Category Archives: Nihilism

Consensual Sexual Morality – I

Moral Neutrality of Sexual Activity, Nihilism, Sexual morality

(This post is subject to frequent modification since I am using posts on consensual sexual morality to develop a book comparing Consensual and Conjugal Sexual Morality.)

Consensual sexual morality is a reaction to the sexual revolution beginning in the mid-twentieth century. It is progressive; not reactionary. There is no plea for restoration of traditional sexual morality or as I call it Conjugal Sexual Morality. The project is to maintain and even expand the liberation of ways of satisfying sexual desires while providing moral correction for the discontents with the amorality of liberated sexuality. What is so good about the liberation? What is wrong with the amorality? The question about the goodness of sexual liberation is the topic for Consensual Sexual Morality-II. Progression beyond sexual amorality is a topic here.

Intellectual respectability no longer requires amorality. The tyranny of logical positivism has been long defeated. A theory of amorality maintains moral judgments of right or wrong, good or evil are only expressions of preferences; never correct or incorrect. In the mid-twentieth century, there was a “moral theory” revolution. If making moral judgments and supporting these judgments with reasons for thinking them correct is a traditional view, this revolution in moral theory is reactionary. There is a complex and intellectually fascinating history of the effort to restore moral judging as rigorous as reasoning in any area. Here, it suffices, to note that philosophers and other sophisticated writers reflecting on dissatisfactions of the sexual revolution approach the issues with a mindset that they may and ought to analyze attitudes and actions with a view to judging which are right or wrong, good or evil. Popularly, those participating in the sexual revolution or even those suffering from it, may express the amorality view of “Who is to judge?” But the popular sexual amorality is naive.

However, an inconsistency in the popular amorality reveals how moral thinking can engage with liberated sexuality. The popular view is that anything sexual is permissible as long as it is consensual. This judgment about the impermissibility of non-consensual sex is, of course, inconsistent with an alleged amorality. The inconsistency of the popular outlook is uninteresting. The interesting issues are how and why consent is necessary, and perhaps sufficient, for morally permissible sexual activity from the perspective of the new sexual morality? And then, how does the consent requirement lead to a requirement to uncover and satisfy authentic desires?

The moral stance I develop is my own construction of a moral point of view from which I could make the judgments of progressive sexual morality in the articles which expressed moral judgements. The articles in the Palgrave anthology expressing moral judgements are primarily applications of the moral theories of the authors. Indeed, the Palgrave anthology is an anthology of articles on sexual ethics. They do not elaborate on their theoretical stances. We could say that in ethics we apply a moral theory to types of situations while in casusistry we apply moral theory to particular cases. Here it is worth repeating that consensual sexual moralists follow the traditional ways of thinking and speaking morally. They accept general structural rules such as “Do good, avoid evil,” “Treat similar cases the same,” “Each human being has, at some level, equal worth,” Moral judgments are to be supported with reasons. So, I develop a moral stance for consensual sexual morality which, to the best of my ability, avoids logical errors and misuses of moral language. An example of a logically inconsistent use of moral language would be “Necrophila is intrinsically wrong although permissible if she would have given consent to such use of her body before she died.”1

In sexual activity, it is tempting and extraordinarily easy to treat another person as merely a body to satisfy desires. People can feel degraded and misused after sexual activity or feel shame that they degraded and misued another. The amorality of the sexual revolution revolution promised a “garden of delight” but left us in the same old “vale of tears.” On college and university campuses there were many injustices of too much strictness and too much leniency about consent. Indeed, the Palgrave essays by faculty members are intended to give moral guidance for disputes about consent. The #MeToo reaction made clear how many women in the work-place felt degraded, misused and disrespected. Writers examined the deep dissatisfaction. See Review of Christine Emba’s Re-thinking Sex: A Provocation, The recent release of the Epstein files reveal the need of moral guidance for how rich and famous men who degraded themselves by using young girls. A theme in these lamentations is “I didn’t really consent to this.”

How can we frame the problem of degradation so that moral thought can be used to address it? The concept of respect links moral thought to psychological problems of degradation. The degradation is based on failing to respect how our bodies are to be used in sexual activity. What is it to respect how our bodies are used in sexual activity? Consensual sexual moralists are not Kantians. But as I read their concerns, most hold that each human being is an end-in-itself and it is morally wrong to treat any human being only as a means to an end. Following this principle is respecting human dignity. How do we respect human dignity in sexual activity? In other words, how do we respect the sexual dignity of each and every person with whom we have sexual activity? As a sexual end-in-itself, each person is the ultimate authority on how his or her body is to be used. However, this authority is valid only if the consent truly comes from the person himself or herself. In other words, the consent is valid only if it is autonomous or as I prefer to say: only if there is full consent of the will. Another term used for authorative consent is authentic consent – that which the person genuinely wants. In regard to never using anyone as a means only, the principle tells us never to engage in sexual activity regardless of the full consent of the parties.

This categorical imperative does not require denying oneself any sexual activity; only doing it with total disregard for consent is forbidden. I coin the term “aspirational imperative” because human sexuality provides little time or incentive before sexual activity to carefully consider the character of the consent.

In a more complete presentation of Consensual Sexual Morality, there are several topics which need to be developed about this principle that a sexual activity is morally correct if and only if what is done is done with the full consent of all parties involved. The goodness of such a morally correct sexual activity is the topic of the next post: Consensual Sexual Morality-II.

First, I have stated the principle as an “if and ony if” principle. I add the “if” by assuming that the Kantian sounding principle is the only moral norm specified for sexual activity. To say that it is specified for sexual activity is not simply to say respect human dignity in sexual activity. It says respect human sexual dignity. Consensual sexual morality avoids two errors about sexual morality. One error is to think sexual activity is too trivial to be of moral concern. But if sexual morality is based on respecting human dignity, it is far from trivial. A second error is to demonize sexuality as too powerful to be constrained by moral thinking. But if sexual morality is ultimately respecting human dignity, there is hope that moral thought can guide it. For sexuality is not some external force but part of our nature.

Second, Consensual sexual morality focuses primarily on the courting dimension of sexuality. Sexual activity occurs along three dimensions: courting, mating (use of genitalia) and bonding. Consensual sexual morality focuses primarily on courting as partner selection. It seems that consensual sexual morality refards all mating (use of genitalia) as morally neutral. No Palgrave writers examine use of genitalia with an aim to uncover their proper use. Bonding as in romantic love or marriage gets some attention which gives results contrary to conjugal sexual morality. What guidelines does consensusal sexual morality have for bonding. Interesting areas are whether romantic love compromises consent, when romantic love should be suppressed and when pursuit of consent becomes “stalking” or harrassment.

