Moral Constructivism: The view that the validity of a moral judgement, for a giver person or group of persons, is based on whether it would be endorsed after careful reflection. (It doesn’t coform to any objective law of morality)
Moral Nihilism: Denies that there are any valid moral judgements, and holds that there is no point in duscussing, or reflection about, moral issues.
IMO the line between the two is wholely superficial, and Moral constutivism is a failed attempt to overcome Moral Nihilism.
While the moral nihilist will claim that all moral actions are neither valid nor invalid, the Constructivist will claim that some are valid and some are invalid. But when one looks closely at Moral Constructivism the validity of a moral decision does not depend on some moral standand, but rather on a logically coherent stance. For example if I were to claim that Infanticide is morally valid, the moral Nihilist would not argue with me, and would say that such a stance is as valid as any other stance. The moral constructivist however would challenge me to back up my position with logic and a coherent worldview, they would not challenge me on the ethical reality of killing babies, but would rather try to find inconsistencies within my view. If the Moral Constructivist fails in finding logical wholes, and inconsistencies within my view, then they have to accept it as a valid moral position. Moral Constructivism is not concerned with the moral validity of the position, it seems that every position is as equally valid as any other insofar as you are not misinformed on the topic, and you can defend it.
According to moral constructivism I can have any valid moral judgement as long as it is logically consistent with my other bleiefs. Morality is the whim of the individual in both moral constructivism and nihilism. In both it seems that Morality is wholely arbitrary and an irrelevant matter.
The question then becomes: What authority does logic have over moral opinion. How does someone holding contradictory positions make there view morally invalid, when morality is admittedly the persons whim. How does logical invalidity translate into moral invalidity?
IMO Constructivists are Nihilists trying to hold onto something that is left over from our days of Divine Command and Moral Realism. How can someone accept that there is no moral standard, and then claim that logical invalidity translates into Moral invalidity. It seems wholely unreasonable to apply something as structured and systematic as logic, to something that they admit is composed of personal whim and opinion.
If moral opinion is something that is arbitrary and the whim of the individual, then doesn’t it follow according to MC that every moral system is invalid, as by virtue of being moral it is illogical and based off the passions? But wait, the MC is not concerned with where the moral point of veiw came from, it is superficially and irrelevently concerned with wether or not such an opinoion is consistent with the rest of your opinions.
Any system is potentially valid in MC, and as such it seems to follow that arguing about morality(the one thing that sperates it from Nihilism) is a worthless endeavor that can yeild no results.
What arguemnt can the Constructivist have against the Nihilist?