Moral Nihilism

Vichy

Morality really makes absolutely no sense. It is an assertion that one 'ought' to do/not do something without a reference to actual ends held by someone; or that something 'is' bad/good without reference to values actually held by someone. It simply makes no logical sense to make assertions about imperatives and values which are not actually consistent with a particular agents imperatives or values.

No one can have any 'reason' to do anything except his own reason. Even if you sway him with arguing, it is his opinion which has changed and it is his values he is acting upon. Thus if an agent has a factual difference of values with your 'moral' claims, he literally has no reason to accept them.

Human beings undoubtedly have an evolved tendency to feel 'as though' certain things are required - sociobiology being what it is - but a feeling is all that it is. It amazes me how Hume's arguments alone are enough to refute virtually every moral or ethical claim I've ever come across, and yet people still make these claims as though they were obvious as day. When one gets into the further literature - Max Stirner, Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Joyce, Sinnott-Armstrong - we begin to see not that moral claims are false but that they are literally nonsensical. Morality, in the present era, has no excuse except simple ignorance - it's propaganda, through and through. And this is exactly how people use it. When one runs out of arguments or inducements, one turns to 'moral' claims. Despite their intellectual vaccuosness, these claims are quite psychologically effective (like religion, which essentially gains its power from moral claims - that god is good, that disbelief is evil, etc.)

"The language of 'You ought' and particularly of 'duty' is frequently used in cases where the agent has no reason for doing what he is told other than the fact that it is his duty." - P.H. Nowell-Smith

Goduznt Xzst

I would consider myself a moral nihilist (oddly though it tends to be misconstrued with hedonism I've found when I admit to it out loud :rolleyes:)

Also, to say there is no moral duty to act a certain way does not also prove that there is no value in a given course of morality. It can be shown, not easily I'd agree, that a course of morality can be beneficial and lead to objective value.

But you are correct, for the most part morality is subjective.

Vichy

I'm an egoist (of the, obviously, non-ethical variety). I mean, it's just sort of an existential fact - as I said in the first place, everything you do is based on your values. So I consciously acknowledge that there is nothing 'above' my values. Ideology drives me nuts.

Denerick

Yes, this is all well and good and interesting as a parlour game. But it has no function in society. Morality is simply a processing control of society. Without it we might as well live in anarchy (correct that, without it we would live in anarchy)

I wouldn't trust the likes of 90% of the people who vote in the Big Brother show to form their own 'sense of the world'. To be frank, people like that need to be told whats good for them. God forbid what would happen if they just started doing whatever the hell pleased them.

Vichy

Denerick wrote: »

Yes, this is all well and good and interesting as a parlour game. But it has no function in society. Morality is simply a processing control of society. Without it we might as well live in anarchy (correct that, without it we would live in anarchy)

I wouldn't trust the likes of 90% of the people who vote in the Big Brother show to form their own 'sense of the world'. To be frank, people like that need to be told whats good for them. God forbid what would happen if they just started doing whatever the hell pleased them.

Whatever the merits of this as a sociological claim, it still doesn't change the philosophical ground. And who is so qualified as to what has a 'function' in 'society'? And why should I give a damn about society? And even if I should, why not hypocrisy?

Joe1919

There are arguments that altruism is found in nature. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

Charles Darwin who when discussing altruistic and self-sacrificial behaviour among humans, states that tribe members who "were always ready to aid one another and to sacrifice themselves for the common, would be victorious over most other tribes"
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_05.html

I also disagree with you about David Hume, who was particularly outraged by the idea of Psychological Egoism (or 'self love') which he considered to be "utterly incompatible with all virtue or moral sentiment; and as it can proceed from nothing but the most depraved disposition, so in its turn it tends still further to encourage that depravity". Hume puts forward a number of arguments against Psychological Egoism, one being that "Animals are found susceptible to kindness" and another the very passionate and moving story of a mother "who loses her health by assiduous attendance on her sick child, and afterwards languishes and dies of grief, when freed, by its death, from the slavery of that attendance" as examples of altruism. David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals,
http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/Hume-Enquiry%20Concerning%20Morals.htm#app2

There is a paradox that the more conscious we are of our need of enjoyment, the less likely we are to enjoy ourselves, or "An exclusive desire for happiness is the surest way to prevent happiness". The best way to happiness is to be unselfish and to get pleasure from other peoples happiness. We get the most pleasure in life from our interest in other people.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/#1

Vichy

There are arguments that altruism is found in nature.

This is to misunderstand philosophical egoism. It is not a psychological claim, but an existential one. It is not that all people are 'selfish' in a sort of everyday sense, but that all values and motives are particular to an actor. The opposite of philosophical egoism is not altruism, but idealism - the notion that there are 'intrinsic', 'higher' or 'external' values - when, in fact, such values are logical rubbish. Whatever I value, it is I who value it and if I did not - it would not be valuable.

I also disagree with you about David Hume, who was particularly outraged by the idea of Psychological Egoism (or 'self love') which he considered to be "utterly incompatible with all virtue or moral sentiment;

Again, the claim is not for psychological but for philosophical (or existential) egoism. And saying that egoism is "utterly incompatible with all virtue" etc. proves nothing, except that (if egoism is true) then virtue and moral sentiments are necessarily false. In fact, moral assertions are not false, but nonsensical. Moral sentiments are quite real, but sentiments have nothing to do with facts.

There is a paradox that the more conscious we are of our need of enjoyment, the less likely we are to enjoy ourselves, or "An exclusive desire for happiness is the surest way to prevent happiness".

Again, this is irrelevant to the accuracy of the philosophical claims. Furthermore a consistent philosophical egoist not only is not making claims about psychology but in fact need pay them no heed - there is nothing 'inherently' valuable about happiness, only 'satisfaction' conceived in the most general sense motivates a teleological actor. Some people value independence, knowledge, safetysurvival etc. more highly than happiness and it is impossible to say that they are 'wrong' to do so.

Joe1919

Vichy wrote: »

In fact, moral assertions are not false, but nonsensical. Moral sentiments are quite real, but sentiments have nothing to do with facts.

Many people would agree with you here that there are no moral facts, only moral feelings (passions) and moral motivations, both internal (conscience, empathy , pride etc. )and external (fear of law, chastiment, loss of respect etc.)
It appears to me (I may be wrong) that you are looking for moral realism (facts) and are underestimating the importance of moral feelings.
Hume and others argue for the primacy of the will over the intellect.(e.g.Reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions).

Although I agree with you that 'Some people value independence, knowledge, safetysurvival etc. more highly than happiness ', nevertheless, the convential argument is that these thing are only steps to happiness (instrumental).

Finally, even Aristotle agrees that morals is a hit and miss affair 'We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better.' http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html