This just in; world isn't flowers and roses. I'll say it a thousand times. The world we live in does not have a single regard for morality. Slavery, oppression, it's all fair game, even today, and always will be, even in the west/first world. We are lucky as hell to live in a society that progressed to the point where we need people to be educated, healthy, and efficient in order to function well, because if we didn't we would be living on scraps and working every waking hour of our lives like the people in these nations that haven't progressed as we have. I'm a bit of a moral nihilist, apparently, but I do not believe it's a coincidence that slavery became wrong when the industrial revolution happened. It's no coincidence that feminism became a thing as work shifted from labor into service and thought. It's no coincidence that we are happy killing thousands of cute little animals for meat, using tons of fossil fuels, and buying products sourced from slaves. We aren't moral, we pretend to be.
Bullshit. The world isn't a thinking, feeling thing. It just exists. We however, when we develop the capacity to understand that something is wrong, it becomes our responsibility to try our best to alter our behavior. It's why we teach little kids the importance of empathy and sympathy. It's why we teach teenagers to try and temper their emotions. It's why we publicly condemn people when we see them acting immorally. We as individuals grow and change and come to understand more and more how nuanced the world can be. The same is true for society at large, though we sometimes take huge steps backwards. Nothing is black and white. Our lives, both as individuals and members of society as a whole, is full of grey areas and hard choices. I'm not going to get into a drawn out discussion with you on this, because quite frankly, I've been sick of drawn out discussions lately. All they do is frustrate me. But quit with this moralistic nihilist bullshit. The world matters, our choices matter, and nothing is easy. Your attitude is defeatist and only perpetuates the problem.
My reference to the world "caring" is not a reference to it being intelligent, thinking or feeling. The fact it isn't is enough to make the statement " The world we live in does not have a single regard for morality" The world, in this case, means the universe. It's an oddly phrased/biased way of saying exactly what you have here. Understanding the sense of right and wrong that doesn't actually exist? What do we understand, if the world, the universe, has no care for what is and isn't moral? What do we regard as moral? Yeah, we have empathy, but countless examples of genocide have shown that empathy is clearly not something that exists for all other things, it's a selective emotion. Not only that, we have empathy for everything, I could personalize a sad piece of paper and we would feel similar feelings towards it's pain as we would towards these slaves in the article. Hell, I'd bet you money a sad picture of a dog, or a title describing the abuse of a dog, would incite a higher emotional response from 90% of people than the title of this article. Which is exactly why I call this view of a world where there is such a thing as right and wrong "kindergarden ethics". It's the shit we teach to five year olds because they can't understand a more nuanced view of what should and should not be done. What is? That we know right from wrong? What of when we condemned people for acting immorally by being gay, or being a woman who refuses to be attached at the hip to her man? How many people associated right and wrong with communist and capitalist? How many people are willing to hang others for their sense of how the world ought to be. We condem people for acting against the group. We condemn them for disrupting society, we do not condem them for right and wrong, we condem them for what we feel is right and wrong. That changes radically with time, and it's why I can use those examples, because there likely was a time when society was constructed in a way where those actions were right and wrong, and we would be speaking about allowing rights to gay people as those today say the same about pedofiles. We as individuals learn different things, and our views change. Of course we view or thought today as better than our thoughts yesterday, that's why they are today's thoughts. We do not discover some greater moral system that all people ought to follow, we learn to define our view of right and wrong, and to punish and react in a hostile manner against all those who defy the norm. Same argument as what applies for individuals applies here. What's moral today will not be moral tomorrow, and what's immoral today may well be moral tomorrow. There is no backwards and forwards here, it appears to be, because our capability to manipulate and have wealth and success have grown wildly, and our sense of ethics grows with that, and all of us live happier and better lives, but that's not thanks to the ethics, that's thanks to the technology. A follows B, B does not follow A. Had it not been for the industrial revolution, we likely would still be holding slaves today. Hell, we still do, just in the form of abusing poverty around the world rather than hurting those within our own nation. We've come far. I didn't say those things were false, only that morality isn't real, that there is no such thing as an inherent right and wrong. Our choices matter, our lives matter, and there is a right and wrong. However, that's only when looking from our very well-trained view as a cog in the machine, because you have to turn in line.The world isn't a thinking, feeling thing. It just exists.