Third, Consensual sexual morality is not utilitarian. Sometimes in moral theory, we are asked to look at acts with a tripartite framework. There is the object or what is to be done, the intentions and motives of the actors, and the consequences of what is to be done. According to this framework, the consensual sexual morality I am constructing regards only the motives and intentions of the actors. What is done and its likely consequences are morally irrelevant or morally neutral2.

Fourth, consensual sexual ethics is primarily a virtue or character morality. The goal is to become the kind of person who strives to engage in only morally correct sexual activities – those with full consent of all participants.There need be no claim that sexual activity will be more enjoyable for those who strive to engage in only morally correct sexual activities. They can answer that trying to be that way is the right thing to do. This how my defense of Conjugal Sexual Morality as an antidote to nihilism is undercut. Consensual sexual moralists can also give meaning to their lives by stoically adhering to the duty of being morally correct sexual partners.

Fifth, Consensual sexual morality is not hedonistic. It does hold that pleasure is the goal of sexuality. However, the pursuit of pleasure is contrained by seeking the pleasure in the proper way.

Sixth, Living in accordance with consensual sexual morality is not easy. The difficulties do not come from prohibitions of sexual activity. The difficulties come from anxiety that one’s own sexual activity and that of others are morally problematic. It is very difficult to determine that one’s own sexual consent is full, genuine or authentic; let alone that of another. Hence, there is anxiety that most sexual activity is morally problematic.3 But apart from clear cases of forcible rape there are indefinitely many circmstances which case doubt on whether or not the consent was genuine, real, authentic. One author claimed that excessively loud music at college The solace is that one can be striving to become a morally proper sexual agent while being willing to admit that no sexual activity ever reaches the level of morally correct.

Seventh, Basing sexual morality on respect for human dignity leads to rules of sexual morality being principles of human justice as well as promoting sexual activity as a matter of justice. If all genuine sexual desires are legitimate, the prohibiting exercise of some is an afront to the sexual dignity of those who have such desires. Hence, all activities hindering expressions of homosexual desires are violation of human dignity. For consensual sexual morality condemnation of homosexuality as intrinsically disordered is itself intrinsically disorder. If sexual satisfaction is regarded as a good, then there will be concern about a just distribution of this good. Polices that allow certain sorts of people few if any outlets for sexual satisfaction are disrespectful of the sexual dignity of those people.

Since consensual sexual morality is based on respect for human dignity, consensual sexual morality is not relativistic.

Eighth, Is being an authentic choice, choice with full consent of the will or autonomous choice is always a choice for what is right? It is a mark of being fully responsible for the choice. so, seeking to work with others on projects with which you seek their autonomous choice is only showing them respect. It is not seeking for an affirmation that what is to be done is in accordance with morality. However, what if we are asking for genuine consent or authentic consent?

Ninth, What are the sanctions forrules of consensual sexual morality? What happens when there is reckless disregard for consent? I think it would be difficult to make a factual case that people would be happier if they mst followed the guidelines of consensual sexual morality. I think that any moral theory is ultimately going to need a metaphysical theory to point out that there are sanctions for violating moral rules. Challenges to any such metaphysical theory about providers of sanctions is what really threatens being a realist about morality.

Tenth, What constraints does authenticity place on the sexuality one can choose? This is closely connected to the eighth point above

Can one have an authentic desire for sexual activity with another regardless of the authentic desires of the other? I think a plausible case can be made for holding that a person who desires to use another solely as an object for satisfaction of his desires does not care about authenticity. One can’t authetically not care about authenticity.

If I desire to use another regardless of their desires I desire to ignore human dignity. If I desire to ignore human dignity, then I ignore human dignity in myself. If I ignore human dignity in myself, then I ignore my authority to determine my authentic desires. If I ignore my authority to determine my authentic desires, then I do not determine my authentic desires. So, if I desire to use another regardless of their desires, I do not determine my authentic desires.

Can a person authentically desire that he be used only as an object for satisfying another’s desires?

If I desire to be used by another regardless of my desires, then I ignore human dignity in myself. If I ignore human dignity in myself, then I ignore my authority to determine my authentic desires. If I ignore my authority to determine my authentic desires, then I do not determine my authentic desires. So, if I desire to be used by another regardless of my desires, I do not determine my authentic desires.

To repeat, consider a brief argument that an authentic sexual desire is never for a sexual act which disregards the authentic consent of all concerned. An agent searching himself or herself for an authentic desire is searching for a desire which respects his or her sexual dignity. So, he or she has a concern for respecting human dignity. Hence, this agent will act as is or her sexual desire only acts respecting sexual dignity of all involve.

Here is another way to for trying to characterize the sexual morality of the progressive writers in this Handbook. One framework for organizing a sexual morality for humans is to regard it as for human reproductive. In this framework, we can divide sexuality into three main types of activity: courting, mating (genital activity) and bonding. In this framework, the purpose of sexuality is the pairing of a man and a woman to provide mutual support of each other in the bringing forth and caring for their children. The morality of acts in courting Mate selection, mating and bonding is weighed by considering how well they promote supportive monagous unity and children. A new sexual morality can be developed by changing the purpose of sexuality. How can the purpose of sexuality be changed? The theory that it is the means of reproducing the human species is well-established. Also, in theory, there is the prospect of reproduction without sexuality. So, the features of sexuality: courting, mating and bonding are not essentially linked with reproduction. so, their purpose could be for some other good. What might this other good be? Is it to be discovered or invented? Despite frustrations, there is a battery of physical, interpersonal and emotional delights in the courting, mating and bonding that have evolved in the human species to maintain our species. That battery of delights is desired. Being universally (almost) desired makes this battery of delights a candidate for being a basic human good. A revolution in sexual morality is to assume -better: to suddenly recognize- the battery of sexual delights is a basic human good. Taking the battery of sexual delights as a basic human good is compatible with a variety of other moral theories. You would expect that the greatest differences in morals would be between those who take sexual delights as the purpose of sexuality and those who take reproduction as the purpose of sexuality. However, since sexuality does function for reproduction there will still be courting, mating and bonding in the battery of sexual delights – only differently for the new telos of sexuality. Since sexuality is a basic good we are obliged to promote it in ourselves and in others, especially those with whom we have sexual relations. Hence, carrying out the command to promote what people desire sexually, we are morally obliged to find out what we and our partners really desire sexually.. Thus the imperative for authenticity. If we seek sexual delights with another person regardless of what they really desire, we use them as a means for our own delights. If we use them as a means only for our own delights, we are not acting on the imperative to promote sexual delights since we ignore attainment of delights in the other person.

