Hopefully there are at least one on these boards. As you may already know, ethical nihilists believe nothing is inherently good or bad. And what we call ethical statements, are essentially all false. Or without objectivity in any event. Ethics are in many ways a human convention. And they do differ wildly between time and time, or even culture and culture today. But I for one, still believe they are rational, and can be proven. Although I do tell you I am very openminded. And I realize I may be wrong, since if nothing else, IANAPhilosopher. But there are four questions I always wanted to ask an ethical nihilist, in any event: 1.) How do you avoid the fact that there are situations that call for answers. Like I said on another board, there is a little girl trapped down in a well (not literally of course, just hypothetically). Do you save her? Or just leave her there? An ethical nihilist might say, I don't care. Just leave her there. But wouldn't that be a moral decision of course? Science offers answers for everything else. Why not this situation too? 2.) Ethics are arguably the most important thing in human life. They tell us how to live. They tell us how resources are to be allocated. They resolve important disputes. Do you deny this fact? 3.) As human cultures advance, they often become more merciful and compassionate. And some people may argue too, that certain traits, like mercy and kindness, are superior to traits like hate and cruelty. Do you deny this too? And finally, 4.) When people say that things like the Nazi holocaust (just to cite one horrible example) were really terrible, they are not just emoting. They are referring to the horrible pain and suffering the people endured in those tragedies. Do you deny that pain is always experienced as horrible? I don't know if that could be called objective (little help?). But it certainly is universal. Do you deny that? Thank you in advance for your help, whoever answers my questions. And thank you to whoever just posts. I am opening the discussion to laymen too, of course, and other board members.
science does not "offer answers", it sequentially and successively zeros in, on the most probable ways in which things work. not being a nihilist, ethical or otherwise, i do not dispute the value of all considerations, though i also do not deny the need for them to be logically and honesty analyzed. cultures can evolve, moral responsibility is a litmus measure of their doing so, but they do not do so automatically, but rather by reducing the dominance of aggressiveness, by finding and creating methods by which to prevent the dominance of aggressiveness and aggressive inconsiderateness suffering can be objectively observed, as a real thing, not merely and emotion experience, nor emotional reaction to one. i can and do however, dispute the role of religious and ideological belief, and the predominance of it in that role, as opposed to logic in the service of consideration. socio-cultural tragedies like genocides happen because of rejection of logic, consideration and logic in the service of consideration. they can happen in any context of ideology or belief, when the condition prevails.
