Resolving Moral Nihilism

I think that when HaHaHa says “moral universalism” he does not mean to say that morality is not situational but that one’s own biological type/identity does not have impact on deciding what is moral and what is not.

What could be more clear?

I don’t classify vague or ambiguous one liners as much of a philosophical argument whatsoever Faust.

You’re suppose to be the smart one around here. I need you to wow or impress me more than that.

Convince me of your argument. :wink:

I’m saying as a moral nihilist, amoralist, and skeptic that morality or ethics has much to do with nothing at all other than bullshit authoritarian obfuscation in terms of controlling populations socially to fit the needs of whatever regime of the state that happens to be in control.

Haven’t found anybody that can argue the contrary as of yet.

Yeah, I just don’t buy into the whole situational ethics or morality argument since it is still using moral objectivism as criteria for a set standard to appeal in judgement.

Without objectivism morality or ethics doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Neither ideology of course can prove without a doubt any criteria of moral or ethical objectivity. This is where morality and ethics just falls into linguistical emotivism concerning emotional appeal, nothing more.

Without the false appeal to objectivism morality and ethics amounts to much of nothing at all.

Even philosophy has two sides: a theoretical and a practical side. Ethics is the practical side of philosophy. But there is time and thus change too. So if you lived within a Stone Age group, you would know that, for example, killing another human always means that this is either (1.) in the interest of your group or (2.) not in the interest of your group. A third interpretation of it is not possible, because it is either (a) not known or (b) not allowed (it is a taboo). But since about 6000 years this has changed. Many interpretations have become possible and led to various groups (now called “societies”) with various moralities/ethics, judgements, punishments and whole systems of them (and even the lack of them without being in the Stone Age but in chaotic situations). And provided that it is true that a return to the Stone Age is not possible and that similar situations are merely possible after a chaos, then we will have to continue to experience the further change of morality/ethics or/and to wait for that chaos.

I would argue that in all periods of human history people confuse morality with other behavioral dynamics constantly at work. Most people are oblivious to these complicated social dynamics. Authoritarians of various stripes on the other hand want people to believe in morality and ethics, black or white in simple ideological form because it makes people all the more socially manageable.

Bullshit philosophers have answers to everything but mostly of little substance and without any clarity or foresight whatsoever.

What are these “other behavioral dynamics”?

Natural dynamics I call them.

It’s like, a 15 year old man has sex with a 30 year old girl. He’s happy, she’s happy, but these frowners (I call them) want to make them miserable. They don’t understand this thing called “natural dynamics”.

It’s like, a man slaps his wife after she says some hateful, nasty things to him. The natural dynamics would be, the man is hurt on the inside, and the natural reflex is to expel the negative energies on the the target source. But the frowners (I call them) can’t understand that, they just see it as black and white good and bad, rules and regs and that is how they drop nuclear bombs on civilization yet maintain this rigid conformance to their path and plan of society that leads nowhere.

Oh, is that it?

Yes. The part where I disagree with Joker he sees the hidden dynamics as something complex whereas I do not.

The hidden dynamics are
Dasein(Feminine, receptive) - A child is born, taught what is good what is bad.
Eventually she automatically forms a response to whatever the media says.
She makes the association 15 year old man having sex with 30 year old woman is bad, because media says so.
Intercourse is bad, because apostle paul says so.
She wants to fit in, afraid of being cast out of the group, so whatever they say is bad she says as well.

Nature(Hermaphroditic)
Eventually, she escapes dasein, begins to question what is good and bad, more in tune with her natural nature.
More accepting of nature and natural dynamics.
More questioning of social narratives.

The behavioral dynamics I speak of revolve around egoism, selfishness, self preservation, hedonism, desire of power, nepotism, and so on. Still, nobody likes talking about those things where people instead wrap these subjects under morality or ethics because it makes them “feel good”. It makes them “feel good” about themselves and the world around them even though it’s all just a giant facade.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Let’s take self-preservation as an example. Typically one is able to perform actions in self-defense which would be considered immoral in a non-life threatening situation. What does that have to do with “feeling good”? Are you saying that situations are being mislabeled as self-preservation when they are not self-preservation?

The first rule of morality is to be moral … always … independent of the situation.

Of course, the rest of the rules specify what is moral in each situation.

No, more like human beings mislabeling and misidentifying their own behaviors in order to suit their own delusional ideal systems. Are you following along here with me? :wink:

It’s not enough to acknowledge what human reality and existence is because it’s horrifying really so the fiction peddlers also known as intellectual academics of our day do whatever it takes to put a misleading positive spin on everything to make everybody “feel good” since emotions are pretty much paramount to human civilization.

This all coincides with controlling the social existential narrative of everything by those institutions that call themselves authorities. Carefully crafted facades are necessary in controlling populations especially concerning their emotions.

You need to define moral nihilism.

Moral Nihilism results from the extreme cases of moral skepticism which maintain the absence of any intrinsic value, constituting any decision, situation or thing as right or wrong. Nothing is inherently right or wrong and is not relative or universal because values do not exist without us.

This sentence is not correct since even objective human morality does not exist without humans. Nor does relative human morality.