Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 1 posts:

• "Happy Cakeday, r/moralnihilism! Today you're 10" by u/AutoModerator

Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 1 posts:

• "Happy Cakeday, r/moralnihilism! Today you're 9" by u/AutoModerator

Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 3 posts:

• "It Ought To Be Therefore It Is: On Fallaciousness of So-Called Moralistic Fallacy" by u/NaturalCorner
• "Official Trailer-Transcendence- The Art of Centering the Self" by u/Self-C
• "Moral Nihilism Is Nonsense" by u/TheFormerMutalist

In 1978, Bernard David Davis published an article in Nature (Davis, 1978) entitled Moralistic Fallacy. In it he argued against forbidding knowledge based on fear and moral attitudes. He pointed out that arguments for this prohibition are founded on a wrong inference, on the
derivation of an is from an ought. With regard to Hume and Moore, he called this the moralistic fallacy (MF).

After Davis, other theoreticians of science referred to this problem. Ridley (1998) called this the reverse naturalistic fallacy. He presented examples connected to political correctness (Ridley, 1998, p. 258), where a fact is upheld because it ought to be the case regarding our political view. Pinker (2003) associated this fallacy with the concepts of the Noble Savage and the Blank Slate. According to him, many believe that “[n]ature, including human nature, is stipulated to have only virtuous traits (no needless killings, no rapacity, no exploitation), or no traits at all, because the alternative is too horrible to accept” (Pinker, 2003, p. 162). Other examples can be found in scientific literature itself (e.g. Gould, 1996; d'Arms & Jacobson, 2000; Rushton & Jensen, 2005; Stroebe, Postmes & Spears, 2012; Gorelik & Shackelford, 2017).

Hence, even though MF can be seen as a fallacy which cannot occur because it is so silly that no one could commit it, there is a plenty of evidence that this fallacy or at least this label is used in today’s scientific and academic papers. Thus, it is astounding that not much attention has been paid to it in argumentation studies. We would like to reduce this shortage and present at least some introduction to our research on this topic. We start with a simple question: What is MF in
terms of argumentation theory?

Full research paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332172188_It_Ought_To_Be_Therefore_It_Is_On_Fallaciousness_of_So-Called_Moralistic_Fallacy

I'm fairly new to Nietzsche, Stirner and moral nihilism and was just curious on everyone's thoughts on slavery.

1. Do you find it acceptable to use slaves to serve your own purposes?

2. Would you try to stop someone else from owning slaves?

3. What brought you to oppose/ignore/endorse slavery?

4. Feel free to add any other thoughts!

If you are interested in critically engaging with theory, debating philosophy of nihilism, want a place to discuss nihilism as epistemology, or want to debate nihilists, please check out the subreddit /r/DebateNihilisms.

"Do I write out of love to men? No, I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world; and, even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from this seed of thought — I would nevertheless scatter it. Do with it what you will and can, that is your affair and does not trouble me. You will perhaps have only trouble, combat, and death from it, very few will draw joy from it." - Max Stirner

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ego_and_Its_Own

(music is unrelated, except for attitude... what do you guys think of the quote + music thing?)

Maybe Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy would be a good link.

Just sharing some thoughts.

I describe myself as a moral nihilist, I live life as if there is no objective morality. Despite being a moral nihilist, I still consider myself a moral person. This is because i prefer to live in a moral society. My morality can therefore be considered subjective, based on preference rather than obligation.

For a while I have entertained the idea that if moral nihilism is correct (which I believe is so), it should be in mankind's best interest to walk down it's philosophical path in the near of far future.

But, except for mob justices, I cannot imagine a legal system set up around moral nihilism which could honestly uphold any authority. And unless such a legal system could be thought up, I think that the integration of moral nihilism in main stream society would be more destructive then anything else.

I've just been writing from the top of my head so I'm not sure if my thought process is consistent enough to be followed but thanks for reading it anyways if this is not the case :)

Found this in my Religions of the World textbook. Thought it was interesting that influential people as far back as the 3rd century BCE recognized that morality was "established".

"What is the origin of rites? I say: Man is born with desires. If he does not get what he desires, he can but seek for it. If there are no degrees or limits to his seeking, he can but contend with others. Contention leads to disorder and disorder leads to exhaustion. As ancient kings hated such disorder, they established rites and moral principles to bring about the proper shares in order to nourish men's desires and meet their demands. They made it possible that men's desires did not exhaust the material supplies and the material supplies did not suppress the desires. Both desires and material supplies support each other and thus grew. This is how rites originated."

What I am wondering , is whether people on this sub have objections to the other forms of nihilism. For example I agree with moral nihilism, but have numerous objections to metaphysical, epidemiological and political nihilism. Why would you consider yourselves to be moral nihilists rather than just nihilists.