I thought a little more about what I wrote and why it didn't quite ring true to me. Actually I think it smacked of the assumption that you cannot care unless you buy into some kind of moral system, if only an implicit one. And in fact I don't believe that.

The notion that caring implies morality is, I think, an implicit dogma among some religions and moral philosophies that's not borne out by the experience of living. In fact it's quite possible, common, and even wise, to care for the world without feeling any need to systematize that care, and without it being possible to capture the dynamic of that care in some systematic model. We become dumb when we think we've "got it" with some moral system and then set about applying moral rules and measures to life. We also tend to become hypocritical, as you point out.

So it's quite possible to care about stuff without believing in morality, and it'd do us all good to get over the idea that without morality we'd become heartless monsters. I see care as a living engagement with the world and morality as a cheap substitute for that, an attempt to replace the irreducible complexity of life with a simplistic model that absolves us of personal responsibility in the moment.

And that means that a moral nihilist is nothing to be afraid of. So thanks - you helped me see more clearly how, despite my deeper views, I still associated being humane and caring with "morality". In fact it can be a bold and an enriching step to leave morality behind. And perhaps you are a moral nihilist, and perhaps I learned something from my kneejerk reaction to that.