Moral Nihlism

[LuckyR]

My point is: what is the difference between moral nihilism (for the individual) and sociopathy (as a description of a type of interaction)?

Some of the qualities of sociopaths...

Doesn’t respect social norms or laws. Theyconsistently break laws or overstep social boundaries.
Lies, deceives others, uses false identities or nicknames, and uses others for personal gain.
Doesn’t make any long-term plans. They also often behave without thinking of consequences.
Shows aggressive or aggravated behavior. They consistently get into fights or physically harm others.
Doesn’t consider their own safety or the safety of others.
Doesn't follow up on personal or professional responsibilities. This can include repeatedly being late to work or not paying bills on time.
Doesn’t feel guilt or remorse for having harmed or mistreated others.

So right off we have a more complicated phenomenon with sociopaths who I would say are a subset of moral nihilists, and generally ones who had **** childhoods.

A moral nihilist could, like other social mammals, feel empathy and care for other people. They would not think that there is some objective good or bad behavior, but if they saw a person crying or injured could just as likely as anyone else feel the urge to help. Mirror neurons and all that.

One can prefer that other people are not in pain, that one does not hurt them, that they feel good, without thinking this is objectively the right set of things to do. Moral values sink into and are disolved in values. A moral nihilist can value whatever he or she likes, and unless he or she is damaged, they are likely to care about other people and feel empathy for some.
a
Sociopaths do not care about other people and even have tendency to want to hurt them.

I am having a little trouble parsing your red statement, in the sense that it seems to be trying have it both ways: Claiming not to judge but reserving the right to have definite preferences. Of course one can do that, but it really waters down the "nihilism" part. "Moral ambivalence", would more truth in advertising.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I am having a little trouble parsing your red statement, in the sense that it seems to be trying have it both ways: Claiming not to judge but reserving the right to have definite preferences. Of course one can do that, but it really waters down the "nihilism" part. "Moral ambivalence", would more truth in advertising.

It's not a moral judgment. It bothers them if someone is suffering. These are emotional reactions, not rules in their heads. I think most of us, even those who are not nihilists, can differentiate between our emotional reactions and our moral thoughts. There is no reason that a moral nihilist, who believes there are no objective morals, must be an unkind person. They simply think there is no God and no way to determine if abortion is right or wrong, and so on. But they have preferences. And included in those preferences are those created by affection and mirror neurons and so on.

[Kaz_1983]

Yes. Though I wouldn't say it's preferred, though that can be true, I would say, we social mammals tend to have it as a preference.

If your a moral nihilist and rape was seen as moral by the large, large majority (95%) of people. Let's say you don't participate in raping women because you feel that rape is wrong but you don't feel that it's OBJECTIVELY WRONG/MORALLY WRONG for somebody to rape.

Is that okay? Or if your truely a moral nihilist are you not allowed an opinion? Or is that just the case, if you are an existential nihilist?

[Kaz_1983]

EDIT: it's a preference not rape or be raped. That's all.

[Felix]

There is no reason that a moral nihilist, who believes there are no objective morals, must be an unkind person ... But they have preferences.

If they have preferences they are not a nihilist, but perhaps a moral agnostic.

[Karpel Tunnel]

There is no reason that a moral nihilist, who believes there are no objective morals, must be an unkind person ... But they have preferences.

If they have preferences they are not a nihilist, but perhaps a moral agnostic.

Preferences for how life is. Social mammals like wolves, elephants, most flock and pack animals, can all take care of the injured, share food, problem solve together, get upset when another suffers, even across species. They don't believe in objective morals. We have mirror neurons and empathy. We like company and friends. YOu don't have to believe there is a right or wrong to have these traits.

Ethical nihilism or moral nihilism rejects the possibility of absolute moral or ethical values. Instead, good and evil are nebulous, and values addressing such are the product of nothing more than social and emotive pressures.

Notice emotive pressures. Note 'absolute'. They think that ideas about morals are cultural, not objective. But that doesn't mean that they can't love, want friends, feel empathy
precisely like someone
prefers vanilla to chocolate
nature to city
or whatever.