Conjugal outlook: Sexuality is for reproduction. . Reproduction is the good for determining sexual morality. Here facts give the standard for sexual morality.

Relativistic outlook: There is no purpose for sexuality. Good order in the community is standard for its regulation. This is amorality of sexuality

Consensual outlook: Sexuality is for satisfaction of sexual desires. this requires that each individual uncover his own desires and seek to satisfy them with someone else who has uncovered his true desires.

The desire satisfaction has been chosen by people autonomously but not arbitraryrily afer all there are the desires.

Each person has their own sexuality. This is not to say that each person has a unique sexuality. Two or more people may have the same sexuality. The claim is that each person has a sexuality which is their own It is a pattern of desires that if they knew the truth about themselves and could express that truth, they would say that is what they are sexually. A type of sexuality is a component of personal identity. But sexuality is necessary for a personal identity. An asexual person can have an inauthentic sexual identity if he simply lives without sexual desires while never bring it to consciousness to accept asexuality as his way of being sexual. However, ethnicity can be a component of personal identity but it need not be. For instance, I choose to ignore ethnicity as characterizing myself.s But I know men whose being Irish is a component of their identity.

People have privileged access to what they believe, hope for and desire. This means that the ultimate authority on what a person believes and desires is the person. When a person authoritatively(autonomously) judges what he believes, hopes for and desires, what he so judges is his authentic beliefs, hopes and desires.

Social forces can lead people to have a sexuality which is not their real or authentic sexuality. There is no claim that an authentic sexuality has to be the individual’s invention. The basic sexualities are given to a person although variants can be invented. The authenticity or autonomy comes from accepting a sexuality as one’s own. There is a “That’s for me” accepting of a sexuality.

The sexuality of a person can change and the new sexuality is authentic as long as it is autonomously accepted.

There is no normal sexuality. Sexualities are morally neutral. No sexuality is intrinsically disordered.

Sex-positivity extends the moral neutrality of the physical dimension of sexual acts. Not only sexual acts morally neutral they are part of a natural good viz. sexual pleasure. Attainment of sexual pleasure is to be promoted and its attainment is not to be directly frustrated.

Sexual autonomy is to recognize and accept one’s authentic sexuality.

Dignity is measured by what a person is is free to do.

All people are free to choose their identity. So, there is a basic sense of dignity in which all people have equal dignity. This is the freedom to choose their authentic identity as their identity. This is human dignity. When we focus on sexuality we can talk of human sexual dignity or simply sexual dignity. Sexual dignity is each person’s freedom to choose their authentic sexuality as their identifying sexuality.

. Respect for human sexual dignity requires accepting any authentic sexuality as legitimate for no person is illegitimate. No person is born bad.

The basic moral principle for sexuality runs: Promote the expression of the authentic sexuality of yourself and others and never directly hinder the expression of authentic sexuality of yourself or others.

This sexual morality is feasible only if there are reliable methods of contraception and abortion is readily available.

This sexuality is feasible only if divorce is readily available. For a couple should not be bound to one another if their authentic sexuality indicates they be in other types of relation.

The emphasis on authenticity prioritizes parents pursuing their authentic selves over their children.

A basic moral principle is: Respect human dignity. Accept all people as good when they are accepting in accordance with what they really are.

If a person truly desires to perform a sexual act that sexual act is prima facie permissible

If human sexuality does not require that it ought to be used in certain ways, then no sexual act is intrinsically disordered.

If no sexual act is intrinsically disordered, then all sexual acts are prima facie permissible.

If all sexual acts are prima facie permissible, then if some sexual acts are impermissible they are wrong because of the mentality of actors, the circumstances in which the act is performed or the consequences of the act.

But respect for the dignity of each and every human forbids treating another person only as material to be used.person is an end in itself. This means that there is never a need to justify willing what is good in itself for another. You may need to justify that what you do is in fact a good for the other. But the fact that you intend it for the good of the other needs no justification.

But it is most helpful to set aside doing it for the good of the other to consider doing it regardless of the good of the other.



In other words, if love is willing the good of the other, loving needs no justification. . How can consent overcome using another as merely a means to satisfy desires? I write from the perspective of a heterosexual male.The consent must be perfect and mutual. Her consent is her willingness to give me her body to use for my good, which is satisfaction of my sexual desire. My consent is my willingness to give her my body to use for her good, which is satisfaction of her sexual desire. In this perfect situation neither of us are treated as a means only. Although I am a means in so far as my body is used, I am treated as an end in itself because she gives her body to me as an end itself. Similarly, she is a means in so far as her body is used by me, she is treated as an end in itself because I give my body to her as an end in itself. In this union which is created each is treated as an end-in-itself. The intention to form this union in which the dignity of each is maintained because each is treated as an end-in-itself, need not be conscious. What is in the thoughts and emotions are many and various. With their bodies they accomplish what is intended.

NOTE Can we say: Their bodies express the intention? Not always. The body in sexual activity is always saying we come together to form a unit for procreation to form one for life. On traditional sexual morality, in the best sexual activity the intention expressed by the body is that of the best sexuality, viz. uniting to form life. In progressive sexual morality the intention of the participants is out of sync with what their bodies express. They intend the joint pleasure; not a union open to life for life-long.



It is a human creation. It is autonomous in the sense that humans make it independently of anything else. Autonomy requires recognizing that all consent. Each person has the dignity of consenting.

Note: Since human sexuality requires consent, traditional sexual morality posits unifying as a goal of sexuality. the unity goal of human sexuality cannot be attained without consent.

moral sexual activity?

parties cast doubt on whether or not there can be authentic consent.

