Is Moral Nihilism More Rational than Moral Realism?

Seeing how there aren't any facts to actually prove the existence of morality, would it then be fair to say that moral nihilism is more rational than moral realism? Even as a non-nihilist, I can definitely see it looking more logical to take the nihilist position.

There were a bunch of interesting, long topics over moral nihilism and nihilism itself over at the Total War Center's forums, so I thought it would be interesting to see some more discussion on it here and to see what the people here think of it.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=462077&highlight=nihilism

Doesn't the fact that one must "belief" in something, even the morals of a society, make it seem more plausible for a theist to believe in it than an atheist, who rejects God? If many of the morals found in today's society are very much related to Christianity (even if they actually predate it and religion itself), as Nietzsche put it, then moral realists are just following the same moral code as theists and are not acting independent of it, meaning that they are not nearly as rational as moral nihilists or that they aren't true atheists in the first place. Also, how do moral realists overcome the is-ought problem?

I'm curious as to what moral nihilists here will bring to the board and what moral realists have to say to this or to the question itself that I posed.

All I know is that music keeps from the dark depths of nihilism.

and back on topic, this all comes down to the religious and irreligious honestly.

Is what more than what?

Is what more than what?

KH-mixerX

Moral relativism makes more sense than moral nihilism.

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

Is what more than what?

xXTalismanXx

Whatever it means, I haven't watched my daily allotment Jackass yet today. Be right back.

Nobody here explained WHY they feel that way. Simply stating, "I think that moral relativism makes more sense," is not enough. Where's your proof? C'mon, I really thought that the discussion could last much longer than this.

We've had so many theist vs. atheist topics, so I thought it'd be interesting to have a nihilist vs. atheist debate this time around. I guess that not that many people here are informed enough about philosophy, let alone, nihilism or moral nihilism to be more specific.

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

Is what more than what?

xXTalismanXx

Killing for instance is immoral as it harms society as a whole and you're depriving that person of life. So I guess I think Moral Nihilism doesn't make sense. Ace6301

Killing is immoral yes I agree with you but still people do it all the time. Every 5 seconds a child is killed in Africa from starvation. There is enough food in the world to feed everyone but people just don't care and let these people die. Apathy and murder go hand in hand.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Killing for instance is immoral as it harms society as a whole and you're depriving that person of life. So I guess I think Moral Nihilism doesn't make sense. roboticman2

Killing is immoral yes I agree with youbut stillpeople do it all the time. Every 5 seconds a child is killed in Africa from starvation. There is enough food in the world to feed everyone but people just don't care and let these people die. Apathy and murder go hand in hand.

IT can't be because neither one of them are rational to begin with.UniverseIX

[QUOTE="UniverseIX"]IT can't be because neither one of them are rational to begin with.ghoklebutter

In my opinion, morality doesn't "exist" as some kind of universal natural code that all humans should adhere to. Morality is a set of instructions to individual people that allows a society to survive and operate in an acceptable condition.

If nihilism were the common moral standpoint would rationality exist?

I don't believe it's even possible to believe nothing is moral or immoral. They're just words after all that we instill meaning to.Ace6301

Just because most atheists seem to take on a moral realist position, doesn't mean that it is truly the best one to take. If nihilism breeds more skepticism about everything, then perhaps it would contribute more to science and other areas than moral realism, especially since it is not nearly as influenced politically as the latter. Another enlightenment might be possible if people would only equally reexamine all that is known about philosophy, epistemology, metaphysics, science, politics, etc.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="UniverseIX"]IT can't be because neither one of them are rational to begin with.UniverseIX

I'm more a fan of moral relativism.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]

I don't believe it's even possible to believe nothing is moral or immoral. They're just words after all that we instill meaning to.Mawy_Golomb

[QUOTE="Mawy_Golomb"][QUOTE="Ace6301"]

I don't believe it's even possible to believe nothing is moral or immoral. They're just words after all that we instill meaning to.Ace6301

The problem with moral nihilism is that even its own advocates don't adhere to it, thus in a quasi-ironic way, they defeat their own theory.

no moral relativists?

I'm more a fan of moral relativism.

PBSnipes

Oh, philosophy. You never cease to make me tired and apathetic.

Also, how do moral realists overcome the is-ought problem?

Mawy_Golomb

By becoming ethical intuitionists, before flying away on their little pigeony wings :P.