Active nihilism described in the paragraph definitely includes, but is not limited to, the negation of values. The active nihilists of a moral parliament may paralyze the parliament as a means to an end; perhaps, to cause systems other than the moral parliament to be the primary determinants of action, rather than the moral parliament.
So the very next sentence on the wikipedia page is:
It may be questioned, though, whether “active nihilism” is indeed the correct term for this stance [...]
And I agree that this is no longer nihilism but rather existentialism.
EDIT: The reason this matters is because you need entirely different arguments against existentialism.
The active nihilists of a moral parliament may paralyze the parliament as a means to an end
As soon as there is an actual end, it seizes to be nihilism. It’s not that I don’t want to debate existentialism, but rather there has already been so much criticism written about it that I’m not up to date on. If you are interested in arguments against active indecisiveness I suggest you start there.
Active nihilism described in the paragraph definitely includes, but is not limited to, the negation of values. The active nihilists of a moral parliament may paralyze the parliament as a means to an end; perhaps, to cause systems other than the moral parliament to be the primary determinants of action, rather than the moral parliament.
So the very next sentence on the wikipedia page is:
And I agree that this is no longer nihilism but rather existentialism.
EDIT: The reason this matters is because you need entirely different arguments against existentialism.
As soon as there is an actual end, it seizes to be nihilism. It’s not that I don’t want to debate existentialism, but rather there has already been so much criticism written about it that I’m not up to date on. If you are interested in arguments against active indecisiveness I suggest you start there.