Is Moral Nihilism a Morality?

[SenseMaker007]

Do you not remember this?  Does nihilism say that moral realism is false?  Yes it does.  

I never denied that I said that. I just denied that nihilism says that moral realism is morally false. Moral nihilism doesn't say anything morally. If it did then it wouldn't be morally nihilistic! Something you have completely failed to acknowledge yet!

Even more embedded, is saying that nihilism is logically incorrect and incoherent - false, a normative statement?  Yes.  

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, completely wrong. Come back when you know what a normative statement is. Get these basics right first; then return to the discussion.

You think that it's logically normative, rather than morally normative.  You simply don;t acknowledge your normative statements as such. 

And, as I said, you can't make that move from the perspective of moral nihilism. You're still looking at it from a moral realism angle if you think that ethical nihilism implies anything that isn't ethically nihilistic. My whole contention is that ethical nihilism itself doesn't express anything normative because from its perspective there is no normativity to express.

Our only disagreement is as to whether this normative content, which we both acknowledge to exist, can be expressed as morally normative content, I suppose, consistently with the framework of nihilism.

We both agree that they exist but moral nihilism doesn't, that's the point. How can X say that Y functions as Z if X doesn't even acknowledge the existence of Y? Something has to exist before it can do anything.

We have this one area of disagreement, and unless we can find at least a tiny smidgeon of common ground in all of that, a basis of shared facts- we're not going to be able to reach a point where you could say - "I don't believe that, I entirely reject your reasoning - but I understand why you or any other nominally rational person would/could believe that" - are we?

The common ground is that we are both moral realists but I'm far more interested in who has the more coherent, more relevant and less contradictory reasoning on the matters in which we disagree. You may see it as a small quibble but it's not small if you're doing the akin to saying that the logically impossible is possible. A view that says X does not exist can't be saying that X does anything.

 You could do me or any of these gentlemen the same courtesy by imagining that maybe, just one piece of all of this might have some truth to a bit of it, lol.  Right?

That isn't an argument. No, there can be no piece of truth in the view that X can be deemed to function as Y whilst also being deemed to not exist. As I said: Something has to exist before it can do anything. When you're up against a wall you resort to total illogic. It's infinitely more likely that you've misunderstood intelligent thinkers than it is that they agree with you that the logically impossible is logically possible. And, even if they somehow all did, they'd obviously be wrong in that case. An argument from authority is a fallacy rather than something that can trump the law of identity.