many of us are not expendable. And unlike those who own and operate the oil industry today, he was in the thick of it right from the start. Down in the wells, actually digging them. He earned his fortune in a way that few "captains of industry" today can lay claim to.

There Will Be Blood
Terri Murray tells us about a Hollywood hero beyond good and evil.

De Profundis

Plainview himself is a man who has emerged from the depths of the earth. We saw him injured in the opening sequence while digging in a deep hole. We have seen his filthy hands and his face covered in dirt and oil, and we know that his power comes from the same source. The metaphor is one of evolution – of man the species who has emerged from dust, from lower forms of life, and who survived through his adaptation and overcoming of adversity.

No getting around the fact that in forging his amazing life, blood, sweat and tears were crucial components. Indeed, compare the fortune he accumulated with that of, say, Donald Trump. And back then there was no doomsday clock revolving around a "climate crisis" fueled by the oil and gas industries. Many will admire him and presume he reflects the evolution of biological life at its most triumphant. As one of Nietzsche's "Übermensch" might insist.

By contrast, Sunday is a soft, effete, solicitous fellow who in Nietzschean terms is unfit for survival. He is an embodiment of everything Nietzsche despised about Christianity.

Still, that didn't stop Plainview from using him, religion and Christianity to his own advantage. And while those who practice and preach prosperity gospel today may in turn be all about "show me the money", the millions who flock to them are often no less comforted and consoled by their own rendition of "The Gospel Truth".

In Nietzsche’s view, Christianity exalts the meek, the lowly, the oppressed, the poor – in other words, that which naturally ought to die out. It elevates what is ignoble, making it an object of praise, while stigmatizing the ‘manly’ virtues, labelling them as sins'.

On the other hand, in my view, for Nietzscheans of this ilk today -- here or there -- how would they go about deciding who or what should die out? Or what constitutes manliness and ignoble behavior?

Or note how the deontologists among us might weigh in on particular behaviors. In order to set everyone straight regarding things said to be Good and things said to be Evil.

Indeed, Sunday attempts to do this by trying to make Plainview ashamed of the very character traits – independence, will, ambition, fearlessness, strength, decisiveness – that make the viewer admire him. But Plainview feels no moral guilt.

On the other hand, does Sunday?

There Will Be Blood
Terri Murray tells us about a Hollywood hero beyond good and evil.

There is a distinct flavour of social Darwinism in Nietzsche’s outlook. He described the liberal dream of social conditions of equality and justice as the invention of a life form that has lost all its organic functions.

Survival of the fittest. A perfect match for the Übermensch. Let the Last Men invent religion, socialism, the welfare state and all of the other political contraptions that favor the weak over the strong. Only they embody the best of all possible worlds.

No God, alas, so even the Übermensch are subject to all that encompasses oblivion. Still, on this side of the grave, they may just as well be Gods. The best and brightest, let's call them. On the other hand, historically, the best and the brightest have been thumped time and again. And not by the weak so much as by others who challenge them to be True Übermensch.

Nietzsche was convinced that human life devoid of its exploitative nature is not worthy of being called ‘life’ at all. To Nietzsche, Christianity originated from what he called ‘slave morality’: that is, it emerged amongst oppressed groups who resented their more powerful masters.

Right, as though any number of Nietzscheans here and elsewhere are not themselves slaves to one or another rendition of What Nietzsche Meant. True Nietzscheans, in other words. Their Nietzsche and never yours.

Though, sure, historically, there have been any number of moral and political policies purued by any number of those some will construe to be the Last Men. Though for some of them, in turn, it ever and always has to be their own assesment. And, for others, you have to be the right color, the right gender or embrace the right sexual oriention. Also...death to all liberals?

And Jews?

Yet because they were unable to throw off their chains and overpower their natural superiors, they invented religion to invert the masters’ values of conquest, domination, strength and creativity.

For some -- many? most? -- that's just one aspect of religion. Also, just arguing about any of this is not the same thing as actually demonstrating that it is in fact true objectively for...everyone? Like, for example...

https://science.nasa.gov/universe/overview/forces/
https://www.google.com/search?q=4+main+ ... s-wiz-serp

...these forces/components?

So, where does any particular "I" fit in here? Your own for example?

