Is Moral Nihilism a Morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

You haven't heard my reasoning for rejecting nihilism  or what I think it's most damning potential incoherence revolves around, to know if it was full of contradictions in need of your correction, in the first place.  I've told you umpteen times that I'm not giving you one or arguing for or against the coherence of nihilism and yet here you are fixating on whether or not an argument you've never heard that I have no interest in making is adequate.

That out of the way. 

a statement that isn't truth-apt or coherent can't possibly express anything normative because a statement that isn't truth-apt or coherent doesn't express anything at all.

This is a direct reassertion of the non rule we already demonstrated to be false with Blackburnes Hooray and Boo.  Non truth apt statements and positions can and do express normatives and imperatives.  Even more to the point and additionally-

---

One of a logic's principal concerns is logical validity. It seems that arguments with imperatives can be valid. Consider:
P1. Take all the books off the table!
P2. Foundations of Arithmetic is on the table.
C1. Therefore, take Foundations of Arithmetic off the table!

However, an argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises. This means the premises give us reason to believe the conclusion, or, alternatively, the truth of the premises determines truth of the conclusion. Since imperatives are neither true nor false and since they are not proper objects of belief, none of the standard accounts of logical validity apply to arguments containing imperatives.
Here is the dilemma. Either arguments containing imperatives can be valid or not. On the one hand, if such arguments can be valid, we need a new or expanded account of logical validity and the concomitant details. Providing such an account has proved challenging.[citation needed] On the other hand, if such arguments cannot be valid (either because such arguments are all invalid or because validity is not a notion that applies to imperatives), then our logical intuitions regarding the above argument (and others similar to it) are mistaken. Since either answer seems problematic, this has come to be known as Jørgensen's dilemma, named after Jørgen Jørgensen (da).
While this problem was first noted in a footnote by Frege, it received a more developed formulation by Jørgensen.[1][2]
[quote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_logic

---

The bolding is mine.  Can you explain how the statement above doesn't or can't express anything normative on account of how it isn't truth apt?  How about this similar statement.

Don't hit your brother!
Steve is your brother.
Therefore don't hit Steve.

Vanilla icecream is the best!
You should only eat the best icecream!
You should only eat vanilla icecream.

Don't affirm realist moral postulates.
Hedonism is a realist moral postulate.
Therefore don't affirm hedonism. 

[quote]
Is moral nihilism a morality? No. I think that it can be. That it possesses normatives, and possibly even considerations of desert.

Is moral nihilism a normatively ethical position? No.

As before, I think that it can be.

Does a statement have to be truth-apt to be meaningful? Yes.

Disagree.  My simply saying "Yuck" is meaningful...there isn't anyone reading this that doesn't know what yuck means.....but it's not truth apt.  

Does a statement have to be coherent to be truth-apt? Yes.

Disagree.  An incoherent statement is a statement that doesn't follow.  Statements that don't follow can be truth apt.  

Mammals have hair.
John has hair.
Therefore John is married

is incoherent...but every single statement there is truth apt..and..if john is married, true.  This is another attempt to create a non rule, as with non cognitivism and it's inability to meaningfully express normatives.

Can a position that, from its point of view, doesn't acknowledge the existence of anything normative, express anything normative from its point of view where such normativity doesn't even exist? No.

In fact it can, and does, -and neither of us disagree that it does..remember, you contend that the normativity is logical rather than moral..not that it doesn't exist or can't be expressed.  

In any case, non cognitivism doesn't deny that normatives exist, it posits that they aren't about what they purport to be about - that may be true.  Nihilism doesn't posit that normatives don't exist, only that normatives (and normativity) are baseless in some specific way (depending on the variant) - that may also be true. All that one must do to be coherent with nihilism is to contend that, likewise..if such normatives could be derived from nihilism they too would be similarly baseless for whatever reason.

Pick a "nihilism" and stick with it, no single response I can give you is going to apply to every variant.  If you want to explore nihilism and normativity through the lens of noncognitivism I'll refer you to Blackburne.  If you want to explore nihilism and normatives through the lens of truth aptness, I'll refer you to imperative logic.  

Imperative logic is a completely unsuitable response to non cognitivism, and Blackburnes formulation is a completely unsuitable response to truth aptness.  Perhaps this is why you;re convinced them I'm spouting off crazy incoherent shit? 

Some of these questions are ludicrously trivial and obvious ... but considering that from my point of view they're ALL ludicrously trivial and obvious and yet you still can't seem to grasp them ... I thought I'd put them all out there.

I limited my responses to things we have a meaningful disagreement on.

---

one goddamned quote tag that won't work, lol.