Talk:Moral nihilism

NPOV

this article seems to only include critics of moral nihilism, and to essentially state that moral nihilists hardly exist at all, and that the term is an insult used among non-moral-nihilists to each other. not a very good way to describe this topic... a more neutral point of view is needed with better documentation of actual moral nihilists and their actual beliefs and reasons for it, to balance this out. its howdy doody time !!! (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Is moral realism compatible with noncognitivism?

I don't think this is obviously the case, at least not without any further qualifications. For instance, it seems incoherent to hold both that the sentence "Values exist" expresses a true proposition, and that the sentence "x is valuable" lacks cognitive content.

In my opinion the text should rather say: "According to (?) this position on its own is logically compatible with (some versions of).." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.155.226 (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean up and expansion

Hi all. I recently went through and tried to add some to this article and clean up a bit. But it still needs work of course. I think it's important to keep the article clear and to cite sources. There's a lot of useful stuff on the web (like on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) to help keep the article on track. -- Jaymay 18:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the edits, but can I ask why we are talking about Mackie's error theory under the name "global falsity"? I mean, it's called "error theory." But maybe I'm missing something. Postmodern Beatnik 16:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I also just noticed that moral nihilism is being erroneously conflated with error theory. Non-cognitivists are also considered moral nihilists since both agree that there are no moral facts. They just disagree over why this is so. (I have encountered a defense of a "realist non-cognitivism" in which moral statements don't express propositions, but moral facts exist, but the author admitted to the idiosyncratic nature of the position.) Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have made significant changes to the article to address the concerns I raise directly above. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. I haven't looked at this entry in awhile. I was not categorizing non-cognitivism as a form of moral nihilism, but I think many people do. (I was treating them so separately because non-cognitivism is more of a semantic thesis, while nihilism is not. However, both positions certainly do agree that there are no moral truths.) - Jaymay (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant

Machiavelli, Thrasymachus, and Turgenev are irrelevant. The first two are not moral nihilists. The third is not a philosopher; writing that the view's best defense is proffered by a fictional character is insulting to many credible philosophers who have spent time on the subject. I propose that the other two paragraphs be deleted and the rest of the article address arguments for/against nihilism as they've been offered by JL Mackie and many others. 69.160.21.97 03:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Machiavelli, Thrasymachus, and Turgenev stuff is not very important. However, since there's not much in this article, I kept it in even after I added some stuff. Maybe once we have some more in the article about the arguments for and criticisms of moral nihilism it would be good to take that more irrelevant stuff out. -- Jaymay 18:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote

"It contends that moral statements are neither true nor false."

It appears to me that moral nihilists would label the statement "There is no such thing as right and wrong, and good and evil." as TRUE and the statement "There is such thing as right and wrong, and good and evil." as FALSE. Gringo300 10:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If moral nihilism includes modern forms of moral skepticism such as Mackie's, then some moral nihilists could even say that "there is such a thing as moral good and evil" is TRUE. What would be FALSE would be something like "there is moral good that transcends any actual interests, and is in that sense objective". Mackie would not have too much trouble with someone saying a knife is "good", bearing in mind that the goodness of a knife traces back to what interest we have in using knives - i.e. to cut things - so we want a knife to have a sharp blade, be strong enough to survive the resistance of whatever is being cut, etc. A knife that meets those criteria is a good one. A blunt knife or one with the blade insecurely connected to the handle, is a bad one. He'd accept that a person or an act can be "good" (or "evil") in a similar but much more complex and conflicted sense - we have complex interests in people's behaviour, character dispositions, etc., and can reach a lot of agreement on which of these are good, though it is much more complicated than with knives, etc. He will disagree with people who think that moral goodness is objective or transcendent (in the sense I'm using), and he thinks that that claim is commonly asserted or assumed in ordinary moral language. Therefore ordinary moral language contains a deep error. To that extent, we are justified in being sceptical about it. Metamagician3000 00:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

These two pages actually contain factual errors. Today, moral nihilism is seen as a type of moral skepticism, where skepticism refers to a denial of the belief in objective moral truths and nihilism refers to a denial of moral truths in general. Nihilism then splits into two categories: error theory and non-cognitivism. Error theorists, like Mackie, argue that all statements of the sort "x is right/wrong/obligatory" are false, while non-cognitivists, especially emotivists like Ayer and Stevenson, argue that statements of the sort "x is right/wrong/obligatory" are neither true nor false. Emotivists say this is because such statements are expressive of emotional reactions to the actions to which they refer. To address Gringo's comment above, neither of these theories hold that all statements about morality are false or neither true nor false. After all, that would be self-defeating as nihilists themselves are making statements about morality. It's only statements that try to attribute moral properties (like those mentioned above) that they are concerned with.

