Is Moral Nihilism a Morality?

[vulcanlogician]

In the limited scope of the debate between non natural and natural realists...

That's the thing. Since I've been debating moral skeptics online, one thing has occured to me: moral naturalism is WAY easier to argue to skeptics than non-naturalism. And it gives me pause.

On one hand, the fact that a position can be successfully argued lends it credibility. After all, aren't the GOOD arguments also the most convincing? (Not that any moral skeptic has ever admitted to being swayed by my arguments, but when I'm arguing moral naturalism I get the sense that the arguments "sink in" and are at least felt by my opponent.) Also, the ease in arguing a position (the fact that so many reasonable and sound arguments come easily to mind) seems to suggest that there's something there.

The reason I'm not a moral naturalist comes from when I'm NOT trying to convince a moral skeptic. The thing about moral naturalism is, all the theories that fall under it are lacking, insufficient, or incomplete. Non-naturalism, such as Moore's, does not suffer from this deficit. Even Plato... let no one say Plato's ethics is incomplete or lacking in wholeness.The most obvious advantage that non-naturalists have is not having to answer Hume's is/ought dickery. 

All these things drive me towards accepting non-naturalism, but non-naturalism has its difficulties too. For one, it's vague, while naturalism is precise. Your typical naturalist, say a utilitarian hedonist, can rattle off at an instant what is right and what is wrong. You may have to spend some time at the abacus, but (ultimately) the answer is easy.

For the non-naturalist, there is no easy answer. And there is no concrete answer either. You must be motivated to look at a given situation and determine "the good" without reducing "the good" to something that is easily quantifiable. To me, that sounds like the real ethical predicament. And that's one reason I favor non-naturalism.