Total Posts:208|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Moral Nihilism

famousdebater
Posts: 3,940
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 9:03:51 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
It's never been a position that I've given any real thought but when confronted with it in a debate it was difficult for me to refute. I purposefully have waited until the debate is over before posting this so I'm not posting this to use the arguments here in the debate.

What are people's thoughts on moral nihilism?

Do you agree or disagree with it?

How would you respond to it if somebody used it against you to challenge a position that involved moral obligation or morals in general?
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 9:15:53 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:03:51 AM, famousdebater wrote:
It's never been a position that I've given any real thought but when confronted with it in a debate it was difficult for me to refute. I purposefully have waited until the debate is over before posting this so I'm not posting this to use the arguments here in the debate.

What are people's thoughts on moral nihilism?

Do you agree or disagree with it?

How would you respond to it if somebody used it against you to challenge a position that involved moral obligation or morals in general?

Assuming nihilism as the default position is quite preposterous.

All the self proclaimed "nihilists" I have encountered on this website do hardly anything more than to babble "prove it" over and over again.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
famousdebater
Posts: 3,940
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 11:20:12 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:15:53 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:03:51 AM, famousdebater wrote:
It's never been a position that I've given any real thought but when confronted with it in a debate it was difficult for me to refute. I purposefully have waited until the debate is over before posting this so I'm not posting this to use the arguments here in the debate.

What are people's thoughts on moral nihilism?

Do you agree or disagree with it?

How would you respond to it if somebody used it against you to challenge a position that involved moral obligation or morals in general?

Assuming nihilism as the default position is quite preposterous.

All the self proclaimed "nihilists" I have encountered on this website do hardly anything more than to babble "prove it" over and over again.

Okay, so let's say we were in a debate and we were debating the resolution: the USFG ought to legalize euthanasia. You were pro and I was Con. Let's say that you provided a really compelling case that argumed the resolution and I provided a kritik based on moral nihilism saying that your whole case is based on the assumption that morals exist. My opponent must prove that objective morals exist in order to prove that the USFG ought to legalize it (because ought is defined as to have a moral obligation to do something). How would you respond?
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 11:53:51 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 11:20:12 AM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:15:53 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:03:51 AM, famousdebater wrote:
It's never been a position that I've given any real thought but when confronted with it in a debate it was difficult for me to refute. I purposefully have waited until the debate is over before posting this so I'm not posting this to use the arguments here in the debate.

What are people's thoughts on moral nihilism?

Do you agree or disagree with it?

How would you respond to it if somebody used it against you to challenge a position that involved moral obligation or morals in general?

Assuming nihilism as the default position is quite preposterous.

All the self proclaimed "nihilists" I have encountered on this website do hardly anything more than to babble "prove it" over and over again.

Okay, so let's say we were in a debate and we were debating the resolution: the USFG ought to legalize euthanasia. You were pro and I was Con. Let's say that you provided a really compelling case that argumed the resolution and I provided a kritik based on moral nihilism saying that your whole case is based on the assumption that morals exist. My opponent must prove that objective morals exist in order to prove that the USFG ought to legalize it (because ought is defined as to have a moral obligation to do something). How would you respond?

I respond with one or more of the arguments for moral realism I and others posted on this forum a while ago. Further, whether or not one believes morality to be subjective or objective (like reasonable people should), nobody in their right mind would suggest that nihilism of all things is the "default position", so the burden is very much on him.

You can enter any debate kritiking along the lines of "oh my opponent just assumes that knowledge of the external world is possible, that a nono". Debating like that is nothing more than annoying.
It's just bad manners to not take these things as a given.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 12:47:43 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:03:51 AM, famousdebater wrote:
It's never been a position that I've given any real thought but when confronted with it in a debate it was difficult for me to refute. I purposefully have waited until the debate is over before posting this so I'm not posting this to use the arguments here in the debate.

What are people's thoughts on moral nihilism?

Do you agree or disagree with it?

How would you respond to it if somebody used it against you to challenge a position that involved moral obligation or morals in general?