Focusing on consent leads us to consider the courtship dimension of sexual morality. They focus on the morality of partner selection but there are discussion of bonding under the headings of cohabitation and gay marriage which seems to be unquestionably accepted. What about mating – the physical contacts or lack thereof? As far as I can tell, there is no moral evaluation of sex acts. It is assumed that all of them are morally neutral

Here is another way to for trying to characterize the sexual morality of the progressive writers in this Handbook. One framework for organizing a sexual morality for humans is to regard it as for human reproductive. In this framework, we can divide sexuality into three main types of activity: courting, mating (genital activity) and bonding. In this framework, the purpose of sexuality is the pairing of a man and a woman to provide mutual support of each other in the bringing forth and caring for their children. The morality of acts in courting Mate selection, mating and bonding is weighed by considering how well they promote supportive monagous unity and children. A new sexual morality can be developed by changing the purpose of sexuality. How can the purpose of sexuality be changed? The theory that it is the means of reproducing the human species is well-established. Also, in theory, there is the prospect of reproduction without sexuality. So, the features of sexuality: courting, mating and bonding are not essentially linked with reproduction. so, their purpose could be for some other good. What might this other good be? Is it to be discovered or invented? Despite frustrations, there is a battery of physical, interpersonal and emotional delights in the courting, mating and bonding that have evolved in the human species to maintain our species. That battery of delights is desired. Being universally (almost) desired makes this battery of delights a candidate for being a basic human good. A revolution in sexual morality is to assume -better: to suddenly recognize- the battery of sexual delights is a basic human good. Taking the battery of sexual delights as a basic human good is compatible with a variety of other moral theories. You would expect that the greatest differences in morals would be between those who take sexual delights as the purpose of sexuality and those who take reproduction as the purpose of sexuality. However, since sexuality does function for reproduction there will still be courting, mating and bonding in the battery of sexual delights – only differently for the new telos of sexuality. Since sexuality is a basic good we are obliged to promote it in ourselves and in others, especially those with whom we have sexual relations. Hence, carrying out the command to promote what people desire sexually, we are morally obliged to find out what we and our partners really desire sexually.. Thus the imperative for authenticity. If we seek sexual delights with another person regardless of what they really desire, we use them as a means for our own delights. If we use them as a means only for our own delights, we are not acting on the imperative to promote sexual delights since we ignore attainment of delights in the other person.

Traditional outlook: Sexuality is for reproduction. . Reproduction is the good for determining sexual morality. Here facts give the standard for sexual morality.

Relativistic outlook: There is no purpose for sexuality. Good order in the community is standard for its regulation. This is amorality of sexuality

Authenticity outlook: Sexuality is for satisfaction of sexual desires. this requires that each individual uncover his own desires and seek to satisfy them with someone else who has uncovered his true desires.

The desire satisfaction has been chosen by people autonomously but not arbitraryrily afer all there are the desires.

to make this moral – not egotistical there needs to be consent. the consent requirement is respecting human dignity.

Each person has their own sexuality. This is not to say that each person has a unique sexuality. Two or more people may have the same sexuality. The claim is that each person has a sexuality which is their own It is a pattern of desires that if they knew the truth about themselves and could express that truth, they would say that is what they are sexually. A type of sexuality is a component of personal identity. But sexuality is necessary for a personal identity. An asexual person can have an inauthentic sexual identity if he simply lives without sexual desires while never bring it to consciousness to accept asexuality as his way of being sexual. However, ethnicity can be a component of personal identity but it need not be. For instance, I choose to ignore ethnicity as characterizing myself.s But I know men whose being Irish is a component of their identity.

People have privileged access to what they believe, hope for and desire. This means that the ultimate authority on what a person believes and desires is the person. When a person authoritatively(autonomously) judges what he believes, hopes for and desires, what he so judges is his authentic beliefs, hopes and desires.

Social forces can lead people to have a sexuality which is not their real or authentic sexuality. There is no claim that an authentic sexuality has to be the individual’s invention. The basic sexualities are given to a person although variants can be invented. The authenticity or autonomy comes from accepting a sexuality as one’s own. There is a “That’s for me” accepting of a sexuality.

The sexuality of a person can change and the new sexuality is authentic as long as it is autonomously accepted.

There is no normal sexuality. Sexualities are morally neutral. No sexuality is intrinsically disordered.

Sex-positivity extends the moral neutrality of the physical dimension of sexual acts. Not only sexual acts morally neutral they are part of a natural good viz. sexual pleasure. Attainment of sexual pleasure is to be promoted and its attainment is not to be directly frustrated.

I will not claim that those who hold this theory of sexual authenticity do not hold moral principles. I will only posit that no principle can consistently contradict justifying an act in pursuit of sexual authenticity

Sexual autonomy is to recognize and accept one’s authentic sexuality.

Dignity is measured by what a person is is free to do.

All people are free to choose their identity. So, there is a basic sense of dignity in which all people have equal dignity. This is the freedom to choose their authentic identity as their identity. This is human dignity. When we focus on sexuality we can talk of human sexual dignity or simply sexual dignity. Sexual dignity is each person’s freedom to choose their authentic sexuality as their identifying sexuality.

. Respect for human sexual dignity requires accepting any authentic sexuality as legitimate for no person is illegitimate. No person is born bad.

The basic moral principle for sexuality runs: Promote the expression of the authentic sexuality of yourself and others and never directly hinder the expression of authentic sexuality of yourself or others.

This sexual morality is feasible only if there are reliable methods of contraception and abortion is readily available.

This sexuality is feasible only if divorce is readily available. For a couple should not be bound to one another if their authentic sexuality indicates they be in other types of relation.

The emphasis on authenticity prioritizes parents pursuing their authentic selves over their children.

This sexual morality is a virtue ethic. The goal is to be authentic. Sexual imorality is falling short of sexual activity in accoradance with sexual authenticity.

The sexual morality of authenticity is primarily a morality for courting, The other dimensions for sexual morality are mating and bonding. Since all physical acts are morally neutral, authenticity morality has no morality for mating,

PROBLEM TO BE WORKED OUT. What constraints does authenticity place on the sexuality one can choose?

Can one have an authentic desire for sexual activity with another regardless of the authentic desires of the other? I think a plausible case can be made for holding that a person who desires to use another solely as an object for satisfaction of his desires does not care about authenticity. One can’t authetically not care about authenticity.

If I desire to use another regardless of their desires I desire to ignore human dignity. If I desire to ignore human dignity, then I ignore human dignity in myself. If I ignore human dignity in myself, then I ignore my authority to determine my authentic desires. If I ignore my authority to determine my authentic desires, then I do not determine my authentic desires. So, if I desire to use another regardless of their desires, I do not determine my authentic desires.

Can a person authentically desire that he be used only as an object for satisfying another’s desires?



If I desire to be used by another regardless of my desires, then I ignore human dignity in myself. If I ignore human dignity in myself, then I ignore my authority to determine my authentic desires. If I ignore my authority to determine my authentic desires, then I do not determine my authentic desires. So, if I desire to be used by another regardless of my desires, I do not determine my authentic desires.

A basic moral principle is: Respect human dignity. Accept all people as good when they are accepting in accordance with what they really are.