But since most people are born with and continue to have functional empathy systems, take pleasure in social activities, fall in love, want friends and so on, a moral nihilist, despite believing there are absolute morals, can function very similarly via their social preferences and ones they do not assume everyone has, nor do they assume everyone should have the same ones.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Yes. Though I wouldn't say it's preferred, though that can be true, I would say, we social mammals tend to have it as a preference.

If your a moral nihilist and rape was seen as moral by the large, large majority (95%) of people. Let's say you don't participate in raping women because you feel that rape is wrong but you don't feel that it's OBJECTIVELY WRONG/MORALLY WRONG for somebody to rape.

Is that okay? Or if your truely a moral nihilist are you not allowed an opinion? Or is that just the case, if you are an existential nihilist?

I don't see much difference between seeing it is wrong and seeing it is objectively wrong. A moral nihilist could, however, hate rape. One still gets to not like things and want things to be a cetain way. And like other things, it's just that the social realm is like the choosing ice cream flavor realm, though since our social relations are more important, in general, than dessert, much more emotion is involved.

[Karpel Tunnel]

If they have preferences they are not a nihilist, but perhaps a moral agnostic.

These are two quite different things: how one thinks about morals, what they are, if and how they exist, and what one feels. Being a moral nihilist is a meta-ethical position. It's real verbal, mental rational type stuff. Emotions, empathy, desire for closeness, social urges, love and their tough counterparts...these are all limbic system, emotional, gut feeling type stuff. There is no reason one cannot develop a belief system, such as moral nihilism, while still being a normal social mammal.

[Felix]

Karpel Tunnel: Social mammals like wolves, elephants, most flock and pack animals, can all take care of the injured, share food, problem solve together, get upset when another suffers, even across species. They don't believe in objective morals.

That is irrelevant to the subject of moral nihilism, which is a human philosophical stance, not a learned or instinctual behaviour.

Karpel Tunnel: Emotions, empathy, desire for closeness, social urges, love and their tough counterparts... these are all limbic system, emotional, gut feeling type stuff.

Perhaps in animals, but in man they can be tempered by reason.

Karpel Tunnel: There is no reason one cannot develop a belief system, such as moral nihilism, while still being a normal social mammal.

That is incoherent, if someone is empathetic/compassionate, they will not be a nihilist - "compassionate nihilist" is an oxymoron. I suspect that psychological studies of those who profess to be nihilists would show that they lack these qualities, i.e., they tend to be sociopathic.

[Karpel Tunnel]

That is irrelevant to the subject of moral nihilism, which is a human philosophical stance, not a learned or instinctual behaviour.

Sigh. EXACTLY. That is my whole point. It is a philosophical stance. One can have that philosophical stance AND treat people kindsly, have empathy, be social and so on.

Perhaps in animals, but in man they can be tempered by reason.

Sure.

Karpel Tunnel: There is no reason one cannot develop a belief system, such as moral nihilism, while still being a normal social mammal.

That is incoherent, if someone is empathetic/compassionate, they will not be a nihilist - "compassionate nihilist" is an oxymoron. I suspect that psychological studies of those who profess to be nihilists would show that they lack these qualities, i.e., they tend to be sociopathic.

No, it makes perfect sense. Precisely as you say above it is a philosophical stance. Of course you can be a compassionate moral nihilist. I even presented definitions. You even agree that what I described were instincts and that moral nihilism is a philosophical stance.

I can only guess you have added meanings, which many lay people do, to the word 'nihilist'. That they are negattive about people and life. But this is wrong. It is a meta-ethical stance that there are not absolute morals. That need not change one's instincts and since I know moral nihilists also in the flesh, I know they to be empathetic and one would not know from their behavior they don't think there are morals. Of course there are also, otu there, moral nihilists who are not so nice. Just as there are people who are moral objectivists or absoutists who are not nice.

[Felix]

I can only guess you have added meanings, which many lay people do, to the word 'nihilist'.

