This is an interesting thread that appeared on the FDR board a while ago.
http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/29310.aspx?PageIndex=1
Objective truth and objective morality are two different things. Any claim/argument implies logically consistency, but this is irrelevant as to whether or not you must prefer a certain way of drinking tea. You could say that drinking tea is preferred by the vast majority of people and is necessary for weaving the social fabric of society. Does that mean there is an imperative that each person should drink tea? No. To say that a behavior is morally 'right' or 'wrong' is a subjective perspective no different from an aesthetic judgement.
1. Economics Is A Value-Free Science | by Jörg Guido Hülsmann
2. Crusoe, Morality, and Axiomatic Libertarianism
Morality playlist: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA7FF865D89D7720C
My Thoughts: Here. Here. Here. Here. Here.
Moral nihilism is ridiculous. So is UPB.
Clayton -
Nihilism is something which I have gained an increasingly thorough understanding and appreciation for. Basically it comes down to the fact that moral nihilism is a perfectly accurate description of the world in absence of an acting individual, but a perfectly inaccurate description of a world in which individuals. That is to say that there are no inherent values within the world, and this is reflected in the subjectivity of human values. Insofar as moral nihilism is describing this it is entirely correct, there is no inherent morality in the world.
However, this does not mean that man should not act. One's definition of what specific values lead to a "should" are entirely subjective, that is to say that morality exists through us and it is infinite in its scope. My will, my value about what I consider to be a more perfect vision of the world is what I perceive as good, for me it is what ought to be, and is therefore equivalent to a moral judgment.
The only inherent morality which all men hold is the praxeological ethic, the need to satisfy their own value preferences and achieve the highest level of satisfaction based upon their values, but this means that for any individual the world is inherently a moral won. I know exactly how the world should be because for me, I am the source of value, I am a moral free agent. My world, and the world of every individual is a moral one, no matter how nihilistic they might be.
The concept of a value free ethic is contradictory, one must adopt values in order to pass any sort of judgment on a state of affairs, the closest thing to an objective moral analysis which can be undergone is a praxeological examination of an issue, but even then this must examine the value judgments of individuals.
You could say that drinking tea is preferred by the vast majority of people and is necessary for weaving the social fabric of society. Does that mean there is an imperative that each person should drink tea? No.
Why, would that be morally wrong?
If I go into a tea house, and ask for a pot of tea, and they give me a pot of diarrhea, I will break it over their head.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy shows that moral nihilism is a theory to be reckoned with:
Moral judgements are value judgements. Hence, like all other value judgements, moral judgements are subjective. Hence they can't be proven right or wrong. They can only be accepted or rejected. What that means is that moral judgements cannot be advanced as conclusions using either deductive or inductive reasoning. Rather, they can only be advanced as premises to other deductive or inductive conclusions.
Does that make me a moral nihilist? It depends on the definition of "moral nihilist" one uses.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
The only inherent morality which all men hold is the praxeological ethic, the need to satisfy their own value preferences and achieve the highest level of satisfaction based upon their values, but this means that for any individual the world is inherently a moral won. I know exactly how the world should be because for me, I am the source of value, I am a moral free agent. My world, and the world of every individual is a moral one, no matter how nihilistic they might be. - Neodoxy
My difference in opinion to this is semantic, so I agree. Basically, do as you damn well please and take the consequences.
Why, would that be morally wrong? - gamma-rat
My whimsical preference indicates that it is not.
Autolykos: Moral judgements are value judgements. Hence, like all other value judgements, moral judgements are subjective. Hence they can't be proven right or wrong. They can only be accepted or rejected. What that means is that moral judgements cannot be advanced as conclusions using either deductive or inductive reasoning. Rather, they can only be advanced as premises to other deductive or inductive conclusions.
QFT.
+1