If a person truly desires to perform a sexual act that sexual act is prima facie permissible

If human sexuality does not require that it ought to be used in certain ways, then no sexual act is intrinsically disordered.

If no sexual act is intrinsically disordered, then all sexual acts are prima facie permissible.

If all sexual acts are prima facie permissible, then if some sexual acts are impermissible they are wrong because of the mentality of actors, the circumstances in which the act is performed or the consequences of the act.

  1. I use this bizzare example because one writer considers necrophilia and wrote “it canot be argued that advanced consent is insufficient to render later sex with the corpse impermissible” (David Bentar,Homosexuality, Beastiality and Necrophilia, Ch13 Because to me necrophilia is intrinsically wrong besides being abbhorent to imagine, I thought he made the inconsistent statement. However, he does not hold that necrophilia is intrinsically wrong. This single quotation shows the importance of consent in consensual sexual morality.
  2. One writer is explicitly a untilitarian; not what I call a consensual sexual moralist.. He argues that the sexual practices of those participating in the sexual revolution are immoral on the utilitarian grounds that they lead to the bad consequence of sexu
  1. I use this bizzare example because one writer considers necrophilia and wrote “it canot be argued that advanced consent is insufficient to render later sex with the corpse impermissible” (David Bentar,Homosexuality, Beastiality and Necrophilia, Ch13 Because to me necrophilia is intrinsically wrong besides being abbhorent to imagine, I thought he made the inconsistent statement. However, he does not hold that necrophilia is intrinsically wrong. This single quotation shows the importance of consent in consensual sexual morality.
  2. One writer is explicitly a untilitarian; not what I call a consensual sexual moralist.. He argues that the sexual practices of those participating in the sexual revolution are immoral on the utilitarian grounds that they lead to the bad consequence of sexually trasmitted disease and unwanted pregnancies. Coitus should be used only when the intention is conception. Otherwise, everyone should masturbate as much as possible and , if desired, use of sex-toys and pornography. See

Re-thinking Sexual Nihilism

Book promotion, Nihilism, Sexual morality

Is the title of my Blog Site outdated? In 2014 I published a book defending traditional sexual morality.1 I contended that there was a widely accepted view that no sexual act by itself was morally impermissible. I called this moral neutrality of sexual acts “sexual nihilism.” The commonly used term is “sexual amorality”. I went on to make a case that sexual amorality (sexual nihilism) led to total amorality (nihilism) that nothing matter because in principle nothing was right or wrong. Traditional sexual morality was proposed as an antidote for drifting into nihilism.

I started this Blog Site to continue this line of thought. Recently I read an anthology which requires serious reconsideration of my defense of traditional sexual morality.2 Most of the writers for this anthology made moral judgments about sexual behavior. The moral judgments were contrary to those of traditional sexual morality. For instance, all assume that masturbation and homosexuality are morally permissible. Their sincerely held moral judgments undercuts a major line of thought in my book. I assumed too uncritically that those who dismissed traditional sexual morality would ultimately make no moral judgments about sexuality.

To respond, I plan a triad of posts. The goal of this triad is to characterize and evaluate a moral theory supporting the moral judgments of these writers. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that this is a moral outlook. It is not moral relativism. For these writers, since it is wrong to suppress homosexuality in the USA, Ugandans are morally wrong in trying to suppress homosexuality. I will label this progressive sexual morality Consensual Sexual Morality. In the first post of the triad, I speculate about the origin of this new sexual morality in relation to traditional sexual morality, the crucial role of consent and a search for authentic consent. In the second post of this triad, I finish the sketch of this moral theory by elaborating on the good which is supposed to be promoted and protected by consensual sexual morality. In the third I evaluate it as an alternative to traditional sexual morality which I now label Conjugal Sexual Morality as a verbal match for Consensusal Sexual Morality.

  1. Confronting Sexual Nihilism: Traditional Sexual Morality as an Antidote to Nihilism,
  2. The Palgrave handbook of sexual ethics, Editor:  Boonin-Vail, David,   Palgrave Macmillan, 2023

Freedom to be Dependent

Core philosophy, Nihilism, Ontology

Western philosophy began with a Declarations of Independence.

In the 6th century BC the Parmenides proposed “For it is the same thing that can be thought as can be.”

In the 5th century BC Protagoras proclaimed “Man is the Measure of All Things”. 

These doctrines declare that human thinking independent of a reality external to our thought, if such there be, is the ultimate authority on what there is, what is good and what is beautiful.

In Obedience vs. Autonomy, I proposed that the purpose of our lives is that for which we are free. In that post, I argued that the freedom to pursue happiness, the freedom to pursue righteousness, and the freedom to love – to will the good of the other do not provide a purpose for human life. I could have given a similar argument that the freedom to pursue truth fails to provide a purpose for human life. I concluded that a freedom to obey something external to our reason might indicate a purpose for our lives.

In this post, I want to set aside an implication that I argued that happiness, truth, righteousness, and love could not be purposes of human life. More importantly, I want to generalize the notion of obedience to dependence. Only under the assumption that reason is the ultimate authority on what is true, good or happiness, – only under the assumption of the autonomy of reason- can what we determine fail to provide a purpose for life. If we accept a reality apart from our reason upon which our reason depends for its correctness, then truth, goodness, happiness and love can be what we live for.

Retribution versus the Will to Power

Moral philosophy, Nihilism, Retributive punishment

Use of moral language presupposes human dignity. See Human Dignity Requires Retribution. Any person has the status to challenge anyone who asserts “I will do it” with “You ought not do it.” With moral language the will to power can always be challenged from a higher standpoint by the will for what ought to be done. Unfortunately, the will to power frequently, if not almost always, overcomes the will for righteousness – the will for what is right. The will to power inflicts pain. The will for righteousness is left with the claim that there ought to be pain in reaction – retribution- to the actual unjustified pain.

What if all that the will for righteousness had was the claim that there ought to be pain? (Revenge is not production of the pain that ought to be. Revenge is only a contrary exercise of a will to power.) If the pains that ought to be never occurred, moral language would be only language – a way of trying to persuade people. The will to power is not only expressed in language. It is follwed up with oppression. If moral language is only a form of rhetoric, then morality is only a weak way of expressing a will to power. If moral language is only a way of expressing a will to power, there is no morality, If there is no morality, then all is permitted. Everything is permitted is an expression of nihilism. In the long run, nothing matters. The presupposition of human dignity is gone.

