Defining Nihilism

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Judaka
Posts: 235
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Defining Nihilism

Post by Judaka » January 26th, 2018, 1:59 am

How can being more moral be a threat when its objectives are to be more proper in conduct that are related to "goodness" or "rightness"?
You've already said the reason. People don't agree on what is proper, good or righteous.
we will never reach the impossible ideals
They're not even my ideals.
Yes you have free will but you also have a faculty of reason and at the highest level of reasoning, we are likely to have the same objectives in terms of morality, i.e. striving to achieve the highest good
.

Morality has taken life of it's own, it cannot possibly be represented fully biologically. We have moral positions today that simply weren't possible in the past, our values are based on the world around us and culture has a huge, observable impact. I don't have your objectives in morality, I don't care about the highest good. I want practical benefits for people based on their own situations, I'm not interested in sacrificing anything for the sake of ideals.
I have defined 'objective' earlier, i.e. it is intersubjective consensus.
Surely in moral philosophy, we'd call intersubjective consensus subjective morality... So you agree morality is based on the sensibilities/nature of men, but why do I need to agree with your morals for them to be effective? Consensus doesn't currently exist - am I wrong about that? So the plan is to genetically engineer a consensus?

Spectrum currently what you're suggesting isn't possible so there's no need for me to form an opinion right now. Your view is controversial because of the whole "genetically engineering the way you think" aspect, I'd need the science to be closer to completion before I was able to form a real opinion about it. I might even be willing to agree with you to a point - but my problems with morality aren't that people don't follow it stringently enough, it's quite the opposite. I am relying on increased law enforcement capabilities to serve as a deterrent to crime but it's all out of my hands so I don't care too much.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Defining Nihilism

Post by Spectrum » January 26th, 2018, 3:15 am

Judaka wrote:
January 26th, 2018, 1:59 am
How can being more moral be a threat when its objectives are to be more proper in conduct that are related to "goodness" or "rightness"?
You've already said the reason. People don't agree on what is proper, good or righteous.
Earlier you stated 'to be more moral is a threat itself.'

Firstly it is the principle;
If morality = proper, good or righteous, how can that be a threat itself.
Thus in principle, more moral as define above cannot be a threat.

If we were to ask every human to list what they consider is proper, good or righteous and give weightage to each, re Pareto 80/20 [-I presume you are familiar with this], the 20% of the list that make up the 80% in terms of criticalness in all listing is likely to be the same.
The same will apply to what is evil.
The shorter list of heavyweights, e.g. killings, genocides, mass rapes, rapes, abominable evils acts are likely to be the same for the majority.
Where they don't agree is likely confine to the non-critical 20% from the 80% of items.

Thus we can get consensus on the critical items.
we will never reach the impossible ideals
They're not even my ideals.
By logic and reason, within morality, the obvious ideal is the highest good which is an impossible ideal.
Yes you have free will but you also have a faculty of reason and at the highest level of reasoning, we are likely to have the same objectives in terms of morality, i.e. striving to achieve the highest good
.
Morality has taken life of it's own, it cannot possibly be represented fully biologically. We have moral positions today that simply weren't possible in the past, our values are based on the world around us and culture has a huge, observable impact. I don't have your objectives in morality, I don't care about the highest good. I want practical benefits for people based on their own situations, I'm not interested in sacrificing anything for the sake of ideals.
If you do not align with the highest good reason and wisdom can think of, then you could logically allow someone like Hitler and his likes to please themselves with their personal moral objectives. Utilitarianism is not an effective moral system and with this slavery is likely to be made legal again.

I have defined 'objective' earlier, i.e. it is intersubjective consensus.
Surely in moral philosophy, we'd call intersubjective consensus subjective morality... So you agree morality is based on the sensibilities/nature of men, but why do I need to agree with your morals for them to be effective? Consensus doesn't currently exist - am I wrong about that? So the plan is to genetically engineer a consensus?
Nope in morality intersubjective consensus based on the highest reason is objective morality.
Objective morality is based on the highest reason possible within all humans.

Note there was no consensus the Earth orbited the Sun 600 years ago.
But now there is consensus on that theory based on evidence.
It is the same with objective moral laws in the future based on reason and evidences - note Chattel Slavery as an example.

