Refutations of the truth of Moral Nihilism?

strobe

Hi, I was wondering if anyone here could direct me towards (or indeed introduce their own) what they consider to be good criticisms or refutations of the meta-ethical stance of 'moral nihilism'?

Having trouble finding anything too substantial via google.

Cheers.

18AD

I don't think I know of any. What are the arguments for moral nihilism that you're looking at?

Black Swan

Moral nihilism is referenced under moral skepticism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in particular:

"Moral nihilism here is not about what is semantically or metaphysically possible. It is just a substantive, negative, existential claim that there does not exist anything that is morally wrong;" i.e., simply stated "Moral Nihilism = Nothing is morally wrong."

These more in depth arguments that pertain to moral skepticism, and in particular moral nihilism, may be of interest to you:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral/

Also, taking a bit of a different approach found in Economy and Society, one may argue that if you take Max Weber's instrumentally rational approach to the extreme, it may completely negate things value rational (in some cases), to where moral nihilism is realised in practice; i.e., the most effective and efficient way to get from A to B, or what has been alternatively called means-ends rationality, justifies itself without reference to morality.

In terms of a refutation of moral nihilism, Weber has contended that no one is "value free," consequently extreme means-ends rationality may make for a grand hypothetical discussion (as would moral nihilism), but in practice it fails, and may lead to a conflict between means-ends rationality and value rational.

Morbert

Moral nihilism is compatible with values. I would say moral nihilism is true, but I still have values, and still adopt moral principles.

Joe1919

In the political and economic area, there has been some interesting research that suggests that economists often make the mistake of ignoring the moral dimention and in assuming that people always act in their own self interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics

These guys (noble prize winners) try to show how Reaganomics, Thatcherism, and the rational expectations revolution failed to account for things such as confidence, fear, bad faith, corruption, a concern for fairness etc.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8967.html

also (this author works in Ireland's ESRI)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/nov/01/economics

Fukuyama also made ones need for recognition of our self worth (or dignity) central to his defence of liberal democracies.
http://www.wesjones.com/eoh.htm

raah!

Any positive moral theory which can stand up to the negative arguments of moral nihilism is a "refutation" of moral nihilism. It's more a case that moral nihilism does not refute them however.

Morbert wrote: »

Moral nihilism is compatible with values. I would say moral nihilism is true, but I still have values, and still adopt moral principles.

I don't know if you can say moral nihilism == moral relativism. I think it's best understood as black swan puts it "Moral Nihilism = Nothing is morally wrong." There's already a term for Moral Relativism, and it's Moral Relativism.

Either way, I would put forward that moral relativism collapses very quickly into moral nihilism or at least, in our modern society: some kind of "moral system" based solely around the maximisation of ones individual pleasures without regard to the actions of others. And that the behaviours of someone who adopts this are effectively the same as moral nihilism