Views on Morality

[quasi-star-chaos]

Yes, but you see that is the position of a moral relativist. A moral nihilist would assert that even others choosing certain actions to be right or wrong, is incorrect, even for them. Moral nihilism is a view that all conceptions of morality whether they are subjective or objective are pointless/incorrect, hence the term nihilism. A moral relativist can have moral meaning, but this moral meaning is not universal. Moral nihilism simply denies there is moral meaning in the first place.

Some moral nihilists would indeed assert that there is no merit in subjective moral views. However, there are multiple types of moral nihilism. Expressivism is one type of moral nihilism which allows for subjective moral opinions.

Here's the relevant text from wikipedia:

"One form of moral nihilism is expressivism. Expressivism denies the principle that our moral judgments try and fail to describe the moral features, because expressivists believe when someone says something is immoral they are not saying it is right or wrong. Expressivists are not trying to speak the truth when making moral judgments; they are simply trying to express their feelings. "We are not making an effort to describe the way the world is. We are not trying to report on the moral features possessed by various actions, motives, or policies. Instead, we are venting our emotions, commanding others to act in certain ways, or revealing a plan of action. When we condemn torture, for instance, we are expressing our opposition to it, indicating our disgust at it, publicizing our reluctance to perform it, and strongly encouraging others not to go in for it. We can do all of these things without trying to say anything that is true."

 

[Brian Schuh]

I 've mentioned once in my introduction that I identify as a moral nihilist, meaning I don't believe there is a such thing as objective moral truth. I believe that any and all moral views held by humans are subjective, with no one being intrinsically any more or less correct than anyone else. Essentially, I believe that a person's views on right and wrong are no more factually-based than their favorite musical genre. I know some people find this position an odd one to take, so I'm writing a little questionare below to learn more about how people of different religions view morals and morality.

THE SURVEY:

1) Do you believe there are any absolute moral truths? Why or why not?

2) Do you believe it is possible to prove (either logically, empirically, or mathematically) that a given moral truth is absolute or universal?

3) Do you believe a person who holds an identical moral position to your own, but for different reasons, is still correct in their views? Do you believe this person is correct even if they dismiss or reject your own reasons for believing in your shared viewpoint?

I believe there is an absolute objective reality that can never be fully understood, including moral truth.

I believe the Seven Laws of Noah and its five principles of faith need to be universally kept for world peace.

I believe the wise can understand this, but since wisdom cannot be communicated, it can't be proven to one who is not wise.

I believe if you keep the Seven Laws out of faith, it makes you pious. If you keep them because they make sense, it make you wise.

The pious have reward after death, the wise don't. I don't deny that one can be pious and wise at the same time.

 

[s13ep]

1) Do you believe there are any absolute moral truths? Why or why not?

Yes.

We live in a finite world.

We sew and we reap.

If we reap more than we sew, we're being what words define as 'greedy', but what I think is more properly repented; wordlessly! As sensed 'evil'.

If we were good, we would reap as much, or less than, what we sew.

Morality is a matter of intelligence.

I suppose the counter argument is "the world doesn't matter", or "I do not matter". I would say these views are unintelligent and unsubstantial.

Views as such are only available to animals who speak in words - no other animal vocalizes this opinion; and more to the point, they are pointless views.

I suppose it's possible to victor or stalemate an argument on the "I don't matter" route, but what victory comes from it other than a feeling of being correct or a temporary boost in one's ego? You do matter, and the Earth does matter, for you eat, drink and continue to survive. Therefore, beyond your words, you do think you matter, but you say different. Confused? So am I. This is the grand effect of words.

2) Do you believe it is possible to prove (either logically, empirically, or mathematically) that a given moral truth is absolute or universal?

Yes.

3) Do you believe a person who holds an identical moral position to your own, but for different reasons, is still correct in their views? Do you believe this person is correct even if they dismiss or reject your own reasons for believing in your shared viewpoint?

No.