Genetic engineering is a straw man. The ability of all Nations to agree on the abolishment of Chattel Slavery is not based on genetic engineering. We will work along the same line with the overall objective moral law.
Spectrum currently what you're suggesting isn't possible so there's no need for me to form an opinion right now. Your view is controversial because of the whole "genetically engineering the way you think" aspect, I'd need the science to be closer to completion before I was able to form a real opinion about it. I might even be willing to agree with you to a point - but my problems with morality aren't that people don't follow it stringently enough, it's quite the opposite. I am relying on increased law enforcement capabilities to serve as a deterrent to crime but it's all out of my hands so I don't care too much.
Btw, I am not expecting any one to agree with my ideas on morality because what I have presented here is only about 40% of the full picture.

I have mentioned the Philosophy of Morality is independent from law enforcement. The judiciary merely adapted moral maxims as laws to be enforced. Morality [as specifically defined] is not something that is to be enforced but allowed to emerge from one's consciousness spontaneously.

In my scheme, the function of Morality, Ethics and Judiciary [legislature] are independent functions with minor overlaps.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Judaka
Posts: 235
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Defining Nihilism

Post by Judaka » January 26th, 2018, 4:42 am

Thus we can get consensus on the critical items.
Critical items? I agree there are some issues you will get overwhelming consensus, things which have been considered wrong by most for tens of thousands of years. Moral distinctions which used to be extremely widespread are now no longer relevant and new ones have emerged. Morality is still a contentious issue, especially for different cultures. If I view morality as being x, and you view it as being y and I say "I'm going to make everyone more moral" - I don't see how that isn't a threat to you. The only mitigating factor is this unrealistic idea that everyone will agree if they just discuss (as though they don't already) because chattel slavery. If I hear anything about chattel slavery from you again I'm done, you should be able to provide a litany of examples and arguments, instead you just point out chattel slavery was banned. So what? Morality changes over time, that's NOT evidence for a possible unilateral consensus.

I'd explain why but I feel i'd be wasting my time, it's not hard to see that people non-western values make no attempt to be universally beneficial. Western values are about liberty, equality and such - alternatively other cultures do not think all are equal, or that all should be treated the same. You think you can go to Iran and convince them that their culture is wrong then go ahead, I don't know what the future holds but it's unlikely we will see a single culture for the entire world for a very, very long time.
If you do not align with the highest good reason and wisdom can think of, then you could logically allow someone like Hitler and his likes to please themselves with their personal moral objectives. Utilitarianism is not an effective moral system and with this slavery is likely to be made legal again.
Yeah I don't think like you therefore I'm completely apathetic about all moral issues.
Nope in morality intersubjective consensus based on the highest reason is objective morality.
Intersubjectivity in morality as an argument against other moral distinctions amounts to "might is right". It's not comparable to legitimate uses of intersubjectivity.
Genetic engineering is a straw man. The ability of all Nations to agree on the abolishment of Chattel Slavery is not based on genetic engineering. We will work along the same line with the overall objective moral law
What I particularly find boring on this forum is the lack of intellectual honesty when it comes to history. "The ability of all nations to agree..." that's your idea of what happened?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... nd_serfdom

Here's a history of nations abolitioning slavery, there are very few examples of it occurring outside of the West or without pressure from the West. Muslim nations received huge pressure from Western powers in the 18th-19th century to ban slavery and to this day, Islamic scholars and religious figures argue against it. The West which colonised or ruled over almost the entire globe is responsible for banning slavery in Europe, Africa, Middle east, most of South East Asia, Australia, some of South America and so many more places. Most of the banning of slavery around the world took place before the UN even existed.

The UN's bill of human rights was based on the US bill of rights, the UN's bill of human rights was written up by you guessed it, the West. So where's this unilateral agreement you're talking about. Show me the evidence of this agreement, when did all the world's leaders come together and discuss this issue and come to an agreement? The banning of slavery was based on Western philosophy and it was enforced by Western powers at their height.

I haven't really been able to progress in this conversation to anything meaningful because I just disagree with all of your premises. You talk as though all your points are common knowledge and obvious too, there's no awareness of your ideals being subjective. I only talked about genetic engineering because I don't understand what you're even suggesting. "Some people agreed on this one thing a few hundred years ago and this shows we can discuss things, all we need is some objective moral law which is intersubjective (aka implied unilateral agreement) that isn't there but it will be once we study ourselves more, once we've done that we'll genetically engineer people to be more moral - if there are any issues we can just discuss because y'know chattel slavery we discussed that and figured out the answers right?"