I consider anyone who genuinely believes in moral nihilism a sociopath or psychopath.
Philosophy101
Posts: 122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 2:01:52 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
I believe in moral equality--a true moral nihilist would have to expect people to treat them in a way that they treat others. However that itself is my moral, they would not have to have even that expectation. The most ironic thing is a moral nihilist may actually be a good person by other's standards. However by their own, they would niether be good nor bad. A complete moral nihilist would ideally not have any care if people treat them well or ill. Yet, when pressed by a situation that causes great agony, most of them show their true colors as someone hiding behind a veil of indifference when they truly only have moral values towards themselves.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 3:57:10 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Metaethics is not be best subject, but...

I (somewhat) agree with Error Theory (a foundation of many moral nihilists), but disagree that moral statements are truth apt (moral nihilism is still cognitivism afterall).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Heterodox
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 4:23:48 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:03:51 AM, famousdebater wrote:
It's never been a position that I've given any real thought but when confronted with it in a debate it was difficult for me to refute. I purposefully have waited until the debate is over before posting this so I'm not posting this to use the arguments here in the debate.

What are people's thoughts on moral nihilism?

Do you agree or disagree with it?

How would you respond to it if somebody used it against you to challenge a position that involved moral obligation or morals in general?

Never really looked into it.

Neither, because I never really looked into it.

I would never be in an argument on the side of involving moral obligation or morals in general. I don't believe in morals. I believe people have things they like and don't like and different actions weigh differently on that scale.
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 5:11:07 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:03:51 AM, famousdebater wrote:
It's never been a position that I've given any real thought but when confronted with it in a debate it was difficult for me to refute. I purposefully have waited until the debate is over before posting this so I'm not posting this to use the arguments here in the debate.

What are people's thoughts on moral nihilism?
It makes no sense. Nihilists say that morality is subjective, yet when confronted with moral issues they take a stance based on reason and then they're willing to defend their stance as if subjectivity can be argued.
Do you agree or disagree with it?
I disagree with it. There are moral facts that have been determined by reason despite nihilists' attempts to pretend that they don't exist.
How would you respond to it if somebody used it against you to challenge a position that involved moral obligation or morals in general?
I would point out that I already proved my standpoint. They cannot disprove my argument without using reason on a moral issue, which would be a self-contradiction.
I don't have a signature. :-)
Chaosism
Posts: 2,651
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 7:25:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:03:51 AM, famousdebater wrote:
It's never been a position that I've given any real thought but when confronted with it in a debate it was difficult for me to refute. I purposefully have waited until the debate is over before posting this so I'm not posting this to use the arguments here in the debate.

What are people's thoughts on moral nihilism?

Do you agree or disagree with it?

How would you respond to it if somebody used it against you to challenge a position that involved moral obligation or morals in general?

At the moment, I have a stance of Moral Nihilism. I don't believe that anything is intrinsically good or bad, or right or wrong. That doesn't mean that I cannot hold my own subjective standard with value, or to value (or condemn) the moral standards of others. It is an acknowledgment that morality is a conceptual construct, not a casting away of said concept. I'm open to discussion, so let me just spout this out...

What makes you find a beautiful person, beautiful? Certainly, the features or aspects of that person may be objectively discernible, but why do you find that particular feature or aspect beautiful? Everything in us that supports our judgment is wholly founded on natural biases, which is often very similar between organisms of the same species, and even more so by cultural upbringing. There is no objective standard by which beauty can be judged apart from this bias; every living thing has it's own judgment.

I believe that the same goes for morality. We are, as socially evolved organisms, driven to willful action by urges and inclinations (biases) that instigate behaviors that were favored by natural selection. Empathy and morality are aspects of this process. Though we may all generally possess the same core moral values, this is merely because we are of the same species. What the vast majority of us see as unfavorable (i.e. death) is only so because of that evolutionary process, and we unwaveringly deem acts that advance those consequences unfavorable, as well. Our empathy permits us to consider another as if they were ourselves, which gave rise to the moral creatures that we are, today.

Certainly, within the confines of the human mindset (as well as many other organisms like apes), morality has a solid, ingrained, undeniable foothold, which serves and an basis for morality. We generally favor happiness and well-being of others, and hold disdain for harm to come to them. However, like beauty, what makes one favor the pleasure and disfavor the pain of another? You carry inherent values that drive those innate biases, which forms your sense of morality (along with psychological and cultural influences). When you look beyond the human biases, there is no such thing as morality. Within our socially-structured minds is where morality exists.

