Immoral Nihilism?

[ismnotwasm]

(Saw this and it reminded me of discntnt's thread on evil. Nice little site)

It's often thought that one's metaethical views are more or less independent of one's first-order moral views. Anti-realists can still value other people's welfare, want to prevent the innocent from suffering, etc. But is this enough? An argument I owe to Helen suggests it may not be. Anti-realists can of course have benevolent preferences, and be disposed to blame people who act malevolently, but there is something they're missing: They can't accommodate the moral datum that other people really matter -- matter simpliciter, "from the point of view of the universe", as opposed to merely mattering to them, personally, in light of their contingent preferences. And, the argument goes, there's something morally disreputable about the more superficial attitude to which (consistent) anti-realists are limited. Positive regard should not be something we choose to bestow upon others; it is something they are owed, in light of the kinds of beings they are. The worry is, in other words, that anti-realists must regard their good will as too... optional. They fail to really see people as mattering in themselves.

Does that seem right? Expressivists and "quasi-realists" seem likely to want to deny it, insisting that they can endorse all the same first-order norms as moral realists. "People do matter, and deserve to be regarded with respect," they will say, by which they mean that they endorse norms of treating people as if they matter and deserve to be regarded with respect. But going through the motions is surely not the same as really believing these things, and it seems plausible that morality (or genuine respect for persons) calls for the latter, over and above the former.

http://www.philosophyetc.net/2013/03/immoral-nihilism.html

[pscot]

1. So the Universe has a point of view

and is concerned about human well-being? Like, I'm sure.

[ismnotwasm]

2. A turn of phrase, I'm sure

Don't you think?

[ZombieHorde]

3. "They can't accommodate the moral datum that other people really matter"

If they are kind, then why would this matter?

[ismnotwasm]

4. If you are kind

But other people don't really matter to you, it wouldn't matter, if that was how the human condition usually presents itself.

But it's not

An example;

Say an idea is more important than an individual, we'll take some form of evangelical religion as an example. The person with this idea is kind, he/she wish every one to have the grace their religion bestows upon practitioners, they aren't pushy, but they know a horrible punishment will happen to those not accepting their religion after life ends. They are convinced of this. They are saddened by it, but are very kind to individuals and groups of non-believers. Then opportunity happens in the form of a culture; an economically and spiritually oppressed population happens along. The original believer, now in an completely imbalanced power dynamic, (the one with power) respecting his/her ideals more than individuals, knows exactly what to do.

Now, These oppressed people have a rich tradition and culture of their own. But that is not what is important. What's important is that they follow the correct path.

When you think your idea is more important than other people, in this circumstance, the 'other' will be subsumed by opportunity.

And history has many samples of this very thing.

[ZombieHorde]

5. I wonder what idea an anti-realist would place before people.

I don't know what my philosophical views are called, but I don't think anything, including people, have objective value, yet I personally value people very much.

[ismnotwasm]

6. I have no idea

From what I understand, the extremes of these are if its not tangible in some form, it's not real. In fact they seem to take satisfaction in saying nothing is real.

[rhett o rick]

7. Help me plez. What's an "anti-realist"? nm

[ZombieHorde]

8. Generally speaking, anti-realists deny objective reality.

Or there is an objective reality, but we can only perceive it subjectively. They don't generally deny science, or anything like that, but they would resist saying a proven theory is "absolutely true."

[rhett o rick]

9. Then an anti-realist must be confident as to what reality is.

Maybe I am slow but I havent figured out what reality is.

[ZombieHorde]

10. Realists are confident what reality is; anti-realists are confident what reality is not. nt

[rhett o rick]

11. If you dont know what reality is, how can you know what it is not? nm

[ismnotwasm]

12. Exactly