Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is moral nihilism self defeating?

famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 8:29:58 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
This argument was made on edeb8 and I was curious about how moral nihilists would respond since there don't seem to be many active ones on the site:

A moral nihilist is someone who denies both objective and subjective reality.

Do you commit actions? If you commit actions, then why do you commit actions? If you commit actions for a reason, then that proves moral nihilism is false.

A moral nihilist would not be alive if he did not commit actions. Therefore the concept of moral nihilism is self-defeating.

If you commit action, then you have a reason. If you have a reason, then there is morality.


If you're a moral nihilist, how would you respond?
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 8:34:15 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 8:29:58 PM, famousdebater wrote:
This argument was made on edeb8 and I was curious about how moral nihilists would respond since there don't seem to be many active ones on the site:

Just to clarify I meant that there aren't too many active moral nihilists on edeb8 not DDO - hence why I'm posting this on here.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 8:42:24 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 8:29:58 PM, famousdebater wrote:
This argument was made on edeb8 and I was curious about how moral nihilists would respond since there don't seem to be many active ones on the site:

A moral nihilist is someone who denies both objective and subjective reality.

Do you commit actions? If you commit actions, then why do you commit actions? If you commit actions for a reason, then that proves moral nihilism is false.

A moral nihilist would not be alive if he did not commit actions. Therefore the concept of moral nihilism is self-defeating.

If you commit action, then you have a reason. If you have a reason, then there is morality.


If you're a moral nihilist, how would you respond?

The underlined/emboldened line is false. Moral (or ethical) Nihilism is not the rejection of either objective or subjective reality. I don't know what kind of nihilism would entail a rejection of reality, all together, as this seems to imply. Moral Nihilism only denies that there exists any inherent or intrinsic moral value in the world beyond our own capability of judgement (i.e. moral valuation is conceptual and subjective). That being said, the rest of that post is rendered irrelevant.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 8:47:35 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 8:42:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/10/2016 8:29:58 PM, famousdebater wrote:

A moral nihilist is someone who denies both objective and subjective reality.

Perhaps this is referring to Metaphysical Nihilism...

From Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org...):
Metaphysical nihilism is the philosophical theory that concrete objects and physical constructs might not exist in the possible world, or that even if there exist possible worlds that contain some concrete objects, there is at least one that contains only abstract objects.

An extreme form of metaphysical nihilism is commonly defined as the belief that nothing exists as a correspondent component of the self-efficient world. The American Heritage Medical Dictionary defines one form of nihilism as "an extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence." A similar skepticism can be found in solipsism; however, the nihilist would deny the self whereas the solipsist affirms nothing but. Both these positions are considered forms of anti-realism.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,029
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 8:56:36 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Moral nihilists don't deny there are reasons for doing anything, only that there are no moral reasons for doing anything, based on the premise that there is no such thing as morality.

One might - for instance - do something 'good' to obtain the praise of other people or because it makes you feel good, or to gain power over others, but nothing is ever good or bad because good and bad do not exist. According to a moral nilhilist, good and evil are shifting and ill-defined labels that have no meaning and morality is the label given to an imaginary ghost.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 9:16:55 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
You're describing epistemic nihilism, not moral nihilism, although moral nihilism is often criticized on the grounds that is self-defeating as well.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 6:38:45 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 8:29:58 PM, famousdebater wrote:
This argument was made on edeb8 and I was curious about how moral nihilists would respond since there don't seem to be many active ones on the site:

A moral nihilist is someone who denies both objective and subjective reality.

Do you commit actions? If you commit actions, then why do you commit actions? If you commit actions for a reason, then that proves moral nihilism is false.

A moral nihilist would not be alive if he did not commit actions. Therefore the concept of moral nihilism is self-defeating.

If you commit action, then you have a reason. If you have a reason, then there is morality.


If you're a moral nihilist, how would you respond?

This seems like epistemic nihilism, however my response would be similar if either were the case. Simply, you can act with pragmatic proclivities. For example, an anarchist may vote for one candidate or the other because they are pragmatic. Their main political wish maybe to abolish hierarchy, but they can still act pragmatically and choose which candidate will produce better results without contradiction. Same goes with either moral or epistemic nihilism.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 12:21:28 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 9:16:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
You're describing epistemic nihilism, not moral nihilism, although moral nihilism is often criticized on the grounds that is self-defeating as well.

In the OP, he stated, "A moral nihilist is someone who denies both objective and subjective reality". As I understand, "Epistemological Nihilism is a form of skepticism in which all knowledge is accepted as possibly untrue or unable to be known." (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

I don't think the OP is referring to Epistemological Nihilism, but rather, Metaphysical Nihilism. Am I mistaken?
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 12:36:13 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 8:29:58 PM, famousdebater wrote:
This argument was made on edeb8 and I was curious about how moral nihilists would respond since there don't seem to be many active ones on the site:

A moral nihilist is someone who denies both objective and subjective reality.

Do you commit actions? If you commit actions, then why do you commit actions? If you commit actions for a reason, then that proves moral nihilism is false.

A moral nihilist would not be alive if he did not commit actions. Therefore the concept of moral nihilism is self-defeating.

If you commit action, then you have a reason. If you have a reason, then there is morality.


If you're a moral nihilist, how would you respond?

I think there were plenty of them on the site. They simply gave you the best (non)answer they could in keeping with their beliefs.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 12:43:17 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 8:56:36 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Moral nihilists don't deny there are reasons for doing anything, only that there are no moral reasons for doing anything, based on the premise that there is no such thing as morality.

Morality certainly exists - it's a fundamental capacity of judgement that largely defines what humans are. It represents an intrinsic bias that greatly influences our thoughts and actions, and shapes us into social creatures. While the specific capacity of morality exists in nearly all humans, the moral value that is determined by this judgement is entirely subjective, and not an intrinsic aspect of reality.

One might - for instance - do something 'good' to obtain the praise of other people or because it makes you feel good, or to gain power over others, but nothing is ever good or bad because good and bad do not exist. According to a moral nilhilist, good and evil are shifting and ill-defined labels that have no meaning and morality is the label given to an imaginary ghost.

I perform actions because I think that are morally good. I condemn actions because I think they are morally wrong. While I recognize that this boils down to my opinion based on my moral disposition, it does serve as a genuine reason for my actions. To draw an analogy:

Consider a board game. The rules of the game are ultimately arbitrarily defined in the scope of the universe. Likewise, the objective of the game is also ultimately objective. Since the rules and the objective carry no inherent meaning or objective truth, the are analogous to moral nihilism and existential nihilism, respectively. We are considering this scenario from a standpoint that is exterior to the game.

But, what if we were entirely bound within and inseparable from the game? What if that was our actual reality? In this case, the rules and objectives (although ultimately arbitrary) will hold meaning to one who is bound to them, especially since everyone else is, as well. In this case, an objective meaning can be established relative to an entirely arbitrary standard. Since the standard is an inescapable aspect of existential experience, it doesn't matter if it's ultimately arbitrary.

This is intended, obviously, to be analogous to morality. Humans are bound to the experiences and perceptions of moral and existential values - they're an intrinsic part of us and, therefore, inescapable. As such, while one can recognize that these values are ultimately arbitrary in the scope of the universe, they do hold value within the confines of the human experience. Moral values can be objectivized based on this standard, even though they are still ultimately subjective.

To everyone who read this: please criticize and/or comment! Thanks.
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 12:44:29 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 12:36:13 PM, Throwback wrote:
I think there were plenty of them on the site. They simply gave you the best (non)answer they could in keeping with their beliefs.

There are literally only 2 active members in the religion and philosophy forum on the site. and one of them is a moral objectivist and the other is a moral realist.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 12:46:23 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 12:44:29 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 8/11/2016 12:36:13 PM, Throwback wrote:
I think there were plenty of them on the site. They simply gave you the best (non)answer they could in keeping with their beliefs.

