Is Moral Nihilism a Morality?

[SenseMaker007]

What would be a non-natural fact? Does 2+2=4 need empirical evidence to be true? Is the sum of the square of a right triangle's two angles equal to the square of the hypotenuse only true if we can find an example of such a triangle in nature?

Does 2+2=4 require minds to be true? Does empiricism require subjective experience? Does subjective experience require a mind?

I think 2+2=4 even without minds. But I think the whole world is natural because nothing is supernatural.

But if non-natural just means non-empirical then I don't think that 2+2=4 is a natural fact because it's a priori.

But I don't think moral statements can be true without the existence of minds ... and minds are natural phenomena.

As I see it, you can go three ways with this argument. You could accept the conclusion and be an error theorist. You could disagree with the second premise and be a moral naturalist. -OR- You could disagree with the first premise (as I do) and be a non-naturalist like G.E. Moore or Plato (or maybe Spinoza and the Stoics too, among others). Notice that relativists have nowhere to go in the debate over this argument. Unlike you and GB, I find moral nihilism somewhat compelling. If you asked me what theories made no fucking sense whatsoever, I'd have to say all forms of moral relativism suffer from an irredeemable incoherence. Nihilism is crystal clear by comparison. It just so happens that I think non-naturalism is clearer.

I think the first premise is false unless science includes empiricism as a whole (science in a wide sense).

If the first premise is referring to empiricism as a whole then I think the second premise is false instead.

---

I should point out that I think that truth can be purely analytic but knowledge requires a combination of both empiricism and rationalism.

An idiot doesn't have knowledge because he isn't rational. A robot doesn't have knowledge because it isn't conscious. Hence, knowledge requires both logic and experience.

---

I'd have to say all forms of moral relativism suffer from an irredeemable incoherence. Nihilism is crystal clear by comparison.

Error Theory isn't incoherent. I do think noncognitivism is, though. Because noncognitivism says that moral statements are neither true nor false ... and I don't think it makes sense to say that any statement is neither true nor false. That would go against the law of identity as far as I'm concerned, which is the fundamental law of the whole of logic.

I initially said that nihilism was incoherent but that was because I was deeming nihilism to be synonymous with noncognitivism because I believed that the definitional core of nihilism is meaninglessness. I still wonder about that. "Is existential nihilism primary nihilism?" is an interesting question to me.