In many European countries we have populist indirect democratic systems. The people elect, in a proportionate manner, a parliament. The parliament with all its parties is representative of the political opinions among the citizens. It is reasonable to claim that the people rule itself through the political institutions.

There are some particular moral truths that I believe we have access to (such as the one not to inflict pain on a sentient being for no reason).

The democratic thought is based on that 'ordinary people' are suitable to rule themselves.

We should not accept moral nihilism unless we find strong arguments to do so.

I am indeed a moral realist.

It is true that it feels very differently to enjoy a good meal, taking part in an interesting conversation, or to think of how successful your children are. Suppose we do all these things at a particular time. How happy are we at the time? We do not need to calculate the value of each such feelings on any singular scale to answer this question. We need not see our happiness at the time as a mathematical function of these items. It is rather that all these experiences, together with many other factors, causally puts us at the time at a certain level of happiness, i.e. in a certain mood.

Are there any good arguments in defence of moral nihilism? I think not.