So, when I first became a nihilist I wanted to fully go into it. I found that it was true that I found no meaning in life, but when I looked at the different kinds of nihilism I sort of just tried plugging them into me. Existential nihilism, optimistic nihilism, nihilism pertaining to knowledge, and of course moral nihilism.
I struggled with moral nihilism, and the other forms, of course, in different ways. The problem I was having with moral nihilism was something I could only figure out once I actually started to adopt communist principles. I am not, for example, a very social person. I border on being very misanthropic at times, but because of my principles as a communist I try my best to not let this aspect of myself win out. But I questioned why I, as a nihilist, should even bother with adopting their communist principles. I questioned if principles were the same as morality. I questioned if there was a fundamental difference.
I found after years that there was a fundamental reason why I was against morality. It's because morality is the replacement of consciousness by indoctrination. You see, there is no inherent meaning to morals. Even morals are never the result of actively choosing to stand on something, stand for something. Morals are doctrine generated by society. Morality is a tool of control. When you go through life with morals you never need to question why you are for or against something.
Principles, on the other hand, are very different. Principles are about consciousness; with principles you have to make a line in the sand. When you establish a principle not only are you making a choice to follow it but you are also choosing with every related decision to stand for it. Principles, like morals, have no inherent value, but it is the following of said principles that instills value in it. This is key. The point in a value system should always be to actively make a choice. For me, I personally choose to use the best of me to suppress the worst of me for the sake of contributing to the dawn of a new society. But it is because of me making that choice that I fundamentally cannot stand the concept of morality. It is weakness for a person to rely on morality and never question it. Morality is fundamentally passivity; it is this passivity that every sentient being must eventually reject. Due to the very nature of morality, I cannot imagine a world where it doesn't exist for a time, but I do think the strongest possible society is one where we reject morality for principles--where we don't need to rely on something as passive and relative as morals. I think the eventual destruction of morality is critical because such a passive system of value cannot help humanity evolve past our current society. Morality in its passive nature brings stagnation and the rejection of "Why?" and reinforces the metaphysical method of thinking.
-Dialectical Materialism Lover