Is Moral Nihilism a Morality?

[SenseMaker007]

Okay, so if it's not identical, then what's the difference? How does non-natural knowledge differ from a priori knowledge (and perhaps I can just ignore my quibble regarding the impossibility of entirely a priori knowledge, for the time being).

It's not that it's non-natural knowledge per se, it's that goodness refers to a non-natural object. ie... goodness is not identical with happiness (Happiness is a natural object.)

The chapter began by dividing the views to be criticised into (a) those which, supposing good to be defined by reference to some supersensible reality, conclude that the sole good is to be found in such a reality, and may therefore be called Metaphysical, (b) those which assign a similar position to some natural object, and may therefore be called Naturalistic.

http://fair-use.org/g-e-moore/principia-...chapter-ii

So if you assign any value to an object without connecting it to subjective experience does it always qualify as non-natural, then?

What if you said "Mountains are good even if nobody benefits from them". What's a non-natural object? Aren't all objects natural?

I understand that happiness is a natural object but I'm struggling to think of anything else that isn't also a natural object.

I mean, let's put it this way:

I think that the totality of all existence refers to the universe (or multiverse). Do you agree?

I think that the universe is wholly natural. Do you agree?

If the universe wasn't wholly natural then parts of it would have to be supernatural. Do you agree?

The universe is made of things and nothing but things. Do you agree?

Things and objects are the same. Do you agree?

I want to see how we get to the existence of anything non-natural.