I think it would be good to merge the two articles under the title "Moral skepticism" and discuss the types of moral skepticism--nihilism, subjectivism, and relativism--under that heading. Only if these sections get fleshed out to an extreme degree should be separate them again.

I'm not a user yet, but I'm leaving a time stamp anyway. 23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be reluctant to classify all non-cognitivists as nihilists in any useful sense. It's plausible with the emotivist example of A.J. Ayer, who really does seem to want to debunk morality. But prescriptivists like Hare are also non-cognitivists (they believe that moral sentences prescribe conduct, rather than expressing beliefs as to moral facts). Such people are far from wanting to express scepticism about the guidance of morality, or wanting to debunk it. This seems far from what I understand to be the original sense of moral nihilism. I think Mackie accepted the term "nihilism", but perhaps my memory is faulty. In any event, even he was happy to make proposals about how morality should be developed. He just thought that there is a meta-ethical error built into ordinary moral thinking - not that such thinking is useless or without pragmatic justification, or whatever. If we are going to merge the articles, we'll need to be very careful. To me, moral scepticism is a meta-ethical position that may or may not have practical implications. It can be quite conservative (in the sense of protective) about ordinary moral norms. "Moral nihilism" seems to me to refer to something much more critical or debunking of whatever moral norms it historically confronts. Comments on this? I'm only offering impressions at this stage of the discussion. Metamagician3000 10:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that not all non-cognitivists are moral nihilists, but all moral nihilists are /either/ non-cognitivists or error theorists. Another important issue is that there is currently no real terminological distinction for nihilism at the metaethical and normative level. The terms "metaethical nihilism" and "moral nihilism" suggest themselves, and I typically use them in my own work, but this is not as yet an accepted set of terms (at least not to my knowledge). So while Mackie is a moral nihilist in the metaethical sense, he is not a moral nihilist in the normative sense (insofar as he develops a positive project for first order normativity). It's a terminological mess that we need to clean up before we can get anywhere with these articles.

By the way, I am the author of the anonymously time-stamped comment above. At this point, though, I recant on the issue of merging articles. The topics are important enough to deserve their own pages. Postmodern Beatnik 18:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's good. So we stay with two articles? I'm happy about that, whatever I thought a year ago.

I like your terminology - "moral nihilism" as some kind of rejection, or radical critique, of first order normativity and "metaethical nihilism" as something more like Mackie's position (and perhaps also some non-cognitivist positions). But I also agree that it's not especially standard - there really does seem to be a terminological mess out there in the literature at the moment and I can't see any NPOV way of easily solving it. I see Richard Garner wanting to call himself an "amoralist", Joshua Greene talking about "revisionism", Richard Joyce saying all sorts of interesting things. None of those are "moral nihilists" in your sense, but they are all error theorists, and "metaethical nihilists" in your sense. I seem to recall Ronald Dworkin somewhere using the expression "internal scepticism" and "external scepticism" in senses that roughtly correspond to your "moral nihilism" and "metaethical nihilism" but I don't know that it particularly caught on. We almost need to write the book on all this, to sort it out and give us something to cite, before we can make much progress with the articles, dammit. Metamagician3000 00:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned the article up a bit, pending further developments. I also deleted this sentence: "Moral nihilism's denial of moral value is also distinct from moral skepticism's questioning it, just as atheism is different from agnosticism." I don't believe the sentence is true in its current form, as "moral scepticism" often refers to a position that really does deny the truth of (part of) the cognitive content of moral sentences. It is not always merely a matter of "questioning". OTOH, the issue with moral scepticism is not necessarily one of moral value at all, as long as the value concerned can be traced back to some interest, desire etc. The moral sceptic needs only to question whether, or deny that, moral value exists in a way that is independent of these things. Metamagician3000 11:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I took out the following sentence from the entry: "Nihilism is perhaps most strikingly defended by the fictional character Bazarov, in Ivan Turgenev's novel Fathers and Sons." Turgenev's Bazarov is never portrayed as a moral nihilist. In fact, Turgenev use of the term "nihilist" for Bazarov is misleading; as Bazarov himself explains in the novel, his aim is to uproot existing institutions in Czarist Russia. Nowhere in the novel does he pontificate on moral values such as to deny their existence. Thus, he does not defend moral nihilism, but something quite different that he refers to as "nihilism". (saadanis; December 15, 2007; 2155 hrs PST)

Moral nihilism and ethical nihilism

A question that comes up is: Are moral nihilism and ethical nihilism the same thing? The same question could be asked about: moral absolutism versus ethical absolutism and moral relativism versus ethical relativism. Gringo300 22:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

They are the same thing. And in most contexts "moral" and "ethical" are interchangeable. For example, moral egoism and ethical egoism (as opposed to psychological egoism) are the same view. -- Jaymay 18:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Panagiotis Kondylis?

