Moral Nihilism is a standard of immorality

Also, I would like to apologize for being very late, as I had much work to attend to this past few weeks (and because of that, my opening statement will be very weak).1. ) Openinga. Why a Need for Morality? Morality can be considered as being a type of law. And in order for society to function, we need these set of laws. For example, if there was no moral statement against killing (in general), one can assume that people would have no reservations in killing other people (since their moral compass would be non-existent). Now, I concede to the point that morality originates in the mind, but it has effects in the real world due to actions. Another example of this would be government. The idea for a type of government (democratic, autocratic, etc. ) started in the mind, but exists in practice. As stated before, this is the case for morality. Now, back to my original point. If there wasn't morality, our everyday societal interactions would not be guided by a standard, and thus giving rise to the notion that "anything is permitted". Now, if anything is permitted, society would barely exist, for everyone would be acting on their impulses (anger, revenge, etc. ). b. Independent Morality I feel we must establish a set of morality called "Independent Morality". This is a set of moral guidelines that are not influenced by any ideology (theism, atheism, etc. ), but is reached through analysis and rationale. This would be based on the concepts of human rights, pain, suffering, and many other factors (which I won't go into, as it is not the focus of the debate). c. StandardsNow, in order to establish moral guidelines, standards must be set in place (I would like to point out that, in this five round debate, a whole system of morality won't be laid out, but instead very primitive notions that could be used as foundations to build a system of morality). These standards would help determine whether an action is moral, immoral, or neutral (an example, in my opinion, of a neutral action would be the action of spreading jelly on a piece of bread). Now, A standard (emphasis on "a") of immorality should be moral nihilism, or the notion "that nothing is morally good, bad, wrong, right, etc " (. http://www.philosophybasics.com...). This is because, if we are to try and set a standard of independent morality, the notion that there is no morality, should be considered immoral. For example, the notion that rape and charity are not morally different should be considered immoral. c1. RapeHere, I will attempt to show that rape is immoral. Human Rights- It is safe to say that each human being has a right to their own body. Now, when a human is raped, another person is subjecting abuse to the raped, abuse on their body, which the raped granted no consensus to. Thus, the raper is violating the rights that the raped have to their body, and is thus immoral. Pain- Now, a moral nihilist could argue that there is nothing inherently immoral about causing pain, for pain is just a neural reaction the body has to stimuli ( . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). But surely, pain must be considered "bad", as there are negative consequences of pain on the body (mental, physical). Now, the reason pain exists is because it is a reaction to some stimuli that is subject on the body, stimuli that is considered harmful. Now, is pain is harmful, and it is subject to another human being that is unwilling, than it must be immoral, for the human being didn't desire pain to come upon them. Thus, if rape causes pain (which I'm sure Con will concede to), than it (rape) must be considered immoral. c2. CharityNow, I will attempt to show that charity is moral. Human Rights- I will be using the example of helping war victims (there are many typed of charity, but I feel this example will help show my point). Now, to help someone who has had their rights taken away, be it by unwillingly being pushed off their land, or unwillingly being injured in the turmoil of war, can be considered moral. Now, to help restore one's rights is considered moral, for you are giving them the inherent rights taken away from them. Pain- Surely, war victims experience some degree of pain (psychological, physical). Now, based on the premise in "rape" (that to inflict pain is immoral), since morality is the opposite of immorality, and the opposite of inflicting pain is alleviating pain, it must follow that to alleviate one's pain is moral (using the premise of inflicting pain=morality as a standard). Thus, again, to alleviate one's pain is moral. c. (continued. .. ) Now, if to rape someone is immoral, and to give charity to someone is moral, the notion that there exists no moral difference between the two is a false and immoral one, for to say that to rape someone is not immoral (as it is not moral), is to concede to the fact that to rape someone does not take away their human rights, and to rape someone does not inflict pain on them, which it does (I will take on assumption Con agree's to this, but am willing to provide support if necessary). Thus, if it is not immoral to rape someone, it is permitted, for what is stopping the raper? But, if rape is immoral (which I hope Con will see in the argument I provided above), and the notion of moral nihilism makes rape permitted (due to it not being immoral or moral), than moral nihilism must be taken as a standard for immorality. d. ConclusionIn conclusion, I hope to have proved that there can exist morality (although the examples I have shown are very primitive, and surely are to be refined in the future). I have also hoped to have shown that moral nihilism must be taken as a standard for immorality. I would again like to thank Con, and apologize for being so late. I look forward to a stimulating discussion.