 Today, we have our concluding talk on metaethics, and we would talk about moral nihilism. Now, what does moral nihilism mean? If you take a look at the slide, well, any nihilistic nihilism means a denial of existence or what is said to be absent. Well, let us briefly talk about what we mean by nihilism and moral nihilism. Now, nihilism is a more general metaphysical or a philosophical theory, which talks about the absence of any particular postulated entity or mentioned entity. So, nihilism simply, simplistically put, means that there is nothing. So, if I am a nihilist about God, so I am denying that there is anything called God. If I am a metaphysical nihilist, I am denying that there are any metaphysical entities. If I am a physical nihilist, then I am denying that there are any physical entities. So, various versions of nihilism are about denying the existence of certain entities. Now, so by the very meaning of it, moral nihilism comes out to mean that, well, something that denies the possibility of moral, of the moral domain, of the moral agent of the entire moral drama, if in a so is so. Now, what does this mean? Now, many of us would be having an impression or would be wondering that, well, perhaps there is nothing really right and wrong and everything is a fragment of imagination. Everything is, as a proposition or as a truth claim is unverifiable and perhaps that is why it is false. Now, such a theory definitely is not unheard of in philosophy. In fact, nihilism has been a standard denial of many positive discourses. But, let us see, what does moral nihilism claim? Now, if you look at the slide, well, moral nihilism denies the existence of the moral domain. Now, what does this mean? Does it mean that nothing, that say, nothing called right and wrong or good and bad? Well, now, this term that we use, nothing is not an insignificant term. In fact, it is having a lot of meaning. What exactly do we mean by nothing? We mean that, well, it is meaningless or that it is unverifiable or that, say, it is self-contradictory. Let us take examples of these that would perhaps further clarify. Let us talk about something called an entity X. Now, if I say X is uberto, it does not mean anything. If I say that X is a human being who is immortal or in the third entity, we use that X is a square circle. Now, there are these three possibilities that we are considering that are these three of these three, which is an example of what is it for X to be nothing or nihilism about X. So, does it mean that, well, X cannot be comprehended or does it mean that it is unverifiable or does it mean that it is self-contradictory? Well, this is how we see. The word nothing used can have various meanings. Now, what exactly do we mean by moral nihilism? Well, moral nihilism could have different strains, which could mean either of the examples that have been listed. Now, if I say that, well, the moral claim is meaningless, let us say, now if the moral claim is meaningless, it would mean that, well, whatever I, when somebody makes a claim that such and such act is right or good or wrong or bad, it does not register any meaning with the listener. Now, if the speaker says that, well, torture is wrong, the listener cannot comprehend what does the speaker mean, but if this is when it is being said as meaningless, when the speaker says that, well, torture is wrong, the listener understands that, well, the speaker does not approve of torture, that the speaker has a belief that, torture is wrong or incorrect or should be avoided, but how does he know that it is true, that it is just a matter of the speaker's belief. And third would be, when it is self-contradictory or when I say, torture is wrong, that, well, there is something right in torture, which is being contradicted by this claim that, torture is wrong, well, most of the strains of nihilism that we are familiar with is, when we talk about the first and the second. Now, first is when, who is a psychopath, when one does not register with the moral domain. So, moral sentiments like remorse, guilt or pride or judgment of right and wrong are simply absent. So, when I am trying to or when a policeman is trying to explain to a psychopath that, well, what you did is wrong, psychopath perhaps does not understand that, what he is done is right or wrong. Whenever the terms right, wrong, good, bad or moral adjectives are used, it seems to be in another language, it seems to be meaningless to the psychopath or well, I did what I wanted to do and I do not know what you mean by saying that, it is right or wrong or good or bad or whatever other moral adjective you use. Now, this is a case of a psychopathic moral nihilist. So, who is complete denial of the moral domain that, imagine going through the world without having any moral domain. Now, the second strain or which I am called the lighter strain of moral nihilism, right. Let me list it down for your convenience, first is these are all strains of moral nihilism cannot understand moral terms or moral adjectives. The example would be the psychopath, now second is one who cannot verify the moral claims and is therefore, understands, but cannot see, perceive it, cannot know it as a proposition. Let us see the example of what is meant by the second, we just talked about the first one. The second one is somebody who is talking about, who when comes across moral claims can make sense, the emotivist being to a certain extent one of such a kind that, well I understand what you say, when you say that X is wrong, but I do not know if there is a way I can verify that X is really wrong or X is wrong independent of your opinion, that X is wrong is just your opinion, it is not objectively verifiable. Now, if this is also a strain of moral nihilism, where moral claims are understood as opinions. So, moral claims come out to be as opinions and therefore, unverifiable. So, if