Is Moral Nihilism a Morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

I found this rather thought-provoking (the last bit that said "moral nihilism is a morality"). This seems to suggest that moral realism may be inescapable... because every brand of moral skepticism carries with it some undercurrent of moral thinking.

Any thoughts on this?

I suppose it would depend on the type of nihilism.  The differences between error theory and truth-aptness are profound.  I will say this, though...if we read will to power, we find an interesting notion played out even in little discussions like these.  While a nihilist might contend that the moral structures of our societies are meaningfully arbitrary, that morality as practiced is meaningfully arbitrary, it also carries the implication that this state of affairs deserves[i] to be exposed.  

If that where the only implication of nihilism, it would be enough to qualify as a moral system with a limited scope.  Meta-ethical moralizing over moral systems.  



[/i]

Does the laws of the universe automatically bind us to any sort of morality just because we are capable of thinking about it?

In a sense, no matter what the meta-ethical position, yes.  Not just because we're capable of thinking about some things, but because compulsion is an effect that manifests itself in us and that we (by definition) have little control over.  We can (sometimes) overide our compulsions, but we all understand that this enterprise will be uncomfortable for us.  In that way, whatever it is that makes us compellable, if it reduces to the machinery of natural law, automatically binds us to whatever compelling propositions we hold to be true. Both a bug and a feature, lol.

Ask yourself, what is it that makes you incapable of not believing or feeling the way you do about some strongly held moral conviction (true, false, or non-apt, meta-ethically). Assume that nihilism is true in this world. That doesn't change or alter the experience. There's something that makes us feel the way that we do about moral agency, even if that something is a false intuition. Camus took this route after the acknowledgement of nihilism. Just as in will to power, above, there was another set of what must be done. The absurdity must be lived. The essential contradiction of mans existence does not exist without man. You do it, you live it - even while fully accepting the futility of task, and this allows you to be happy.

In any case, returning to the original question, IDK that -every- nihilist proposition could be characterized as a moral system, but it's certainly true that nihilism can express itself as a sort of alternate objective moral theory. In this it fails at it's own task regardless of it's truth content. Or maybe it just fails entirely. Nietzsche proposed that a person wasn't authentically in state until they had a mind to put shoulder to the destructive plow (which, frankly, none of us are, we will all cling to and protect -some- portion of our moral contents), whereas Camus..ironically, added futility to nihilism in an end run while castigating other meta-ethical theories for the same. Both presented themselves as realist views of anti-realism.