I do believe, though, that this is a stable enough platform upon which we can establish and objective standard of well-being in the name of practicality, but ultimately, the universe is incapable of concerning itself with our notions of right and wrong.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,651
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 7:30:08 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 12:47:43 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:03:51 AM, famousdebater wrote:
It's never been a position that I've given any real thought but when confronted with it in a debate it was difficult for me to refute. I purposefully have waited until the debate is over before posting this so I'm not posting this to use the arguments here in the debate.

What are people's thoughts on moral nihilism?

Do you agree or disagree with it?

How would you respond to it if somebody used it against you to challenge a position that involved moral obligation or morals in general?

I consider anyone who genuinely believes in moral nihilism a sociopath or psychopath.

I do, and I spend virtually all of my time (that I'm not working or sleeping) volunteering my efforts and resources to bettering the well being of all those that I can. And by that I mean it; literally every single day for the past eight or so years. This mostly includes the elderly and seriously ill (i.e. cancer), and those who have little or no family.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,651
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 7:38:45 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 2:01:52 PM, Philosophy101 wrote:
I believe in moral equality--a true moral nihilist would have to expect people to treat them in a way that they treat others. However that itself is my moral, they would not have to have even that expectation. The most ironic thing is a moral nihilist may actually be a good person by other's standards. However by their own, they would niether be good nor bad. A complete moral nihilist would ideally not have any care if people treat them well or ill. Yet, when pressed by a situation that causes great agony, most of them show their true colors as someone hiding behind a veil of indifference when they truly only have moral values towards themselves.

I find the underline portion, above, to be unsubstantiated. Just because one believes that something is not intrinsically bad, doesn't mean that person cannot judge that something to be bad. I would acknowledge, as a moral nihilist, that you killing me is not intrinsically bad, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna just let you do it! I can hold value in my own judgments and inclinations even though I believe that they ultimately mean nothing.
Moral nihilism =/= moral apathy.
famousdebater
Posts: 3,940
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 7:48:30 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
I'll respond to all of these when I get the time (probably tomorrow). Keep up the great posts everyone.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 8:48:14 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 7:30:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 2/15/2016 12:47:43 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:03:51 AM, famousdebater wrote:
It's never been a position that I've given any real thought but when confronted with it in a debate it was difficult for me to refute. I purposefully have waited until the debate is over before posting this so I'm not posting this to use the arguments here in the debate.

What are people's thoughts on moral nihilism?

Do you agree or disagree with it?

How would you respond to it if somebody used it against you to challenge a position that involved moral obligation or morals in general?

I consider anyone who genuinely believes in moral nihilism a sociopath or psychopath.

I do, and I spend virtually all of my time (that I'm not working or sleeping) volunteering my efforts and resources to bettering the well being of all those that I can. And by that I mean it; literally every single day for the past eight or so years. This mostly includes the elderly and seriously ill (i.e. cancer), and those who have little or no family.

Okay. Why do you do it? For selfish reasons?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,651
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 9:00:07 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 8:48:14 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 2/15/2016 7:30:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 2/15/2016 12:47:43 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:03:51 AM, famousdebater wrote:
It's never been a position that I've given any real thought but when confronted with it in a debate it was difficult for me to refute. I purposefully have waited until the debate is over before posting this so I'm not posting this to use the arguments here in the debate.

What are people's thoughts on moral nihilism?

Do you agree or disagree with it?

How would you respond to it if somebody used it against you to challenge a position that involved moral obligation or morals in general?

I consider anyone who genuinely believes in moral nihilism a sociopath or psychopath.

I do, and I spend virtually all of my time (that I'm not working or sleeping) volunteering my efforts and resources to bettering the well being of all those that I can. And by that I mean it; literally every single day for the past eight or so years. This mostly includes the elderly and seriously ill (i.e. cancer), and those who have little or no family.

Okay. Why do you do it? For selfish reasons?

For a driving reason that lies beyond my control: I abhor the suffering of others. I hate when a person (or anything else that passively satisfies the criteria of my empathy) is neglected or harmed. From a strict philosophical standpoint, though, I suppose you would be correct, in that, I am satisfying my own desires toward a better world (according to my ideals) with my actions.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 9:07:28 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:00:07 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:48:14 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 2/15/2016 7:30:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 2/15/2016 12:47:43 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:03:51 AM, famousdebater wrote:
It's never been a position that I've given any real thought but when confronted with it in a debate it was difficult for me to refute. I purposefully have waited until the debate is over before posting this so I'm not posting this to use the arguments here in the debate.

What are people's thoughts on moral nihilism?

Do you agree or disagree with it?

How would you respond to it if somebody used it against you to challenge a position that involved moral obligation or morals in general?

I consider anyone who genuinely believes in moral nihilism a sociopath or psychopath.

I do, and I spend virtually all of my time (that I'm not working or sleeping) volunteering my efforts and resources to bettering the well being of all those that I can. And by that I mean it; literally every single day for the past eight or so years. This mostly includes the elderly and seriously ill (i.e. cancer), and those who have little or no family.

Okay. Why do you do it? For selfish reasons?

For a driving reason that lies beyond my control: I abhor the suffering of others.

That driving reason that lies beyond your control is something most empathetic humans have in common and is the very source of our morality. So, no, you can't be a moral nihilist. In fact I believe you've just demonstrated that the position is untenable.

I hate when a person (or anything else that passively satisfies the criteria of my empathy) is neglected or harmed. From a strict philosophical standpoint, though, I suppose you would be correct, in that, I am satisfying my own desires toward a better world (according to my ideals) with my actions.
A1tre
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 9:17:15 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:07:28 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:00:07 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:48:14 PM, stealspell wrote:

Okay. Why do you do it? For selfish reasons?

For a driving reason that lies beyond my control: I abhor the suffering of others.

That driving reason that lies beyond your control is something most empathetic humans have in common and is the very source of our morality. So, no, you can't be a moral nihilist. In fact I believe you've just demonstrated that the position is untenable.

As Chaosism has already explained: Moral nihilism is unequal to moral apathy. Please stop hindering the progress of this discussion by ignoring that. And if you are aware of it yet disagree that the two are unequal, then explain why that is.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,651
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 9:18:47 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:07:28 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:00:07 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 2/15/2016 8:48:14 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 2/15/2016 7:30:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 2/15/2016 12:47:43 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:03:51 AM, famousdebater wrote:
It's never been a position that I've given any real thought but when confronted with it in a debate it was difficult for me to refute. I purposefully have waited until the debate is over before posting this so I'm not posting this to use the arguments here in the debate.

What are people's thoughts on moral nihilism?

Do you agree or disagree with it?

How would you respond to it if somebody used it against you to challenge a position that involved moral obligation or morals in general?

I consider anyone who genuinely believes in moral nihilism a sociopath or psychopath.

I do, and I spend virtually all of my time (that I'm not working or sleeping) volunteering my efforts and resources to bettering the well being of all those that I can. And by that I mean it; literally every single day for the past eight or so years. This mostly includes the elderly and seriously ill (i.e. cancer), and those who have little or no family.

Okay. Why do you do it? For selfish reasons?

For a driving reason that lies beyond my control: I abhor the suffering of others.

That driving reason that lies beyond your control is something most empathetic humans have in common and is the very source of our morality. So, no, you can't be a moral nihilist. In fact I believe you've just demonstrated that the position is untenable.

That's where we get into definitions, I suppose. Do you agree with this general definition: "Moral nihilism is the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral" ?

That is what I am going by, and the key word there is "intrinsically". That which I find to be right or wrong is only perceived as such as a result of my innate biases. That does not render the subject of my judgment intrinsically right or wrong. For instance, if I see someone being unconditionally kind to another person, I am the one who has attributed a moral value to the observed act; it is not intrinsically existent in the act, itself.

I hate when a person (or anything else that passively satisfies the criteria of my empathy) is neglected or harmed. From a strict philosophical standpoint, though, I suppose you would be correct, in that, I am satisfying my own desires toward a better world (according to my ideals) with my actions.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 9:28:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:18:47 PM, Chaosism wrote:
That's where we get into definitions, I suppose. Do you agree with this general definition: "Moral nihilism is the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral" ?

That is what I am going by, and the key word there is "intrinsically". That which I find to be right or wrong is only perceived as such as a result of my innate biases. That does not render the subject of my judgment intrinsically right or wrong. For instance, if I see someone being unconditionally kind to another person, I am the one who has attributed a moral value to the observed act; it is not intrinsically existent in the act, itself.

Everything we know we know because of other humans. The word objective should not be taken so seriously, and I believe that is what you and others are doing. Objective is an abstract concept. It's a human abstract concept. No human can be 100% objective or without bias. It's psychologically impossible.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,651
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 9:48:03 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:28:27 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:18:47 PM, Chaosism wrote:
That's where we get into definitions, I suppose. Do you agree with this general definition: "Moral nihilism is the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral" ?

That is what I am going by, and the key word there is "intrinsically". That which I find to be right or wrong is only perceived as such as a result of my innate biases. That does not render the subject of my judgment intrinsically right or wrong. For instance, if I see someone being unconditionally kind to another person, I am the one who has attributed a moral value to the observed act; it is not intrinsically existent in the act, itself.

Everything we know we know because of other humans. The word objective should not be taken so seriously, and I believe that is what you and others are doing. Objective is an abstract concept. It's a human abstract concept. No human can be 100% objective or without bias. It's psychologically impossible.

I get what you are saying, but morality is a product of that biased thought coupled with the capacity for empathic cognition, and wouldn't be a concept at all otherwise. As I mentioned previously, I regard this as an acknowledgment that morality is subjective, but I am more than happy to recognize and agree upon a common standard of morality for the purposes of practicality. I don't see how one could ever live their life according to moral nihilism; its just a recognition rather than a driving belief.
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 2:08:26 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:03:51 AM, famousdebater wrote:
It's never been a position that I've given any real thought but when confronted with it in a debate it was difficult for me to refute. I purposefully have waited until the debate is over before posting this so I'm not posting this to use the arguments here in the debate.

What are people's thoughts on moral nihilism?

Do you agree or disagree with it?

I disagree that morals never exist. I do believe that it depends on the environment of your upbringing, which would explain why different societies have different morals.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 4:04:30 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:03:51 AM, famousdebater wrote:
It's never been a position that I've given any real thought but when confronted with it in a debate it was difficult for me to refute. I purposefully have waited until the debate is over before posting this so I'm not posting this to use the arguments here in the debate.

What are people's thoughts on moral nihilism?

Do you agree or disagree with it?

How would you respond to it if somebody used it against you to challenge a position that involved moral obligation or morals in general?

There is no way we can tell if we are brains in a vat. But we operate on as we are not.

I guess you can make it case that moral values are impossible to know, we should still operate as if there are ethical actions. We operate on this presumption because currently their is no alternative to govern our actions.

At least this will get them from epistemology into a realm of action, in which you can then argue by what ever metric they think actions compare to each other.
Philosophy101
Posts: 122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 4:39:56 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 7:38:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 2/15/2016 2:01:52 PM, Philosophy101 wrote:
I believe in moral equality--a true moral nihilist would have to expect people to treat them in a way that they treat others. However that itself is my moral, they would not have to have even that expectation. The most ironic thing is a moral nihilist may actually be a good person by other's standards. However by their own, they would niether be good nor bad. A complete moral nihilist would ideally not have any care if people treat them well or ill. Yet, when pressed by a situation that causes great agony, most of them show their true colors as someone hiding behind a veil of indifference when they truly only have moral values towards themselves.

I find the underline portion, above, to be unsubstantiated. Just because one believes that something is not intrinsically bad, doesn't mean that person cannot judge that something to be bad. I would acknowledge, as a moral nihilist, that you killing me is not intrinsically bad, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna just let you do it! I can hold value in my own judgments and inclinations even though I believe that they ultimately mean nothing.
Moral nihilism =/= moral apathy.

Actually it does mean I cannot think this is bad, in moral terms. I may not like you to actilually do it as a moral nihilist, but this is a preference and not a moral. A moral would be "killing me is wrong." That is actually a relativistic moral, if a poor one, that standardized killing is wrong in one instance, when you are the one being killed. A true moral nihilist can kill or not kill, but they cannot normalize it to any belief about killing, even for oneself.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,651
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 1:26:13 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/16/2016 4:39:56 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 7:38:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 2/15/2016 2:01:52 PM, Philosophy101 wrote:
I believe in moral equality--a true moral nihilist would have to expect people to treat them in a way that they treat others. However that itself is my moral, they would not have to have even that expectation. The most ironic thing is a moral nihilist may actually be a good person by other's standards. However by their own, they would niether be good nor bad. A complete moral nihilist would ideally not have any care if people treat them well or ill. Yet, when pressed by a situation that causes great agony, most of them show their true colors as someone hiding behind a veil of indifference when they truly only have moral values towards themselves.

I find the underline portion, above, to be unsubstantiated. Just because one believes that something is not intrinsically bad, doesn't mean that person cannot judge that something to be bad. I would acknowledge, as a moral nihilist, that you killing me is not intrinsically bad, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna just let you do it! I can hold value in my own judgments and inclinations even though I believe that they ultimately mean nothing.
Moral nihilism =/= moral apathy.

Actually it does mean I cannot think this is bad, in moral terms. I may not like you to actilually do it as a moral nihilist, but this is a preference and not a moral. A moral would be "killing me is wrong." That is actually a relativistic moral, if a poor one, that standardized killing is wrong in one instance, when you are the one being killed. A true moral nihilist can kill or not kill, but they cannot normalize it to any belief about killing, even for oneself.

This excerpt is from the Wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org...):
"Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be constructed, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise without universal or even relative truth in any sense."

If I believe that morals are nothing more than a standard of code or rules that is constructed by minds that are gears towards such thinking, that does not mean that I must necessarily disregard the value of that constructed system for the purposes of establishing a better standard of living for everyone (according to my ideals). In terms of killing me, I would say that is not inherently right or wrong, but I can still have the opinion that it is based on my innate biases.

My personal standard is fully mutable (in case my thinking changes) and is ultimately arbitrarily established. If, somehow, we emerged through evolution differently, such as with a near-universal and strong inclination towards slavery, we would have not the capacity for empathy towards those whom we are inclined to enslave, and thus, our moral ideals would not deem such horrible treatment as immoral. Do you deem cruelty to animals immoral? Would the same be true if your sense of empathy simply didn't apply to anything but your fellow humans?
famousdebater
Posts: 3,940
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 2:14:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 11:53:51 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 2/15/2016 11:20:12 AM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:15:53 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:03:51 AM, famousdebater wrote:
It's never been a position that I've given any real thought but when confronted with it in a debate it was difficult for me to refute. I purposefully have waited until the debate is over before posting this so I'm not posting this to use the arguments here in the debate.

What are people's thoughts on moral nihilism?

Do you agree or disagree with it?

How would you respond to it if somebody used it against you to challenge a position that involved moral obligation or morals in general?

Assuming nihilism as the default position is quite preposterous.

All the self proclaimed "nihilists" I have encountered on this website do hardly anything more than to babble "prove it" over and over again.

Okay, so let's say we were in a debate and we were debating the resolution: the USFG ought to legalize euthanasia. You were pro and I was Con. Let's say that you provided a really compelling case that argumed the resolution and I provided a kritik based on moral nihilism saying that your whole case is based on the assumption that morals exist. My opponent must prove that objective morals exist in order to prove that the USFG ought to legalize it (because ought is defined as to have a moral obligation to do something). How would you respond?

I respond with one or more of the arguments for moral realism I and others posted on this forum a while ago. Further, whether or not one believes morality to be subjective or objective (like reasonable people should), nobody in their right mind would suggest that nihilism of all things is the "default position", so the burden is very much on him.

Do you have the link? What kind of arguments would you use to support moral realism?
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,940
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 2:17:39 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 12:47:43 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:03:51 AM, famousdebater wrote:
It's never been a position that I've given any real thought but when confronted with it in a debate it was difficult for me to refute. I purposefully have waited until the debate is over before posting this so I'm not posting this to use the arguments here in the debate.

