3 ms·

In college I was asked the following question by a Sociology professor, and it always hits home when these battles of opposing moralities arise: How would you

In college I was asked the following question by a Sociology professor, and it always hits home when these battles of opposing moralities arise: How would you explain to a Nihilist that your morals are superior to the morals of those you consider reprehensible?

lostgame 5y ago
This is phenomenal food for thought. The kind of comment I come to HN for. This made me think; thanks. :)
hirako2000 5y ago
The pre requisite would be to explain that hierarchies of values exist. If you get there, you are no longer facing a nihilist, hence you can focus on arguing the superiority of your moral value.
- andrew_ 5y ago
  I disagree you'd no.longer be facing a Nihilist. You might get them to consider the merit of a viewpoint versus another, but they still wouldn't really care about any viewpoint presented. A dyed in the wool Nihilist would only provide objective judgement, but adopt no position.
  - hirako2000 5y ago
    "Explaining" wouldn't magically turn a lot of nihilists I agree. A dyed in the wool as you said would not even listen to an explanation, she would hear it, and camp on their no position. There is something contradictory about nihilists, only their view is valid. The view that no view other than theirs is better than any other, and even if some obviously are, they are meaningless anyway. Unless it impacts them as individuals of course. I'm not arguing that a discussion with an entrenched Nihilist has much chance to have value, but since I'm not a Nihilist I see value in that discussion, even when it was a lost cause.
runarberg 5y ago
I don’t know why, but I hate that question (at least in this context). It seems like it is shifting the question of ethics into some sort of meta-ethics. I wonder if you professor was used to formulate an ethical argument, but I personally find it very hard. This might be a good advice in competitive debate, but when you are facing a real argument in the real world where somebody is claiming to be a moral superior I don’t know if this is a helpful advice. E.g. I have no idea how to explain to a nihilist that murdering humans is worse then killing animals for meat. Is that even possible?
andrew_ 5y ago
I'm legitimately glad to see this is making so many uncomfortable - that's a base component of robust discussion, delving into the uncomfortable. If you're down voting, please share the reasons why to further discussion.
tomjen3 5y ago
I wouldn't. Arguing with a Nihilist is like arguing with a flat earther - they are so disconnected from reality it doesn't make sense.

lostgame 5y ago

This is phenomenal food for thought. The kind of comment I come to HN for. This made me think; thanks. :)

hirako2000 5y ago

The pre requisite would be to explain that hierarchies of values exist. If you get there, you are no longer facing a nihilist, hence you can focus on arguing the superiority of your moral value.

andrew_ 5y ago
I disagree you'd no.longer be facing a Nihilist. You might get them to consider the merit of a viewpoint versus another, but they still wouldn't really care about any viewpoint presented. A dyed in the wool Nihilist would only provide objective judgement, but adopt no position.
- hirako2000 5y ago
  "Explaining" wouldn't magically turn a lot of nihilists I agree. A dyed in the wool as you said would not even listen to an explanation, she would hear it, and camp on their no position. There is something contradictory about nihilists, only their view is valid. The view that no view other than theirs is better than any other, and even if some obviously are, they are meaningless anyway. Unless it impacts them as individuals of course. I'm not arguing that a discussion with an entrenched Nihilist has much chance to have value, but since I'm not a Nihilist I see value in that discussion, even when it was a lost cause.

runarberg 5y ago

I don’t know why, but I hate that question (at least in this context). It seems like it is shifting the question of ethics into some sort of meta-ethics. I wonder if you professor was used to formulate an ethical argument, but I personally find it very hard. This might be a good advice in competitive debate, but when you are facing a real argument in the real world where somebody is claiming to be a moral superior I don’t know if this is a helpful advice. E.g. I have no idea how to explain to a nihilist that murdering humans is worse then killing animals for meat. Is that even possible?

andrew_ 5y ago

I'm legitimately glad to see this is making so many uncomfortable - that's a base component of robust discussion, delving into the uncomfortable. If you're down voting, please share the reasons why to further discussion.

tomjen3 5y ago

I wouldn't. Arguing with a Nihilist is like arguing with a flat earther - they are so disconnected from reality it doesn't make sense.