There are literally only 2 active members in the religion and philosophy forum on the site. and one of them is a moral objectivist and the other is a moral realist.

Nice. Religion and real philosophy are dying.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 6:23:36 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 12:21:28 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/10/2016 9:16:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
You're describing epistemic nihilism, not moral nihilism, although moral nihilism is often criticized on the grounds that is self-defeating as well.

In the OP, he stated, "A moral nihilist is someone who denies both objective and subjective reality". As I understand, "Epistemological Nihilism is a form of skepticism in which all knowledge is accepted as possibly untrue or unable to be known." (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

I don't think the OP is referring to Epistemological Nihilism, but rather, Metaphysical Nihilism. Am I mistaken?

Oh, I think you're right. Metaphysical nihilism is a better description. Although, those who deny that anything exists seem required to also deny that knowledge is possible, since if nothing exists then you can't have knowledge of anything since nothing is the case.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 7:49:05 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 8:42:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/10/2016 8:29:58 PM, famousdebater wrote:
This argument was made on edeb8 and I was curious about how moral nihilists would respond since there don't seem to be many active ones on the site:

A moral nihilist is someone who denies both objective and subjective reality.

Do you commit actions? If you commit actions, then why do you commit actions? If you commit actions for a reason, then that proves moral nihilism is false.

A moral nihilist would not be alive if he did not commit actions. Therefore the concept of moral nihilism is self-defeating.

If you commit action, then you have a reason. If you have a reason, then there is morality.


If you're a moral nihilist, how would you respond?

The underlined/emboldened line is false. Moral (or ethical) Nihilism is not the rejection of either objective or subjective reality. I don't know what kind of nihilism would entail a rejection of reality, all together, as this seems to imply. Moral Nihilism only denies that there exists any inherent or intrinsic moral value in the world beyond our own capability of judgement (i.e. moral valuation is conceptual and subjective). That being said, the rest of that post is rendered irrelevant.

Is there any difference between someone who considers themselves a moral nihilist and someone who believes that morality is subjective?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 7:58:24 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 7:49:05 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/10/2016 8:42:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/10/2016 8:29:58 PM, famousdebater wrote:
This argument was made on edeb8 and I was curious about how moral nihilists would respond since there don't seem to be many active ones on the site:

A moral nihilist is someone who denies both objective and subjective reality.

Do you commit actions? If you commit actions, then why do you commit actions? If you commit actions for a reason, then that proves moral nihilism is false.

A moral nihilist would not be alive if he did not commit actions. Therefore the concept of moral nihilism is self-defeating.

If you commit action, then you have a reason. If you have a reason, then there is morality.


If you're a moral nihilist, how would you respond?

The underlined/emboldened line is false. Moral (or ethical) Nihilism is not the rejection of either objective or subjective reality. I don't know what kind of nihilism would entail a rejection of reality, all together, as this seems to imply. Moral Nihilism only denies that there exists any inherent or intrinsic moral value in the world beyond our own capability of judgement (i.e. moral valuation is conceptual and subjective). That being said, the rest of that post is rendered irrelevant.

Is there any difference between someone who considers themselves a moral nihilist and someone who believes that morality is subjective?

I don't think so, but I really don't know for sure. What I do know is that we tend to think these terms we use are more mutually exclusive than they are. For example:

From http://moral-relativism.com...
Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it."

I don't see how moral relativism and nihilism are incompatible because relativism doesn't make any claim about subjects being inherently right or wrong, which is the only think that nihilism typically entails. Despite this, I've seen them presented as mutually exclusive stances.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,029
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 8:57:16 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
I don't see how moral relativism and nihilism are incompatible because relativism doesn't make any claim about subjects being inherently right or wrong, which is the only thing that nihilism typically entails. Despite this, I've seen them presented as mutually exclusive stances.

Philosophy can sometimes seem like pointless pedantry. The difference - as I understand it - is that relativism holds that the morality of something is dependent on context and nihilism holds the morality of something doesn't exist. They have the same consequence that things are not 'inherently right or wrong' as you put it, so from that pov they are equivalent.

