A Quote by Torbjorn Tannsjo
Are there any good arguments in defence of moral nihilism? I think not.
Related Quotes
We should not accept moral nihilism unless we find strong arguments to do so.
Nihilism: any aim is lacking, any answer to the question "why" is lacking. What does nihilism mean?--that the supreme values devaluate themselves.
It is of note that for a long time moral nihilism was a kind of unquestioned default position in analytic moral philosophy.
There are skeptics who do not come to their view because they have a source of income from carbon polluters. I don't mean to imply that they're all in that category at all. There are also those who are also not motivated by ideological resistance for any role of government. But I don't know of any arguments or any presenters of arguments that overturn the consensus that I think have gained any legitimacy.
There is no evidence for a god, no coherent definition of a god, no good argument for a god, good positive arguments against a god, no agreement among believers about the nature or moral principles of a god, and no need for a god. We can live happy, moral, productive lives without such belief, and we can do it better.
The problem I see with utilitarianism, or any form of consequentialism, is not that it gets the wrong answers to moral questions. I think just about any moral theory, worked out intelligently, and applied with good judgment, would get just about the same results as any other.
The social intuitionist model offers an explanation of why moral and political arguments are so frustrating: because moral reasons are the tail wagged by the intuitive dog. A dog’s tail wags to communicate. You can’t make a dog happy by forcibly wagging its tail. And you can’t change people’s minds by utterly refuting their arguments.
Moral nihilism comes with a price we can now see.
It's good to be good at playing defence, but the best defence is a strong offence.
The contemporary rejection of natural right leads to nihilism - nay, it is identical with nihilism.
The thing for me is my defence: as long as my defence is in good order then I feel the rest of my game can expand from there.
When you say there's too much evil in this world you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that's Who you're trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there's no moral Law Giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil. What is your question?
Some philosophical arguments (e.g., in connection with the mind/body problem) look pretty good, while others (e.g., those that criticize moral realism) do not.
When you look at territorial disputes, there are good arguments on any sides. I think it's important that we don't take sides on legitimacy.
I am still not at all in favour of offering any defence. Even if the court had accepted that petition submitted by some of my co-accused regarding defence, etc., I would not have defended myself.
Well, you have a defence attache here, that's a step forward. Your Defence Minister has been here, our defence people have exchanges with you. So friendly relations at the military level are already in existence.
Related Authors
Alexander Gustafsson Quotes
Swedish
Mixed Martial Artist
Dag Hammarskjold Quotes
Swedish
Diplomat
Emanuel Swedenborg Quotes
Swedish
Scientist
Greta Thunburg Quotes
Swedish
Environmentalist
Ingmar Bergman Quotes
Swedish
Director
Jens Lekman Quotes
Swedish
Musician
Joel Kinnaman Quotes
Swedish
Actor
Lykke Li Quotes
Swedish
Musician
Mats Wilander Quotes
Swedish
Athlete
Max von Sydow Quotes
Swedish
Actor
Peter Sunde Quotes
Swedish
Businessman
Steig Larsson Quotes
Swedish
Journalist
Stellan Skarsgard Quotes
Swedish
Actor
Sven-Goran Eriksson Quotes
Swedish
Manager
Tobias Forge Quotes
Swedish
Musician
Zlatan Ibrahimovic Quotes
Swedish
Athlete