I just removed the following text from the article:

Value Nihilism and Panagiotis Kondylis

One of the most prominent nihilists in later years in German cyrcles of thinkers. Continuing the tradition of Weber, Marx, Nietzche he formed his own theory of description as the main scientific goal (contrary to normative claims of humanism) and described human condition in the basis of moral indifference, constant conflict between Friends and Enemies and the use of Ideology as a mean to the fundmental anthropological state of war.

In Power and Decision, one of his most famous books, he claimed that all human ideologies, perceptions and beliefs were nothing more than an effort to give to our personal interests a normative form and an objective character, deriving from our "decision" on what means we should use, who should be our friends and who our foes in our big Hobbesian struggle for -what was the most primitive and common goal among all humans- self-preservation. Ideologies are nothing more than a part of our personal "world-construction" (κοσμοκατασκευή) and our world-construction is a subjective view of the world deriving from our interests and Hobbesian survival instincts. From this point of view, he claimed that ideology and opinion in general are used as a weapon in our everyday struggle for "power" which will allow as to self-preserve ourselves.

While the information may deserve inclusion, it was poorly written, incorrectly formatted, and improperly placed. Perhaps we need to think about changing Moral Nihilists in History into two sections, one on moral nihilist philosophers and and the other on moral nihilists in literature/popular culture. But is that even an appropriate way to expand this article? I don't know. I think it is worth noting, however, that Panagiotis Kondylis' moral nihilism is not even mentioned in his own Wikipedia article.

Thoughts? Postmodern Beatnik 19:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This Introduction is extremely confusing

The part in the intro where it says how moral nihilism is (allegedly) different than ethical subjectivism and moral relativism does not make any sense to me, and seems hopelessly filled with inaccessible jargon its howdy doody time !!! (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing Error Theory

Hi all. I'm attempting to organize and clean up the meta-ethics articles around here, and a particular question I have involving the relationship between moral objectivism and moral realism depends on how Error Theory is to be categorized, and I figure you all would be the best people to provide sourced definitions to clarify this issue.

The question is whether Error Theory is specifically a form of (semantic) objectivism - that is, whether it claims that moral sentences express propositions (albeit false ones) about mind-independent facts specifically - or whether Error Theory is more generally a form of cognitivism - that is, it just claims that moral sentences express propositions which are all false, without specifying the nature of those proposition.

In the latter case, it will make categorizing some other meta-ethical theories much easier, but some of the writing here on wikipedia suggests that it may be the former case, which is how we currently have it categorized.

Please let me know what your sources say. Thanks. -Pfhorrest (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Error theory denies the metaphysical and alethic theses of robust moral realism and affirms the semantic one. In simpler terms, the error theorist argues that moral statements are truth-apt attempts to reference a moral reality that does not exist, and so systematically fail to do so. As for the relationship between moral objectivism and moral realism: At one point, the two would have been understood as synonymous (remember, these are terms invented by historians of philosophy to categorize people who often never used them). As moral anti-realists have made inroads against their opponents, weaker notions have been called "objectivism" by philosophers who didn't want to be anti-realists. Further complicating the matters is that there are several notions within ethics that the term "objectivism" can be applied to that have little or nothing to do with the more traditional usage. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Moral Nihilism leads to Corruption Sin and Evil Actions?

I have read numerous web pages that assert that having a viewpoint of moral nihilism automatically makes one evil, corrupt, immoral and sinful. They even assert that holding such a viewpoint makes the person automatically become a murdering adulterer rapist and so on.

My own view is that even if a person were a moral nihilist they would not necessarily be drawn to commit acts of murder, rape or other crimes just because they do noty believe in morals really existing. I think that even if they don't believe morality is real, even if they think its a manmade thing created to restrict freedom, that they would still behave within the bounds of normal society due to self preservation instincts. They would likely not murder because they don't wish to go to jail or have the death penalty enforced on them, that they would choose not to steal because they don't want to ruin their lives. In other words I think even moral nihilists might be inclined to conform to societal standards simply because its the easiest path to take.

