Moral Nihilism

[Nakosis]

I am a moral nihilist, which in my view doesn't mean I am amoral but that all morals untimately are a matter of personal feelings. IOW there's really no rational, logical, scientific justification for an absolute moral position.

While we may attempt to find an rational excuse to justify a moral position it really comes down to a feeling about what is right and what is wrong.

So my morals - sense of what is right and wrong behavior in the moment, as I see it, is based on my feelings at that moment. My feelings can change. My morals can change.

IMO, we can't always 100% know the source of our feelings, therefore we can't always know 100% why we feel some things are right and some things are wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am a moral nihilist, which in my view doesn't mean I am amoral but that all morals untimately are a matter of personal feelings. IOW there's really no rational, logical, scientific justification for an absolute moral position.

While we may attempt to find an rational excuse to justify a moral position it really comes down to a feeling about what is right and what is wrong.

So my morals - sense of what is right and wrong behavior in the moment, as I see it, is based on my feelings at that moment. My feelings can change. My morals can change.

IMO, we can't always 100% know the source of our feelings, therefore we can't always know 100% why we feel some things are right and some things are wrong.

I suspect that we frighten the moral absolutists.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think whether I'm a moral nihilist depends on if you think everything outside deontology is nihilism. I describe myself more as a utilitarian consequentialist, and I think there are rational, logical outcome based actions which maximize help/happiness and reduce harm/unhappiness if individuals within a group or society decide that is a common goal. That isn't necessarily the goal of virtue ethics or tribal nihilism.

 

[Nakosis]

I think whether I'm a moral nihilist depends on if you think everything outside deontology is nihilism. I describe myself more as a utilitarian consequentialist, and I think there are rational, logical outcome based actions which maximize help/happiness and reduce harm/unhappiness if individuals within a group or society decide that is a common goal. That isn't necessarily the goal of virtue ethics or tribal nihilism.

Sure, happiness is, as I see it, a feeling. So making a choice based on what may/may not make us or someone else happy. For me, I think that what makes me happy may not be the same as what makes someone else happy. Also what makes me happy at this moment may be something different in a different moment.

I see deontology as an artificial or at least imposed/force concept of morality. Something one may use to get the rest of the group to behave after what some authority sees as an acceptable manner.

I don't really like it but tends to keep other folks from stepping on my toes.

 

[Liu]

I'm a moral nihilist, as well, by the video's definition.
But I normally use the term "amoral" instead, which I would deem a synonym.

 

[Father Heathen]

Morals may not be absolute, but as social animals who possess both reason and empathy (albeit we often forgo both) we naturally develop moral codes within social structures both out of mutual benefit and rational self-interest. We wouldn't have peace and order without agreed upon norms. Even lower primates have a sense of fairness and caring for others within their pack.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Sure, happiness is, as I see it, a feeling. So making a choice based on what may/may not make us or someone else happy. For me, I think that what makes me happy may not be the same as what makes someone else happy. Also what makes me happy at this moment may be something different in a different moment.

I see deontology as an artificial or at least imposed/force concept of morality. Something one may use to get the rest of the group to behave after what some authority sees as an acceptable manner.

I don't really like it but tends to keep other folks from stepping on my toes.

Hence why I don't approach maximizing happiness on an individual basis but on an aggregate social unit basis. 'Greatest happiness' base on the happiness principal of utility tempered by the 'harm principal' of consequentialism where actions should be only be limited based on the harm they do to others. I don't like deontology either, specifically because it doesn't care about measurable impact on people under its ruleset, the ruleset justifies itself. At least with non-deontological ethical systems there's some data to collect and conclusions to go off of. The conclusions shouldn't be absolutist, and the variables can be great and changing, but it's better than 'do this because (someone) said so.'

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm a moral nihilist, too.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm a moral nihilist, as well, by the video's definition.
But I normally use the term "amoral" instead, which I would deem a synonym.

Amoral I see more as being without morals. Without a sense of right and wrong. While I see I have a sense of right and wrong, I don't see that I can necessarily justify what I might be feeling as right or wrong in this particular moment.

 

[Nakosis]

Morals may not be absolute, but as social animals who possess both reason and empathy (albeit we often forgo both) we naturally develop moral codes within social structures both out of mutual benefit and rational self-interest. We wouldn't have peace and order without agreed upon norms. Even lower primates have a sense of fairness and caring for others within their pack.

And some don't.

Just there's no guarantee of mutual benefit in what people decide as what's right and what's wrong.