you say that torture is wrong and somebody else says that torture is right, it does not make a difference, because none of it can be verified and therefore, we cannot know what is true. Now, let us look at it this way, a moral nihilist is denying what is the claim of the entire moral domain, that there is anything called morality that exists. Whatever it exists first, the first version of it is denying that there is nothing called morality, the second or the weaker or the lighter version of it sees it as storytelling or as a fiction, as an error theory. So, when let us consider this as fiction on which in technical terms in philosophy has been known as error theory, that well moral claims are unverifiable, therefore, not propositions. What is a proposition? A proposition is something that can be either classified as true or false and therefore, not propositions, but are still meaningful or useful. Useful for what? Useful to enlighten about the speakers feelings towards the act. Let us say, so now, when we talk about fictionalism or the moral domain as a fiction, it is something which is frequently referred in philosophy as the as if version. So, let us say the stories that we come across, let us say the talk of Santa Claus or Mythological characters. We start believing that them as real entities, that is, they exist independent of our perception, they are not a creation of our imagination as children. And as we grow up, we perhaps try learn and realize that, well, these are fictional characters and this is a work of fiction and therefore, it is not true, but yet a fiction of a useful kind, because it conveys something useful. So, in that way, because there have been strains of moral nihilism, which can be debated, whether they could be put into the domain of moral nihilism at all, because they subscribe to another Metaethical Foundation, which have, which could claim some moral rules, but yet deny the utility of any moral domain at all. They would fuse with the borderlines of naturalism. Let us take an example. Let us say, we are playing a game. Now, as soon as you are playing a game, you see that, well, there is a conflict of rules that unless until there is, sorry, not a conflict of rules, but there is a set of rules. Now, unless until there is a set of rules, we cannot play the game. Now, these set of rules are nothing absolute or valid beyond the game, but when within the game, it is absolutely meaningful and it is valid. Now, moral rules could perhaps be to a certain extent like that. Now, these have, these are not strictly moral nihilism, but these is what in philosophy people have called fictionalism or error theory of various kinds. Now, the as if is very important over here. Now, in fictional theory, when we talk about fictional theory, we talk about, we talk about something called as if. So, it does not matter whether that is the case, that there is correspondence, but it is a claim of a useful kind. Just like we talk about the game, that there is, there are rules only as long as you are in the game. So, when the game is over, the rules are over and the game is the greater metaethical foundation. Let us take an example. Now, if, let us say, evolution is the foundational or fundamental ethos, that is, the fundamental survival or the propagation of one species and betterment of the same. Now, if this is the fundamental ethos, which is analogical to the game, the rules of the game, which is analogical to moral principles of the society, is to further the evolution of and the survival and the propagation and the evolution of the species. Now, let us take a look at it, how does it seem figuratively. Now, figuratively, if this is evolution and this is a game, let this be the ethos, evolution and the game and let this be the ethos. Now, we take a look at the rules of the game or the moral principles. So, the rules of the game are equivalent to the analogical to the moral principles. The end of the game, these can be called as the governing principles and the end or goal is further the ethos in either cases. So, here we see this well then, there is no objective verifiable reality. Evolving is just true as long as the game lasts. If we see the moral principles, they are only true as long as they further the cause of evolution. There is no objective or independent or verifiable reality about it. So, this kind of fiction is something which goes on without a need for verification. So, this comes close to ethical naturalism where moral principles are reduced or understandable to, understandable in terms of non-moral principles here, which in this case is the ethos of the project. So, the ethos of the game and the ethos as evolution, so whatever is the ethos we choose. The utilitarian chooses pleasure and pain as the ethos, the evolutionary theorist would choose evolution as the ethos. So, it is a non-moral ethos, which can explain the moral principles, which are just mere constructs to keep the non, to forward the non-moral ethos. Now, let us look at the stronger version of moral nihilism. Now, the stronger version of moral nihilism denies the possibility of normative or evaluative interjection. Now, if other disciplines are to be considered or other fields of enquiry are to be considered, other fields of enquiry or the majority of the enquiry in other fields is descriptive or definitely not normative. What does it mean? It means that, well as a physicist suppose I am trying to study gravity, so when the physicist studies tackles gravity, the physicist is actually trying to understand gravity and does not make the question whether gravity is good or bad, it does not arise. So, there is no normative claim about gravity, no normative or evaluative judgment on gravity. So, it is just a description. So, suppose somebody, a sociologist is talking about the description of society and the characteristics and the features of a