(January 18, 2019 at 6:11 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:(January 18, 2019 at 11:52 am)Acrobat Wrote: Okay, then allow me to be a defender of moral nihilism.Moral nihilists deny the existence of moral facts themselves...reducing that to a silly question. No matter what moral fact there is or may be, a moral nihilist must, by necessity..deny it.
As a moral nihilist ( 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) I hold that the holocaust is not inherently right nor wrong. Neither good nor evil.
That at best what you and other's consider good is your subjective opinion, and not a fact.
The moral realist claims that holocaust is objectively wrong.
The nihilist responds that's it not.
What facts is the nihilist denying, to be false in your view?
The "just an opinion" route is a dead end as well. Yes, it's my opinion. I have opinions you have opinions we all have opinions. I have opinions about the sky..the number 1.......and mouth brooding fish. Some opinions are about facts, and some opinions about facts get things more or less wrong than others.
"Just an opinion" is moral subjectivism, not moral nihilism. This is..possibly, one of the reasons that philosophy majors might actually make better role models..when it comes to communicating moral predicates and concepts..at least.
How exactly is the moral nihilist wrong, and the moral realist right?