Though in the either/or world, they do seem to be applicable to all of us. Unlike, say, our interactions in the world of conflicting goods?

Moral absolutism, moral nihilism, moral relativism
University of Notre Dame

Today we begin our discussion of ethics. Later we will be turning our attention to a few issues in applied ethics - questions about what it is right or wrong to do in particular cases. But we will be beginning our discussion of ethics by addressing some general questions. And today we begin with the most general question of all: are there facts about what it is right and wrong for us to do and, if so, what are those facts like?

In fact, say some, in the absence of God, what are the facts we can pin down regarding moral conflagrations? Obviously, in interacting with others socially, politically and economically, there are any number of facts that can be acknowledged and shared. Facts embedded in the either/or world. But what in fact are the optimal assessments of those facts themselves when we shift gears to the is/ought world?

Let's focus in on a particular conflict. Then given a particular set of circumstances let's try to sort out what we can in fact agree on.

There is an interesting contrast between many peoples’ intuitions about ethical claims, and their intuitions about other sorts of claims...

Back to that again: intuition: "the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning."

But then the part where, in regard to moral conflicts revolving around things like human sexuality, abortion and gun control, there are those on both sides of the issue claiming they "just know" what "the right thing to do" is.

So much for intuition then?

As often as not intuition is embodied in what some call their Intrinsic Self. As though intuition itself is not but one more manifestation of dasein rooted out in a particular world understood in a particular way.

There is an interesting contrast between many peoples’ intuitions about ethical claims, and their intuitions about other sorts of claims; this contrast can be brought out by considering some examples. Suppose that you are asked some controversial ethical question, like

"Are middle-class people morally obliged to give money to the poor?"

or

"Is abortion ever morally permissible?"

Many people would respond to at least some questions of this sort -- even if not the examples above -- by saying something like: “It depends on your perspective.”
“For me this is wrong, but that does not mean that it is wrong for everyone.”
“Well, I think that this is wrong, but that is just my opinion."

Some -- many? most? -- here know of my own "fractured and fragmented" reaction to conflicting goods. And, sooner or later, within any human community, rules of behaviors are established and sustained such that some behaviors are prescribed [rewarded] while other behaviors are proscribed [punished].

How do you account for that given your own moral philosophy?

Moral absolutism, moral nihilism, moral relativism
University of Notre Dame

It is interesting that we would not respond this way to questions about, for example, what is being served in North Dining Hall. In response to an important dining hall question like...

Do they have beef stroganoff in North Dining Hall tonight?

no one would respond by saying

“It depends on your perspective.”
“For me it is true that they are serving the stroganoff, but that does not mean that it is true for everyone.”
“Well, I think that they are serving stroganoff, but that is just my opinion.”

or, if we would, they would mean quite different things than when used in answer to the ethical question.

That's how the world works by and large. There are things and there are relationships between things that are not just a matter of personal opinion. They can be demonstrated to in fact be true for everyone.

At least in this instance until some insist that consuming animal flesh is...immoral? Yes, it cannot be denied that beef stroganoff is being served in a particular dining hall on a particular night. It's a simple culinary fact. But what of those who do argue that it should not be served anywhere because it amounts animal abuse.

The fact that we would not give answers of this sort indicates that we all endorse a thesis that might be called dining hall absolutism: we think that there are genuine facts about what food is being served in the dining hall, and that these facts do not depend on the perspective, opinion, or anything about the person who happens to be discussing these facts.

So, does anyone here actually dispute this? Walk into any dining hall and facts abound. Who is there, what's being served, and countless other variables that all will agree on provided that they are capable to recognizing what these facts are.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2025 1:58 am Moral absolutism, moral nihilism, moral relativism
University of Notre Dame

It is interesting that we would not respond this way to questions about, for example, what is being served in North Dining Hall. In response to an important dining hall question like...

Do they have beef stroganoff in North Dining Hall tonight?

no one would respond by saying

“It depends on your perspective.”
“For me it is true that they are serving the stroganoff, but that does not mean that it is true for everyone.”
“Well, I think that they are serving stroganoff, but that is just my opinion.”

or, if we would, they would mean quite different things than when used in answer to the ethical question.

That's how the world works by and large. There are things and there are relationships between things that are not just a matter of personal opinion. They can be demonstrated to in fact be true for everyone.