But the difference might matter if (for example) you want to develop a philosophical theory of crime and punishment. In that case the difference between morality existing but being defined contextually and morality not existing at all might be significant.
imperialchimp
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 6:31:21 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 8:29:58 PM, famousdebater wrote:
This argument was made on edeb8 and I was curious about how moral nihilists would respond since there don't seem to be many active ones on the site:

A moral nihilist is someone who denies both objective and subjective reality.

Do you commit actions? If you commit actions, then why do you commit actions? If you commit actions for a reason, then that proves moral nihilism is false.

A moral nihilist would not be alive if he did not commit actions. Therefore the concept of moral nihilism is self-defeating.

If you commit action, then you have a reason. If you have a reason, then there is morality.


If you're a moral nihilist, how would you respond?

i'm pretty sure a moral nihilist believes morality exist. It's just not objective morality.
Ape Lives Matter (ALM)

What if I were to tell you that humans have false logic? Prepare for confusion.

-.-- --- ..- / ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. / .... .- ...- . / -. --- - / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - . -.. / - .... .. ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-

Don't waste your time trying to find truth...you pleb!
famousdebater
Posts: 3,943
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 9:02:31 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 6:31:21 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
At 8/10/2016 8:29:58 PM, famousdebater wrote:
This argument was made on edeb8 and I was curious about how moral nihilists would respond since there don't seem to be many active ones on the site:

A moral nihilist is someone who denies both objective and subjective reality.

Do you commit actions? If you commit actions, then why do you commit actions? If you commit actions for a reason, then that proves moral nihilism is false.

A moral nihilist would not be alive if he did not commit actions. Therefore the concept of moral nihilism is self-defeating.

If you commit action, then you have a reason. If you have a reason, then there is morality.


If you're a moral nihilist, how would you respond?

i'm pretty sure a moral nihilist believes morality exist. It's just not objective morality.

Nope. That's a moral relativist. Moral nihilists don't believe in any sort of morality.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 3:46:59 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 9:02:31 AM, famousdebater wrote:
At 8/12/2016 6:31:21 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
At 8/10/2016 8:29:58 PM, famousdebater wrote:
This argument was made on edeb8 and I was curious about how moral nihilists would respond since there don't seem to be many active ones on the site:

A moral nihilist is someone who denies both objective and subjective reality.

Do you commit actions? If you commit actions, then why do you commit actions? If you commit actions for a reason, then that proves moral nihilism is false.

A moral nihilist would not be alive if he did not commit actions. Therefore the concept of moral nihilism is self-defeating.

If you commit action, then you have a reason. If you have a reason, then there is morality.


If you're a moral nihilist, how would you respond?

i'm pretty sure a moral nihilist believes morality exist. It's just not objective morality.

Nope. That's a moral relativist. Moral nihilists don't believe in any sort of morality.

What about recognizing morality as a certain capacity of judgment based on innate biases and inclinations? I mean, obviously this capacity exists in humans, but the values derived from this judgment are not applicable in actual reality; they're not an intrinsic aspect of reality.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2016 2:44:33 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 8:57:16 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I don't see how moral relativism and nihilism are incompatible because relativism doesn't make any claim about subjects being inherently right or wrong, which is the only thing that nihilism typically entails. Despite this, I've seen them presented as mutually exclusive stances.

Philosophy can sometimes seem like pointless pedantry. The difference - as I understand it - is that relativism holds that the morality of something is dependent on context and nihilism holds the morality of something doesn't exist. They have the same consequence that things are not 'inherently right or wrong' as you put it, so from that pov they are equivalent.

But the difference might matter if (for example) you want to develop a philosophical theory of crime and punishment. In that case the difference between morality existing but being defined contextually and morality not existing at all might be significant.

