I read two words in the OP, happiness and meaning.

Is happiness a feeling you pursue? Then why does it require meaning or purpose. Happiness, it seems, is its own reward.

There are some connections/conclusions I see the OP is concerned with, but I don't see the logic.

"Without purpose, I can experience no happiness." If it is true that your happiness has no external purpose, just engage with happiness for its own sake. Don't tack it to someone else's need for purpose.

"I will someday cease to exist. Humanity will cease to exist. Therefore happiness should be discarded?" There is no reason to conclude happiness ought be discarded. If you observe that happiness is impermanent, then enjoy happiness as fleeting. If you want happiness, have it. There is no meaningfulness that says you shouldn't.

By the way, what reason does a nihilist have for complying to certain morals? If they are meaningless statements, then why care about ethics? — JacobPhilosophy

The nihilist has basically no real reasons for complying with morality in general since doesn't exist/have any real grounding. The nihilist might comply with conventional morality for social appearances or because it personally makes him feel good but outside of that there's no real backing to it.

The nihilist has basically no real reasons for complying with morality in general since doesn't exist/have any real grounding. The nihilist might comply with conventional morality for social appearances or because it personally makes him feel good but outside of that there's no real backing to it. — BitconnectCarlos

It's still likely that a nihilist will have preferences that translate into what is considered moral behavior, partly due to the nature of human biology. The nihilist will also likely have been conditioned to certain behaviors that are morally repeatable in a societal sense, due to their upbringing within a society.

It's just unlikely that a nihilist will point to some external or objective purpose to justify his actions.

A nihilist may still contribute to a sense of happiness, both personal and shared with other people.

I agree with everything you wrote here. A nihilist could be a perfectly moral person. I just think that an intellectually honest nihilist should have very little if any resistance to engaging in depravity if social conditions were to make it advantageous or if the moral nihilist were just curious for any reason and he knew he could get away with it.

I agree with everything you wrote here. A nihilist could be a perfectly moral person. I just think that an intellectually honest nihilist should have very little if any resistance to engaging in depravity if social conditions were to make it advantageous or if the moral nihilist were just curious for any reason and he knew he could get away with it. — BitconnectCarlos

So social constructs keep the nihilist's behavior in check with regards to the continuing "success" of the society. How is that any different from the moral realist who ascribes to a theistic religion and also considers themselves a sinner?

For example, I don't see how the label of nihilist or Christian are particularly helpful in predicting a person's so called "moral" behavior at a personal level. What I do find, however, is that the Christian is more likely to pass judgement on others' behavior.

At the end of the day the theistic moral realist has a God to answer to and believes he will be judged by actual, objective standards. He has skin in the game. Bad actions have consequences in the next life.

A moral nihilist may be a good person. Plenty of people just have naturally good dispositions or are responsive to positive social pressures, but others don't.

At the end of the day the theistic moral realist has a God to answer to and believes he will be judged by actual, objective standards. He has skin in the game. Bad actions have consequences in the next life.

A moral nihilist may be a good person. Plenty of people just have naturally good dispositions or are responsive to positive social pressures, but others don't. — BitconnectCarlos

But if we only observe human behavior in this life, the sentences you have written above don't necessarily translate to better predictions of what action any given individual will take.

A theist may engage in "good" behavior.
A theist may engage in "bad" behavior.
A nihilist may engage in "good" behavior.
A nihilist may engage in "bad" behavior.

That a person says "I believe in consequences in the next life" does not tell us to what standard the theist holds himself culpable. This is doubly complicated by a Christian belief that God may absolve the sinner of their guilt, detaching the consequences of the afterlife from the causal effects of actions taken in this life. A Christian may fully believe in an afterlife, perpetually behave like a bad nihilist, and still anticipate a fruitful afterlife as a result of the grace of a forgiving God. The only thing that distinguishes him from the bad nihilist, in this life, is "I believe in God."

But even stating, "I believe in God" is no indicator of the disposition. A nihilist would be perfectly consistent in stating "I believe in God" and anticipating no consequences for the lie. Such a lying nihilist may find himself conforming with all other social expectations, getting labeled a good theist, and being otherwise indistinguishable as a good person.

I don't see how the label of nihilist informs any discussion on good or evil, from an ethical or philosophical perspective.

But if we only observe human behavior in this life, the sentences you have written above don't necessarily translate to better predictions of what action any given individual will take. — Adam's Off Ox

I know. I've said twice now that a nihilist may very well be a good person. We may live in a universe where nihilists are even, on average, better behaving than Christians. I don't care. I'm solely concerned here with the rational conclusions of one's beliefs. In other words, if we take the nihilist's beliefs to its logical conclusions.... I'm not interested either in digging into every possible iteration of Christianity. I'm not even a Christian. I'm solely concerned here with the rational conclusions drawn from nihilism vs. a belief in a God regarding moral behavior.

