• 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

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I thought one "feeling" equivocationalist
quite enough.

Yeah, I know, you feel that I felt that way.

Ya chomper of rancid sheep-lungs.
Some feelings are less transient, & will trump momentary whim.
And sometimes not.
But as always, feelings drive our motivations.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
It's just funny trying to get over this objection to feelings.
IMO the justification of it being duty comes after the fact of feeling what's right.
Folks are taught that decisions based on feelings are wrong, immoral. It's taboo.

Folks are afraid, probably, to look past the justification.

I, in case this is intended to include me, was not
"taught that decisions.."
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Some feelings are less transient, & will trump momentary whim.
And sometimes not.
But as always, feelings drive our motivations.

Errant nonsense.

Take Norwegians for example

They would not think about or discuss their
feelings, even if they had any.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
So then are far as you are concerned there is no problem making decisions based on feelings?

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. :D
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Errant nonsense.

Take Norwegians for example

They would not think about or discuss their
feelings, even if they had any.

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
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.

Sociopaths? Sheesh.

It is just a bit of humour I heard from a Norwegian.

Like Lena and Ollie stories.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Sure, I'm saying I haven't seen persuasive evidence of objective moral facts. Therefore have no reason to believe in their existence.


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?
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
"Babbling"?
You should work on avoiding anger over mere disagreement.
Follow my example....I'm not at all angry at or offended by your
views. I find this interesting & amusing. Equanimity is good.

You haven't yet offered which morals are true, & why they are true.
(Someone here might say "Prove it.".
I invite you to start there, rather than with objections to nihilism.

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!

As for why feelings dictate morality...this is because feelings are
what motivate us to do what we do.
Feelings do not motivate what we do when we use deduction to determine our behavior.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Moral choices based on whatever you feel they are/should be based on have consequences.
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.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
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.
Are you arguing against moral nihilism without an actual argument against it?
And with no arguable alternative?
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....
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.
, and those espousing nihilism and relativism don't seem to have any coherent answers to even the simplest questions.
Anyone can ask questions which even the smartest person cannot answer.
This does not make the questioner smarter, or his claims true.
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?
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.
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!
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?
Feelings do not motivate what we do when we use deduction to determine our behavior.
What are your premises from which you deduce morality?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
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?
 

AntiHero

New Member
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.

That's nothing more than a subjective observation.
 

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.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It makes perfect sense to not believe in things unevidenced.

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?

Are you arguing against moral nihilism without an actual argument against it?

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.)
 
Top