<p>Nihilism, in short, is a philosophy stating that life has no purpose or meaning. </p>
<p>In the spirit of TheInquisitiveOne, what do you think of this? Agree? Disagree? Discuss.</p>
<p>I personally agree.</p>
<p>I think I disagree.</p>
<p>^ hah</p>
<p>Nihilism makes really no sense. As human beings, it is impossible to reject any sort of emotion, and yet Nihilists, at least in the 19th Century sense, pretend to do this. Reading the works of Dostoevsky and Turgenev makes this clear.</p>
<p>I agree with the “Nihilists pretend to do this”.</p>
<p>No one truly can. Except if you are like, crazy or something.</p>
<p>I’ve been nihilist for a long time now. But I pretend to pursue my own long-term happiness. There’s no purpose or meaning to it - it’s just that I’m an animal who hates pain and frustration.</p>
<p>I’m also a moral relativist. But since I hate pain/frustration, I’ll comply with most of society’s morals.</p>
<p>
Seems pointless.</p>
<p>
Societal, or individual? The latter would entail saying serial killers/rapists are good because they believe that there is nothing wrong with what they are doing. The former would entail saying slavery was okay in 1800, because society was okay with it.</p>
<p>Nihilism is, like, sooooo emo.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, neither belief entails saying that they’re good. Personally, I find both murder and slavery very distasteful. and would welcome any initiatives that discourage the desire/incentive for people to do both. I just see no need to invoke any “higher-order” morality that doesn’t intrinsically exist into this. For the sake of empirical accuracy, we have to be honest about things that exist and things that are of our own creation. Morality is a product of evolution, pure and simple. And it arises from what animals find distasteful.</p>
<p>Basically, all moral relativism says is that there is no objective truth value to moral statements. Doesn’t prevent us from trying to do things that others like.</p>
<p>Moral relativism says just that: that morals are relative, either to each individual or to each society and time, and thus cannot be imposed across those lines.</p>
<p>Believing that morals evolved with human nature does not entail moral relativism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It does not prevent us from imposing our morals across those lines. If you find the actions of a particular culture distasteful, you still have the complete freedom to try to prevent that culture from performing those actions. </p>
<p>Relativism is merely an empirical statement. It does not restrict our actions, even if we justify our actions with moral statements.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It does say that there is no objective universal basis for moral statements.</p>
<p>There are several types of moral relativism. I am not saying that we “ought” to tolerate the behavior of others.</p>
<p>What you’re describing is not moral relativism. Moral relativism states that since there is no objective universal moral standard, you should tolerate the actions of others, even when they run counter to what you find moral. For non-individual moral relativism, just replace “you” with “a society”.</p>
<p>I’m a moral relativist in the meta-ethical sense. You’re thinking about the normative sense of relativism. Like I’ve said, there are several types of moral relativism.</p>
<p>[Moral</a> relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism]Moral”>Moral relativism - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m a nihilist in the same/mostly the same way that InquisitiveOne is, but not really in how nihilism is represented in Turgenev’s *Fathers and Children<a href=“yeah,%20the%20translation%20I%20read%20used” title=“children,” not “sons”>/i</a>. The book presents nihilism as rejecting the existance/importance of emotion, which is just silly in my opinion. Rather, I believe that emotions are important because they cause what we do/feel, but are still no more than chemical reactions. And I definitely do not believe in a purpose/meaning to life, except I think it makes a lot of sense (considering emotions) to try to be as happy as possible.</p>
<p>Nihilism is childish and self-centered but hey if you believe in it who the heck can tell you that you are wrong. Hey for a real kick why not check out solipsism which basically says everyone and everything else is just not real. Remember sports fans, Hitler was a Nihilist; I am just saying. Hopefully somebody at a cocktail party will be really impressed at you “Deep” thinkers.</p>
<p>
I hope Wikipedia hasn’t been your only source on philosophy. Yes, there are different kinds of moral relativism, however, even the meta-ethical kind rejects statements like “Genocide is bad”, and rather says that genocide is neither good nor bad, and views on it are just opinions. All senses of moral relativism can be used to justify any form of behavior, by claiming that any objector just has a different morality, and thus shouldn’t interfere.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m limited on time today but I’ve read the relativism entry on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and I know that Wikipedia gets much of its content on relativism from there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They could <em>claim</em> that, but who would be convinced by it? Someone could claim that he has the right to murder me, and justify it with “moral relativism”, but I sure as hell wouldn’t let that prevent me from preventing him from murdering me.</p>
<p>But would murdering you be wrong?</p>
<p>I don’t consider it wrong, no. But I sure as hell have other reasons to avoid being murdered. No reason for me to make up something that doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>^^I’m answering this according to my beliefs on morality because I like the question.
I don’t think murder in itself is wrong because you end another person’s life. I think murder is wrong because it harms so many others (i.e. anyone who knew/loved the victim) and it harms the victim, assuming it was painful. Therefore, you could get me to agree that there is no bad in killing someone who has absolutely zero personal connections, but I doubt such a person exists or will exist. In addition, murder is bad because it desensitizes you to violence, which is bad for you, but again, it has nothing to do with death itself.</p>
<p>You believe that murder isn’t wrong, even if it ends the consciousness of a sentient being? Would one not then presume that life is good and death is bad?</p>