Any Nihilists here?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm pretty sure you don't need intuition to verify tissue damage or consent.

-and no, nothing about a person who'll spend their time arguing that a given moral schema is right -or- wrong strikes me as someone who is studiously avoiding objectivist statements.

I do feel like I should point out that we act this way even if it's not actually true, that your (and my own) leaning on fact alike propositions about morality might just be a tick of being human. I think you're looking at this the wrong way. You have a sea of moral propositions before you. You categorically reject them, and sometimes specifically reject them. So do I.

[FrustratedFool]

No, but you need it to feel that going against consent is wrong, as I already discussed.

It's interesting that you see my enjoyment of arguing as some sort of evidence against moral realism. That strikes me as bizarre.

I suspect we've reached the end of our ability to communicate, since we clearly aren't grasping each other's POV at all. Oh well. It was fun

[The Grand Nudger]

Anytime.

[Bucky Ball]

What behaviour do you expect from, say, someone who doesn't believe in objective morality?

And if it is expected and unproblematic to behave contrary to one's beliefs, how then can it be said there's no nihilists here?

Behaving contrary to one's beliefs is itself a value system.

[FrustratedFool]

I dont understand. I thought it was simply an observation that was being made, that humans are often inconsistent.

Whether you value consistency or not is a value issue, yes. I subjectively value consistency to some degree. I don't think consistency has any objective grand value, meaningfulness or moral worth.

[Mister Agenda]

Or to live well.  People manage to keep drawing breath in moments of utter hopelessness...but the story of that experience tends not to be a positive one.

IDK, reading this thread, I'm not convinced there's a single nihilist in it.  Pessimists, sure.  Cynics, absolutely.  Nihilists?  Not so far as I can tell.

Suicide is a positive step to a negative situation, at least in my opinion.

Without hope, there's no reason to think being dead will be any better than being alive.

[Nanny]

The whole marmot thing put me off the nihilists.

[The Grand Nudger]

I dont understand.  I thought it was simply an observation that was being made, that humans are often inconsistent.

Whether you value consistency or not is a value issue, yes.  I subjectively value consistency to some degree.  I don't think consistency has any objective grand value, meaningfulness or moral worth.

I don't believe in objective grand value either.  Just objective value. People use words like that all the time. Grand, ultimate, when it's the faithful it usually means godly. When it's an atheist it means they likely believe in objective value - hence the qualifier.

[FrustratedFool]

I'm using grand there colloquially and rhetorically to distinguish value as an objective moral category from value as either a utility or a subjective moral value. Consistency is valuable for its utility. It's not valuable in any objective moral sense, because nothing is. Language is messy, and the customs of the morality language game will often lead to such messy or redundant phrasings. But that shouldn't take prececedence over clear statements of position, especially in a casual forum exchange.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is consistency objectively valuable for it's utility, or this this just some non factual thing you say - akin to boo/yay? Is utility objectively valuable, for that matter.

I get that you used "grand" to make some sort of distinction. You appear to believe in the objective value of consistency or utility, just not a grand objective value to either (or anything, presumably). Moral realism is based on objective value, not grand objective value, whatever that is. Similar to the difference between meaning, and ultimate meaning, whatever that is.

Consider the question "is it good to be good?" Yes, ofc, it's tautologically true that to be good is good. It doesn't need to be grand tautologically true (whatever that is)...to be tautologically true.