I'd like other peoples views on this: Does being a moral nihilist automatically make a person a corrupt murdering sociopath as some websites suggest? (Sorry I can't list the sites but I didn't copy their adresses down since I left as soon as I read their irrational premises) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.233.194 (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I know you mean well, but this is page is for discussion on how to improve the encyclopaedia article, not a forum for general discussion of moral nihilism.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Lede Unspeakable

Got to point where I would have been adding something like "Moral nihilism or amoralism is conflated in this article with a general stance of meta-ethical neutrality as is required by a number of rationalist philosophical positions such as utilitarianism.". So you can take it from here. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean here, however one of the changes you just made in the article is inaccurate, and conflates moral nihilism with moral anti-realism. While certainly all moral nihilists must also reject moral realism, many who reject moral realism hold that moral statements are valid in relative contexts and so are not complete moral nihilists (though you could, and I would, argue that meta-ethical moral relativism really collapses to moral nihilism, but that's OR), and some who reject robust moral realism are still nevertheless moral universalists even, such as proponents of ideal observer theory and universal prescriptivism. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank You. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge moral nihilism and amorality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Reject merging of Moral nihilism and Amorality article(s), per wp:Consensus, on the grounds that the two topics are independent of one another, with Moral nihilism being a "meta-ethical view" on the existence of morality, while Amorality itself is the concept of existing without morality. Furthermore, this discussion took place on the page Talk:Moral skepticism, but did not concern the article Moral skepticism. This merger discussion archive has been moved to the appropriate page for reference.

---

Moral nihilism Vote Merge Amorality Vote Merge All three of these positions should be handled by the same entry. All some form of rejection of morality, almost always closely tied together and asserted together. I think "Moral Skepticism" is the entry to unify all of these positions/concepts under because "skepticism" and "moral skepticism" is the label most often used by philosophers to discuss these issues in both ethics and epistemology. - Atfyfe (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This should not be merged, there is a large difference, skepticism is being skeptical of any claims that there is a meaning/reason to life, nihilism is determining that there is not a reason for our life. Nihilism almost always eventually leads to suicide, but skeptics can lead long happy lives.Lee Tru. (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Lee's closing comments here are really appropriate, but I agree that a merger is unwarranted because, as he suggests, skepticism is an epistemological position, while nihilism is an ontological position. The skeptic says we don't know or can't prove moral claims; the nihilist says they are definitely false. Certainly skepticism can lead to nihilism, but it doesn't have to, and the two are not the same. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thirded. No merger. I agree that Lee's editorializing is utterly ridiculous and betrays a gross misunderstanding of meta-ethical positions and in particular the claims of moral error theorists. Nevertheless, Lee is correct that moral nihilists are committed to a stronger claim than moral skeptics. "Moral nihilism" is a subspecies of moral skepticism, though there are certainly moral skeptics, who are not moral nihilists. Merger is a preposterous idea. That would be like proposing a merger between the article on "frogs" and the article on "amphibians." 151.42.63.157(talk) 17:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Moral nihilism is an amoral meta-ethical philosophy, but amorality is not necessarily a product of moral ratiocination: animals, corporations, robots, systems, and other entities can and often do exhibit amorality.   — C M B J   00:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I strongly DISAGREE with merging "moral nihilism" with "amorality", since they are entirely different and unrelated things. The first commenter above states that in their opinion they are both "some form of rejection of morality", but this is wrong, since amorality is precisely *not* a rejection of anything. A rock is amoral. A tree is amoral. A person who has no moral agency is amoral. None of these beings reject morality. A being who rejects morality is *immoral*, not amoral. - KS 21 Oct 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added byKsolway (talk • contribs) 10:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-cognitivist forms of moral universalism?

Given the article states the following, moral universalism mutually excludes non-cognitivsm:

"...moral universalism, which holds moral statements to be objectively true or false."

"Non-cognitivism in ethics is the view that moral statements lack truth-value and do not assert genuine propositions."

How, then, can it also truthfully state the following:

"... the universal prescriptivism of R.M. Hare is a non-cognitivist form of moral universalism."

?

--86.3.29.53 (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The first statement you quote is in error; that's objectivism, not universalism. I'll fix that tomorrow. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is moral nihilism?

The article nihilism describes moral nihilism as the assertion "that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived", while this article says it "is the meta-ethical view that nothing is morally right or wrong. Moral nihilism is distinct from moral relativism, which allows for actions wrong relative to a particular culture or individual.", which to me does not seem consistent with one another. Does moral nihilism completely reject the notion of morality or does it permit actions to be right or wrong relative to cultural differences? 37KZ (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The other article is wrong and should be changed. —Pfhorrest (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20060830031659/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Citation removed as it was citing a copyvio

Hello. I had to remove some copyvio from Stanford University. However, a citation was citing this copyvio and would no longer be used as there's no content to cite. To avoid having this citation lost, I've cited it here in case someone wants to use this citation without adding any copyrighted text:

• Almeida, Michael (2010). "Two Challenges to Moral Nihilism". Monist. 93 (1): 96–105. doi:10.5840/monist20109316. ISSN 0026-9662.

Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)