So, if morality is to be more than words, then all of the pain that there ought to be must occur. Why all? Pain that ought to be arises upon violation of a moral law. There is no reason for distinguish between moral laws. To be sure, morality by itself does not require pain that ought to be; only the potentiality for requiring pain as a sanction for its laws. Pain that ought to be depends upon an actual violation of a moral law. Morality as we know it, presupposes a Fall. But given violations, there is a pain that ought to be.

So, in actuality morality is fatally flawed. It categorically forbids infliction of harm; backed up with threats of inflicting harm. Harm is inflicted contrary to its laws and so harm is categorically required. Those norms requiring need to be removed to bring morality back to what it ought to be. This hope for redemption is not a concern about some abstraction called morality. If morality does no have these harm requiring norms satisfied, then morality is only words and the will to power prevails. So, the required harm -retribution- needs to be actual to have human dignity, for us to have more than nihilism as our fate and for the will to power not to prevail.

How much harm needs to be suffered for morality to overcome the will to power? An unlimited amount of suffering is required for there is no limit to the defiance of moral laws. Someone suffering unlimited harm for the sake of satisfying every moral norm requiring pain or suffering, would redeem morality and thereby redeem us by making morality the prevaling force over the will to power.

I now face the task for my next post on retribution and a redeemer.

Faith, With & Without Mysteries vs. Nihilism

Nihilism, Philosophy of Religion

Reason alone does not overcome nihilism. Indeed, not even if reason establishes divine command morality, is nihilism decisively overcome. See results of my: Overview of Posts Confronting Nihilism . There are two dimensions in overcoming nihilism: attitudinal and intellectual. A firm sense of purpose for living provides an attitudinal antidote to nihilism. A firm sense of purpose is faith. The stability of faith is based on a purpose which is a fixed point. Reason fixes the point by closing the question of for what purpose the purpose is pursued. For instance, a person can live a purpose driven life by striving in thought, word and deed to be on the right side of the history of human development. Such a person, consciously or unconsciously, resolves not to undercut the existential significance of the purpose by dwelling on questions about what exactly it is to be on the right side of history and why it matters. Another might live to do what is right because it is right. This stoic believer in morality brushes aside any question about the purpose of living for duties sake. A third might live to do what God commands because God commands it. In this case, questioning the purpose of obeying God is dismissed as blasphemous.

The proposed purposes are universal: for all human beings. We, individually, have these purposes because that purpose is the purpose of being human. Suppose the purpose for life is said to be only for me or only for a particular society. The questions: Why me? Why us? are obviously open questions.

Although it is odd to ask for what purpose the purposes are pursued sense can be made of asking for what purpose they are pursued. The reality which give rise to the problem of evil is available to undercut even the most firm faith. See The Problem of Evil as the Cornerstone of a Christian World View and The Problem of Evil as a Cornerstone of a Nihilistic World View. Sense can be made of asking for what purpose we pursue them because reason shows that they are unattainable. Reason shows us that we are subject to sin and death. We cannot live up to these ideals. We simply have not been and are not now in pursuit of these ideals. Individually and collectively we are hopeless failures. In any event, death eventually takes away every individual and civilization. Because of intellectual knowledge of death and sin, the attitudinal antidotes to nihilism are vulnerable.

I have come to the end of what philosophy, including natural theology and natural moral theology, can accomplish in regard to providing an antidote to nihilism. Philosophy, via the reality underlying the problem of evil undercuts any purpose for life proposed by philosophy as ideology.

What is to be done? One can accept nihilism. But intellectual honesty does not require accepting nihilism even if nihilism cannot be set aside by human intelligence alone. See Does Respect for Truth Require Nihilism? William James argued well for this point in his well known The will to believe. The other alternative is to “tough it out” by holding fast to faith in some proposed purpose for life. There are two ways of holding fast to a faith. One way is to stay within the limits of reason and shut down the critical reflection that serves only to undercut that in which you have faith. These are secular confrontations with nihilism . Note that any antidote to nihilism requires shutting down the suicidal critical reflection which serves only to undercut that in which you have faith. The other is to be open to revelation which provides insights which reason could never produce by itself but which we can try to understand with reason even if we can never completely understand them. This is religious confrontation with nihilism. These revealed insights are properly called mysteries.

We get revelations from historical religions. There is a need for subsequent posts to support the thesis that revelation comes only via historical or traditional religions. Acceptance of mysteries involves less intellectual suppression than secularism for we have mysteries to think about.

Overview of Posts Confronting Nihilism

Nihilism, Secularization

This is a review of posts directly confronting nihilism to assess what has been accomplished toward showing that an intelligent educated person need not and ought not fall into our cultural default outlook and attitude of nihilism. The review brings out that necessary conditions for intellectually setting nihilism aside are beliefs in theism and objective moral laws as divine commands. Two recent posts, referenced in items (14) and (15), point out how efforts presenting nihilism as true subtley presuppose that nihilism is not true.

Beliefs in theism and objective morality can be supported by philosophical theology. However, confronting nihilism requires continual attitudinal support as is indicated in The Problem of Evil as a Cornerstone of a Nihilistic World View . The attitudinal support is faith.

My assessment of confronting nihilism is that only Epicureanism provides the intellectual and attitudinal support for nihilism. The intellectual support is the metaphysical theory that basically there is nothing but atoms and the void. Only by chance do atoms form complexes which by chance come and go. The maxim “Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die” offers a guideline for living. However, there is a caution attached to the maxim. Try not to think of the “tomorrow we die” part. If thoughts of death thrust themselves upon you, then think of the metaphysics to realize that there cannot be any punishment after death. For at death your atoms scatter into the void. Confronting nihilism requires continual philosophical critique of atomistic metaphysics, which in various forms, is presupposed in our current age. It also requires the work of public intellectuals to uncover the misery of in accordance with”Eat, drink and be merry.” For an example of a public intellectual’s critique of current hedonism see my review of Christine Emba’s Re-thinking Sex.

1 In My Book and Nihilism on October 13 2013, I expressed some initial reflections on nihilism.
Nihilism is a combination of thought and sentiment. There is a thought that nothing matters and a melancholy mood that life has no significance. Both the thought and the sentiment are required for nihilism. An atheist may think that nothing matters but is not a nihilistic because, being blessed with an upbeat temperament, loves being alife. A believer in God many think that people ought to live to please their creator but feel that life has no significance. Despite nihilistic feelings such a theistic is not a nihilist He can use his belief in God to struggle to overcome his nihilistic feelings. Nihilistic feelings are a “dark night of the soul” for mystics and contemplatives.

