Well, then we understand the meaning of creating “a context” here differently.
From my perspective, we have to go here in order to explore it more substantively:
In other words, address it without actually taking our respective “moral nihilisms” out for a spin in the real world of actual conflicting goods more or less derived from the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein.
Besides, over and again I note that what I believe here and now about moral nihilism is in itself just another existential contraption.
I am always intent on exploring the extent to which non-objectivists either do or do not construe their behaviors as down in the hole that “I” am in.
You seem to fall back on something of a “pragmatic” rendering of conflicting goods that does not resonate with me. You seem less fractured and fragmented than I am, but I really don’t grasp how that actually “works” for you [for all practical purposes] when your own values come into conflict with others.
My own understanding of dasein as an existential contraption here just doesn’t seem to concern you.
Then you completely misunderstand me. From my frame of mind “here and now” this…
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
…seems to be a reasonable manner in which to react to conflicting goods. But I would never argue that it is the only way to think about them. Let alone argue that thinking this way is “inevitable” [obligatory] for all rational men and women.
What makes it an existential contraption for me is the fact that I know that new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas may well reconfigure “I” here once again — as it has so many times in the past.
And even here I’m assuming that a wholly determined universe does not propel/compel “I” into a future that can only ever be.
Or that God does not exist.
And, really, come on, how would any us have a handle on that?
All I can do here is attempt to communicate to others what moral nihilism means to me given the assumption that 1] human autonomy does in fact exist in some measure and 2] that God does not exist.
I would not however use the expression “necessarily follows” in examining this “out in the world”.
To speak of what follows necessarily is to have access to that which encompasses an understanding of who or what is behind the existence of existence itself.
And that’s not me.
Okay, but we will still need a context in which to examine either the existential or the essential parameters of whatever Reality may or may not be. And then to examine how Human Reality fits into that.
How “integrated” must prison officials be in order to successfully execute someone on death row? As opposed to how “integrated” ethicists must be in order to assess the morality of the state killing one of its citizens.
That you can imagine some truth in sync with “in the end” here, may well be what distinguishes our own respective narratives here. You’ve got this idea of what a moral nihilist is in your head. And I don’t qualify. But my frame of mind suggests instead that this may well be beyond establishing philosophically/epistemologically.
Still, the only reason we don’t subscribe to Wittgenstein’s advice that, “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”, is that for all practical purposes we can’t. No human community can get around the requirement that rules of behavior must be established. Then we are back to 1] might makes right more or less than 2] right makes might more or less than 3] moderation, negotiation and compromise.
I would never argue of you as argue of me here:
That you and only you get to decide what moral nihilism is, is precisely the sort of mentality that I construe as objectivism.
So, sure, if I would finally just agree that you are right about all of this, I’m sure you would “drop it in an instant.”
And, I suspect, as a pragmatist?