Moral Nihilism

[Revoltingest]

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.)

Has a moral nihilist said that it's proven no objectively true morals exist?
Not that I've seen.
And I'm not making that argument.
There are no cromulent premises about morals from which to reason.
The lack of argument or evidence for their existence is good reason
to not believe. It's like belief in gods....disbelief is the most rational
position, even if existence of gods cannot be disproven.

Are you arguing that there are objectively true morals?

 

[Nous]

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.

Why, do you think moral nihilists don't go about doing things?

Sheesh! The irony is that thesself avowed nihilist is issuing shoulds and should -nots because there is something wrong about doing or not-doing the things.

 

[Nous]

There are no cromulent premises about morals from which to reason.
The lack of argument or evidence for their existence is good reason
to not believe. It's like belief in gods....disbelief is the most rational
position, even if existence of gods cannot be disproven.

So you're not able to argue for the thesis of moral nihilism or for allowing one's "feelings at the moment" dictate what is moral or immoral?

There is no reason to try to avoid admitting the facts about moral nihilism here.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you're not able to argue for the thesis of moral nihilism or for allowing one's "feelings at the moment" dictate what is moral or immoral?

There is no reason to try to avoid admitting the facts about moral nihilism here.

I sense trying to win a technical argument.
But not interested in discussing it.
Only the latter interests me.

 

[Nous]

I sense trying to win a technical argument.

The title of the thread is "Moral Nihilism," and the OP and you have tried to suggest that there is something logical about the thesis. I asked you to state an argument for the thesis and for what the OP advocates about feelings. What's wrong with that!!!???

 

[Revoltingest]

The title of the thread is "Moral Nihilism," and the OP and you have tried to suggest that there is something logical about the thesis. I asked you to state an argument for the thesis and for what the OP advocates about feelings. What's wrong with that!!!???

I gave reasons for moral nihilism.
But a logical proof....impossible.
It's like atheism....entirely rational, but logic is irrelevant.

 

[dfnj]

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.

Dogma is not built from rational evidence. Dogma is first built on axioms or assumptions that are accepted as being true without any proof. For example, most people who practice a religious discipline have the axiom, "morality is important".

Your axiom is "there is no rational reason to be moral". Yes, you are correct that there is not objective rational way to justify being moral right now. But you can't prove a negative. We may not have one now but we may have a satisfying proof in the future.

But it is important to understand all good objectivity, all good rational thought, all good ways of thinking come from subjective judgments. In other words, all good objectivity is subjective.

The thing is you don't personally get to define morality. Morals are like words in language. You don't get define what words mean. Everyone using the language gets to define what words mean. The same thing is true with morals. The morals society judges as "good" morals and "bad" morals you don't get to decide. Everyone else around gets to decide how your behavior is judged.

Words do have a meaning within a language and culture that are universal and absolute. No one gets to instantly change the meaning of a word over night. The same thing is true with morality. In the long term there may be some cultural moral relativism but in the short term it is absolute. Take the 13th Amendment for example.

 

[Nous]

I gave reasons for moral nihilism.

What does that mean? You didn't give any reason by which to conclude that the quoted thesis of moral nihilism is a true proposition. Correct?

 

[Nakosis]

The thing is you don't personally get to define morality. Morals are like words in language. You don't get define what words mean. Everyone using the language gets to define what words mean. The same thing is true with morals. The morals society judges as "good" morals and "bad" morals you don't get to decide. Everyone else around gets to decide how your behavior is judged.

These are called laws. Rules we as a society agree on. Folks don't agree with all laws, nor do they feel all laws are moral, but generally most people abide by them because of the penalties imposed.

Sense not everyone feels the law is always moral don't you think there is probably more to morality than the laws of the land?

Words do have a meaning within a language and culture that are universal and absolute. No one gets to instantly change the meaning of a word over night. The same thing is true with morality. In the long term there may be some cultural moral relativism but in the short term it is absolute. Take the 13th Amendment for example.

Sure laws change to reflect to reflect what is currently see by the majority as morals. Since a lot of what we feel is moral works on a subconscious level it's very hard to identify exactly where these feelings come from.

 

[Nakosis]

Sheesh! The irony is that thesself avowed nihilist is issuing shoulds and should -nots because there is something wrong about doing or not-doing the things.

I just asked you what you think. Nothing about issuing should and should nots. I don't even do this for myself really. What should be done and what shouldn't depends greatly on the circumstances. I see little point in a blanket set of should and should not as circumstances are constantly changing.

What you are saying doesn't make a lot of sense, so I can only assume that you have a completely different mindset of what moral nihilism is about.

 

[Nous]

I just asked you what you think. Nothing about issuing should and should nots. I don't even do this for myself really. What should be done and what shouldn't depends greatly on the circumstances. I see little point in a blanket set of should and should not as circumstances are constantly changing.

What you are saying doesn't make a lot of sense, so I can only assume that you have a completely different mindset of what moral nihilism is about.

Actually you are who doesn't seem to understand what moral nihilism is. I've quoted 2 sources defining the thesis. And the purpose of my comment about your making statements about what people should or should not do was to point out your inconsistency with moral nihilism. An actual moral nihilist does not conclude that anyone should or shouldn't do something due to its wrongness or rightness. Yet a quick search shows that basically every day on RF you assert that people should or should not do something!

 

[Nakosis]

Actually you are who doesn't seem to understand what moral nihilism is. I've quoted 2 sources defining the thesis. And the purpose of my comment about your making statements about what people should or should not do was to point out your inconsistency with moral nihilism. An actual moral nihilist does not conclude that anyone should or shouldn't do something due to its wrongness or rightness. Yet a quick search shows that basically every day on RF you assert that people should or should not do something!

Ok, let's go with this, from the link you provided.

The most famous moral Error Theorist is J. L. Mackie (1917 - 1981), who defended the metaethical view in his 1977 "Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong". Mackie argues that moral claims imply motivation internalism (the idea that an individual has a motivation to perform an action which they see as morally obligatory), which is false, and therefore so too are all moral claims. He also argues that moral claims necessarily entail a correspondent "reasons claim" (e.g. if "killing babies is wrong" is true, then everybody has a reason to not kill babies), but this is refuted by a psychopath who sees every reason to kill babies, and no reason not to do so, therefore all moral claims are thus false.

This seems closest to my view.

Basically there are no moral facts. I don't see my comments on RF as facts. I see them as opinions and yes I often offer my opinion. I don't offer my opinion as fact, it'd be a mistake for anyone to see my opinion as fact other then the "fact" that it is my own opinion.

Offering my opinion does not contradict this view of nihilism. All moral claims are a matter of opinion, even mine.