Well I do think there are no moral facts, I believe morality is an inherently subjective distinction but what I am saying with regards to nihilism is that it is a rejection of objective meaning and purpose, the result of which, makes all values relative. So to what Fooloso saidAm I right to assume that Judaka is saying there are no moral facts. If so, then I need a definition of what is meant by a moral fact. The obvious problem here is denial of something that cannot even be defined.
I believe that what is being denied by nihilism is that values have implicit or objective meaning, it doesn't mean that a person can't hold their own beliefs about things - it just means that those beliefs are subjective. Certainly, I have my own ways of differentiating between the relative value of beliefs, morals and values and I feel quite strongly about some of these distinctions. However ultimately I recognise that those distinctions are only my own and that they aren't a part of something greater.I distinguish between moral relativism and nihilism. If nihilism is the denial of value then it is the denial of relative value.
So I am rejecting concepts which can be defined, I don't know what you mean by saying I am denying something I can't define.
It's not that I see no difference but that I reject both ideas with the same argument - which is that morality is inherently subjective. I made another thread about why I think that.If not then I think it may be of value to remark on the difference between moral absolutism and moral objectivism, because the OP appears to frame moral objectivism as moral absolutism in part
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =3&t=15318
I am saying nothing is objectively right or wrong, I still have my opinions about right and wrong. If I saw someone throwing rocks at wildlife, I would be pretty upset and I would intervene. I would consider what they were doing wrong and immoral. I have my own reasons for that and there would be some animals that where I wouldn't care if I saw people throwing rocks at them. All of it comes down to my own reasoning, logic and values - if I had the view that my moral distinctions were separate from me, and have validity outside of my reasoning then I would no longer be a nihilist.I can sympathise with the idea of nothing being "right" or "wrong", but yet still framing things as "good" or "bad.
I believe I can pretty much change my moral views whenever it suits me, if I could spent time challenging my thinking about wildlife or violence, it may result in me no longer caring about whether people did such things. So the value of nihilism/moral relativism in my view, is being able to make your own choices.
As for what Fooloso said, I think essentially what nihilism is saying is that there's no meaning in whether you hold this view or that view and in that sense, there's no difference relatively. However in terms of what relative morality means, which is that your views are dependent upon subjective distinctions and perspectives which are largely irrelevant to those who do not have those same views, nihilism makes no argument against that and makes arguements against all opposition to this theory.
So I am unclear as to why you feel the way you do but I'm interested to hear why.