On moral nihilists: I share the same idea. Only, I think you’re either missing something out or I’m the one who stands with a version which is a bit different (might be the second option, I don’t know ^^). But here: as I understand it, objective morality does not exist. Morality exists, but it is subjective. And only in the social context* (and given there exists a variation of levels of a society, I think it applies in any case. For example, inside the family institution, and so on up to whole communities). Maybe that’s what you call moral relativism. but I don’t know if moral relativists accept the idea that morality is not objective: that part about morality being a product of brain process. That is so. As is any other trace of what we call human intelligence. However, that does not prove that it is objective. For we respond to the same stimuli as any other creature in nature, and if not for the way we live (as a society), there would be but one thing that would guide our “moral compass”, which is survival of the fittest. That is my interpretation. To explain it further, I’d need to refer to free will, which obviously I deny exists (because I’m a nihilist). But anyway, would just like to share this commentary, and say that yours was a good refutation.
Moral relativists deny overall moral objectivity. For instance, a relativist will say that murder or stealing is right under certain circumstances; however, I know of no relativist who will say the same of genocide or infanticide. They believe in varying moral judgements within individuals and cultures.
I am not an objectivist by the way. However, if we find that objective morality exists, its ontology would be in a normal human brain; its ontology will not be found beyond our natural world. I am also not a nihilist or a relativist. I am in moral limbo—perhaps a moral agnostic. After centuries of philosophical dispute, we still cannot conclude that morality is relative; we cannot conclude that it’s objective. We can’t even conclude that it exists. There are three dominant schools of thought and each have made plausible arguments. Even science has begun to chime in on the matter. And still, I find that there isn’t sufficient information to draw a conclusion. Thus, my Argument for Objective Moral Ontology without God is an argument I agree with in a sense; however, I cannot say with certainty that morality exists and I cannot say with certainty that if it does exist that it is objective or relative. The argument is simply a refutation of the Moral Argument for God.
Thank you for the compliments and thank you for contributing to the discussion.
*I think it only exists in the social context because we, as humans, do not, after all, go exactly along the same rules as other animals do: again, survival of the fittest. In the wilderness it’s much more clear to observe, but in human society it is not. There’s a whole new level of complications. And that’s where morality comes in: to dictate those complications, to put in some order. And that’s also why it is subjective. Obviously, we’re, in a lot of ways, applying to that same ever so present rule. But I hope you got my point.
I most definitely get your point. I would go further to add to what you said by pointing to our laws—what I call the codification of morality. This complexity you allude to is obvious in our law; Western law has become increasingly complex and that serves as an attestation of our need for morality—even if it’s a convenient and illusory construct.