Maybe the difference would be significant if there were an objective truth that we could know concerning which stance is correct. The human race's reality is in the mind and in the mind, empathy (morality) usually exists there objectively. Most Nihilists will still feel and act on empathy despite their claims it doesn't matter...but it still does matter to them. In this regard, it seems it renders it pedantic.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2016 6:29:13 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 8:42:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
The underlined/emboldened line is false. Moral (or ethical) Nihilism is not the rejection of either objective or subjective reality. I don't know what kind of nihilism would entail a rejection of reality, all together, as this seems to imply. Moral Nihilism only denies that there exists any inherent or intrinsic moral value in the world beyond our own capability of judgement (i.e. moral valuation is conceptual and subjective). That being said, the rest of that post is rendered irrelevant.

You misunderstood that line... "someone who denies reality" = "someone who's wrong." Basically, the first line is saying "a moral nihilist is wrong."
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2016 1:29:38 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/13/2016 6:29:13 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/10/2016 8:42:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
The underlined/emboldened line is false. Moral (or ethical) Nihilism is not the rejection of either objective or subjective reality. I don't know what kind of nihilism would entail a rejection of reality, all together, as this seems to imply. Moral Nihilism only denies that there exists any inherent or intrinsic moral value in the world beyond our own capability of judgement (i.e. moral valuation is conceptual and subjective). That being said, the rest of that post is rendered irrelevant.

You misunderstood that line... "someone who denies reality" = "someone who's wrong." Basically, the first line is saying "a moral nihilist is wrong."

Ooooooh. It threw me off because it was so specific. Thanks! In any case, I think I provided an adequate answer to this matter in a latter post.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 3:40:26 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 3:46:59 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/12/2016 9:02:31 AM, famousdebater wrote:
At 8/12/2016 6:31:21 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
At 8/10/2016 8:29:58 PM, famousdebater wrote:
This argument was made on edeb8 and I was curious about how moral nihilists would respond since there don't seem to be many active ones on the site:

A moral nihilist is someone who denies both objective and subjective reality.

Do you commit actions? If you commit actions, then why do you commit actions? If you commit actions for a reason, then that proves moral nihilism is false.

A moral nihilist would not be alive if he did not commit actions. Therefore the concept of moral nihilism is self-defeating.

If you commit action, then you have a reason. If you have a reason, then there is morality.


If you're a moral nihilist, how would you respond?

i'm pretty sure a moral nihilist believes morality exist. It's just not objective morality.

Nope. That's a moral relativist. Moral nihilists don't believe in any sort of morality.

What about recognizing morality as a certain capacity of judgment based on innate biases and inclinations? I mean, obviously this capacity exists in humans, but the values derived from this judgment are not applicable in actual reality; they're not an intrinsic aspect of reality.

Its tempting for people to believe that humans are the center of the universe. If we were to examine some of the 'rules' in chimpanzee society, it is more obvious they are subjective. For example, in chimpanzee society, males experience angst if female(s) paired with that male mate with a different male.

Is it an objective truth that it is 'immoral' for the female chimpanzee to mate with a different male? If not, was there some specific point in human evolution where such an act would be deemed objectively immoral?

I don't think objective morality is compatible with evolution because one would either have to say that objective morality applies to animals or they would have to say there is a line somewhere where suddenly objective morality became applicable.

With all that said, I still feel that our subjective morality is every bit as much of a reality to most humans as objective morality would be in the most important ways. In the less significant ways, it does bring a bit of situational ethics into the mix.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 6:38:19 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 8:29:58 PM, famousdebater wrote:
This argument was made on edeb8 and I was curious about how moral nihilists would respond since there don't seem to be many active ones on the site:

A moral nihilist is someone who denies both objective and subjective reality.

I suppose the author actually meant objective and subjective morality.

Do you commit actions? If you commit actions, then why do you commit actions? If you commit actions for a reason, then that proves moral nihilism is false.

This is quite an embarrassing argument. How it did not occur to the author that there are non-moral reasons for actions is astonishing.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 9:13:09 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 8:29:58 PM, famousdebater wrote:
This argument was made on edeb8 and I was curious about how moral nihilists would respond since there don't seem to be many active ones on the site:

A moral nihilist is someone who denies both objective and subjective reality.