2. In Progressive Progress to Nihilism on August 11, 2020, we see how people can be taught scientism without ever teaching the inconsistency that we know only science gives knowledge. Teach the merits of science and the demerits of religion and ideologies. When students convert to scientism, justify the conversion by explaining it as the natural response of a mind aware of the merits of science and the demerits of religion. I note that the education to cause a belief in scientism is also effective for causing belief in nihilism. Nonetheless, the major point is that scientism and its associated nihilism cannot be blocked by simply charging it with logical inconsistency. Causal factors leading to scientism need to be confronted.

3.In Confronting Scientism, Secular Naturalism and Nihilism on August 31, 2020, I argue that intellectually nihilism needs to be confronted by developing a metaphysical scheme superior to metaphysical schemes supporting scientism or secular naturalism.

4,In Confronting the Nihilistic Ontology of Secular Naturalism on September 10, 2020, I observe there is no well developed metaphysical scheme, or ontology, to support scientism or secular naturalism with its elimination of final causes. If metaphysical thinking is legitimate, there is reason for thinking that nihilism can be confronted and defeated on the theoretical level.

5.In Nihilistic Soteriology and Eschatology on September 20, 2020 I diagnosed the despair underlying acceptance of physian assisted sucide. I concluded with the following observation. In theological language the line of thought is as follows. Permissibility of suicide presupposes an eschatology of death as non-being. This eschatology leads to a soteriology as salvation is non-being. No morality is required for this salvation since “All men are mortal” entails that all are saved.

6.In Moral Deism is not an Antidote to Nihilism on March 23, 2022, Moral Deism was characterized as merely classifying our morality as Divine Commands. Unfortunately, moral deism undercuts the rationale for understanding morality as based on divine commands. Man is still the measure of all things. Whatever man measures is interpreted as what God commands. God is not cited in moral reasoning.

7. Very recently in Theism Compatible with Nihilism on December 15, 2022, I noted the following. God did not have to give a meaning to human life as we understand having a meaning for life. If our lives have meaning, it is because of the goodness of God.

8. In Nihilism as an Antidote to Nihilism , on December 17, 2021, an antidote to nihilism is characterized as: A complex of thoughts and intertwined sentiments which removes or alleviates the anxiety provoked by thinking and feeling life has no meaning . In this sense, the “eat, drink and be merry” maxim of nihilism can, for the fortune few, be a recipe for setting aside anxiety about the meaning of life. Epicureanism helps the fortunate few avoid thinking about nihilism.

9. In Gibt est kein Gott, nur die Pflict Steht gegen das Nichts on July 5, 2020, I summarize the theme of my book on sexual morality. I argue that living to make ourselves people who obey invariant moral laws is something indestructible in ourselves for which to live – that is duty die Pflicht. I go on to argue that we must find such laws governing our sexuality. Stoics overcome nihilism in their hearts and minds. But doubts about the reality of moral laws threatens our composure.

10. In Hell Saves Us From Nihilism on December 11, 2021, I elaborate on the syllogism:
If there is no hell, everything is permitted.
If everything is permitted, then nihilism is correct
—————————————————-
So, if there is no hell, nihilism is correct.
Hell is meaningless existence. An alternative to hell provides meaningful existence.

11.In Invoking God to Confront Nihilism on December 4, 2021, I answered my doubts, in (9) above about stoicism giving a satisfactory response to nihilism. I wrote ” Life in accord with eternal moral laws which we are commanded to follow needed to be characterized as more attractive than resolutely making ourselves into people who obey these laws despite any and all inclinations to do otherwise. I was led, then, to religious reflections on what it meant to obey the moral laws. So, through a long series of posts on obeying a moral authority, I realized that we had to interpret moral laws as commands of God. Hence,I confront nihilism by making a case for Divine Command Morality.” But later, as in (6) above a Divine Command morality must be more than Moral Deism. Recently, in Theism is compatible with nihilism on December 15, 2022 I realized that belief in theism needs to be accompanied by faith in the goodness of God to set aside nihilism.

11.In Does Death Prove Nihilism on December 8. 2021, I quote extensively from The Book of Wisdom to remind us what needs to be included in a strong philosophical antidote against nihilism. In addition to establishing the existence of a divine moral commander, there is a need to establish survival after biological death and the reality of postmortem reward and punishment. These thoughts led to those in (9) above about the reality of hell as part of a belief system overcoming nihilism.

12.In Jesus has saved us from nihilism being a correct account of the human condition on August 4,2017 I outline my unprofessional theological interpretation of the Paschal Mystery as Jesus carrying out accepting annihilation to save humans from having annihilation as our fate. The gist of my speculation is that human’s original sin is to set the moral obligation that humans’ fate is to be annihilated. We have chosen that human destiny ought to be no different than that of any other animal. But this obligation is incompatible with being like any other animal who have no obligations.

This incompatibility is resolved by the human nature of Jesus suffering annihilation and then being restored with a human nature that has fulfilled the obligation to be annihilated. Jesus suffered what we have required humanity to suffer. His death was not a sacrifice to God. His death was a fulfillment of the human moral demand for human annihilation so that human nature could be free from this moral imperative that nihilism be humans’ fate.

13.In The Transcendent vs Nothing on August 7, 2021, I model the creator as being in a struggle with non-being, the uncreated or nothing. Some creatures with free-will, choose not to be dependent beings. But for a creature not to be dependent is not to be. So, some creatures are choosing not to be or nothingness. The goodness of the creator thus faces oppostion to creation.

While writing this synopsis, I return to thoughts of There is a Satan in Oppostion to God. . The first creature of God, choose not to be dependent which is a choice for nothing – not to be. This first creature becomes Satan who wills that there be nothing at all if he cannot be the creator. Satan is evil for he chooses the absence of all good. Satan tries to carry out his choice for non-being by leading other creatures with free-will to choose not to be. Such creatures, viz., humans, choose not to be by not choosing their good. These theological speculations start to build a model on how God “solves” the problem of evil which philosophical thought showed at line 11 in The problem of evil is the corner stone of a Christian world view God would “solve.”

14. In Does Respect for Truth Require Nihilism On December 28, 2022, I dismiss a claim that we ought to be nihilists because respect for our rationality forbids believing any more than what natural science tells us. Authentic nihilists do not respect rationality as a source of moral obligations.

15. In I rage, therefore I am , on December 30, 2022, we see that raging against reality because it provides us only a nihilistic fate, presupposes that vainishing into atoms and the void is not our fate.

