On Nihilism

[DeltaEpsilon]

Moral subjectivity seems to be the most logical out of moral subjectivism, moral objectivism and moral relativism. If morals are just an evolutionary imperative, and we betray our biological imperatives all the time, then wouldn't moral subjectivism lead to moral nihilism.

Moral objectivism is obviously contradictory, moral relativism doesn't seem to be as logical as moral subjectivism. So if morals don't exist objectively and are just a biological imperative, we can go against our biological instincts due to the advancement of human society. Ergo we can get away with murder, stealing, torture and destruction, to name a few. Essentially things become one big free-for-all.

[Baruch]

In all things moderation.  Moral subjectivism seems in between moral absolutism and moral relativism.

And yes, it is a free for all.  Rhetoric is a weapon of peace and war.  Morality is part of rhetoric.

[stromboli]

Moral subjectivity seems to be the most logical out of moral subjectivism, moral objectivism and moral relativism. If morals are just an evolutionary imperative, and we betray our biological imperatives all the time, then wouldn't moral subjectivism lead to moral nihilism.

Moral objectivism is obviously contradictory, moral relativism doesn't seem to be as logical as moral subjectivism. So if morals don't exist objectively and are just a biological imperative, we can go against our biological instincts due to the advancement of human society. Ergo we can get away with murder, stealing, torture and destruction, to name a few. Essentially things become one big free-for-all.

True story bro.

[SGOS]

Ergo we can get away with murder, stealing, torture and destruction, to name a few. Essentially things become one big free-for-all.

We can, and many people do, including the religious, so it is kind of a free-for-all.

[Baruch]

The fallacy of anarchism, is the idea that the government needs to be otherthrown, to have anarchy.  But government is already part of the anarchy ;-)

[DeltaEpsilon]

We can, and many people do, including the religious, so it is kind of a free-for-all.

We don't "get away" with stuff like that.

[Baruch]

We don't "get away" with stuff like that.

That is freedom.  You are free to commit a crime, and a cop is free to arrest you.  Thinking you can "get away with it" is another way to say shoplifter.

[GSOgymrat]

How is moral objectivism contradictory?

[Sal1981]

We don't "get away" with stuff like that.

"It's not a crime, until we get caught." - Al Bundy.

[DeltaEpsilon]

How is moral objectivism contradictory?

Think about it.

[Baruch]

How is moral objectivism contradictory?

Great question.  This is what I read on the Oxford don criticism of Harris ... that there is a separation between is and ought.  Objectivism deals with is ... morality deals with ought.  If you accept the Oxford don criticism of Harris, then yes, it is contradictory.  E. O. Wilson would disagree.  He regards ant behavior as completely natural, and that if humans stop behaving so unnaturally, we can be like ants ... we can be social insects with social harmony.  Red ant or black ant?!!  The assumption being that all ant behavior is instinctual, they don't have free will.  Determinists would agree, except that for them free will is an illusion, even if you are sentient.  And without free will, morality is pointless.

[Baruch]

"It's not a crime, until we get caught." - Al Bundy.

What every politician and corporate honcho says too.

[aitm]

So if morals don't exist objectively and are just a biological imperative, we can go against our biological instincts due to the advancement of human society.

of what "biological instincts" do you suggest we have "gone against" during the advancement of the human society?

Ergo we can get away with murder, stealing, torture and destruction, to name a few. Essentially things become one big free-for-all.

for all that pomp and circumstance of a OP, have you actually read any history? Because, we pretty much have a big free-for-all for those with the biggest toys.

[Absurd Atheist]

Moral subjectivity seems to be the most logical out of moral subjectivism, moral objectivism and moral relativism. If morals are just an evolutionary imperative, and we betray our biological imperatives all the time, then wouldn't moral subjectivism lead to moral nihilism.

Moral objectivism is obviously contradictory, moral relativism doesn't seem to be as logical as moral subjectivism. So if morals don't exist objectively and are just a biological imperative, we can go against our biological instincts due to the advancement of human society. Ergo we can get away with murder, stealing, torture and destruction, to name a few. Essentially things become one big free-for-all.

I don't believe morals are based in biological evolution but rather the cultural and societal evolution of man in the past 'X' amount of years which is why their still flawed. It's possible to imagine a scenario in which we could establish absolute and universal moral statutes that would explain why 'X' crime is bad and yet acceptable in some circumstances, i.e. killing. However the actual actions may not always be taken by rational people so that would always be problem.