Moral Nihlism

[Liverpool]

[Mod note: Topic was posted by Liverpool twice, so I have bundled them into one]

IF I believe there NO morality exsists - can I believe in the importance of doing the right thing, rather than behaving in a negetive way?

Can I still believe in good over evil?

Even though I don't believe morals exsist, minimising our impact on this earth is important to me. I believe in choosing to do the right thing over the wrong thing is. I believe in avoiding cause harm to others....

If moral nihlism is my thing, can I believe in that?

Can I believe causing harm is bad?

Especially if it's unnecessary harm?

====================

If you take the position of (moral) nihilism.

Does taking up that position mean that you can't believe that there is a difference between right and wrong?

See currently I believe that there are no morals.

But I also do believe that there is a difference between right and wrong. If I take the position of moral nihilism, can I still value doing what I believe is the right over what I believe is the wrong? Can I believe in doing good over evil?

Is there a difference between acting in the right way and acting in the wrong way, compared to what is moral and immoral?

If I believe there are no morals, can I still claim to believe in doing the right thing is important? ... do un-towards others as they would to you etc etc, can I apply the golden rule to moral nihilism?

[Kaz_1983]

I suppose it boils down to, can you think something is wrong (and/or unnecessary) but still be moral neutral?

[LuckyR]

[Mod note: Topic was posted by Liverpool twice, so I have bundled them into one]

IF I believe there NO morality exsists - can I believe in the importance of doing the right thing, rather than behaving in a negetive way?

Can I still believe in good over evil?

Even though I don't believe morals exsist, minimising our impact on this earth is important to me. I believe in choosing to do the right thing over the wrong thing is. I believe in avoiding cause harm to others....

If moral nihlism is my thing, can I believe in that?

Can I believe causing harm is bad?

Especially if it's unnecessary harm?

====================

If you take the position of (moral) nihilism.

Does taking up that position mean that you can't believe that there is a difference between right and wrong?

See currently I believe that there are no morals.

But I also do believe that there is a difference between right and wrong. If I take the position of moral nihilism, can I still value doing what I believe is the right over what I believe is the wrong? Can I believe in doing good over evil?

Is there a difference between acting in the right way and acting in the wrong way, compared to what is moral and immoral?

If I believe there are no morals, can I still claim to believe in doing the right thing is important? ... do un-towards others as they would to you etc etc, can I apply the golden rule to moral nihilism?

Dude, you are all over the place. If you are a moral nihilist, then you personally don't believe in right and wrong. You may be smart enough to realize that others believe in them, but you don't. Thus most of your questions evaporate. That isn't to say that you would treat all options equally, you are free to rank them as better and worse on various scales. It is just that "righteousness" and "wrongfulness" are not options for you.

[Liverpool]

[Mod note: Topic was posted by Liverpool twice, so I have bundled them into one]

IF I believe there NO morality exsists - can I believe in the importance of doing the right thing, rather than behaving in a negetive way?

Can I still believe in good over evil?

Even though I don't believe morals exsist, minimising our impact on this earth is important to me. I believe in choosing to do the right thing over the wrong thing is. I believe in avoiding cause harm to others....

If moral nihlism is my thing, can I believe in that?

Can I believe causing harm is bad?

Especially if it's unnecessary harm?

====================

If you take the position of (moral) nihilism.

Does taking up that position mean that you can't believe that there is a difference between right and wrong?

See currently I believe that there are no morals.

But I also do believe that there is a difference between right and wrong. If I take the position of moral nihilism, can I still value doing what I believe is the right over what I believe is the wrong? Can I believe in doing good over evil?

Is there a difference between acting in the right way and acting in the wrong way, compared to what is moral and immoral?

If I believe there are no morals, can I still claim to believe in doing the right thing is important? ... do un-towards others as they would to you etc etc, can I apply the golden rule to moral nihilism?

Dude, you are all over the place. If you are a moral nihilist, then you personally don't believe in right and wrong. You may be smart enough to realize that others believe in them, but you don't. Thus most of your questions evaporate. That isn't to say that you would treat all options equally, you are free to rank them as better and worse on various scales. It is just that "righteousness" and "wrongfulness" are not options for you.

That's what I kinda meant. Thanks.

[h_k_s]

Moral nihilism does not sound very sound to me.

Many of the great philosophers of the past have come up with systems to evaluate what is best in any given situation.

For Aristotle, it is the magnanimous man concept.

For Immanuel Kant, it is the question of what if everyone did this thing?

For Jesus of Nazareth in his philosopher mode, it is what you want others to do to you do likewise to them.

Those are each pretty good systems.

Nihilism makes no sense at all. It even sound self defeating.

[LuckyR]

Dude, you are all over the place. If you are a moral nihilist, then you personally don't believe in right and wrong. You may be smart enough to realize that others believe in them, but you don't. Thus most of your questions evaporate. That isn't to say that you would treat all options equally, you are free to rank them as better and worse on various scales. It is just that "righteousness" and "wrongfulness" are not options for you.

That's what I kinda meant. Thanks.

Then you are a moral nihilist after all. Many are in that category (approximately 2% of the population, or about 6.4 million in the USA).

BTW what, if anything, in your opinion is the difference between moral nihilism and sociopathy?