society, well a sociologist is required to enumerate the same, find out the same, but not judge the same. So, the anthropologist is trying to study the various tribes, their practices, but is not trying to settle on norms or sit on a judgment seat. Now, every discipline has a normative part too, a normative part which makes a judgment on the descriptive practices and suggests a future course of actions. So, what is it to be normative? To be normative is to judge the descriptive state of affairs to prescribe a future state of affairs. So, the stronger version of moral nihilism claims that well, this normative exercise in ethics, this normative or evaluative project is not possible. That is, we cannot assess and we cannot go beyond the description of a state of affairs. So, there is, because the very moment that we have a moral domain, we are making a normative or an evaluative claim, a claim that is not part or written in the description of the state of affairs. Now, let us look at this, what does the moral nihilist mean? Now, if the stronger version of moral nihilism is talking about well, that there is no normative field possible, that one cannot first assess or evaluate the descriptive state of affairs. Hence, second, thereof cannot prescribe the future course of action. So, if you look at it, it is a very classic case of two sequences. First we have descriptive state of affairs or description of the state of affairs. From here, we go to the assessment of the state of affairs and finally, we come to the prescription for the future state of affairs. Now, this is the normative or evaluative exercise and this is the descriptive exercise. This portion founds the discipline of, this is the major subject area of most of the disciplines with a minor area for normative or evaluative exercise. Let us look at an example, something very trivial and something very simple. So simple as, suppose one is making a general prescription like well, exercising is good for you. So, exercising contributes to one's health and therefore, it is good for one. Now, what is the difference between a clinical doctor who is making a descriptive diagnosis and a medical counselor who is making a prescriptive suggestion. Let us build it in a form of a story. Let us say we go to a, this patient X or person X has certain cardiological problems and this person goes to a cardiologist. The cardiologist makes a clinical description of the state of affairs. The clinical description includes well, two of the three arteries have been blocked with plaque and therefore, the heart is not functioning normally. What is the remedy? The two of the heart, crucial main arteries have to be opened up or a bypass surgery has to be done. Now, this is purely perhaps a descriptive approach to the problem. So, this is a description of the state of affairs. Now, after the description of the state of affairs, the patient goes to a medical counselor. Now, the counselor tries to tell the patient that well, this is the situation and more desirable situation is when there is no descriptive, when there is no blockage in the artery and to reach that one must have, say reduce the content of cholesterol in one's food, reduce, do a little more exercises and take less stress or whatever the suggestions that they come about. Now, these are prescriptive, the prescriptive component of the evaluation. The doctor or the cardiologist who did the assessment is just giving a description of what condition your heart is in and the first stage of prescription there was a surgery. But, the medical counselor goes ahead with more cases of prescription saying that well, not a surgery is a cure, but there are some things in your lifestyle that is forming contributing to this. So, perhaps you have to eradicate these things in your lifestyle to get a better health and here the fundamental ethos is that health is desirable over ill health. Now, this is the foundational claim. Now, how does one promote health, now that depends that is how the medical counselor gives this prescriptions, how it is to be done. Now, if this is an example of a prescription description claim, can we work or can we go through our lives without normative and prescriptive claims. So, normative and prescriptive claims, is it possible? How does it comprise in the human existential situation, because now whenever we are talking about norms and prescriptions, we are talking about planning and altering or deciding on the future course of action. So, a total nihilist, not just a moral nihilist, totally denies any form of norms or prescription. If you look at this nihilist who is totally denying the possibility of norms and prescription, will also not be able to say that well, why exercise is good for health or one ought to exercise more, because here the foundational claim is that well, health is more desirable than ill health and it has been inductively seen mostly and deductive to a minor extent that exercise leads to better health. Now, these kind of claims are also normative in a sense, because one is assessing that health is better than ill health, that when one makes a judgment, one is making a normative claim. So, I will leave you with certain things to explore and think for yourself, that well, can we go about life without making normative judgments, without making prescriptive claims, that or is it a part or are creation of norms a part of how we make sense of the world around us or creation of judgment or creation of standards is how we make sense of the world around us. So, if we are judging something as right and wrong, apart from the moral domain, even say in the physical domain, in the aesthetic domain that well, why do I look want, why do I want to look better than worse or what is it to look better than worse. So, these are all judgments that we have been making about and in fact, if from one angle I may argue that the way