At least in this instance until some insist that consuming animal flesh is...immoral? Yes, it cannot be denied that beef stroganoff is being served in a particular dining hall on a particular night. It's a simple culinary fact. But what of those who do argue that it should not be served anywhere because it amounts animal abuse.

The fact that we would not give answers of this sort indicates that we all endorse a thesis that might be called dining hall absolutism: we think that there are genuine facts about what food is being served in the dining hall, and that these facts do not depend on the perspective, opinion, or anything about the person who happens to be discussing these facts.

So, does anyone here actually dispute this? Walk into any dining hall and facts abound. Who is there, what's being served, and countless other variables that all will agree on provided that they are capable to recognizing what these facts are.

But it's only a strong probability they will serve or will not serve beef stroganoff.
Nihilism and simple realism are both stupid, as concerning past and future events.

"Dining hall absolutism" is a fancy name for common sense. Common sense is deterministic and traditional, and differs from science in that science is common sense subjected to peer -accepted theory , rigorous experiments, and mathematics.

Moral questions differ from what you allege are "facts" in that moral values include sympathy which is included in experiments in the human sciences but not experiments in the natural sciences. Institutions such as PETA try to inject sympathy into the common -sense values of eating meat.

Moral absolutism, moral nihilism, moral relativism
University of Notre Dame

Moral absolutism: there are facts about which actions are right and wrong, and these facts do not depend on the perspective, opinion, or anything about the person who happens to be describing those facts.

And, given a particular moral conflagration of note, what might these absolute moral facts be?

So, if you subscribe to moral absolutism, choose a moral/political conflict that is of particular importance to you and note these moral facts.

There are, broadly speaking, two ways of denying moral absolutism. One might say that there are no facts about what is right and wrong; or one might say that there are facts about what is right and wrong, but that these facts are relative to a person or group of persons.

It's not what one might say so much as the extent to which they are able to demonstrate that what they say -- think, believe -- others are obligated to embrace in turn. If, say, they want to be thought of as rational human beings.

Let’s consider the first, more radical view:

Moral nihilism: there are no facts about which actions are right and wrong.

This view faces an immediate problem: the problem is to explain what if there are no facts about what is right and wrong, we doing when we say things like “Stealing is wrong!”

Stealing what? Given what set of circumstances? And then those like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who argued that "property is theft". And if that is true what's that make capitalism? For some, it becomes nothing less than the very embodiment [historically] of flagrant thievery.

Or the amoral sociopaths among us who will steal whatever it is they want, factoring in only the chances of getting caught.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2025 7:17 am Moral absolutism, moral nihilism, moral relativism
University of Notre Dame

Moral absolutism: there are facts about which actions are right and wrong, and these facts do not depend on the perspective, opinion, or anything about the person who happens to be describing those facts.

And, given a particular moral conflagration of note, what might these absolute moral facts be?

So, if you subscribe to moral absolutism, choose a moral/political conflict that is of particular importance to you and note these moral facts.

There are, broadly speaking, two ways of denying moral absolutism. One might say that there are no facts about what is right and wrong; or one might say that there are facts about what is right and wrong, but that these facts are relative to a person or group of persons.

It's not what one might say so much as the extent to which they are able to demonstrate that what they say -- think, believe -- others are obligated to embrace in turn. If, say, they want to be thought of as rational human beings.

Let’s consider the first, more radical view:

Moral nihilism: there are no facts about which actions are right and wrong.

This view faces an immediate problem: the problem is to explain what if there are no facts about what is right and wrong, we doing when we say things like “Stealing is wrong!”

Stealing what? Given what set of circumstances? And then those like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who argued that "property is theft". And if that is true what's that make capitalism? For some, it becomes nothing less than the very embodiment [historically] of flagrant thievery.

Or the amoral sociopaths among us who will steal whatever it is they want, factoring in only the chances of getting caught.

I agree capitalism is thievery. Civilised societies are defined by their ability to save the people in need of care--see Margaret Mead 's discourse on a mended femur. And after all, who can say which individual is going to be the one that history says was right all along even although during their lifetime they may have been a reject.

Capitalism is thievery . So our work is to ameliorate its effects , not alone through charities, but more politically.