# I am a Moral Nihilist

**URL:** <https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/i-am-a-moral-nihilist/1218>\
**Category:** Ethics\
**Created:** [June 3, 2026, 4:42pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/i-am-a-moral-nihilist/1218 "2026-06-03T16:42:17Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 504

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Leontiskos](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/leontiskos/32/712_2.png) [@Leontiskos](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Leontiskos)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2026, 3:37am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/i-am-a-moral-nihilist/1218/504 "2026-06-12T03:37:37Z")

</div>

> [@Leontiskos](#):
>
> “Ceteris paribus” indicates that exceptions are possible.

This is just how practical reason works, by the way. Practical reason allows arguments with contrary conclusions:

1. Pleasure is good
2. Puppies are pleasant
3. Kicking puppies diminishes puppies
4. Diminished puppies are less pleasant
5. Therefore, one should avoid kicking puppies (_ceteris paribus_)

-

1. My baby is good
2. My baby is vulnerable
3. Therefore, I should protect my baby from that which attacks it (_ceteris paribus_)

At this point if a puppy attacks my baby I must weigh 5 against 8, which in turn means weighing the premises of the first argument against the premises of the second argument.

* * *

> [@Banno](#):
>
> Now, despite these ethical difference, we can together condemn the act.

A “political” consensus is fine, but if you have no way to motivate someone to accept your position you will have no way to generate a consensus. You will only be able to look for ready-made consensuses. It is similar to the [polling fallacy](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/i-am-a-moral-nihilist/1218/315).

---

_[View the full topic](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/i-am-a-moral-nihilist/1218)._