Moral Nihilism, the Meta-Ethical POV.

[Oddball_]

Nothing is inherently right or wrong. Morality in and of itself only exists because of different brain chemistry. What is wrong, what is right, what is good, what is evil. People spend their entire lives trying to figure these questions out, when the answers don't exist. Morality is subjective, a set or rules one creates for ones self. These things differ between people, and some people don't have morals at all. These people either haven't had enough time to build morals, (Really young babies) or people who quite honestly believe that they are the highest tier possible. That everything else is beneath them, as such they have no reason to construct rules, because they believe nobody is going to judge them for their actions... These people do exist, and while they are very clearly delusional and dangerous, the point is that they have no morals because they never developed them.

Which means, that morals were created because we fear being judged. Now why might one fear being judged if morals didn't exist, wouldn't that mean that other people wouldn't be able to judge because they don't have morals of their own? Well incorrect. See people will always have things they like or don't like. Morals were created because people are judgemental assholes. Not that I'm saying its bad to have morals, its a good thing, keeps people form going crazy and murdering everybody. Well most of the time at least.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Seeing as humanity is a race of sheep who follow the loudest psychopath of the bunch, morality is entirely a matter of perspective and is dependent on that group of people. Those who find it entirely objective tend to be those that cause strife; from the SJWs of modern day, and the religious zealots of today (ISIS) to those from the past (Catholic Church, etc). I am most likely a moral nihilist.

Therefore, it would only be inclined that I have the morals of the culture of my upbringing.

 

[Somewhere_]

Morality is totally subjective. I am a Christian, so I hold myself to my own standards.

However, I do believe moral nihilism can be achieved. Stefan Molyneux wrote an ethical proof for atheists (basically dont commit an act of aggression against another human being):

https://cdn.media.freedomainradio.c...able_Behaviour_UPB_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

Sometimes I fall back and forth between the two. I think that there are subjective morals and others that depend on perspective.

 

[Kanzler]

I guess moral nihilism is inevitable? There will always be a tension between what's best for an individual and what's best for society - so there will always be many occasions where what's morally correct is something that has to be figured out for each society.

 

[Kanzler]

I think moral nihilism is unrelated to amorality. There might not be a set of objective morals that everybody can see or agree on, but I think it's very difficult to go through life without considering the morality of what you're doing.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Amorality can be achieved once humanity falls from the graces of the technological era to the primitive era, specifically before the Hunter-Gatherers became a thing. Sadly, this would most likely mean that it would have to be an earlier stage of human evolution because we are supposed to be social creatures.

 

[Kanzler]

The more I think about it, the more I feel that moral nihilism is actually a popular position, at least with us here. I think there's a lot in this world that isn't inherently moral one way or the other. But that begs the question: could there be something, anything that is inherently moral? that would be objectively true?

 

[gimmepie]

I'm of the opinion that that from a broad perspective, morality is something that is dependent on the individual circumstances of a person. For the most part I think our morality stems from our culture and upbringing and that's why there are conflicting systems of morality in the world.

I say for the most part though, because in general I think some morals can also be explained by biology and psychology, as in we developed them as a species because it helps our species survive. Obviously there are exceptions or there's situations that might override certain morals, but I think a prime example here is the belief that it is wrong to harm a human being (but not necessarily to harm other animals). As I said, there's obvious exceptions, but I feel safe in saying that the vast majority of humanity feel like it is not morally correct to inflict harm on another human being.

 

[Alex Kaz]

The more I think about it, the more I feel that moral nihilism is actually a popular position, at least with us here. I think there's a lot in this world that isn't inherently moral one way or the other. But that begs the question: could there be something, anything that is inherently moral? that would be objectively true?

No, there can't be anything objectively true, because there is always gonna be at least one person whose opinion on a matter is gonna be different than yours, essentially rendering right and wrong flawed terms. That is also the reason I avoid using these terms like a plague. Their meaning is absolute, but they can't be absolute, since everything is both right and wrong, for different reasons each, depending on circumstances and individual point of view.

Morals are essentially a set of rules which force people to behave in a certain way rather than a set of values, much like religion in my opinion.

But morals are also the reason a community is able to function. They're what the law system is based on, and a way for the court to function. Without morals a community would fall into chaos.

While the individual hates morals because they limit it's potential, the society embraces them because it let's it function. I believe Freud has written a book along these lines. I haven't read it unfortunately, but I'd love to sometime.