 

[Nous]

I am a moral nihilist, which in my view doesn't mean I am amoral but that all morals untimately are a matter of personal feelings. IOW there's really no rational, logical, scientific justification for an absolute moral position.

While we may attempt to find an rational excuse to justify a moral position it really comes down to a feeling about what is right and what is wrong.

So my morals - sense of what is right and wrong behavior in the moment, as I see it, is based on my feelings at that moment. My feelings can change. My morals can change.

IMO, we can't always 100% know the source of our feelings, therefore we can't always know 100% why we feel some things are right and some things are wrong.

Why allow your feelings dictate to you a proposition on the morality of an act, a proposition that you have already concluded is contrary to what is objectively true?

In discussions with people espousing moral relativism, it isn't unusual to find them saying something nonsensical such as: "I know that rape isn't objectively immoral, but I believe it's immoral." You would evidently have to say something similar, if you get a feeling that, e.g., rape is immoral.

 

[aMirage]

You nihilists are amusing

 

[Revoltingest]

Why allow your feelings dictate to you a proposition on the morality of an act, a proposition that you have already concluded is contrary to what is objectively true?

In discussions with people espousing moral relativism, it isn't unusual to find them saying something nonsensical such as: "I know that rape isn't objectively immoral, but I believe it's immoral." You would evidently have to say something similar, if you get a feeling that, e.g., rape is immoral.

All morality is based upon feelings.
There are 2 kinds of people....
1) Those who know that.
2) Deluded poodle snugglers who think they have The Truth.

 

[Nakosis]

Why allow your feelings dictate to you a proposition on the morality of an act, a proposition that you have already concluded is contrary to what is objectively true?

In discussions with people espousing moral relativism, it isn't unusual to find them saying something nonsensical such as: "I know that rape isn't objectively immoral, but I believe it's immoral." You would evidently have to say something similar, if you get a feeling that, e.g., rape is immoral.

I usually don't see a thing as objectively true. I accept while a particular behavior may be wrong for me, this may not be true for someone else.

Rape happens, at some point they decided that rape was the right thing to do. Whatever the reasoning in their head. I'm not about to justify the thinking of a rapist, only that in their personal set of morals at that moment rape was ok.

The bigger question to me is if not my feelings, then what. While you have a belief in an objective moral truth, I do not. I've no such construct to base a such proposition on.

Rape is wrong because I personally respect the free will of others. I suspect this is because of the culture I was brought up in. Different place, different culture, different feelings about respecting someone else's free will. While I've no reason/cause to act otherwise, I don't know if this would be true of all circumstances/situations, all people.

 

[Nakosis]

You nihilists are amusing

If only I could get paid for being amusing.

 

[Revoltingest]

If only I could get paid for being amusing.

It's enuf that they don't charge us for it.

 

[Father Heathen]

And some don't.

Just there's no guarantee of mutual benefit in what people decide as what's right and what's wrong.

Of course. Morals/ethics are only as good as those who've constructed them and willing to follow them. There is no such thing as perfect rules, but society wouldn't exist without them.

 

[Nous]

All morality is based upon feelings.

Ohhhh, I didn't know that someone had ruled out the existence of objective moral facts!!!! Why didn't someone tell me? Prove your claim.

If objectve moral facts have been ruled out, then why are you on this website proclaiming most every day, or even multiple times per day, that people should or should not do x or y or that there should be a law against z?

 

[Revoltingest]

Ohhhh, I didn't know that someone had ruled out the existence of objective moral facts!!!! Why didn't someone tell me? Prove your claim.

Objective morality has yet to be discovered.
Prove otherwise, bruderherz.

More questions....
Whence cometh objective morality.....gods, physics?
How is it proven to be inerrant truth?

 

[Nous]

I usually don't see a thing as objectively true. I accept while a particular behavior may be wrong for me, this may not be true for someone else.

Rape happens, at some point they decided that rape was the right thing to do. Whatever the reasoning in their head. I'm not about to justify the thinking of a rapist, only that in their personal set of morals at that moment rape was ok.

The bigger question to me is if not my feelings, then what. While you have a belief in an objective moral truth, I do not. I've no such construct to base a such proposition on.

Rape is wrong because I personally respect the free will of others. I suspect this is because of the culture I was brought up in. Different place, different culture, different feelings about respecting someone else's free will. While I've no reason/cause to act otherwise, I don't know if this would be true of all circumstances/situations, all people.

For whatever reason you didn't answer my question -- at least directly. But it sounds to me that in all this you are trying to say that you don't know whether or not there are objective moral facts (such as "Rape is immoral"). Is that about right as to what ou were trying to express?