Some feelings are less transient, & will trump momentary whim.
And sometimes not.
But as always, feelings drive our motivations.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Moral Nihilism
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
And sometimes not.
But as always, feelings drive our motivations.
Audie
Veteran Member
Audie
Veteran Member
Errant nonsense.
Take Norwegians for example
They would not think about or discuss their
feelings, even if they had any.
So then are far as you are concerned there is no problem making decisions based on feelings?
Audie
Veteran Member
Audie
Veteran Member
A long time ago, possibly the late Miocene or even
the upper Eocene, I said that we could wander the
swamps of equivocation, but, I am disinclined to do
that.
Words to that effect . No disrespect, I just
do not, yes, feel like it.
So they are sociopaths? Perfect example of people who act differently because of their feelings. Sociopaths are only concerned with their own feelings. They've no empathy(ability to share the feelings of others).
Most folks are capable of empathy, personally share in feeling what they think others might feel so make choices based on their feeling of compassion.
Audie
Veteran Member
Sociopaths? Sheesh.
It is just a bit of humour I heard from a Norwegian.
Like Lena and Ollie stories.
But moral nihilism is usually (if not always) defined as the positive belief or view that no act is moral or immoral. It isn't the thesis that one simply hasn't come across an argument for moral realism or moral relativism. E.g.:
Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism, amoralism or the error theory) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is morally right or wrong.
Moral nihilism - Wikipedia
Moral Nihilism is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that ethical claims are generally false. It holds that there are no objective moral facts or true propositions -- that nothing is morally good, bad, wrong, right, etc - because there are no moral truths (e.g. a moral nihilist would say that murder is not wrong, but neither is it right).
Moral Nihilism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy
So, again, you haven't explained why you allow your feelings dictate to you a proposition that is contrary to what you have already decided is true about the moral status of an act. E.g., given that you have already decided that there is nothing morally wrong (or right) with slavery, then why allow your momentary feeling to dictate to you that there is something wrong with slavery?
No argument I could possibly state for moral realism would answer the questions I have asked here, or would help anyone argue for moral nihilism.
Nevertheless, perhaps this thread helps to demonstrate that the best argument for moral realism is the fact that the various forms of moral anti-realism just never make sense, and those espousing nihilism and relativism don't seem to have any coherent answers to even the simplest questions. Here we encounter the confounding thesis where the nihilist has already decided that no act is morally right or wrong, but his feelings dictate just the contrary. How does that make sense? Why abide by such allegedly erroneous feelings?
Thus the nihilist has already decided that there is no moral fact about, e.g., slavery, but he can have a feeling that it's morally right to enslave Africans and to vote for laws instituting slavery of Africans, so that's what he does. You couldn't come up with a more confused moral philosophy than that!
Feelings do not motivate what we do when we use deduction to determine our behavior.
Apparently you don't grasp the irony, or hypocrisy, or sad humor of someone identifying as a moral nihilist one moment, and declaring that one should do something the next.
Are you arguing against moral nihilism without an actual argument against it?
And with no arguable alternative?
It makes perfect sense to not believe in things unevidenced.
Just as there is no evidenced cogent argument to believe in Thor, Allah,
God, Zeus, or Voldemort, there is none for objectively true morality.
You may believe what you want.
But you've offered no logical argument for your positions here.
So until you can prove this objective morality to be true, I won't believe in it.
Anyone can ask questions which even the smartest person cannot answer.
This does not make the questioner smarter, or his claims true.
Individuals have their morality, even if they don't believe it's absolutely
true, inerrant, universal, or handed to us by the laws of physics or God.
Morality in society is by consensus of feelings.
And morality varies from society to society, & over the ages.
It's not at all confusing if one recognizes that morality isn't universal.
Slavery is an anathema to most modern people....but only most.
And historically, slavery was much more tolerated.
Christians & Muslims have a long history of believing it was just peachy.
I believe it's wrong.
But this is solely because I "feel" libertarian.
I can't prove that "libertarian" is The Truth.
In fact, most posters here think it's utterly wrong.
How does your universally true morality handle this?
What are your premises from which you deduce morality?
Why, do you think moral nihilists don't go about doing things?
That's nothing more than a subjective observation.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Regarding a subject that itself is subjective. Therefore?
It renders it superfluous and exposes the pretension of the poster.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Uh, oh. Thanks for the heads up.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Right and wrong is basic. Everything moral is based on deserve or noneso deserved. Right if deserved, wrong if noneso deserved and causes harm.
Morality may not apply to every intent or action, like washing your car, or going for a walk. But on issues of harm and harmlessness morality is basic and real regardless of how one feels. One should never harm the harmless. It is wrong to do so. For countless reasons.
Nature being indifferent to morality is besides the point.
Morality is to create social trust, and enable quality of life. Those with moral feelings at heart will be more apt to being moral, and find it hard to be immoral.
Immorality breaks social trust and undermines society. It isnt hard to see what is harmful, and what is harmless.
Morality enables freedom of action, and isnt prohibitive of anything that matters.
Morality may not apply to every intent or action, like washing your car, or going for a walk. But on issues of harm and harmlessness morality is basic and real regardless of how one feels. One should never harm the harmless. It is wrong to do so. For countless reasons.
Nature being indifferent to morality is besides the point.
Morality is to create social trust, and enable quality of life. Those with moral feelings at heart will be more apt to being moral, and find it hard to be immoral.
Immorality breaks social trust and undermines society. It isnt hard to see what is harmful, and what is harmless.
Morality enables freedom of action, and isnt prohibitive of anything that matters.
But as already noted several times here, moral nihilism is the thesis that there exist no objective moral facts or true moral propositions. It isn't the claim that one merely hasn't come across a true moral proposition during one's daily routine, or haven't seen an objective moral fact through a telescope. The difference is the same as the difference between the positive claim "There exist no black swans," and "I've never seen a black swan." The scientific method cannot establish that there exist no objective moral facts. Right?
I think it's highly informative and worthwhile to allow those espousing moral nihilism here to demonstrate their inability to soundly argue for that thesis.
Moral Nihilism is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that ethical claims are generally false. It holds that there are no objective moral facts or true propositions -- that nothing is morally good, bad, wrong, right, etc - because there are no moral truths (e.g. a moral nihilist would say that murder is not wrong, but neither is it right).
Moral Nihilism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy
Fill in the blanks:
P1: [. . . ]
P2: [. . . ]
C: Therefore, there are no true moral propositions.
Feel free to use your own wording in deducing the thesis of moral nihilism from a true proposition.
I think it's highly informative and worthwhile to allow all those espousing moral nihilism here to demonstrate their inability to soundly argue that it is logical for a moral nihilist allow his "feelings at the moment" to dictate to him moral propositions that are contrary to the thesis of moral nihilism.
Fill in the blanks:
P1: [. . . ]
P2:. [. . . ]
C: Therefore, it is rational for a moral nihilist to allow his momentary feelings dictate to him moral propositions that are contrary to the thesis of moral nihilism.
Feel free to use your own wording, and more than one connected syllogism or polysyllogism in deducing that conclusion. (I often get confused in trying to construct or evaluate a sorites.)