We however, when we develop the capacity to understand that something is wrong, it becomes our responsibility to try our best to alter our behavior.
It's why we teach little kids the importance of empathy and sympathy.
It's why we publicly condemn people when we see them acting immorally.
We as individuals grow and change and come to understand more and more how nuanced the world can be.
The same is true for society at large, though we sometimes take huge steps backwards.
The world matters, our choices matter, and nothing is easy.
You've made a lot of claims in your comment that I once accepted and now oppose. Know that I've been a nihilist of sorts myself when I was much younger; I believe that from this state, I've made a step forward rather than shield myself from it, and I'll explain why I believe so after I'll reply to some of your claims. Perhaps you will understand my intent before that point. Yes, it is. By assigning the trait of caring to the world you've anthropomized it - related it to a human being, unacceptably so in this case. To say that it doesn't care is wrong not because the world isn't less human than you might desire it too but because it's not human at all. From my experience, this assumption of yours - that the world could care - is the root of your problems with tackling the issue of morality not existing, because instead of accepting the notion of the world not caring, you battle against it, which means that you desire it to be what you don't believe it to be (whether on its own or because you don't wish to change your views on such a fundamental issue due to conformity). Do ideas not exist? It's easy to say that non-material things don't "exist" because they aren't something you can touch or feel with your skin, and yet you yourself don't deny the existence of such ideas as communism and capitalism. Ideas have their own form of existence, separate from tangible space. To say they don't exist is to deny them, and you don't so far. You note further that: Yes. Precisely. Morality is a mental construct, and a necessary one at that. Why? It keeps society together, and it allows for a more synergetic (or less troublesome for the whole) coexistence. Why would we go for it? Cooperation produces lowers required input of effort in order to produce something, be it a solution to the problem, a car or a defense of the fort. Doing it together is less intense on your strength than doing it on your own, to say nothing of time required. You're a social creature because you're a human being. To deny that is to deceit yourself willingly. People go mad from isolation - it's a proven medical fact, and I hope that you don't doubt scientific method. Therefore, we need (not should, not ought to, but need) to coexist. To coexist in a meaningful (constructive) manner with anyone requires a set of rules for all of the coexisters to follow in order to not disrupt each other's operations as well as to join forces to tackle a problem either at all (because otherwise it's too difficult) or easier (because it's not too difficult but requires too much strength). You have to start somewhere. It sounds to me that this is alike to what you're doing to rd95. He told you in the most concise manner I've seen so far that what we do matters, which is a very gratifying notion in a world where we have to work hard to get what we want, and you fight against it because it opposes your beliefs. There are no absolute norms - that is, norms that come from without, from the world itself. Even what we consider absolute is relative to our most basic urges and desire: to survive and to procreate, - as well as to things that we get to once the lower-tier desires are sufficiently satisfied. Indeed, we derive what we think is best from our experience, and on certain things, our experiences are the same. This is how things work, and you fighting it will not move you closer to a more satisfying experience with living. Let me give you an example. Suppose you kill someone. Good on you: you're a strong human being, having overpowered someone. Suppose you kill someone else, this time more capable of defending themselves. Cool: you're very strong! But then, someone kills you. You lose everything you have ever considered to be yours; you cease to exist entirely: no blackness, no white light - your mind dies with your body. Is it a pleasurable experience? is it desirable? My hope is that you reply with "no" to either and we'll move on. So, consider what those people you've killed feel about the issue: do you think they'll approve you killing them? Some will: some find it simpler to cease to exist rather than face the overwhelming problems they experience; most, however, won't: not only do you lose bad things - pain, suffering, hunger, thirst, inability - but all the good things - joy, laughter, endorsement, achievement, ability, friendship, love, the life you've crafted for yourself, accolades of any sort... Therefore, killing is wrong. You don't want to be killed, so don't kill - otherwise, what's to stop others from killing you? You've disregarded an important social rule - why do you think you'd still be eligable to be protect by it? Same is with other rules. Stealing is wrong because you wouldn't want to lose your things to a person who hasn't repayed you in any proper manner and, more importantly, without your consent, which is a blatant disregard of one of your basic functions - personal autonomy. Without personal autonomy, each of us feels terrible in many ways which I won't list because I'm becoming tired from writing this. You see, my thinking is that your issue isn't about world not having the rules embedded. I think that your issue is with having no base for the rules and that you haven't considered that being human and living in a functioning society might be such a base. I feel like you want to justify their existence badly, but in your views on the subject, you haven't made the simple yet elusive next step: "If the world doesn't provide me with morality, I shall derive my own from myself" - or, more widely, "If the world doesn't care for me, I shall". I assume that, despite your outer cynicism, you enjoy living and achieving things. You'd like to live in a world that makes sense to you, and while things don't, you feel unsettled, because it bothers you to no end. Don't wait for things to turn in your favor: do what you have to do to make them turn. This is the base for every achievement; what varies is the effort necessary and the actions you take. To be guided by morality or not is up to you, but I believe to have listed enough compelling reasons to argue for following. And please, don't act defensive. The more we fight against something, the sooner we should stop and consider. I'd appreciate it if you listen instead of building up your wall of cynicism even higher.My reference to the world "caring" is not a reference to it being intelligent, thinking or feeling.
Understanding the sense of right and wrong that doesn't actually exist?
we do not condem them for right and wrong, we condem them for what we feel is right and wrong.
It's the shit we teach to five year olds because they can't understand a more nuanced view of what should and should not be done.
How many people are willing to hang others for their sense of how the world ought to be.
lets take your example and expand and out though and talk about how moral relativism comes into play. Most humans can agree that death is probably a bad thing, but most could also agree that lack of self determination is also a bad thing but what happens when you face the two against each-other? Say you are 16th century colonist and you land in the new world and you perceive that there are a bunch of "savages" killing each-other and doing ritual sacrifices. If your value score for not killing is significantly higher than the value score for self determination slavery may come out as the moral choice. As we (westerners) look back at history with modern values we may value self determination higher relative to other values and might say that what was done was immoral. We might also expand the choice and say well you know it wasn't really a binary decisions and there were more options that were not really considered. It is quite possible though that the people of the past that we now consider immoral were actually guided by the morality of the time. The same way their morality may have steered them down the wrong path in the past, our current morality may steer us in the wrong direction as well.Let me give you an example. Suppose you kill someone. Good on you: you're a strong human being, having overpowered someone. Suppose you kill someone else, this time more capable of defending themselves. Cool: you're very strong! But then, someone kills you. You lose everything you have ever considered to be yours; you cease to exist entirely: no blackness, no white light - your mind dies with your body. Is it a pleasurable experience? is it desirable? My hope is that you reply with "no" to either and we'll move on. So, consider what those people you've killed feel about the issue: do you think they'll approve you killing them? Some will: some find it simpler to cease to exist rather than face the overwhelming problems they experience; most, however, won't: not only do you lose bad things - pain, suffering, hunger, thirst, inability - but all the good things - joy, laughter, endorsement, achievement, ability, friendship, love, the life you've crafted for yourself, accolades of any sort...