So actually 90% of this is wrong and the rest of what you've had to say is that I am clueless, I don't particularly dislike Hitler and my objectives are intersubjectively wrong (without unilateral agreement, intersubjective without unilateral agreement okay!). I stand by what I said earlier, you never tried to prove yourself wrong and that's what makes listening to you so boring. Combined with the fact that I have yet to see any humility from you which leads me to believe, you aren't going to take any criticism anyway so I don't know if there's a point to this debate.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Defining Nihilism

Post by Spectrum » January 27th, 2018, 1:43 am

Judaka wrote:
January 26th, 2018, 4:42 am
Combined with the fact that I have yet to see any humility from you which leads me to believe, you aren't going to take any criticism anyway so I don't know if there's a point to this debate.
I have no issue if you have pointed out any of my view is something like 1 + 1 = 3, and if I accept the justification it is wrong then I will change my view. So far I have not come across such a thing from you.

I believe this is a Philosophical platform for different people to express their views for various reasons. Personally I am not expecting anyone to accept my views at all given that I have not presented a thorough picture of the issue. Not that I don't have them but it is too complicated to present the full picture.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Judaka
Posts: 235
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Defining Nihilism

Post by Judaka » January 27th, 2018, 2:03 am

Really? I came to this forum for honest discussions with people who shared my interests, I'm not interested in being told your views. I completely dismantled your absurd claims about how the banning of chattel slavery occured and do you think I was thinking "Finally Spectrum is going to answer me honestly and question the integrity of his claims"? No i was thinking "This guy is going to brush me off big time because he isn't here for a discussion" and that' exactly what I got. I'd rather go read the books of famous philosophers, if going to a forum wasn't an interactive experience but just a place to read the monologues of strangers who don't even care if their arguments sound good or not.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Defining Nihilism

Post by Spectrum » January 27th, 2018, 11:38 pm

Judaka wrote:
January 27th, 2018, 2:03 am
Really? I came to this forum for honest discussions with people who shared my interests, I'm not interested in being told your views. I completely dismantled your absurd claims about how the banning of chattel slavery occured and do you think I was thinking "Finally Spectrum is going to answer me honestly and question the integrity of his claims"? No i was thinking "This guy is going to brush me off big time because he isn't here for a discussion" and that' exactly what I got. I'd rather go read the books of famous philosophers, if going to a forum wasn't an interactive experience but just a place to read the monologues of strangers who don't even care if their arguments sound good or not.
You were making the following remarks
"What I particularly find boring on this forum ..
.. you aren't going to take any criticism anyway so I don't know if there's a point to this debate."

Since you have lost interest I have also lost interest on this vein of discussion.
Besides, the above is taking too much of my time and the path of the discussion is getting less and less amiable, thus I would prefer to give it a pass.


I will addressed this point [only]..
I completely dismantled your absurd claims about how the banning of chattel slavery occurred ...

As I had stated you have not shown any of my point to be 1+1=3. If you have shown any of my points to be 1+1=3 then I will review to change or reject it.

Re the point on Chattel slavery;

1. All humans are evolved with the basic drive for morality.

2. There is a trend of incremental morality within humanity since humanity emerged.
One example is that of Chattel Slavery.
There is trend in incremental improvements within Chattel slavery since >3000 years ago with intermediate progress culminating to an objective moral law on Chattel Slaver by all Nations. I mentioned it here.
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 33#p303433
It is a irrelevant point that slavery was banned before the UN recommendation.
I mentioned there were already resistance to chattel slavery right from the start, 3000 years ago.
The above prove that there was an inherent objective moral law at work, e.g. in this case of Chattel Slavery which is made explicit.
  • I have used chattel slavery as an example because the evidence is clear-cut. I could have used other examples, like killing, genocides, and the likes which are possible but tougher to convince.
3. Since the above is supported by its eventual evidence, the task for humanity is to find out the principles underlying the effects and consequences. Besides external knowledge it is essential we understand what has been going on in the brains of humanity that enable the emergence of an objective moral law on chattel slavery to emerge.

4. Once we understand the underlying principles without and within the brain, we can extrapolate to other areas and expedite the moral progress of the average person using fool proof and voluntary methods.

5. I am optimistic the above can be established and implemented in the future given the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology.

The above are all supported with evidences.

You are entitled to your own opinions.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Judaka
Posts: 235
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Defining Nihilism

Post by Judaka » January 28th, 2018, 12:02 am

Naturally people are going to disagree with slavery - for many reasons outside of morality as well. The fact is that the West enforced these changes across the world with very few exceptions. Genocides and such, it's all the same. There was the world before the industrial revolution and the world after the Western global colonization, it's not a part of a global trend. Which was my point and something you're still acting like happened.

Nobody is going to argue that morality isn't in part biological, almost everyone has moral distinctions from around the world. That doesn't mean what you think it means.

Oh well I stand by my claim your not interested in discussion about it, I'll bow out here.

Post Reply