I am a Moral Nihilist

Ethics
161

Again, does the word “subjective” do here? Isn’t it just your opinion?

Sometimes that’s what folk use the word for - to mark out that something is just their opinion, individual and non-binding. That’s fine, so far as it goes. “Subjective” marks the opinion as being individual. And that’s fine if we are talking about a preference for tea over coffee, or vanilla over chocolate. In such cases we don’t much expect that others will agree, and not much of significance depends on our differences of opinion. these are issues of taste, if you like; and here you are allowed to want something quite different to what I want.

Is that the case with the Pup?

Isn’t there something more there than you choosing what you want - and thanks for clearing up the point about your not enjoying kicking puppies. Isn’t it not just that you and I and most other folk would not kick the puppy, but that we don’t think anyone should kick puppies for pleasure?

That is, there is a difference between a preference were I choose what I want, and a preference were I choose what you should want.

To put the same point another way, with a preference for tea over coffee we don’t expect agreement from others, but with a preference for not kicking puppies for pleasure, we do. There is something amiss with one who kicks puppies for pleasure that is not amiss with someone who drinks tea over coffee.

The “subjective/objective” distinction hides this, which is why I’m choosing not to use those terms.

So sure, it is “just my opinion” that folk should not kick puppies, but that opinion is about how others should behave. There is a difference in the logic of these to preferences.

And being communal creatures, we do have opinions about how others should behave. We move from questions of taste to questions of ethics.

Can morality be objective?
162

Yeah, it was redundant, but I don’t really see why that matters.

163

Check the remainder of my post.

The point being that your opinion concerns how you think others should behave.

And that is were we start to do ethics - as opposed to moralising.

164

If you’re in Vietnam and you pass a dog meat vendor, do you ransack the place like a maniac?

165

I don’t think anyone should kick the puppy for pleasure, but this is my belief. I still don’t think it is a moral fact that kicking puppies for pleasure is wrong. I would think most people would agree due to our society, and behavior, not because of some moral innateness in the universe. For example, there is a region in China that eats dogs. Most people in the west find this to be wrong, but there it is normal, it is just food. It still seems like you are saying morals are objective because most people agree on them. This is not the case. I am still a moral nihilist.

166

In today’s culture, everything tends to fall into either matters of scientific fact or of subjective opinion, as there is no longer an agreed value system which straddles the two domains.

167

I am not a vegetarian! I crave meat most of the time. I have never had the opportunity to eat dog meat, though. What is your point?

168

Here’s were I’ve been heading: Ok, so there are no objective right or wrongs, no objective ways in which you think other people should behave.

But what remains is that there are ways that you think other people should behave. There are right and wrong ways to behave.

We don’t have here a system, a set of universal laws, an evolutionary necessity, or a divine command. Just the recognition that some ways of behaving are unacceptable.

And we can talk about that. That’s not moralising, that’s doing ethics.

169

Are you trying to defeat the claim that moral nihilism is true, or are you just trying to come to a middle ground?

170

Yeah, but the guy that I introduced is a legitimate scientist. He isn’t a philosopher talking about science.

171

It’s not that I give myself the right to stop him, it’s just what I would do because I like dogs. I still don’t think my action would be objectively correct.

172

If you stop him, it means that you give yourself a right more than his right!

173

Give me a bad point perfectly badly and then failed to defend it or explain it so that’s good.

174

Well, I mean yeah, I told you I’m selfish. I give myself the right because from my perspective what he is doing is wrong.

1 Like
175

No, not “objective”.

I am pointing out that we agree that folk ought not kick puppies for pleasure. There’s also the admission you almost made earlier, that you might stop the teen form kicking the pup, even if for your own selfish reasons.

And indeed, the kid was arrested and charged with animal cruelty.

So here’s the situation as I see it: there are statements that are about how folk ought behave; and some of these are true. One such statement is “Folk should not kick puppies for pleasure”.

And what we have done together is to arrive at this destination, without the usual moral machinery.

176

Have you ever tried pea protein? :grinning_face:

1 Like
177

what do you mean by true here?

178

So, from your perspective, it is wrong to beat a puppy. In reality, some people think it is right to kick a puppy. Are you saying that you are a subjective moralist?

179

Yes, I have tried them, but I like meat more.

180

Taking the first example that comes up for emotivism ““Stealing is wrong” does not assert a factual property about stealing”.

This doesn’t seem right. It is an assertion of fact.

An important word in the definition is “express”. Statements tend to express the intentions of their authors.