I Rage, Therefore I Am

Nihilism

Is Proud Defiance Acceptance of Nihilism? No, it is a philosophical rejection of nihilism

The first two stanzas of Dylan Thomas’ “Do not go gentle into that good night” command defiance of not being – the dying of the light. For “wise men at their end know dark is right.”

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Explicitly professing nihilism to rage against it is not good psychological advice. Actually, as we shall see, it rejects nihilism by defying it. In my eighty eighth year, burning and raging about what I dread might be my fate seems foolish. Distracting oneself with pleasant memories is better advice.

I do not accept nihilism. I seek to understand and hold fast to Catholicism. In philosophical theology I find good reasons for Catholicism. However, the reasons are not totally conclusive “Because their words had forked no lightning.” Hence, I have a dread of total annihilation at death. Still, the Canticle of Simeon gives better psychological advice: “Now, Lord let your servant go in peace. For my eyes have seen the salvation . . .”

However, I do not interpret the poem as psychological advice on facing dying and death. Dylan Thomas offers inchoate philosophical instructions on how each and everyone of us can demonstrate that nihilism is not true. This raging against not being – against the dying of the light – is intense assertion of oneself as existing. At death, the raging self assertion enters eternity.

Right up to the instant at which for you there is no further coming into existence or passing out of existence – changelessness- your self is raging. Eternally, there is his raging self. That final instant raging self can no more come into existence or pass out of existence than the number 2.

This is not an effective demonstration that nihilism is wrong because we can make our self eternal. It depends upon an empirical assumption that people can be conscious up to the instant of brain death. Before brain death there is change in a person – coming into existence and passing out of existence. Furthermore, persisting as an abstract object such as the number 2 is a survival not worth wanting. The number 2 is for nothing; neither is an eternal raging self.

This raging is the desperate hope that if I cry loud enough to Being, She will pick me up.

Respect for Truth Undercuts Nihilism

Nihilism

The naturalistic evolutionary account of the development and origin of homo sapiens sapiens tells the truth. This true narrative tells of no more significance or purpose of homo sapiens sapiens than that of any other species. If that is the only true account of the origin and development of humanity, nihilism is correct.

Grant that the evidence for this evolutionary narrative is better than any supplementary account of the origin and development of humanity, an anthropology, which finds a special significance and purpose for human beings. This is not to grant that there is no evidence for the supplementary account.

Maintaining that one is not entitled to allow belief in any account with weaker evidence than that for evolution is incompatible with nihilism. It presupposes that there is a source of obligations on how to use our reason. It is presupposed that there is a way we ought to be with respect to our rationality. Accepting that there is a way we ought to be is to accept that there is a point to our living.

Holding fast to assertions of nihilism because that is what duty to truth requires is an instance of a stoic stance defying nihilism. If there is no God, still the truth and our duty to it stand against not being – nothingness.

The Problem of Evil as a Cornerstone of a Nihilistic World View

Nihilism, Philosophical Theology

Undercutting any solutions for the problem of evil is the cornerstone of nihilism.

Of course, this post connects with The Problem of Evil as a Cornerstone of a Christian World View. In that post, I developed a line of argument in philosophical theology adapting a line of argument reaching back at least to Epicurus’ classical formulation of the problem of evil, around 300 BC. It culminated with:

10. If God has delegated creation of reality as we experience it to subsidiary creators, He had a good reason for delegating creative activity and has a good reason for correcting the experienced reality produced by susidiary creators.

11. So, ultimately there will be a correction of reality as we experience it although we cannot imagine experiencing it!

These lines (10) and (11) provide an intellectual rationale for developing a world view of some type of salvation history. Salvation histories are histories of reality as we experience it using language of ordinary history plus reference to religious beings, processes and events. The world view of Christianity is a salvation history. My paradigm salvation history is given in the Catholic Bible plus interpretations of the Christian Church Fathers and expressed in the Nicene Creed. At the risk of being cryptic: Salvation histories are solutions to the problem of evil. Salvation histories make sense of life – tell of a point and purpose for living despite the sin and suffering all experience by living.

Most likely, the intellectual rationale behind a salvation history comes, in fact, after the salvation histories have been told for generations. However, being a subsequent rationale for narrations of the salvation history does not reduce the rationalization to unimportant additions to a salvation history. A dimension of our being rational animals is being theological animals. Experienced sin and suffering drives us to seek understanding of our believed salvation history.

Good reasons have been given for theological theories behind Judeo-Christian salvation history. Unfortunately, despite being good reasons, none of the rationalizations are compelling. The theories of philosophical theology simply do not have mathematical certainty. There are no intellectually compelling solutions for the problem of evil. Logic allows hardening the heart and saying: No!

Hence, the problem of evil provides a foundation for nihilism. Nihilists find loop-holes for setting aside the theological rationalizations and let the experience of sin and suffering lead people to despair of there being any point or purpose to living. All history, secular and salvation, tell only “sound and fury signifying nothing.”

When I think of loss of the naive faith of a child or even of an adult, I think of a nursery rhymme about an egg named Humpty Dumpty.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All of the king’s and all of the king’s men.
Could not put Humpty together again.

Faith and rationalization are now needed to go on living with hope that the salvation history tells the truth about the point and purpose of living. Both faith and reason are needed in religion just as both are needed in science. This religious faith that sustains hope is not naïve fideism justifying believing because one wants to belief. Religious faith justifies nothing. It is a gift that comes and goes sustaining hope that ultimately “all manner of things will be well.”

Theism Is Compatible With Nihilism

Nihilism, Philosophical Theology

A theistic metaphysics is compatible with nihilism. For it is possible for God to give no significance to human life. We readily think that God sets no enduring destiny for Woodticks. He could, then, allow humans to vanish into non-being which is the fate to which we consign ticks.

In attempts to understand Christianity, I occasionally speculate that God originally intended that humans never pass into non-being. Humans had a choice to share in God’s never ceasing to be. However, there was some original choice by humans not to share completely in God’s way of being by not always willing as God willed. So, humans chose to have their own way of being as do the other creatures of God. Other creatures have temporary being; they come into existence and pass away. For an elaboration of these speculations, see Jesus has saved us from nihilism being a correct account of the human condition.

However, God had set as the good for humans never ceasing to be. God loves his creatures which means God wills the good of his creatures. So, even after humans had chosen ceasing to be, God stilled willed that humans not cease to be. There is no necessity for God to will never ceasing to be for humans. For God did not need to create. God did not need to create beings with a good of everlasting being.

The point remains. God did not have to give a meaning to human life as we understand having a meaning for life.

If our lives have meaning, it is because of the goodness of God.