You are the one who has added meanings to the term that it does not possess. The word nihilism comes from the Latin nihil, meaning none or empty, i.e., life has no meaning or value, and all moral and ethical beliefs are merely arbitrary. How would compassion jive with that? Compassion for what, another person's meaningless existence?

[Karpel Tunnel]

I can only guess you have added meanings, which many lay people do, to the word 'nihilist'.

You are the one who has added meanings to the term that it does not possess. The word nihilism comes from the Latin nihil, meaning none or empty, i.e., life has no meaning or value, and all moral and ethical beliefs are merely arbitrary. How would compassion jive with that? Compassion for what, another person's meaningless existence?

Felix, you are simply wrong about what moral nihilism means.

Ethical nihilism or moral nihilism rejects the possibility of absolute moral or ethical values. Instead, good and evil are nebulous, and values addressing such are the product of nothing more than social and emotive pressures.

It is a metaethical position about the existence of absolute morals and it weighs in on the negative.

All the stuff I said about emotions empathy has nothing to do with moral nihilism.

My point was that having a philosophical stance, a metaethical stance that there are no absolute morals, does not mean that one cannot be empathetic, want to be social, etc. I was saying it rules that out.

You seem to be talking about nihilism, not moral nihilism. The thread is about moral nihilism.

I have not seen you make any argument. You just keep stating things.

[Karpel Tunnel]

You are the one who has added meanings to the term that it does not possess. The word nihilism comes from the Latin nihil, meaning none or empty, i.e., life has no meaning or value, and all moral and ethical beliefs are merely arbitrary. How would compassion jive with that? Compassion for what, another person's meaningless existence?

And just in case any of that got lost.
1) one need not be a nice person if one is a moral nihilist, but nothing about being a moral nihilist means one cannot have empathy.
2) moral nihilism is not nihilism, which is what you are referring to
3) demonstrate why a person cannot be an empathetic person, a good friend and parent while being a moral nihilist.

[Felix]

My point was that it is not just a philosophical stance but a psychological one too, it reflects the psychology of the individual who holds it. This is implicit in the quote you gave, "values addressing such (i.e., good and evil) are the product of nothing more than social and emotive pressures."

Karpel Tunnel: My point was that having a philosophical stance, a metaethical stance that there are no absolute morals

Obviously there are no absolute morals, the nihilist goes further than that, he says there cannot be any intersubjective foundation for morals (because "they are simply the product of social and emotive pressures"). But are not empathy and compassion the foundation for morality? The nihilist denies that they can be because, being deficient in them, he cannot see how they can be the basis of morality - as I said, his philosophy reflects his psyche.

[Karpel Tunnel]

My point was that it is not just a philosophical stance but a psychological one too, it reflects the psychology of the individual who holds it. This is implicit in the quote you gave, "values addressing such (i.e., good and evil) are the product of nothing more than social and emotive pressures."

Obviously there are no absolute morals,

It may be obvious to you and the moral nihilist, but not to most people.

the nihilist goes further than that,

The nihilist may, but all one needs to beleive to be a moral nihilist is that.

he says there cannot be any intersubjective foundation for morals (because "they are simply the product of social and emotive pressures").

Which is what makes for our intersubjectivity. Our intersubjectivity comes out of our emotions and social pressures and out preferences. And these in turn are affected strongly by our instincts, which include empathy and wanting to be close to people. There are of course other instincts.

But are not empathy and compassion the foundation for morality?

They need not be. They can simply be the foundation for social relations, for someone who does not believe that there are absolute or objective values.

The nihilist denies that they can be because, being deficient in them, he cannot see how they can be the basis of morality - as I said, his philosophy reflects his psyche.

Find me something that says the moral nihilist - NOT A NIHILIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! necessarily at all - must lack empathy and compassion. That is not what moral nihilist is. It is a meta-ethical position. A philosophical stance. A thought out position arrived at through whatever deductive and intuition highly verbal metal processes they use to arrive at this.

You are adding in qualities.