RE: Is Moral Nihilism a Morality?
June 26, 2019 at 10:07 am
(This post was last modified: June 26, 2019 at 10:20 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Moral realism is exactly as easy or difficult to argue as realism of any other kind.
It may not be runaway skepticism to seriously consider whether our declarative statements accurately report facts, but this isn’t at all unique to moral realism. It does stretch credulity to imagine that we’re always wrong, or that we can never accurately report one subset of contended fact even as we accept all others in the set uncritically.....ofc.
Nihilism presents the same fundamental obstacle to the statement “the tree is there” as it does to “assault is wrong”, after all.
Did we just make up “tree”, and where is “there”? In relation to what or whom, and how do we handle some situation where another subject disagrees about the tree or it’s there-ness? How can we be sure there is a “there” exterior to our minds or even that other subjects exist to apprehend objects? What level of confidence can we have in these statements and how do we / can we rule out inter subjectivity? How do we determine and differentiate between objects, and further how do we assign and distribute properties between objects? Hell, is there even such a thing?
A person will find that the answers to these questions are the same as the answers for realist objections of any kind...and maybe, the takeaway should be more skepticism towards the uncontroversial declaratives we make, rather than enhanced scrutiny of the subset alone.
It may not be runaway skepticism to seriously consider whether our declarative statements accurately report facts, but this isn’t at all unique to moral realism. It does stretch credulity to imagine that we’re always wrong, or that we can never accurately report one subset of contended fact even as we accept all others in the set uncritically.....ofc.
Nihilism presents the same fundamental obstacle to the statement “the tree is there” as it does to “assault is wrong”, after all.
Did we just make up “tree”, and where is “there”? In relation to what or whom, and how do we handle some situation where another subject disagrees about the tree or it’s there-ness? How can we be sure there is a “there” exterior to our minds or even that other subjects exist to apprehend objects? What level of confidence can we have in these statements and how do we / can we rule out inter subjectivity? How do we determine and differentiate between objects, and further how do we assign and distribute properties between objects? Hell, is there even such a thing?
A person will find that the answers to these questions are the same as the answers for realist objections of any kind...and maybe, the takeaway should be more skepticism towards the uncontroversial declaratives we make, rather than enhanced scrutiny of the subset alone.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