Firstly, you assume that by moral nihilism I mean that I do not believe morality, as a social construct, exists or is valid. That's not true at all, and I will happily stand up and help to enforce the morality of ensuring nobody does, of doing what's best for your nation, and for those in other nations to do what's best for the world. My point is exactly the same point you make in your post. Morality is arbitrary, it is defined by our feelings and attitudes about the world. Morality is also something that is larger than the individual. Yes, your example of killing is an accurate one, but that ignores that we do work as part of a larger group, and that group can set rules that allow us to kill one another, at the ignoring of our "basic" moral instinct, while still acting in a way that produces long-term benefit and success. Society allows us to obfuscate moral choices, to make choices we would call immoral, but whose benefits are well worth the costs. We put the morale of killing animals that we clearly know to suffer behind the minds and actions of a select number of butchers, who cleans and sterilize the process so much that we just buy a package from a grocery store. We put the process of enslaving, or abusing people for their ability to perform labor, and the pain caused by that behind the minds of other societies, or behind the idealization of markets. We will do our best to ignore empathy, to ignore the morality we assume is better-by-default, when it best suits us. People taught the "empathetic" view of morality from childhood look at these things are are shocked, horrified, at how "we" can cause so much destruction and abuse, but they fail to realize that's the nature of society. It's a decision making engine, from my point of view, and the decisions it makes are correct at the end of the day, although there are times it goes wildly off course, and we often think of those times when we think of "evil". My argument is that the reason we live in a society that values us so greatly, that feeds us so well, that pampers and cares for so many within it is largely thanks to the fact that doing so benefits society at the end of the day. If it didn't, if we needed to be starved, worked to death, so that society could continue, our social structures and beliefs would shift until those things became commonplace, accepted, and rationalized. It's like I said, we lived thousands of years, and practiced slavery all across the world. It doesn't end until right around the era where mechanized labor becomes popular, and where factories replaced the uneducated laborer. We didn't suddenly realize slavery is immoral, slavery became immoral, and society changed as a result. We live in an era, despite our best intentions, where forms of slavery are still moral, and will continue to be practiced, even if your kindergarten class taught you that right and wrong are determined by nothing but feelings and the golden rule. Additionally, we can discuss individual morality all we like, but individual morality is meaningless. We always make decisions we feel internally are correct, so what's the point of ever discussing what I feel is right? What I feel is right doesn't change anything, it's what I do to effect the actions of people around me, and how I pressure and how the system I live in pressures me that matters, that pressure is morality, and the actions that system attempts to create are the "moral" ones. I'll guarantee you that when we stop torturing animals it'll be thanks to an innovation in lab-grown meat, or it will be due to global warming causing our consumption of meat causing the practice to be unsustainable, not because humanity suddenly realized it was wrong. The same will occur when we stop abusing the third world for labor, It won't be thanks to a sudden moral realization, but because the world changed, and helping the third world is more important than using them for acquiring cheap plastic toys. Should we stop? I as an individual may believe that it is wrong, but at the end of the day I'm still buying a chicken sandwich and shopping at walmart. Society is bigger than us, smarter than us, and sets us up from birth to act the way we do. There is no hope, no practicality, in fighting it, unless you believe society itself has recently seen a change in the forces against it, such as fighting for abolition leading up to the civil war. If the forces that effect society aren't changing then you will be a single man against a hundred thousand, and the most you will be remembered for is, at most, being ahead of your time.
There are so many things in your comment that point to the same thing that I won't bother quoting - I'll just get to the point: You seem to have established to yourself that society is a big machine that exists somewhere out there and controls us for what it's worth, as well as that we don't get to do something about it because we're doomed to fail due to the machine's sheer size. You know what? I'm not buying that. Look at people who've shifted history into the way we have it today. Gandhi freed India - a whole damn country - from the British rule and helped establish it as a country of its own. Not singlehandedly - he had a great crowd of supporters, ordinary Mohinders - but it was his philosophy and his thinking that started the movement and made it into what it was. Could he have done it had he relied on the kind of thinking you propose? Not at all; I imagine he'd rather weep quietly in the corner, crying to heavens about the terrible state of affairs and how he's helpless because the whole world seems to be against him. Yet, he didn't; yet, India is a free country. It's true that there's effort to standardize people in bigger, more capitalist societies like Russia or the US (you wouldn't think, but in this aspect, the two countries are very similar). It's true that standard-issue people are easier to control and manipulate. But you, armed with that knowledge, failing to do something about it on personal level? That's your choice, not some sort of destiny that the society has somehow "chosen" for you. It sounds to me that it's not morality that you're concerned with. It's with what we can or can't do, and how imperfect we are as a species and as a whole human culture. Moreover, it sounds to me like you're assuming way too much about how humanity works in justifying your thoughts on the matter. Take slavery. It ended "right around the era where mechanized labor becomes popular", you say? Well, here's the list of facts to counter. Some of the good ones: As much as I may be opposed to religion, that last one is a good one. And so on. So maybe it's not the issue of humanity-wide morality - maybe it's the issue of specific cultures that allow or tolerate such inhuman behavior. Maybe it's about people being humane to each other after years of figuring it out. Culture evolves, and we aren't perfect yet - perhaps will never be - but it doesn't mean it isn't getting better. Want a good example? Compare two thousand years ago and now. Five hundred years ago and now. Hell, hundred years ago and now. Perhaps you've forgotten that you're a part of the society you so heavily condemn. Even if you consider yourself to be a cog, one refusing to rotate is enough to break the machinery. But you choose to spin. Is it hypocritical of you? I don't know. Is it immoral of you? I don't know. What I know is that there are choices and consequences, and that things improve as you work on them. I'm not going to continue this conversation because it brings me down. If you'd ever want to discuss this issue in a meaningful manner later - feel free to PM me.1117: Slavery abolished in Iceland.
1214: The Statute of the Town of Korčula (today in Croatia) abolishes slavery.
~1220: The Sachsenspiegel, the most influential German code of law from the Middle Ages, condemns slavery as a violation of God's likeness to man.
1274: Landslov (Land's Law) in Norway mentions only former slaves, which indicates that slavery was abolished in Norway
I see society as an emergent entity, as the computer emerges from the transistor. Our decisions are not ones that are separate from the mechanics of the machine, but are a part of it, and those who make the strides in society, who push for great new things, are part of the mechanisms that allow society to adapt to new challenges, rather than people reaching out and truly creating change. The difference is subtle, but it is there. In the latter, it is driven by a drive for a true moral good, for doing what is right. In the former, it is an instance of society always picking what's best for it. Imagine society making a decision on some issue as a network of nodes, each node effecting one another's state. Each node observes it's variables and picks 1 or 0. However each node effects those around it. As variables change, the way people enforce each other to keep the same tends to resist the ability for rash or sudden action. However, as these forces cause some of the more sensitive nodes to swap sides, despite the input from their peers. Eventually, as the forces continue to increase, enough sensitive nodes change, and begin having enough force to overwhelm their peers that were enforcing the old standard, and thus the new ideal cascades through society and becomes newly enforced. It's a thinking machine distributed over continents, and each group of people holding similar opinions, who are connected to one another, and tend to change within this cascade form a "culture" such as "the west". Before technology it was a nation, and before that a tribe. That's what I refer to when you talk about the many times people have fought for change and brought it about. Yes, the change was good, and moral, but it only came about because the enviornment society was in allowed that change to become strong enough to "cascade". Without the industrial revolution changing our demand from hard labor to semi-intelligent factoryworker dealing with easily broken machines, the forces changed. When global warming starts effecting us, the forces will change. That's what I mean. My point is not at all that we cannot make change. No, it's important we have those people out there who are sensitive to things, who do shift before the group, and ignore the common ideal of morality. However, ultimately our opinions and goals are driven by our biases, and those are formed by what we see and learn are right and wrong. This means that practical/enforced morality depends more on what benefits society or what doesn't, rather than how the individuals in society feel.
I think I see where you're coming from. If something isn't really necessary for us to do anymore, it becomes a luxury and as such finding it immoral becomes much easier due to us not really suffering without it. I don't lose anything by giving up my slaves, we have machines for that. Right? In my opinion, that misses a crucial point: Where do innovations come from? What caused the industrial revolution? There's an argument to be made that greater freedoms in the UK after the abolition of the monarchy made the crucial inventions possible - and worthwhile. We can't just say that slavery went out of mode because of the industrial revolution, because that revolution was in turn powered by improvements in public life. People put their life on the line, and they improved their lives - and the lives of countless others. History doesn't bear this out. Societies where this begins to happen inevitably crumble long before this happens, or get abandoned, or changed. See the french revolution. See the potato famine in Ireland. People won't take shit lying down. Rather than society being shaped by progress, it is society that is shaping progress - we improve upon things we consider important. If animals don't have to die anymore because of lab-grown meat, that's because we wanted to invent that alternative! Because of societal pressure to stop killing animals. The same is true of all other moral changes. There's always a group that has been advocating it beforehand, and they work to convice other people that their view has merit, and eventually people come around. If it didn't, if we needed to be starved, worked to death, so that society could continue, our social structures and beliefs would shift until those things became commonplace, accepted, and rationalized.
I do not believe the UK even had a substantial slave population in the first place. Their choice to outlaw slavery was driven likely by the fact that it would continue easily in the USA, and would continue to benefit them. They were the manufactures at this point, and were sitting on large deposits of coal that allowed their industries to be free of rivers. The US, meanwhile, was in full swing in terms of relying on slaves for their labor, and banning slavery would have had a tremendous impact on the south, and did. Consider that this is an accepted reason for why the US opposed ending slavery for so long, along with that the south, whose economy depended on slaves, thought slavery moral and right, while the north, which had industrialized like the UK, did not. At the end of the day, slavery ended thanks to the fact that large areas did not need to rely on slaves anymore to get work done. If they still had to, they would not have banned it. See china, see one of thousands of impoverished nations that rely on thousands of highly oppressed and disadvantaged workers. See the serf and nobles system. The shift would be over generations, not just a lifetime, and would be something you don't notice in your day to day life. I'd say it is both/neither. Society is changing the things that effect it, and is causing itself to adapt to those changes itself. Like the body releasing a hormone, and then changing to adapt to it's presence. Oh, I agree entirely, and am a huge supporter of constant and well funded research and science to make the world a better place, but I do not see this as the equivalent to society doing what is right, only doing what is best.Where do innovations come from? What caused the industrial revolution? There's an argument to be made that greater freedoms in the UK after the abolition of the monarchy made the crucial inventions possible - and worthwhile.
Societies where this begins to happen inevitably crumble long before this happens, or get abandoned, or changed. See the french revolution. See the potato famine in Ireland. People won't take shit lying down.
Rather than society being shaped by progress, it is society that is shaping progress
If animals don't have to die anymore because of lab-grown meat, that's because we wanted to invent that alternative!
You have got to let me borrow your Tardis sometime. No, he's not right, he's full of shit. Sure, we didn't firmly reject slavery until the transition from an agrarian to an industrial economy, but we rejected the cruelties of serfdom and slavery once we were able to do without them, and we have, painfully slowly, been simultaneously rejecting the cruelties of industry and figuring out how to do without them for 200 years, with some backsliding over the past few decades because 'Murica. How moral society can be is constrained by what it needs to do to keep functioning, Maslow's hierarchy at the collective level, but solving the practical problems that necessitate cruelty allows us to be less cruel, and when we are able to be less cruel we do. We as a collective learn to be better just as we as individuals do. Join the 19th century, put down the classical economists and pick up Hegel or Marx, depending on what you want to take as prior.
You literally prove my point with this sentence. once we were able to do without them We could have done without serfdom and slavery from day one, or at least had a relatively equal distribution of wealth so that the serfs wouldn't have starved while the lords lived in castles. Except we didn't, and we didn't do so until we reached the point in time that firearms turned peasants into warriors at the pull of a trigger, and removed the need for highly trained warriors to defend land. Only as technological advancements allow us to do so without losing much efficiency. The cruelties of industries are still alive and well all across the world, and they are only dying as robots replace humans in those jobs, becoming cheaper than even those in the third world. This is different how from what I stated? Are you stating that, through all of human history we have been behaving in an immoral way? Are you stating that even today we are acting immorally based on the environment we live in? No, not at all. Each generation sets their definition of good and evil based on what they think the world should look like, and we are no different. The next will set that definition again, and we may disagree with it. Except we are able, right now, to be less cruel. We are able to abandon our culture of constant growth and adopt one of constant content. We are able to drop capitalism and expansion and live sustainable lives with heavy control on the way we act in the day to day basis to ensure utmost efficiency and sustainability. Instead we buy products we don't need, we consume excessively, and we fight every day for more growth. Why? Here's a question, if you think the ultimate goal of morality is to be less cruel, should you eat no meat if you have the choice? Should you donate all your money to charities and live a life in a small apartment, with cheap food, and a productive job? Because by the standards you set, that is exactly as you should do. It is moral, by your standards, are you immoral? Which do you chose, to be moral, or to fit in, to sate your desires? Doesn't that make you evil? Think of those people in the third world, starving because you chose to buy a new t-shirt. Think of the people working day in and day out in factories just to make the computer you type on today. Think of the cows, pigs, and chickens who live short and terrible lives based on your consumption of meat. You have the choice, you have the choice today to give these things up and save those lives, to help those people. So, it's moral, why not do it? but we rejected the cruelties of serfdom and slavery once we were able to do without them
we have, painfully slowly, been simultaneously rejecting the cruelties of industry and figuring out how to do without them for 200 years
How moral society can be is constrained by what it needs to do to keep functioning
but solving the practical problems that necessitate cruelty allows us to be less cruel, and when we are able to be less cruel we do.
I do see where you are coming from. As society is able to consistently and effectively meet a tier on hierarchy of needs or morality evolves to provide greater value for the tiers above it. Where we get a lot of conflicted morality when one group of people has move into the top 3 tiers on the need pyramid and another group is still trying to figure out the psychological and safety needs. When the more advanced group tries to apply their morality to a group that's still trying to meet basic needs it does them no good because while their esteem and emotional needs are met, they might end up dieing from starvation (whoops).
I agree that, firstly, we like to believe there's a kind of natural moral safety net in us when in fact there's none until we enact it, and secondly, we tend to view ourselves as acting "for the good" when that noble motive was heavily diluted by baser ones. That said, I doubt your self-claimed moral nihilism, simply because you evidently feel there's something amiss about killing so many animals for meat, burning up the planet and buying slave-made gadgets. Perhaps you're more of a skeptic than a nihilist.I'm a bit of a moral nihilist, apparently, but I do not believe it's a coincidence that slavery became wrong when the industrial revolution happened. It's no coincidence that feminism became a thing as work shifted from labor into service and thought. It's no coincidence that we are happy killing thousands of cute little animals for meat, using tons of fossil fuels, and buying products sourced from slaves.
Wikipedia says that moral nihilism implies moral skepticism :
I don't believe anything is amiss about them, I believe other people think that is true, and use the statements to make an emotional point. I talk about things from the context of "Traditional right and wrong" not of my own views, and attempt to show just how much the world fails to follow the words of that tradition to show people just how wrong that assumption of morality is. I go by nihilism from the standpoint of "there is no definite right and wrong" instead right and wrong is defined entirely by one's goals, and what they believe should and should not be done to achieve them. In this case, all these "immoral" things serve goals, they make the world better in the long run, and doing them is better for humanity at the end of the day. We, as a whole, are a massive decision making and self-aware society, and the actions we take are based on the pressures we face from outside factors. Morality is determined by those pressures, not by our quest for the true common good.That said, I doubt your self-claimed moral nihilism, simply because you evidently feel there's something amiss about killing so many animals for meat, burning up the planet and buying slave-made gadgets.
Perhaps you're more of a skeptic than a nihilist.
I thought a little more about what I wrote and why it didn't quite ring true to me. Actually I think it smacked of the assumption that you cannot care unless you buy into some kind of moral system, if only an implicit one. And in fact I don't believe that. The notion that caring implies morality is, I think, an implicit dogma among some religions and moral philosophies that's not borne out by the experience of living. In fact it's quite possible, common, and even wise, to care for the world without feeling any need to systematize that care, and without it being possible to capture the dynamic of that care in some systematic model. We become dumb when we think we've "got it" with some moral system and then set about applying moral rules and measures to life. We also tend to become hypocritical, as you point out. So it's quite possible to care about stuff without believing in morality, and it'd do us all good to get over the idea that without morality we'd become heartless monsters. I see care as a living engagement with the world and morality as a cheap substitute for that, an attempt to replace the irreducible complexity of life with a simplistic model that absolves us of personal responsibility in the moment. And that means that a moral nihilist is nothing to be afraid of. So thanks - you helped me see more clearly how, despite my deeper views, I still associated being humane and caring with "morality". In fact it can be a bold and an enriching step to leave morality behind. And perhaps you are a moral nihilist, and perhaps I learned something from my kneejerk reaction to that.