[detail]

[Mod note: Topic was posted by Liverpool twice, so I have bundled them into one]

IF I believe there NO morality exsists - can I believe in the importance of doing the right thing, rather than behaving in a negetive way?

Can I still believe in good over evil?

Even though I don't believe morals exsist, minimising our impact on this earth is important to me. I believe in choosing to do the right thing over the wrong thing is. I believe in avoiding cause harm to others....

If moral nihlism is my thing, can I believe in that?

Well since the times i visited LA and saw that dead homeless people were simply piled onto a pyramid on the beach, which is called beach piling
one could at least leave this sarcastic stuff of human rights etc. We all know that since the film "les amant du pont neuf", the reality not shown
to others is somehow devastating radical. If one even observes how homeless people in berlin , who built a 3000 people homeless camp were treated by the police and partially even killed this should indicate that all this is hypocrisy.

[Liverpool]

BTW what, if anything, in your opinion is the difference between moral nihilism and sociopathy?

The pointlessness of existence and action is ultimately a justification of taking joy in the freedom inherent in irreverence instead of lamenting in the freedom of nothing having ultimate purpose.

I'm still learning/reading about it tho'

[LuckyR]

BTW what, if anything, in your opinion is the difference between moral nihilism and sociopathy?

The pointlessness of existence and action is ultimately a justification of taking joy in the freedom inherent in irreverence instead of lamenting in the freedom of nothing having ultimate purpose.

I'm still learning/reading about it tho'

Not a bad outlook in general for some. And a good review of the upside of moral nihilism. However since none of us is an island, the complication comes when folks need to interact. Hence the need to make a classification called: "sociopathy". My point is: what is the difference between moral nihilism (for the individual) and sociopathy (as a description of a type of interaction)?

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

[Kaz_1983]

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'm thinking about taking a moral nihilistic position on right and wrong. I don't see how you can claim that you believe something is objectively wrong/immoral but do it from a subjective framework. It doesn't make sense.

Is murder wrong. Yes.

Why social empathy/contract, but does that make it immoral? No.

Is saving a person life the right thing to do? Yes.

Why empathy/social contract but does that make it morally the right thing to do? No.

If a moral nihilist values empathy, can the above work?

[Karpel Tunnel]

I'm thinking about taking a moral nihilistic position on right and wrong. I don't see how you can claim that you believe something is objectively wrong/immoral but do it from a subjective framework. It doesn't make sense.

I don't think I asserted that - I mean, I don't think I wrote so unclearly that it seemed that way. But let's clear it up.

I was talking about moral nihilists, who do not believe there is something objectively right or wrong about actions, but given that they are social mammals, can still, of course, feel empathy, care about people, dislike harming people and so on. So a moral nihilist does not have to be a sociopath.

If a moral nihilist values empathy, can the above work?

I think there's too many words in that sentence. A moral nihilist can be empathetic.

They just don't believe in God or some objective way to determine what is moral.

It's a bit like taste in eating. I don't believe that chocolate ice cream is objectively better tasting than vanilla, but I prefer it. Given that we are empathetic creatures, most of us anyway, we can still act in ways that are what other people would call moral, even if we are moral nihilists. It's a built in preference. For most people who are not damaged by abusive childhoods and neglect and often many of these also, when we see someone in pain, our brains act quite similarly to when we are in pain ourselves. Moral nihilists can like other people, want to get along, want to have friends, want not to go to jail, want to have a reputation as someone to trust.

IOW there are a wealth of motivations a moral nihilist can still have to behave in ways others would consider caring and good. And actually the moral nihilists I have met, are generally like this.

Sociopaths are another story.

[Kaz_1983]

I'm thinking about taking a moral nihilistic position on right and wrong. I don't see how you can claim that you believe something is objectively wrong/immoral but do it from a subjective framework. It doesn't make sense.

I don't think I asserted that - I mean, I don't think I wrote so unclearly that it seemed that way. But let's clear it up.

I took you out of context a bit I think.

But yeah, cheers for clearing it up for us..

[Kaz_1983]

I was talking about moral nihilists, who do not believe there is something objectively right or wrong about actions, but given that they are social mammals, can still, of course, feel empathy, care about people, dislike harming people and so on. So a moral nihilist does not have to be a sociopath.

I was just going off topic a bit, rambling off the top of my head... nahhh I was into subjective morality before but over time I've been questioning it more and more tbh. That's why I'm mentioned "from a subjective framework..." ..

See I'm trying a system find a system that works for me, subjective morality doesn't work for me and objective morality doesn't either. I've read the Sam Harris book but after thinking for a bit I came to the conclusion that "why should we value well-being?" Trans-subjective morality interested me but then I came to as myself "do morals exsist anyways?" .. so that lead me to moral nihilism

It's a bit like taste in eating. I don't believe that chocolate ice cream is objectively better tasting than vanilla, but I prefer it. Given that we are empathetic creatures, most of us anyway, we can still act in ways that are what other people would call moral, even if we are moral nihilists. It's a built in preference.

I agree the "chocolate ice cream is not objectively better tasting than vanilla, but rather it's just that I prefer it" ... I like that analogy. It's kinda how I feel about empathy - having genuine empathy isn't something you objectively should value but it's prefered that you do kinda thing.

Does that follow on from what you said?

[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.