[UnusuallyUsual]

I know this is a strange meta-topic on a political forum , since obviously a political form assumes the answer to the topic already. Nevertheless...

What do people think about ethical nihilism? I.e. the proposition that there is nothing objective or true/false regarding ethical statements.

[mikema63]

It's about as supportable and arguable as almost any other ethical belief.

[UnusuallyUsual]

It's about as supportable and arguable as almost any other ethical belief.

Hmm. Well I am pretty taken with the whole idea of "Verificationism" or "Empiricism" or "Positivism" or whatever else it may be labeled as. In other words, the idea that an utterance only has a truth value at all insofar as there is some method by which we can find out what that truth-value is. Otherwise, if it can never be determined, how can we even comprehend what the significance of the utterance could be? So for morality, I feel that a lot of the confusion which underlies political differences has to do with people's not understanding this very broad meta-ethical point

[One Degree]

Some truth we know when we hear it. Perhaps our unconscious verifies it in a complexity that our conscious minds can not follow.

[Dagoth Ur]

Truth is not cold hard facts. Truth is a notion personally cobbled together.

[Saeko]

I know this is a strange meta-topic on a political forum , since obviously a political form assumes the answer to the topic already. Nevertheless...

What do people think about ethical nihilism? I.e. the proposition that there is nothing objective or true/false regarding ethical statements.

I believe that it is the One True Faith.

[Dystopian Darkness]

It's certainly preferable to the objectivism of Human Rights and Liberalism.

I think objective ethics can be measured inside each society but are prone to change over time

[American Serf]

I know this is a strange meta-topic on a political forum , since obviously a political form assumes the answer to the topic already. Nevertheless...

What answer is implied by the mere existence of a political forum? Do you mean to suggest that one must reject ethical nihilism in order to participate in political conversations?

What do people think about ethical nihilism? I.e. the proposition that there is nothing objective or true/false regarding ethical statements.

What counts as an "ethical statement"? Is this an ethical statement:

"Moral reasoning and moral judgments are informed by moral feelings that come naturally to animals like us."

[mikema63]

"Moral reasoning and moral judgments are informed by moral feelings that come naturally to animals like us."

No, saying that this is good or bad Is.

[American Serf]

No, saying that this is good or bad Is.

Accordingly, we should say there is an objective fact of the matter about the source or basis of ethical statements in speaking animals like us -- for instance, in our feelings of compassion, our sense of fairness, our cultural conditioning. But what about the "ethical statements" themselves: This is good, that is bad, and so on?

I might say there is an objective character to some such statements as well:

A man says, "This apple tastes good", and he means something by this, and it tastes good to him. That's an objective matter of fact, but it is not a universal truth about that apple or about apples in general. Perhaps the man likes some apples but not others; perhaps some men like the taste of that apple and some don't care for it at all.

What's at issue is not the "objectivity" of this particular judgment of taste; but rather the universality of this judgment of taste.

We should expect to speak similarly in the case of moral judgments.

[recurnal]

Ethical nihilism is simply the flaming hoop through which all premodern values must jump if they're to become modern.

Suffice to say, not much has gotten to the other side of the hoop.

[Le Rouge]

Ethical nihilism is idealistic. Ethics are a material phenomena. Ethos is a human cognitive function and reflection of specific historical circumstances. We could consider ethos to be a part of the Geist of human reflection of specific historical circumstances. Ethos is objective in the sense that ethos is a cognitive object of the human life-process. To me, this means ethos is relative and objective. The ethical character of individuals and societies emerges like any other material phenomena.

In brief:
1) Ethics are relative and objective and
2) Ethics reflect specific historical conditions;
with
3) Ethics are a reflective cognitive apparatus of specific historical conditions of the human life-process

[mikema63]

Ethical nihilism doesn't posit that people don't actually believe in or feel ethical obligations, just that these are made up by those people. They are objective in the sense that people believe in them but that's not really what people are talking about when they talk about the objectivity of morality. Objective morality must be true for everyone, and it simply isn't.

[MistyTiger]

What do people think about ethical nihilism? I.e. the proposition that there is nothing objective or true/false regarding ethical statements.

I dislike generalizing. But when it comes to ethics, it can be subjective. Ethical law, however is not fully subjective because it is based on legal standards and established rules. There is the history of why such things are termed ethical or unethical in the old history books and record books.

You were asking about ethical statements though. In what context? Are you asking about ethical statements in everyday, casual interactions? If so, then I would say that your question is false. I believe that in all rational statements, that there is some objective truth in it. There is some underlying universally accepted truth in the ethical statement. An example I can think of is, "It is wrong to steal money from anyone." Most cultures understand and stick to this statement and believe in punishing thieves.

I do not think that ethical statements can be neutral, neither true or false. I think ethical statements can be subjective and objective.

The book, The View From Nowhere, what little of it I read, it just went over my head. I do not remember agreeing with the author. I think that is about nihilism.

[distinct]

I prefer hedonism. You can't describe what suffering is any more than you can describe color to a blind person. It just is.

[Iron Ant]

How can someone be ethical about wanting to see the entire world burn in hell?

[yiostheoy]

I know this is a strange meta-topic on a political forum , since obviously a political form assumes the answer to the topic already. Nevertheless...

What do people think about ethical nihilism? I.e. the proposition that there is nothing objective or true/false regarding ethical statements.

That's just warmed over and reheated relativism.

Nobody that I respect respects relativism.

Bertrand Russell did not respect it.

Roger Scruton does not respect it either.

It is merely a lame excuse for rationalizing your way out of morality and ethics.

[yiostheoy]

How can someone be ethical about wanting to see the entire world burn in hell?

That sounds more like alienation and revenge to me.

It is a psychopathology not a philosophy.

[yiostheoy]

I prefer hedonism. You can't describe what suffering is any more than you can describe color to a blind person. It just is.

Suffering is pain.

Pain is something that makes you shrink away from it because it hurts you.

A man would have to be deaf dumb blind and numb not to know what pain is.

Little kids usually learn this first time they fall down hard or the first time they play with fire.

[Scheherazade]

How can someone be ethical about wanting to see the entire world burn in hell?

How can someone be ethical about wanting to see the entire world burn in hell?

If one wants to see it, that would be the vice of wrath, along with a materialist conception of "hell".

Wanting to see wickedness, the essence rather than the individuals, ultimately punished or destroyed, simply naturally comes with having a conscience.