 

[Kanzler]

No, there can't be anything objectively true, because there is always gonna be at least one person whose opinion on a matter is gonna be different than yours, essentially rendering right and wrong flawed terms. That is also the reason I avoid using these terms like a plague. Their meaning is absolute, but they can't be absolute, since everything is both right and wrong, for different reasons each, depending on circumstances and individual point of view.

What if those at least one persons are just wrong? Then something can be objectively true, and some people may be wrong about it, which would explain how people have differing opinions. Aren't you assuming that everything is both right and wrong?

 

[Thepowaofhax]

The more I think about it, the more I feel that moral nihilism is actually a popular position, at least with us here. I think there's a lot in this world that isn't inherently moral one way or the other. But that begs the question: could there be something, anything that is inherently moral? that would be objectively true?

It wouldn't matter because it is totally different depending on the person something happened to. For example, if Billy bashes someone's head in with a rock, people would care unless that person is a terrible person (I.E a rapist, murderer, thief, ETC).

But wait, I thought homicides were morally wrong! Nothing is morally "objectively true" because people's opinions can change on a dime depending on the incident/etc or people will generally disagree with you.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Morality does exist, but it's from a biological perspective. Two immoral examples I would like to give out are pedophilia and incest. For the former, the reproductive organs have not been fully development, so sexual intercourse with someone under 18 would put the infant at risk of being underdeveloped, making it vulnerable to diseases. For the latter, inbreeding would result in birth defects such as the aforementioned vulnerability to diseases. Moral nihilism would imply that both pedophilia and incest are fine, despite harming our survival as a species, because we already know, natural selection only favors the smartest/strongest individuals to live by the rules of nature and survive. As far as I'm aware, there are no documented cases of pedophilia nor incest in other animal species (only homosexuality and humping other species as form of domination), and since we're also considered animals, this shouldn't apply to us either, and yet we still do.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Morality does exist, but it's from a biological perspective. Two immoral examples I would like to give out are pedophilia and incest. For the former, the reproductive organs have not been fully development, so sexual intercourse with someone under 18 would put the infant at risk of being underdeveloped, making it vulnerable to diseases. For the latter, inbreeding would result in birth defects such as the aforementioned vulnerability to diseases. Moral nihilism would imply that both pedophilia and incest are fine, despite harming our survival as a species, because we already know, natural selection only favors the smartest/strongest individuals to live by the rules of nature and survive. As far as I'm aware, there are no documented cases of pedophilia nor incest in other animal species (only homosexuality and humping other species as form of domination), and since we're also considered animals, this shouldn't apply to us either, and yet we still do.

Actually, this here mammal says quite the opposite about incest being from a "biological perspective". I'm not about to search up pedophilia in animals though for obvious reason. Both are wrong in many cultures and of course one of them should be punishable by death, but it's quite obvious that it is only dependent on cultures.

Moral Nihilism only implies that nothing is inherently immoral or moral and that it's only perspective.

 

[Esper]

Even if something is not inherently immoral or moral, surely there are things which are more likely moral or more commonly moral, or have a better argument for being moral? I think that should count for something. Morals are formed from our understanding of the world. As our understanding and knowledge (hopefully) grow our morals will change and theoretically become more moral, right?

 

[Esper]

As I see it, as we grow, morals change according to what's best to keep society under control. Depending on what circustances we face in the future, morals will go in one direction or the other. That said, there's nothing that refutes the subjective nature of morality.

Is that a bad thing? Science changes with time, but we wouldn't argue that our understanding of the universe 3000 years ago is just as good as our understanding today. Subjective doesn't necessarily mean arbitrary.

I don't see morals as a control. Morals are what made and make people fight for civil rights, human rights, and those movements definitely upend the established order. Morals are also why we provide services (schools, food banks, fire departments, roads, health care, etc.) without which we'd maybe be less "under control" but certainly not better off.

 

[Esper]

It is neither bad, nor good. The point is that we are not unbiased enough to decide what's right or wrong.

Science doesn't change; mistakes are made and corrected, but the true nature of things remains the same; the same can't be said about morality, because it's just a concept created by humanity. A wrong understanding of something doesn't change the facts.

I agree that leaving the decision of what's right and wrong up to one individual is a problem, but a group of people, especially if that group is large enough and has the benefit of hindsight and lots of figures and facts, could come up with a reasonable set of rules/morals that would be mostly free of bias.