Do you commit actions? If you commit actions, then why do you commit actions? If you commit actions for a reason, then that proves moral nihilism is false.

A moral nihilist would not be alive if he did not commit actions. Therefore the concept of moral nihilism is self-defeating.

If you commit action, then you have a reason. If you have a reason, then there is morality.


If you're a moral nihilist, how would you respond?

This argument applies to actions unilaterally, so that if this alone constituted a justification for moral realism, then all actions would be equally moral (ie, back to nihilism). It doesn't establish the part that is actually essential to moral realism, which is a standard for evaluating some actions as superior to others. The argument "there are reasons for actions" is at best a psychological fact, establishing that people have preferences and that every action is motivated by a preference. I wouldn't even grant that latter proposition as necessarily true.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 9:16:40 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/14/2016 6:51:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
if moral nihilism was true, "morality" would be a non-existent concept.

This is based on the somewhat faulty premise that every statement is true.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2016 9:18:50 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/15/2016 9:16:40 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/14/2016 6:51:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
if moral nihilism was true, "morality" would be a non-existent concept.

This is based on the somewhat faulty premise that every statement is true.

...and so is the OP, actually lol. What is with this "because I say so" argument? Just because people have thought or said that something exists does not establish that it is absolutely the case. It's a pretty big problem if your epistemology cannot account for error.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
imperialchimp
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 8:17:00 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/12/2016 9:02:31 AM, famousdebater wrote:
At 8/12/2016 6:31:21 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
At 8/10/2016 8:29:58 PM, famousdebater wrote:
This argument was made on edeb8 and I was curious about how moral nihilists would respond since there don't seem to be many active ones on the site:

A moral nihilist is someone who denies both objective and subjective reality.

Do you commit actions? If you commit actions, then why do you commit actions? If you commit actions for a reason, then that proves moral nihilism is false.

A moral nihilist would not be alive if he did not commit actions. Therefore the concept of moral nihilism is self-defeating.

If you commit action, then you have a reason. If you have a reason, then there is morality.


If you're a moral nihilist, how would you respond?

i'm pretty sure a moral nihilist believes morality exist. It's just not objective morality.

Nope. That's a moral relativist. Moral nihilists don't believe in any sort of morality.

in that case, i'm a moral relativist
Ape Lives Matter (ALM)

What if I were to tell you that humans have false logic? Prepare for confusion.

-.-- --- ..- / ... .... --- ..- .-.. -.. / .... .- ...- . / -. --- - / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - . -.. / - .... .. ... .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.-

Don't waste your time trying to find truth...you pleb!
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2016 12:04:36 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/17/2016 8:17:00 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
At 8/12/2016 9:02:31 AM, famousdebater wrote:
At 8/12/2016 6:31:21 AM, imperialchimp wrote:
At 8/10/2016 8:29:58 PM, famousdebater wrote:
This argument was made on edeb8 and I was curious about how moral nihilists would respond since there don't seem to be many active ones on the site:

A moral nihilist is someone who denies both objective and subjective reality.

Do you commit actions? If you commit actions, then why do you commit actions? If you commit actions for a reason, then that proves moral nihilism is false.

A moral nihilist would not be alive if he did not commit actions. Therefore the concept of moral nihilism is self-defeating.

If you commit action, then you have a reason. If you have a reason, then there is morality.


If you're a moral nihilist, how would you respond?

i'm pretty sure a moral nihilist believes morality exist. It's just not objective morality.

Nope. That's a moral relativist. Moral nihilists don't believe in any sort of morality.

in that case, i'm a moral relativist

There's a pretty simple equivocation here. If by "morality existing" we mean to talk about a set of institutions, traditions, and philosophical schools built upon the idea that values have an objective basis, then of course the moral nihilist, along with everyone else who isn't insane, would have to agree that morality exists in that sense. Along the same lines as an atheist who nevertheless accepts that "religion" exists.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx