That's just philosophical nonsense.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Dec 11, 2022 7:40 amThis exchange manages to quickly sum up two strange positions. The moral nihilist is presenting 'the best...' rather than....'what he or she wants'. It is presented as objective.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 6:11 amI don't understand what a moral nihilist would negotiate for; or compromise about.iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 2:35 am Instead, moral nihilists of my ilk propose that the "best of all possible worlds" revolves around "moderation, negotiation and compromise" in a political economy that revolves as much as possible around "democracy and the rule of law."
If you don't value anything then you have nothing to fight for and nothing to lose.
And this elicits a response where a critic of moral anti-realism seems to think that if you don't believe your values are objective then you can't have values. That you wouldn't value anything.
There is no difference between somebody who believes their values are objective; and somebody who believes their values are subjective if they both hold the exact same values.
Their narrative about their beliefs differs, but not their behaviour - it's a distinction without a difference.
Behaviourally speaking: there is no difference between a nihilist and Buridan's ass. If you value nothing - you can't make value-based choices. Behviourally, this is equivalent to valuing all values equally - the result is the same. You can't make value-based choices.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Dec 11, 2022 7:40 am I can certainly sympathize with this response, given the absurdity of the moral nihilists hypocrisy, in this case, but since the point is universalized, it is just as confused.
In so far as the two opposing extremes exist - they only exist so that synthesis can occur: thesis-antithesis -> synthesis.
Both interlocutors are "confused" but the confusion and extremeties are necessary to synthesize the continuum.
The entire game of trying to define yourself is bunk. It's so much easier to just drop the philosophical nonsense and admit that your values are inconsistent; non-universizable; or ineffable devoid of context. Because our values ultimately serve a pragmatic purpose we can never speak of them in general Philosophical, context-free, theoretical terms! I have no idea what I value the most; or least. I only know what I value more when values clash.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Dec 11, 2022 7:40 am Then the moral nihilist in the exchange might be making sense while writing poorly. But given it would be so easy to say....
I wish we focused more on compromise, etc., than....might makes right or whatever he or she thinks the other approaches are.
And, of course, one can mix approaches, they are not mutually exclusive.
Just say what you want in the given context. Just because you claim to value negotiation and compromise in general doesn't mean you are willing to compromise and negotiate on the particular issue at hand.