RE: Is Moral Nihilism a Morality?
June 14, 2019 at 11:39 am
(This post was last modified: June 14, 2019 at 12:29 pm by SenseMaker007.)
I have not made up a "non-rule" I have simply given you basic logic which you don't seem able to grasp.
If noncognitivism is true then the statement "Statements about morality are meaningless" is not a normative statement and if Error Theory is true then the statement "statements about morality are false" is not a normative statement. How am I supposed to explain that when it's like explaining why squares have four sides?
Those statements were the very definitions of noncognitivism on the one hand and Error Theory on the other hand ... so yes, something about X does have to imply Y if X is said to imply Y.
It's almost as if you're naught but a contrarian. If I were to say that squares have four sides you'd tell me I was making up a non-rule.
Ethical nihilism is not a morality by definition but you can't seem to understand that some truths are analytic rather than synthetic.
We're not talking about a view possessing normative content we're talking about a view implicitly stating something normative in its own terms. We've been through this and you can't grasp it. Like I said, moral nihilism could from an objective point of view contain normatives because moral realism is true and moral nihilism is false. But according to moral nihilism that is not the case but you keep saying it is.
Are you illiterate? "normative statements are meaningless/false" isn't equivalent to saying "don't affirm the meaningfulness/truth of normative statements." The first says that X is meaningless or false and the second sayhs that you ought not to affirm X. If you can't even honestly acknowledge the meaning of basic English then this conversation is 100% pointless.
You're now on ignore for being either illiterate or intellectually dishonest. Go look up what "normative" means in the dictionary. Meaninglessness does not imply normativity and neither does falsehood.
@Gae Bolga
I'll repeat it once more: I never said that there objectively can't be normative content within nihilism I said that ethical nihilism doesn't say that there is. But you seem incapable of putting on spectacles that you don't like the look of. You can still only look at this from the point of view of moral realism being true. I, also, think moral realism is true but the difference between you and me is that I can fairly characterize and understand the position that I disagree with and you can't.
I never denied normative content I said that if we accept the premise of ethical nihilism it doesn't logically entail a normative statement. I have been saying all along that if all moral statements really are false then saying that all moral statements are false doesn't express anything normative. And I have been saying all along that if no moral statements really are truth-apt then saying that no moral statements are truth-apt doesn't express anything normative. It's not my fault that you can't get your thick skull around basic concepts.
This thread is having that error again. It's saying that I made the latest posts but they're still not visible yet. Annoying that there's such a massive delay and it appears to only be affecting this thread.
If you're going to have a reasonable disagreement with somebody you have to be able to accurately characterize their viewpoint.
If noncognitivism is true then the statement "Statements about morality are meaningless" is not a normative statement and if Error Theory is true then the statement "statements about morality are false" is not a normative statement. How am I supposed to explain that when it's like explaining why squares have four sides?
(June 14, 2019 at 9:49 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: No, for normative content, functions, implications, imperatives, or dictives to be possible from nihilism, neither of those two statements need to be normative, any more than the statement "goodness is a natural property" needs to be normative for natural realism to possess normative content.
Those statements were the very definitions of noncognitivism on the one hand and Error Theory on the other hand ... so yes, something about X does have to imply Y if X is said to imply Y.
It's almost as if you're naught but a contrarian. If I were to say that squares have four sides you'd tell me I was making up a non-rule.
(June 14, 2019 at 9:49 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: It -may be- that nihlism is not a morality, or that it cannot possess or express normative content - but not for ny of the non rules you've been creating.
Ethical nihilism is not a morality by definition but you can't seem to understand that some truths are analytic rather than synthetic.
(June 14, 2019 at 9:49 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: any more than the statement "goodness is a natural property" needs to be normative for natural realism to possess normative content.
We're not talking about a view possessing normative content we're talking about a view implicitly stating something normative in its own terms. We've been through this and you can't grasp it. Like I said, moral nihilism could from an objective point of view contain normatives because moral realism is true and moral nihilism is false. But according to moral nihilism that is not the case but you keep saying it is.
(June 14, 2019 at 9:49 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: For example, the dictive equivalent from above "don't affirm the meaningfulness/truth of normative statements" is embedded in "normative statements are meaningless/false".
Are you illiterate? "normative statements are meaningless/false" isn't equivalent to saying "don't affirm the meaningfulness/truth of normative statements." The first says that X is meaningless or false and the second sayhs that you ought not to affirm X. If you can't even honestly acknowledge the meaning of basic English then this conversation is 100% pointless.
You're now on ignore for being either illiterate or intellectually dishonest. Go look up what "normative" means in the dictionary. Meaninglessness does not imply normativity and neither does falsehood.
@Gae Bolga
I'll repeat it once more: I never said that there objectively can't be normative content within nihilism I said that ethical nihilism doesn't say that there is. But you seem incapable of putting on spectacles that you don't like the look of. You can still only look at this from the point of view of moral realism being true. I, also, think moral realism is true but the difference between you and me is that I can fairly characterize and understand the position that I disagree with and you can't.
I never denied normative content I said that if we accept the premise of ethical nihilism it doesn't logically entail a normative statement. I have been saying all along that if all moral statements really are false then saying that all moral statements are false doesn't express anything normative. And I have been saying all along that if no moral statements really are truth-apt then saying that no moral statements are truth-apt doesn't express anything normative. It's not my fault that you can't get your thick skull around basic concepts.
This thread is having that error again. It's saying that I made the latest posts but they're still not visible yet. Annoying that there's such a massive delay and it appears to only be affecting this thread.
If you're going to have a reasonable disagreement with somebody you have to be able to accurately characterize their viewpoint.