we proceed forward in life or the human agent continues is because of these norms that are found. In fact, this is also the reason why decision making is many times a generalist paradigm that well, ultimately the decisions to be taken are simple. Because this is a reason why there is a justification for leadership in democracy to be, to have more of the trust of people than to be meritorious or technically knowledgeable. So, this task of the specialist in a democratic leadership is to bring forward the technical dilemma in general terms to the leadership and the leadership thereof has to decide what is the right thing to do. So, in fact, the leaders norms are trusted by the people and that is why perhaps the leader is elected. Whereas, the specialists are their norms are not trusted by the people or their norms are not put to the test of trust by the people. Their norms are just kept independent only there, they are in their position, the specialists are in the position in which they are because of their detailed knowledge of the technical details, but that does not make the judgment enough. If we look at it this way that well, no matter how much technical details of a situation can be provided that is not sufficient to make a decision. A decision has to be always made and simplified into what in general conditions or in general situations is about norms. So, as long as the leadership on top does not have to be a genius in or a specialist in any particular trade to take a decision at the highest echelons about that rather the leadership has to be trustable or has to have a display or has to have a set of norms that are trusted by the people. So, as long as just because taking the example of a standard scenario that a doctor will definitely not make a good doctor does not automatically become a good health minister, a good or a sharp or a knowledgeable or an accomplished scientist does not necessarily become a good minister of science and technology. So, these are issues and points and directions that point out that well there is a difference between having the technical knowledge or the details of specialized knowledge vis-a-vis the normative or prescriptive claims. So, the normative claims are what makes the leadership trustworthy. So, the normative framework of an aspiring leader would in principle determine whether he is elected or not by the people. So, trust is a function of one's normative claims. So, this is just by the way exploration of which you are free to assess and evaluate for your own self that well what is it that makes leadership so non specialized that it cannot be learnt or it cannot be decoded or it cannot be algorithmized. So, this is an example of well power and the necessity of norms and prescription in governing our future action because we are looking for norms we are trying to have universally acceptable norms to decide on the future course of action. So, this gives us the future course of action set of norms gives the future course of action because if we strictly rely on a descriptive state of affairs then how do we decide or how are the norms for taking the course of action decided. When a decision is being taken decision is being taken not in retrospective, but in anticipation that well this is a desirable state of affairs that we plan to bring about. This is the current state of affairs which the descriptive or the specialized detailed wing would bring in, but that by itself is not sufficient to determine what is it that we would seek to bring forth in the future. So, that link between a specialized current description and how we would like to and the future course of action is where there is the human agency and this section of normative enquiries in various disciplines that determines that well how we would like the future course of action to be that there is a moral consensus that say we need to eradicate poverty. The specialist job is perhaps how best we can do it, but whether we need to eradicate poverty whether poverty is a good thing or a bad thing that is a normative claim. It is it does it seems trivial because most of us have an agreement about poverty being unacceptable or a very much avoidable state of human existence, but that is because there is a perhaps universal human agreement. Now look let us take more tenacious issues say whether prostitution should be legal or not. This is a certain question which will which will be which will have less which perhaps has less concurrence than a question that poverty eradication is a requirement or health is desirable over ill health. So these are where the norms of the leaders or norms of the decision makers are crucial in describing the future course of action because what the descriptive disciplines or enquiries or subjects give us is a current state of affairs, but how we would like the future to be is depends on the norms that we have. So we would in the later sections be talking about what is taking up certain course of actions certain applied ethical problems which would be quite interesting and relevant if we have been if this section on metaethics has been seeming to abstract and theoretical, but let me assure you that it is a grounding or a foundation for the applied ethical problems we disagree. In fact if I see it as a reverse pyramid structure that the foundation of metaethics is small, but that variation in foundation or variation in one's metaethical positions across agents determines one's variation in the applied ethical problems. So if somebody a concurrence in metaethical foundations is likely to have a concurrence in applied ethical problems. So we will be talking about applied ethical problems before that we will be talking about the moral framework in the Indian tradition also and so we should go we will look forward to talking more about now more applied and more moral theoretical and applied moral ethics claims.