If Moral Presumptions is the Problem...

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Jimbee68, Feb 5, 2019.

  1. Jimbee68

    Jimbee68 Member

    Messages:
    1,274
    Likes Received:
    499
    ...then what is the solution?

    In case you don't know, I am referring to moral nihilism. Here is the Wikipedia article: Moral nihilism - Wikipedia

    As you can see, some philosophers consider ethics neither true nor false (I have a slight problem that that, however...). And some philosophers consider ethical statements to be absolutely false. In other words they apparently have a problem with it.

    When people have a problem with a theory, they usually offer up a solution. People who are against global warming denial have a solution, in other words the theory of climate change and global warming. My question to moral nihilists (and I suspect we may have one or two on the boards--please chime in:smile:), if morality is the problem, what is the solution? I mean, if humans shouldn't live morally, how should they live? In anarchy hurting and killing each other?

    Just my humble question.

    :smiley::smiley::smiley:
     
  2. There should be a new name for morality. Something scientists agree on. It should be almost identical to morality, except not have anything to do with God.
     
  3. williamjarrett

    williamjarrett Members

    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Each of us has certain thoughts on the presumptions of morality, land only one percent of people are likely not to be concerned with issues of morality.
     
  4. tumbling.dice

    tumbling.dice Visitor

    It's called 'Ethical Reasoning".
     
  5. I don't like that name. Think of a better name, something catchier. Just one word, preferably.
     
  6. tumbling.dice

    tumbling.dice Visitor

  7. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam _|=|-|=|_

    Messages:
    29,419
    Likes Received:
    6,296
    These are philosophical ideas and with that in mind, unlike your global warming comparison, they don't require a solution. Offering up consistent arguments is suffice to validate their position.

    From what I gather, moral nihilists maintain, on a fundamental level, that our entire notion of ethics is essentially arbitrary. An argument along these lines might be something like ethics are chimerical classifications for a multiplicity of attitudes and behaviors that are derived from adherence to non-related abstractions.

    ^If you need any clarification on that statement, let me know.

    Perhaps an example can illustrate the idea. Most all of us have a sense that "Murder is Wrong" but we make exceptions to justify murder, such as military attacks or something like self defense in a home invasion. So once we make exceptions to the premise, it becomes contigent and therefore we cannot say that it's inherently true.

    On an intellectual level, I don't necessarily object to moral nihilism but it's not really an approach I would use as a mode to shape my attitudes on a day to day.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2019

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice