If Values Are Unreal, Why Does Everyone Believe In Them?

If, as nihilism asserts, values are nothing more than mental fictions, why do they seem so real and compelling?  For most people, it seems beyond dispute that rape, torture and murder are wrong, plain and simple.  This seems so obvious that one is inclined to say:  "No discussion necessary: Rape, torture and murder are morally wrong and it would be entirely absurd to say otherwise."  At bottom, this is simply an argument from common sense that justifies the reality of moral claims by appealing to salient features of our experience.  This argument can be formalized in many ways, but three are most common:

(1) By appealing to intuitions or feelings that support certain value-based beliefs.  For example:  "I know ‘deep inside’ that murder is wrong because it is upsetting, revolting and in conflict with my feelings at every level" or some such. 

(2) By appealing to the universality of certain value-beliefs in a community or in the world.  For example:  “Everyone thinks that rape is a bad thing, regardless of time and place, so it must be bad.”

(3) By appealing to ‘human nature’ as an authority.  For example:  “It conflicts with human nature to say that torture is not wrong.”

However expressed, the argument from common sense is undoubtedly the most common reason that people reject nihilism and, on that score, it deserves serious consideration.

  In my view, these arguments say nothing about why values are real and rest solely on references to the same psychological foundations that, in my view, make them unreal.  That is, under appropriate rational scrutiny, the common sense argument fails to point out real world basis for the reality of values.  The argument is equivalent to saying: “But I just know there is such a thing as right and wrong!  I just know it deep down!” 

Suppose our intuitions about the reality of values are so fundamental that they could not possibly exist unless values are, in fact, real.  If that were the case, I would grant that the argument from common sense might have some validity.  However, that is not the case, and the remainder of this essay will demonstrate just a few reasons that those intuitions exist and why they are so strong.  And mind you, none of those reasons have anything to do with their being rational, based on fact, or any other valid justification.  In other words, the question at issue here is not whether people happen to be convinced that values are real.  That much is obvious.  The question is whether there are good reasons to be convinced of them, and that is not obvious at all. 

 People find value claims compelling for many reasons, but none of these reasons point to the notion that value claims are real.  The list below is designed to demonstrate this point.

How We Get Fooled Into Believing in Values

1.  We are fooled when the basis for a value claim is simply assumed.  “x is the right thing to do, so you should do it.” Obviously, saying that “x is right” is simply a claim without any justification. To establish that this value claim has force, we need to know why x is the right thing to do. 

2. We are fooled when the justification is just a restatement of the fact that some people hold the belief in question.  “People in this community believe that you should do x and that means that you should do x” or “You ought to do x because, in my opinion, x is something that ought to be done.”  Genuine support for the moral demand is absent in both cases.  The demand is simply based on the fact that a certain person or group of people hold a particular moral belief and says nothing about whether the beliefs are valid.  It is the same as saying: “The earth is flat because everyone thinks it’s flat.” One wants to say: “Yes, I understand that it’s a popular belief, but can you point to a real fact suggesting that the earth is flat?”

3.  We are fooled through appeals to gods or other moral authorities which themselves lack any support by evidence or rationality.  I will grant that, if such an  authority did exist and made these morals known to us, morality might have legitimate support and might, on that basis, turn out to be real and binding.  But let’s face it, every argument in favor of the existence of god has failed, the world can be explained quite handily without any appeal to god, and the prevalence of "evil and suffering" in the world (which supposedly matters to most gods) are just what we would expect in a world with no god around to help out.  In short, supporting the delusion of values with yet another delusion ("god," “the goodness of nature” etc.) is just to double the absurdity of your case.  

4.  We are fooled though hidden circularities in moral reasoning.  In most cases, value claims are justified with reference to the authority of god (“x is wrong because god or my special revelation says so”) while the existence of that same god or revelation is justified with reference to the authority of the same value claims (“god must exist because otherwise we would have no way to support our conviction that x is wrong”).  In other words, we justify our morals with appeal to god and justify god with an appeal to morals, thereby assuming both before proving either one.  Again, there is a tremendous amount of emotional comfort and social compatibility to be gained from these beliefs and this makes it extremely easy for the circularity to persist unnoticed.

5.  People are fooled by appeals to their emotions, especially guilt.  "How would you feel if your brother took your hard earned money?"  This presumes the authority of the golden rule (“Do unto others…”) but gives us nothing in support of that rule.

6.  People are pressured to believe in values because of threats by social groups and institutions.  Most social institutions are founded on moral principles that resonate emotionally with the public and carry some negative repercussion when they are not obeyed. “You must follow vehicle safety laws or you are a bad citizen and an immoral person; besides, you'll also get punished by the authorities."  The organization of society makes it extremely difficult for us to admit that moral rules do not exist in the real world.  Indeed, refusal to defend these rules can put a person at risk of being socially ostracized or even incarcerated as criminal or insane.  So it’s no wonder that we are easily swayed by moral arguments:  Doing so is integral for getting along in life.  Nevertheless, if we peer honestly into the facts of the matter, these arguments are nothing more than social threats (“you don’t belong if you believe that”) and appeals to feelings (“how can you believe something like that!?”), not genuine supports for the values in question. 

7.  We are also fooled into believing in values when they are supported with appeals to yet more values.  For example:  “It is good to help others because that makes me feel happy, and feeling happy is important.”  This quickly becomes a vicious regress, since we have just appealed to another value (happiness) to justify the validity of the original value.  So, like the original value, this supporting value needs to be supported as well.  And if yet another value is cited, that will also need support, and so forth and so on.  With this kind of argument, value claims never gain footing in the real world.

More could be cited, but these factors alone are strong enough to show that the argument from common sense does not have the rational power that it might at first appear to have.  It tells us a great deal about the way societies function and about the role of emotion in belief-formation, but says nothing about whether values are real and binding.  To demonstrate their reality, we need to identify something other than human opinion to justify their validity.  As far as I can tell, nothing of this kind has ever been identified.  But if it ever is, I'll be the first in line to give up nihilism and embrace the world of values.  

That last line may surprise you, but hey, I only claimed to be a nihilist, not a masochist!  I want to find purpose, happiness and fulfillment just as much as anyone else.  The only reason I'm still a nihilist is that my desire for happiness isn't strong enough to trump my loathing for self-delusion.  It must be the philosopher in me, who knows.  Mark Twain once said that "Faith is just believin’ what you know ain’t so."   If adopting delusion is something you're willing and able to do, I heartily recommend you do it.  At least you’ll have better chances for a happy life (Oh the bliss of ignorance!).  Just make sure you don't commit to a life of philosophy or spend too much time thinking about reality or the delusion might collapse right on top of your head and plunge you into an existential crisis from which you may never escape.