I don't see how the label of nihilist informs any discussion on good or evil, from an ethical or philosophical perspective. — Adam's Off Ox

If we're talking about rationality it should. The theist is always accountable for his behaviors according to a set, permanent standard while the nihilist does not acknowledge any standard and is basically free to pick whatever path he likes. Again, I'm not concerned with defending evil iterations of Christianity or how Christianity or Judaism or Islam may look "in practice." I'm concerned with ideas here.

But what good is a theory of rationality if any account of so-called inner logic leads to the same observable outcome. From the consequential perspective, rationality becomes an empty variable. Better discarded for parsimony..

Less to worry about. Simple enough. Though some will write books to argue otherwise...

No, if people were purely going by the inner logic then there would not be the same observable outcomes. People in real life often just aren't logical. The fundamental logic, not just of Christianity but of Judaism and I think Islam is that no matter where you are or in what kind of situation you're in... you're ultimately accountable for your actions. You will have to answer for them.

When it comes to nihilism there's not much of a fundamental logic because the nihilist rejects truth and value. However, he contradicts this because life demands that he invent his own. The intellectually honest nihilist is constantly in tension because he still values things and often has strong attachments while at the same time he rejects the idea of objective value.

The intellectually honest nihilist is constantly in tension because he still values things and often has strong attachments while at the same time he rejects the idea of objective value. — BitconnectCarlos

:100:

The outcome of this tension is a life of voluntary deception. It’s hopeless to try to universally logically justify our values, attachments, or actions with any consistency. Logic and emotion are apples and oranges.

The outcome of this tension is a life of voluntary deception. It’s hopeless to try to universally logically justify our values, attachments, or actions with any consistency. Logic and emotion are apples and oranges. — Pinprick

I don't follow your conclusion. If it's hopeless to try to universally justify our values, doesn't the nihilist escape tension by rejecting universal values?

So the nihilist experiences preferences, which you may call values, without falling back on some rational or logical meaning for those values.

You seem to be supporting the nihilist's position.

I don't follow your conclusion. If it's hopeless to try to universally justify our values, doesn't the nihilist escape tension by rejecting universal values? — Adam's Off Ox

I don’t think that the need or desire to justify our values, etc. diminishes simply by believing nihilism. Intellectually, the nihilist is aware of the fact of nihilism, but is utterly unable to make his desire for meaning go away. He will feel and experience meaning in his life regardless, and in contradiction, of his belief in nihilism. This is the cause of his tension. To alleviate it, he will largely ignore his nihilistic belief in practical, everyday life, and continue experiencing meaning and desiring to seek/find/create it.

So the nihilist experiences preferences, which you may call values, without falling back on some rational or logical meaning for those values. — Adam's Off Ox

Yes. I think the values would just be accepted as a sort of natural fact about himself.

You seem to be supporting the nihilist's position. — Adam's Off Ox

Yes. I humorously consider myself a non-practicing nihilist. Which oddly enough is justifiable. The truth of nihilism refutes the notion of truth itself. Therefore, I have no reason to live according to my nihilistic belief. Basically I pretend that all the meaning I experience in life is factual, even though I know it’s fictional. Life is just an elaborate ARG that I choose to participate in.

What do you think morality is? A philosophical position? A psychopath is someone who just disagrees with normal philosophical stances people decided on?

We can talk about morality in different ways - one of which is as a philosophical concept. There's a ton of different ways to approach the topic.

No, psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by lack of empathy and remorse as well as strong egoism. I certainly don't call people who disagree with normal philosophical stances psychopaths.

I struggle with this concept too, pointless happiness, not for myself but for others. The daily pain I feel from losing someone to suicide ensures it is ever on my mind.
Meaningless life to one person, the world to another. Yet should you live your life for others if not for yourself?

Morality can be philosophised about - like anything but do you believe morality is a philosophical position, is that what morality is? Is it a belief that can be undermined by nihilism?

There's a multitude of philosophical beliefs about morality. Morality is just the topic. The existence of objective morality is a philosophical position that would be in opposition to moral nihilism.

Yes, but is morality nurtured by cultures and philosophy from nothing or is morality a component of human nature?

I am not sure morality is something that is undermined by nihilism, only many philosophies surrounding morality are.

By "morality" do you mean just any code of morals or... a good code of morals? Regardless, we definitely have physiological drives that inform moral behavior whether it's through an innate disgust of something or a warm feeling inside.

I trade petty pleasure in this life for pain, in my effort to gain a greater afterlife from God; this is based on the opposite philosophy to pointlessness; I'm a constructivist.

On the one hand, I'm constructivist, and on the other, I'm nihilist.

If I was God, I would make sure that evil personalities never lived again(which is some people's, probably guilt-induced, ideology).

Where evil is concerned I'm nihilistic, but I think God is constructivist in both good and evil circumstances (i.e. you will live again but you will in discomfort if you are evil).

In a case where a good person doesn't want to live again, I think that's a fabricated outlook, as deep down there are impulses about living that they enjoy, such as: movement, sense, etc.