Zero_Sum wrote: Society can't function with moral nihilism because it's impractical, not pragmatic, and serves no utilitarian purpose Iambig. Society or human civilization couldn't exist in a morally nihilistic atmosphere which is why human morality or ethics was historically created to begin with. Is morality and ethics imperfect or inconsistent? Of course it is just as human beings are also flawed, inconsistent, and imperfect.
Come on, if any particular community took a leap of faith to No God, it would still continue to function "for all practical purposes". There would still be a need to prescribe and proscribe particular sets of behaviors. As, for example, it set about the business of, in a Marxist sense, sustaining one or another means of production. It's just that if everyone came to the conclusions that I do, they would likely opt more or less for either might makes right or moderation, negotiation and compromise.
Moral nihilism can be intertwined into either option. Or into a combination of both given particular contexts. It all depends on how the genes and the memes play out in any particular historical or cultural or interpersonal context.
But throughout human history there have been any number of moral objectivists that, through one or another God religiously or No God political agenda, have embraced the right makes might model of human interaction instead. For them there is one and only one way in which to construe race and gender and sexual orientation...and every and all other set of conflicting goods. As they do. You are "one of us" or "one of them".
So, from my frame of mind, it comes down to how you construe your own "modern radical pragmatic fascism". Are you convinced "here and now" that your moral values reflect the optimal way of thinking about the relationships above? The Satyr Syndrome.
Or are you willing to concede that my own frame of mind here is relevant to human interactions in the is/ought world. That is, that "I" the existential contraption in a world of contingency, chance and change, is always subject to reconfiguration given new experiences, new relationships and access to new knowledge, information and ideas.
Then it depends on how far down into the "hole" you go as a "fractured and fragmented" person-ality. But that often revolves more around your set of circumstances, doesn't it?
Zero_Sum wrote: Waving your hands up in the air saying it is imperfect, inconsistent, or flawed achieves nothing. So I see you wasting your time there with that.
I'm only wasting my time around those who insist that fascism, communism, liberalism, conservativism, etc., are predicated on one or another objectivist font. Those who insist that perfection, consistency and flawlessness is within our grasp. It must be because they already embody it.
Zero_Sum wrote: There certainly is a lot of room in improving human morality or ethics because it's clear the current set is failing horribly everywhere.
Well, the moral nihilist would suggest that "improving human morality" is basically an existential contraption rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. Out in a particular world understood in a particular manner. And, on the contrary, for those who own and operate the global economy [ironically enough, nihilists by and large] things are succeeding fabulously.
Well, sure, until they're not. After all, you keep predicting the collapse of their empires year in and year out.