I can't believe the hilariously misguided hate moral skepticism is receiving. INFPs, for a rigorous defense of moral skepticism, read J.L. Mackie's Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong.
I can understand positing morality as a human construction, but when you start saying it's an inherent element of the universe... then we've got problems on our hands.
In our thousands of years of human experience, how come we STILL don't know what gravity is yet we use it to explain so much? I think morality is in a similar position... it's deeply ingrained in our everyday judgments and our overall outlook of life, yet we don't really understand it.
The difference here is that gravity is undoubtedly a physical construct and not a human one, one that exists whether we care or not.
I'm an INxP that is a moral nihilist/moral skeptic. I am what you would call a first-order moral skeptic; I don't believe that there is such a thing as a "good" or "bad" action because I don't think we have adequate knowledge of what good or bad means, right or wrong means, etc. Meta-ethically speaking, good or bad might mean something, but we don't know what they mean if they do. Being a moral nihilist or moral skeptic doesn't mean you treat people inhumanely or unfairly. After all, we have no problem telling a cruel action from a kind one, a just one from an unjust one, etc.
I can't believe the hilariously misguided hate moral skepticism is receiving. INFPs, for a rigorous defense of moral skepticism, read J.L. Mackie's Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Also, let's just avoid using the term nihilist as a world view. It's fucking meaningless. If everything was really meaningless, then the individual asserting that would be incapable of or would refrain from placing value on people, things, goals, moments, etc. in their life. Psychology tells us this isn't the case when we're dealing with normal people.
I can understand positing morality as a human construction, but when you start saying it's an inherent element of the universe... then we've got problems on our hands.
And by the way, [MENTION=6877]Marmie Dearest[/MENTION], if you want to punch me or call me a coward for having my own set of personal values that I will follow no matter what, while at the same time accepting that all morality is relative and subjective, go ahead. I am a moral skeptic. I can't say I know what is "right" or "wrong", and I can't say that "right" and "wrong" can ever be known, or that they even exist. But I still strive to be a good person, despite all the not knowing, because I choose to be, not because it is "right", but because I because I value it.
Wait, is that a Ti thing? 'Cause I feel the same way. O_O
I think it sounds more like a Fi thing. Objective truth sounds more Te to me than anything else, so I'm kind of surprised that so many Fi users would believe in such a thing. I would have thought they would agree that morality is the same as personal values, and that we can never really know the truth.
Wait, I'm a little confused. Fi users believe in what such a thing? Objective truth? I thought you were arguing for that against them.
I was saying I agreed with what you had said.
The Fi users on this thread were saying they reject moral nihilism, which implies that they believe in objective moral truths. I was arguing for moral nihilism.
heres another question- if we say that no moral objective truth can ever be known.. is not the existance of this concept attempting to be a moral objective truth in and of itself? *brain hurts* I don't understand how it can proven, how can it be fact?
Well "morality" is a vague and ambiguous term. Possibly the most vague and ambiguous I have ever heard. By some definitions a human can be amoral, by others morality is a necessary condition in order to make decisions, so a human cannot be amoral (and neither can a computer or the law).
Moral Nihilism, as defined in the OP, is the idea that there are no moral facts, that nothing has "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad" as one of its properties. Instead, it states that morality is relative to the observer, so the observer assigns those properties to something observed. So if one changes the observer, the "morality" of the observed "changes" as well, without the observed actually changing (a tree remains a tree, and a murder remains a murder, yet now it is good instead of bad, and right instead of wrong).
In this sense, morality is the same as beauty, color and various other traits widely accepted as being dependant on the observer. So, there's no actual "good" or "bad", "right" or "wrong", merely what the observer decides to describe what it observes as. Thus a Moral Nihilist, someone who believes this all to be fact, sees morality as something "made up", a human construct that is entirely arbitrary (not based on anything substantial, and easily changed).
That leaves them in a state of moral inertia, where nothing is truly moral or immoral. It does not leave them without morality however, as this Moral Nihilism claims morality exists as a human/animal/sentient construct, and they are all three.
My view on Moral Nihilism is positive, I suppose, as my beliefs coincide between Moral Nihilists and Hedonists, an unsolved debate in my mind. That morality is an arbitrary construct, solely in the mind, I agree with, but I'm unsure what that construct actually consists of. Whether, when I have a positive experience, I am witnessing something good in itself, but restricted to my mind, or whether I am deluded into thinking it is good. Evolution supports both ideas equally, and "being convinced the experience is good actually making it good" is a confusing possibility to consider. I'm yet to think of a way to get data that would favour one side over the other, so the debate remains unsolved (though I lean towards Hedonism as of now, due to one line of reasoning).
What's funny is I think Nihilists (that is just "Nihilists"), those that think life is meaningless, are quite deluded (specifically, they misunderstand what "meaning" is). Those two Nihilists are usually lumped together.
i agree that there are no absolute morals, even killing someone, because everything is situational. that doesn't mean i don't have my own personal morals that i live by and judge others by, but i accept that my feelings towards things shouldn't necessarily be the way they are. people's values are always shifting.
I think it sounds more like a Fi thing. Objective truth sounds more Te to me than anything else, so I'm kind of surprised that so many Fi users would believe in such a thing. I would have thought they would agree that morality is the same as personal values, and that we can never really know the truth.
I'm not a moral absolutist either (which is probably why I got Chaotic Neutral on that test I took) because I think that actions can be right or wrong depending on the situation and the consequences of those actions. I am more of a consequentialist.
On the other hand, yes, I think murdering innocent people is always wrong, although killing is not always wrong. See the distinction?
i fully understand and agree, but there's still a lot of gray area in that, because everyone has their own ideas of who's innocent and who's guilty.
i'm not questioning this kind of stuff with every value judgement i make, but it keeps me from being preachy (sometimes) because i know that i could be potentially be wrong about everything.