What are people's thoughts on moral nihilism?

Do you agree or disagree with it?

How would you respond to it if somebody used it against you to challenge a position that involved moral obligation or morals in general?

I consider anyone who genuinely believes in moral nihilism a sociopath or psychopath.

Why? Moral nihilists are just people that believe that morals don't intrinsically exist. They can have their own subjective morals, they just believe that morals are subjective and therefore whilst murder or theft for no apparent reason may be wrong according to their philosophy, they recognize that it is not necessarily the same for others and therefore they would keep to their own morals and let others keep to their own.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,940
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 2:19:32 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 2:01:52 PM, Philosophy101 wrote:
I believe in moral equality--a true moral nihilist would have to expect people to treat them in a way that they treat others. However that itself is my moral, they would not have to have even that expectation. The most ironic thing is a moral nihilist may actually be a good person by other's standards. However by their own, they would niether be good nor bad. A complete moral nihilist would ideally not have any care if people treat them well or ill. Yet, when pressed by a situation that causes great agony, most of them show their true colors as someone hiding behind a veil of indifference when they truly only have moral values towards themselves.

I do agree with you here on the last part. Although I don't know if there's any evidence for this. Is there any evidence that you could base the bit that I've put in bold off of?
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,940
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 2:20:32 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 3:57:10 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Metaethics is not be best subject, but...

I (somewhat) agree with Error Theory (a foundation of many moral nihilists), but disagree that moral statements are truth apt (moral nihilism is still cognitivism afterall).

Care to elaborate? What is the error theory?
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,940
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 2:22:24 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 4:23:48 PM, Heterodox wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:03:51 AM, famousdebater wrote:
It's never been a position that I've given any real thought but when confronted with it in a debate it was difficult for me to refute. I purposefully have waited until the debate is over before posting this so I'm not posting this to use the arguments here in the debate.

What are people's thoughts on moral nihilism?

Do you agree or disagree with it?

How would you respond to it if somebody used it against you to challenge a position that involved moral obligation or morals in general?

Never really looked into it.

Neither, because I never really looked into it.

I would never be in an argument on the side of involving moral obligation or morals in general. I don't believe in morals. I believe people have things they like and don't like and different actions weigh differently on that scale.

If you don't believe in morals then how can you say this:

. I believe people have things they like and don't like and different actions weigh differently on that scale.

They are contradictory. You cannot believe both.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 2:26:38 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/16/2016 2:14:58 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/15/2016 11:53:51 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 2/15/2016 11:20:12 AM, famousdebater wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:15:53 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:03:51 AM, famousdebater wrote:
It's never been a position that I've given any real thought but when confronted with it in a debate it was difficult for me to refute. I purposefully have waited until the debate is over before posting this so I'm not posting this to use the arguments here in the debate.

What are people's thoughts on moral nihilism?

Do you agree or disagree with it?

How would you respond to it if somebody used it against you to challenge a position that involved moral obligation or morals in general?

Assuming nihilism as the default position is quite preposterous.

All the self proclaimed "nihilists" I have encountered on this website do hardly anything more than to babble "prove it" over and over again.

Okay, so let's say we were in a debate and we were debating the resolution: the USFG ought to legalize euthanasia. You were pro and I was Con. Let's say that you provided a really compelling case that argumed the resolution and I provided a kritik based on moral nihilism saying that your whole case is based on the assumption that morals exist. My opponent must prove that objective morals exist in order to prove that the USFG ought to legalize it (because ought is defined as to have a moral obligation to do something). How would you respond?

I respond with one or more of the arguments for moral realism I and others posted on this forum a while ago. Further, whether or not one believes morality to be subjective or objective (like reasonable people should), nobody in their right mind would suggest that nihilism of all things is the "default position", so the burden is very much on him.

Do you have the link? What kind of arguments would you use to support moral realism?

Don't have the time (or patience) to search through the forum.
Search for
"Huemer Ontological Argument for Moral Realism"
"Kramer Moral Realism as a Moral Doctrine"
David Enoch gave a great argument in Taking Morality Seriously, too
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic