Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

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 23rd, 2018, 6:22 am

May I suggest you look into the various subsets of "objectivism"
From what I've read so far, I'm finding it difficult to disagree with anything about objectivism so perhaps this might provide useful terminology for my ideas. Thanks for recommending it.
To say pain is objectively bad is pretty much a stark "fact.
Why do you feel the need to dumb things down? "Pain is objectively undesirable to a vast majority of people" would be a completely uncontentious statement to me, but instead you want to make it into a stupid statement that has no meaning.
What I would say is an objective truth though is that if I had to live a life constructed mainly of lies then it would be worse than living a life of mainly truths.
It'd an objective truth that you would prefer to live a life of many truths? Are you speaking like this to annoy me? Why don't you just say "I would prefer to live in a life of many truths rather than many lies"???
To kill someone's family because they upset you or someone you know is objectively wrong. The reason it is wrong is that if such a view was not held we wouldn't be here. We are here, therefore there is some underlying (maybe primarily biological mechanism) that allow us to exist
Why do you insist on framing your opinion as an objectively truth? Is it a kind of insecurity? Or a kind of arrogance?
I would also caution placing a dividing line between what we call "society" and "subject." Through neurological studies we know that we are born with "social abilities," we are social creatures, and our social nature integrates with the world to such a degree that ... well! Here we are!
I recognise that. I also recognise that throwing away our values is not practical or desirable. It doesn't mean that nothing can be done. For example take a desire to be respected. Disrespect angers you, great respect massages your ego and makes you feel happy, base line respect is what you expect from others. In my opinion there are three things you can change (three big things) about such a value. You can change interpretation, response or fulfil the foundation desire another way.

So being disrespected greatly angers the individual and he constantly feels disrespected. The problem might be that his definition of respect is too stringent and unrealistic. It may be difficult or consuming to find ways to have people address you, behave around you and speak to you in the ways you want. To fix this problem, you can reinterpret the way you see respect into something which is more attainable. Lowering your standards so that you are more likely to believe your ego is being massaged and less likely to become irritated by the actions of others. This can be done by reconsidering the intent or meaning behind the actions of others, finding ways of viewing respect as people you respect do and so on.

Alternatively you can change your response, you still feel you are being disrespected all the time but this no longer angers you. You may come to view their disrespect as defiance of your presumed superiority, you may find ways of getting back at the individual to make you feel in control, you change your response so that the likelihood you walk away from being disrespected happy increases and that received perceived respect leads to increased satisfaction and self-esteem.

Lastly you can think about why it is you wanted respect in the first place, perhaps it's due to some underlying insecurities you have. There may be a more direct method of fixing this issue rather than seeking respect. When you find that method, you are likely to have resolved the issue with greater efficiency and precision.

I think this is all pretty much doable without actually lifting a finger or hurting anybody. I think it eliminates a lot of the reasons for violence to begin with - although if it was beneficial then I would have no problems with it. However generally it really isn't and people talk like morality is the thing that stops violence. Violence is extremely risky, murder and rape carry extreme penalties for very often, absolutely no pay off. You risk your safety and freedom, you'd have to really hate someone to want to kill them. Looking at statistics of shooting to kill in WW2 and the American-Vietnamese war, most people do not seek needless conflict.

In my view, without strong values and principles the reasons for murder become slim. Society and law ought to take care of the rest, making it impractical for you to even think about violence when the risk/reward ratio is so awful. There are societal repercussions for bad behaviour too but most people are just generally nice people who don't need morals to force them to be nice. There are benefits in co-operation that exist already.

Also I got no idea what you're talking about with regards to lies, clearly in my view whether you should lie or not is a question of risk/reward in practical terms. Lie to make someone happy? Good. Lie that makes you look good? Good if low risk and no ambivalence about it. Lie that stops you from seeing the truth? Generally bad. However I don't know why you're talking about lies unless you're just having a go at Spectrum.

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

Re: Defining Nihilism

Post by Judaka » January 23rd, 2018, 6:30 am

I'd also like to point out that for a person with that desire for respect who does not address it in some way - creates a bad situation for himself and others. A view that his desire for respect was objectively fair and correct would only embolden the way he rebukes those who he perceives to have wronged him and validates his frustrations. Which neatly summarises some of the problems I have with distinctions in behaviour and values being viewed as objectively true.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2863
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Defining Nihilism

Post by Burning ghost » January 23rd, 2018, 12:17 pm

Judaka -

Maybe I should've broken this down further. If something is "bad" we call it "bad." What may be bad for me might be good for you, or what taste good to me may taste bad to you. The underlying objectivity is that we both know what each other means when we say "good" or "bad."

Speaking of "respect" here is a quote from Nietzsche:
"He who despises himself still nonetheless respects himself as one who despises."
I think Spectrum knows well enough if I wished to have a go at him I'd do it directly. Funnily enough I was going to recommend you keep speaking to him because he is someone who puts effort in to expressing his thoughts - I don't have to like or agree with what he says, but I cannot fault his resolve.

The general problem I continually find with ideas of morality is that we can agree that "suffering" is not desireable, but we don't claim that it is immoral to "suffer." If anything the opposite is likely "true", or is the trade off "true"?

Why did you pick "respect"? I am curious about that.
AKA badgerjelly

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

Re: Defining Nihilism

Post by Judaka » January 23rd, 2018, 5:26 pm

Why did you pick "respect"? I am curious about that.
No reason, could have picked a great deal of things.

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

Re: Defining Nihilism

Post by Spectrum » January 23rd, 2018, 11:59 pm

Judaka wrote:
January 23rd, 2018, 6:22 am
Also I got no idea what you're talking about with regards to lies, clearly in my view whether you should lie or not is a question of risk/reward in practical terms. Lie to make someone happy? Good. Lie that makes you look good? Good if low risk and no ambivalence about it. Lie that stops you from seeing the truth? Generally bad. However I don't know why you're talking about lies unless you're just having a go at Spectrum.
Morality & Ethics is about doing 'good' and 'avoiding' evil.

I have given an example earlier re 'Killing another human' as an evil act and thus the objective absolute moral law/maxim, 'Killing another human being is not permissible, no ifs nor buts" to be complemented with an Ethical maxim that include 'except under highly justified conditions as listed'.

In dealing with evil acts, we need to have a 'taxonomy' of evil of different values [how to ground and determine this is another complicated topic].
'Lying' is one type of evil act albeit of different value [negative] than killing another human being.
The other evils acts of various degrees are like genocides, mass rapes, corruption, etc.

As with killing we cannot give a free passage for anyone to lie without an overriding restraint, like "Anyone can lie provided they have a justification." Again this is a fire fighting approach rather than a preventive approach.

Thus as with Killing another human being we have the same principles applied to 'lying';

Objective absolute Moral Law: "Lying is NOT permissible, no ifs and buts" which is complemented with the following;
Relative Ethical Maxim: The exception to the above Objective absolute Moral Law is only permissible with justified conditions [very tough].

The justice system will deal with any non-compliance of the above.

The above principles are applicable to whatever is defined as evil acts. [what is evil need to be defined].

Whilst the justice-ethical system deal with non-compliance from the external, what is most critical is for the individual to develop a spontaneous moral sense [intelligence] in alignment with the evolutionary moral drives from within [internally] accompanied with a highly developed conscience system. How? this is another complicated topic that will target the necessary neurons to develop a high moral quotient [MQ].
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 24th, 2018, 3:32 am

Spectrum how many people have been saved from you due to your objective moral code? Do you have a great personal story about how your moral code stopped you from succumbing to your impulses to murder and steal? Or is this code really for the benefit of other people?

Extremely religious people following the most hardcore moral principles are no less drawn to violence than anybody else. Violence stems from all backgrounds and philosophies, "murder is objectively wrong" has been part of societies across the world for thousands of years. I'm sure anyone would agree that religious folk are more likely to believe in objective morality than atheists, but countries with more religious folk don't really appear to be doing better than atheists as far as murder goes. Actually it's pretty much the opposite. There are exceptions but America, South America, Russia, Africa, the middle east have far worse murder rates than Asia and Western Europe.

Naturally there are a lot of factors but if believing in objective morality makes a big difference then something must be negating it. More likely people just ignore it when it suits them as they always have done. "Murder is wrong" is easy when there's nobody you hate so much you actually want to murder them, or you're so angry, or you'd benefit so much from it that you actually have a motive. That's when people say "okay murder is wrong but this guy, well he deserves it". Sounds similar to your method although I'm not saying it's the same, it's just never been tested like that I assume.

You kind of take this approach like objective morality just presents no problems, it's just "killing and evil are so wrong, never going to do that..." Morality is incredibly vast, it's not this simplistic crap that's listed in the 10 commandments. New technologies, political issues, governmental issues, societal issues all the time and people expect you to have an opinion!! Rather what are you going to think and feel about these new things? Morality isn't involved now!? I don't care if your solution is for everyone to bury their heads in the sand - the reality is that morality exists for these reasons, not to tell me not to kill - my moral positions are most important when it's contentious. You don't think that if one views morality as objective and somebody is opposing them, it changes nothing?

If someone thinks "cheating on your spouse is objectively evil" so they are against cheating and try to do your way, that if they found their spouse cheating - it wouldn't decrease their resistance for violence? I just think you are really cherry picking and perhaps a little naive. Firstly it's already self-evident that objective morality doesn't reduce murder rates and secondly objective morality isn't limited to the 10 commandments, if it's objective then it's objective for everything. You can't have objective morality when it suits you and subjective morality when it doesn't. Perhaps you personally can but in terms of the world being a better place if all followed it, I don't think you need to imagine what would happen... because it already has happened around the world and across history.

I don't really think you ever sat down and tried to prove yourself wrong. You seem like the type of person that can only be convinced by themselves but it doesn't seem like you tried which leads to a fairly debilitating mindset. Stop me if I'm wrong, is there something about your way that's different than the others? Is it not true that believing something is "objectively evil" is going to embolden people drunk on their self-righteousness and dismissive of alternative interpretations - to act more strongly and perhaps violently? I do get a strong sense that you've probably been told all these things before, I encourage you to think about all the ways your philosophy could go wrong and find answers to them, that will make your philosophy stronger and more realistic.

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

Re: Defining Nihilism

Post by Spectrum » January 24th, 2018, 4:54 am

Judaka wrote:
January 24th, 2018, 3:32 am
Spectrum how many people have been saved from you due to your objective moral code? Do you have a great personal story about how your moral code stopped you from succumbing to your impulses to murder and steal? Or is this code really for the benefit of other people?
Thus there are a few critical points you have missed and some I have not yet raised to represent the full picture.

1. Complexity of a Moral Framework and System
Morality and Ethics is a very complex philosophical topic to present clearly in few paragraph within a limited forum. Thus there are loads of other points which I have not brought up yet.

2. Trend into the Future
I have introduced the idea that Morality and Ethics must be managed with a model with and Framework and System. I don't think any philosopher has introduced such a idea.

Another critical element is what I am presenting is based on a trend, i.e. an evolutionary moral trend from past to present into the future.
Your counter is, what I am proposing in not happening now, so my proposals failed.
What you should consider is whether trend wise, are my proposals re Morality feasible in the future and what are the timelines.

There is already an existing trend toward objective moral laws and the usual example I bring up is that of Chattel Slavery specifically. Note UN's
  • Universal Declaration on Human Rights that states in Article 4: “no one should be held in slavery or servitude, slavery in all of its forms should be eliminated.”
I believed all Nations has adopted the above objective moral law within their legal system to ban all forms of Chattel Slavery*.
This is related to specifically Chattel Slavery not other loose term re general slavery.

There are other elements of secular based objective morality along with the trend in slavery

There is the personal side to Morality and Ethics.
What is more critical is the numbers in relation to humanity.
I am sure many people have been saved from slavery from such an objective moral law from the UN to ALL the individual Nations.

3. Neural Changes in the Brain
The effectiveness of my model is conditioned upon improvements in neural connectivity in the brain in relation to one's moral compass. This will take time, perhaps within next 20, 50 or 75 years.
Evolution has enabled mirror neurons to emerge which is contributing to a greater awareness of morality but at present the development in this area is not significant, thus humanity must improve and expedite greater and faster progress in this area.
There are other parts in the average brain that need to be improved.

Extremely religious people following the most hardcore moral principles are no less drawn to violence than anybody else. Violence stems from all backgrounds and philosophies, "murder is objectively wrong" has been part of societies across the world for thousands of years. I'm sure anyone would agree that religious folk are more likely to believe in objective morality than atheists, but countries with more religious folk don't really appear to be doing better than atheists as far as murder goes. Actually it's pretty much the opposite. There are exceptions but America, South America, Russia, Africa, the middle east have far worse murder rates than Asia and Western Europe.
This is where you are freezing the view only to the present but not taking into account the trend and human potential for greater morality quotient in the future.
Objective morality from theology has its pros but very limited and restricted whilst having its negative baggage as well.
What humanity need is to adopt in the future are objective moral laws as with theistic religions but without the God factor and expedite the progress of the existing trend.
Naturally there are a lot of factors but if believing in objective morality makes a big difference then something must be negating it. More likely people just ignore it when it suits them as they always have done. "Murder is wrong" is easy when there's nobody you hate so much you actually want to murder them, or you're so angry, or you'd benefit so much from it that you actually have a motive. That's when people say "okay murder is wrong but this guy, well he deserves it". Sounds similar to your method although I'm not saying it's the same, it's just never been tested like that I assume.
I believe you are having a narrow view on this matter.
Note the moral trend re slavery I presented above.
I have presented the model within the Framework and System.
The example I gave on Slavery is a progressive sign.
Where there are areas that have not met expectation we have to work* on it and improvement is possible as evident by the Chattel Slavery example.
Humanity must direct attention to improvements based on neural changes to expedite the process on a fool proof basis.
You kind of take this approach like objective morality just presents no problems, it's just "killing and evil are so wrong, never going to do that..." Morality is incredibly vast, it's not this simplistic crap that's listed in the 10 commandments. New technologies, political issues, governmental issues, societal issues all the time and people expect you to have an opinion!! Rather what are you going to think and feel about these new things? Morality isn't involved now!? I don't care if your solution is for everyone to bury their heads in the sand - the reality is that morality exists for these reasons, not to tell me not to kill - my moral positions are most important when it's contentious. You don't think that if one views morality as objective and somebody is opposing them, it changes nothing?
As I had stated Morality and Ethics is very complex.
Another critical area is for the average human to increase his/her problem solving capabilities to deal with problems that surfaces to hinder progress.
If someone thinks "cheating on your spouse is objectively evil" so they are against cheating and try to do your way, that if they found their spouse cheating - it wouldn't decrease their resistance for violence? I just think you are really cherry picking and perhaps a little naive. Firstly it's already self-evident that objective morality doesn't reduce murder rates and secondly objective morality isn't limited to the 10 commandments, if it's objective then it's objective for everything. You can't have objective morality when it suits you and subjective morality when it doesn't. Perhaps you personally can but in terms of the world being a better place if all followed it, I don't think you need to imagine what would happen... because it already has happened around the world and across history.
I didn't say there is only objective morality for specific areas.
Ultimately Morality must be grounded on only one universal moral absolute. This has to be discussed.
I don't really think you ever sat down and tried to prove yourself wrong. You seem like the type of person that can only be convinced by themselves but it doesn't seem like you tried which leads to a fairly debilitating mindset. Stop me if I'm wrong, is there something about your way that's different than the others? Is it not true that believing something is "objectively evil" is going to embolden people drunk on their self-righteousness and dismissive of alternative interpretations - to act more strongly and perhaps violently? I do get a strong sense that you've probably been told all these things before, I encourage you to think about all the ways your philosophy could go wrong and find answers to them, that will make your philosophy stronger and more realistic.
One of my forte is Problem Solving Techniques and one of requirement is we must look out for areas which can create failures for a sub-system or the whole system. I am not totally blind to the possibility of failure to my thesis.

Why I am optimistic with my thesis is there are already proven trends and areas where it has work.

I am also optimistic based the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology in the various advance fields of knowledge. Two areas I often mentioned is the Human Genome Project [once thought impossible] and the Human Connectome Project to map the whole human brain. There are other significant advances which can expedite the moral elements on a neural basis.
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 24th, 2018, 9:04 am

There is already an existing trend toward objective moral laws and the usual example I bring up is that of Chattel Slavery specifically
The UN is controlled by nations, most of which are western and enforce western values. The west believes slavery is wrong and China/Russia don't really care thus the UN bans other countries from doing it. The west didn't always think this way and the west may not continue to think this way forever.

So what's the relation to objective moral law?

adopted the above objective moral law
You can't adopt an objective moral law.
The effectiveness of my model is conditioned upon improvements in neural connectivity in the brain in relation to one's moral compass. This will take time, perhaps within next 20, 50 or 75 years.
Not sure what you're talking about.
This is where you are freezing the view only to the present but not taking into account the trend and human potential for greater morality quotient in the future.
Countries, philosophies, people. All of them disagreeing with you on this issue and that issue. The solution? Objective morality. Altruism always sounds attractive when you're the one making the imposition - the preacher here to tell others what is right. You say "discuss", it's nice to be a problem solver but you need to know your limits. Perhaps also, consider that interpretation of said moral codes is sufficient to cause massive deviations and divisions between moral philosophies.

Let's say everyone embraces your philosophy and they decide on things you absolutely disagree with. What will you do?
Ultimately Morality must be grounded on only one universal moral absolute. This has to be discussed
Am I wrong in saying, you desire moral absolutes less because you believe in objective morality and more because you want people to be beholden to moral principles despite everything else?
Why I am optimistic with my thesis is there are already proven trends and areas where it has work.
I wonder about that. As for understanding human nature, what relevance does it have to any of this? You look around the world and see no problems that can't be solved by understanding ourselves?

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

Re: Defining Nihilism

Post by Spectrum » January 25th, 2018, 12:53 am

Judaka wrote:
January 24th, 2018, 9:04 am
There is already an existing trend toward objective moral laws and the usual example I bring up is that of Chattel Slavery specifically
The UN is controlled by nations, most of which are western and enforce western values. The west believes slavery is wrong and China/Russia don't really care thus the UN bans other countries from doing it. The west didn't always think this way and the west may not continue to think this way forever.

So what's the relation to objective moral law?
My point is all humans has an inherent moral drive and this is driven by objective moral laws.

The UN do not have moral nor legal authority, it is just a vehicle for humans to gather and humanity per se has used it to enable an objective moral law to emerge regardless of whatever agreement or disagreement that happened between countries.

Any country could have reject the declarations, but the fact that ALL Nations adopted it [Chattel Slavery is banned] within their legal system is an indication there is an alignment of it with its natural propensity as an inherent objective moral law.

Note the judiciary systems which adopted the absolute moral laws within the constitutional laws is not exactly morality. But that will facilitate the potential for individuals to align their morality with the universal absolute moral laws in the future

adopted the above objective moral law
You can't adopt an objective moral law.
Why not?
That ALL Nations enacted Chattel Slavery Laws within their judiciary is an indication these Nations has adopted the objective moral law implicitly.
The task is how to explain this effect and make it explicit so that such can be extended to other objective moral laws.
The effectiveness of my model is conditioned upon improvements in neural connectivity in the brain in relation to one's moral compass. This will take time, perhaps within next 20, 50 or 75 years.
Not sure what you're talking about.
I have made a proposal of a model to improve the moral competence of the average person.
My proposals will only work when there are real effective neural changes in the brain of the average person.
My emphasis is 'neural' in this case, i.e. the change and improvement must be accompanied by real changes in the rewiring of neurons in the brain. In this case we must know the precise set of neural connections to improve and how to do that. At present we do have the competence yet to make such specific neural improvements but it is possible in the future.
This is where you are freezing the view only to the present but not taking into account the trend and human potential for greater morality quotient in the future.
Countries, philosophies, people. All of them disagreeing with you on this issue and that issue. The solution? Objective morality. Altruism always sounds attractive when you're the one making the imposition - the preacher here to tell others what is right. You say "discuss", it's nice to be a problem solver but you need to know your limits. Perhaps also, consider that interpretation of said moral codes is sufficient to cause massive deviations and divisions between moral philosophies.

Let's say everyone embraces your philosophy and they decide on things you absolutely disagree with. What will you do?
Note the System Chart I introduced earlier.
If based on the feedback and the output do not match the objectives, then one need to take corrective actions to achieve the expected results.

Take the Chattel Slavery example. In that case every one is agreeing with my proposal, at least on one particular objective moral Law. In this case, they are not disagreeing with me at all.

What can happen is some countries while adopting such Chattel Slavery Laws in alignment with the objective moral law, they may not be serious in implementing the Law. Their people continue to practice slavery underground and the government are not serious, i.e. turned a blind eye to it.
But note this is not a moral issue but rather a bad practice of the Law.

Thus the correction is we have to made attempts to improve on the seriousness of practicing the Law using various strategies.

Ultimately Morality must be grounded on only one universal moral absolute. This has to be discussed
Am I wrong in saying, you desire moral absolutes less because you believe in objective morality and more because you want people to be beholden to moral principles despite everything else?
Note sure of your point.
My point is all individual objective moral laws [killing, lying, raping, etc.] must be grounded on one common ground and one universal absolute moral law.

E.g. of one near-universal absolute moral law is the Golden Rule. I am thinking of another more fundamental one.
Why I am optimistic with my thesis is there are already proven trends and areas where it has work.
I wonder about that. As for understanding human nature, what relevance does it have to any of this? You look around the world and see no problems that can't be solved by understanding ourselves?
I was referring specifically to my thesis Morality and Ethics.
What I am proposing is already supported some evidence it is working, thus there is a possibility it can be fully supported.
I have given supporting points how my proposals can be fully implemented, but only in the future when we have sufficient [reach a certain critical mass] knowledge and technology from the current trend.

Know Thyself - that is the key to understanding human nature and for improvements in every aspect of human nature, including Morality and Ethics.
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 25th, 2018, 2:21 am

My point is all humans has an inherent moral drive and this is driven by objective moral laws.
So you believe humans naturally want the same things morally and that we need to find out the best ways of achieving those things while simultaneously genetically engineering against people's ability to exercise their free will against those ways which have been agreed upon by the relevant parties?
The UN do not have moral nor legal authority, it is just a vehicle for humans to gather and humanity per se has used it to enable an objective moral law to emerge regardless of whatever agreement or disagreement that happened between countries.
The UN could be a great case study for you to explore the problems with your ideas.

https://archive.org/details/U.N.Me_Ami.Horovitz

Here's a doco about the problems with the UN including the problems of inclusivity of member states which do not share the values of the UN. There are limitations to discussions due to the prevalence of objectives and axioms in rational discussion. You cannot promote a value or distinction on behaviour without selling a reason for caring about that said value or distinction. If morality is simply an already defined human desire within our biology, it is not being demonstrated by the vast differences in values and interpretations across the world which cause disagreements. Plenty of immoral practices are prevented due to the power of the West and the UN and plenty aren't, mostly it comes down to who has the might and will to stop states from doing what we consider immoral.
Take the Chattel Slavery example. In that case every one is agreeing with my proposal, at least on one particular objective moral Law. In this case, they are not disagreeing with me at all.[/quote

It's more like that slavery still exists but in different forms which are more palatable, practical and reflect the social conditions that exist in countries today. Many workers in developing countries are paid near nothing for the sake of creating huge profit margins for their employers, not all that different from slavery. The threat of economic sanctions alone is enough to deter nations today from engaging in practices which the global community (mostly the West) disagrees with and slavery is no longer practical for a vast number of reasons.

Those are the reasons we've seen slavery disappear, not because people became less selfish. If we are already slaves to our biological morality then the history of the world has shown how meaningless that really is, interpretation and methodology pose huge roadblocks to progress in the ways you are suggesting.

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

Re: Defining Nihilism

Post by Spectrum » January 25th, 2018, 2:57 am

Judaka wrote:
January 25th, 2018, 2:21 am
My point is all humans has an inherent moral drive and this is driven by objective moral laws.
So you believe humans naturally want the same things morally and that we need to find out the best ways of achieving those things while simultaneously genetically engineering against people's ability to exercise their free will against those ways which have been agreed upon by the relevant parties?
Morality within humanity is a natural drive but this has to be supported by a justified rational basis tied to the universal objective ground.

What the outcome that is to be neurally based, I had emphasized it has to be fool proof and voluntary.
Note the case of Chattel Slavery and its banning by legal means as starting point which is all positive for the well being of humanity. This is fool proof and was done voluntarily.
The UN do not have moral nor legal authority, it is just a vehicle for humans to gather and humanity per se has used it to enable an objective moral law to emerge regardless of whatever agreement or disagreement that happened between countries.
The UN could be a great case study for you to explore the problems with your ideas.

https://archive.org/details/U.N.Me_Ami.Horovitz

Here's a doco about the problems with the UN including the problems of inclusivity of member states which do not share the values of the UN. There are limitations to discussions due to the prevalence of objectives and axioms in rational discussion. You cannot promote a value or distinction on behaviour without selling a reason for caring about that said value or distinction. If morality is simply an already defined human desire within our biology, it is not being demonstrated by the vast differences in values and interpretations across the world which cause disagreements. Plenty of immoral practices are prevented due to the power of the West and the UN and plenty aren't, mostly it comes down to who has the might and will to stop states from doing what we consider immoral.
I do not not agree with the current direction the UN is going and what is worst is the Islamic factor that is creeping more and more into the UN.
Nevertheless the UN is still something better than nothing.
I am optimistic the natural moral drive of humanity will prevail and impose its natural order and level [like water], like what has happened with the objective moral law on Chattel Slavery.
Take the Chattel Slavery example. In that case every one is agreeing with my proposal, at least on one particular objective moral Law. In this case, they are not disagreeing with me at all.
It's more like that slavery still exists but in different forms which are more palatable, practical and reflect the social conditions that exist in countries today. Many workers in developing countries are paid near nothing for the sake of creating huge profit margins for their employers, not all that different from slavery. The threat of economic sanctions alone is enough to deter nations today from engaging in practices which the global community (mostly the West) disagrees with and slavery is no longer practical for a vast number of reasons.

Those are the reasons we've seen slavery disappear, not because people became less selfish. If we are already slaves to our biological morality then the history of the world has shown how meaningless that really is, interpretation and methodology pose huge roadblocks to progress in the ways you are suggesting.
I have gone through the same experience in this discussion with others where they bring in other forms of slavery in its most loose term.
This is why I am referring to Chattel Slavery specifically and not other forms of slavery. What the UN and Nations refer to in their Law is specifically Chattel Slavery, i.e. treating humans as a property that is legally owned and traded.

You can give all sorts of reasons why some Nations accepted to enact Laws on Chattel Slavery, but the final and ultimate cause is the natural alignment [subliminally] of their natural impulse towards the objective moral law regarding Chattel Slavery, i.e. owning another human legally as a chattel and trading them like animals. Somehow the Golden Rule is stirring in their psyche. I am looking at a more fundamental and universal moral ground.


"history of the world has shown how meaningless that really is"
Here you are looking at history and at present on the surface but have missed out on the progressing trends as I had highlighted earlier.

Note as with primates and other 'higher' animals, humans has progressed with a larger number of mirror neurons [related to empathy - morality] and this trend is progressing towards a greater number of mirror neurons within the average human and thus greater degree of morality. This is one indication among others showing the rising trend of moral quotient within the average person toward the future.
There are other factors beside mirror neurons.

Note the above is 'all talk' only but to ensure what is proposed is actualized in the future humanity need to be steered to act correctly.

There is great hope because as I had shown there is already evidence of it working in small parts. i.e. re the case of Chattel Slavery.
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 25th, 2018, 3:25 am

Well you say the final and ultimate cause is natural impulse towards objective moral law but I prefer my practical reasons to your idealism. Happy to accept evidence for your claims but I don't think you'll find any. I would fight against any attempt to subjugate my free will or the free will of my future children no matter what reasoning was given. Especially not for arguments of subliminal natural impulses demonstrating objective moral law when alternative explanations involving overt causal processes exist. You will require genetic engineering to override people's proclivity to different distinctions on behaviour and I just see this as a method which involves brainwashing and exertion of power to achieve hegemony. Far more practical and efficient alternatives to progress exist in my view.

You're talking about science demonstrating hegemony among human ideals when human ideals are objectively different, something easily verifiable. I will say though that even if humans did possess hegemony in their moral distinctions, I don't think evolution should be put on a pedestal, it's hardly provided us with perfect bodies and minds and I don't think morality derived from biology is any less flawed - if we can even think about it that way.

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

Re: Defining Nihilism

Post by Spectrum » January 25th, 2018, 4:37 am

Judaka wrote:
January 25th, 2018, 3:25 am
Well you say the final and ultimate cause is natural impulse towards objective moral law but I prefer my practical reasons to your idealism. Happy to accept evidence for your claims but I don't think you'll find any. I would fight against any attempt to subjugate my free will or the free will of my future children no matter what reasoning was given. Especially not for arguments of subliminal natural impulses demonstrating objective moral law when alternative explanations involving overt causal processes exist. You will require genetic engineering to override people's proclivity to different distinctions on behaviour and I just see this as a method which involves brainwashing and exertion of power to achieve hegemony. Far more practical and efficient alternatives to progress exist in my view.
I believe you are experiencing the 'Frankenstein Effect' which is typical where any mentioned of changes to the brain is likely to invoke suspicion in involving forced tweaking to the brain to ensure compliance.

Note this;
  • 1. 3000 years ago and earlier Chattel Slavery [inhuman] was an accepted norm.
    2. However over the period there were gradual resistance, opposition and changes.
    3. These gradual changes in consciousness on Chattel Slavery eventually culminated in the total banned of Chattel Slavery in 2017 in all recognized Nations on Earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... %93present
Surely there must be a correlation with
  • 1. what happened with the changes in Chattel Slavery from 1000 years ago to the present and
    2. what happened with the neural connectivity in the brains of individual within humanity.
I believed the specific correlated neural changes exist.
The question is how we can trace this specific changes and the final progressing mechanics of the neural pattern that is responsible for this progress culminating in the legal abolishment of Chattel Slavery.

You may think I am idealistic but my speculation is based on real evidence and it is not impossible to map the specific neural tracks involved. Note the Human Connectome Project.

Once this is identified and traced, then it can be replicated, and not to scare you, it must be in a fool proof and on a voluntary and natural basis.


You're talking about science demonstrating hegemony among human ideals when human ideals are objectively different, something easily verifiable. I will say though that even if humans did possess hegemony in their moral distinctions, I don't think evolution should be put on a pedestal, it's hardly provided us with perfect bodies and minds and I don't think morality derived from biology is any less flawed - if we can even think about it that way.
Our objective is to strive towards the highest ideals [as guides] within Morality and Ethics towards the generic objective of Perpetual Peace. Such generic ideals must be solidly grounded and justified. From that base, humans can set other multivariate ideals in accordance to their own conditions and proclivities.
I don't see how the above intent is scary.

I wrote somewhere, humans are a biological servomechanism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servomechanism
A servomechanism need to guided by objectives else it is like a rudderless boat going in circles.

On this subject, so far you seem to be heading towards steering a rudderless boat without hope and doing nothing and without direction.
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 25th, 2018, 5:43 am

You're stramanning my position on genetic engineering. I'm saying that people disagree on moral issues and you're talking about people becoming more moral. That in itself is a threat.

What you're saying might've sounded less idealistic if there was some indication that you recognised you are taking one interpretation out of an infinite possible interpretations rather than using this example of chattel slavery as proof. You don't entertain the idea that chattel slavery may come back in the future or recognise it hasn't actually been banned for a very long time relative to how long it has existed or that chattel slavery has simply been replaced by other forms of greed and selfishness. There's no intellectual honesty in your approach at all, I find it hard to believe your speculations are based on anything but idealism.

My objectives aren't the same as yours and I have free will so biology isn't controlling my distinctions either. So I don't know how you expect to have the same objectives as me.

I think you're just misusing the term objective truth, can you please define what you mean without using either of those words? Solidly grounded and justified doesn't require objective truth, opinions can be justified and soldily grounded but I agree that we do need that for our distinctions to have meaning.
In this subject, so far you seem to be heading towards steering a rudderless boat without hope and doing nothing and without direction.
I just don't agree that governmental bodies should be telling anybody what to think and enforcing it using genetic engineering, that's tyranny. I have plenty of ideas about how individuals can think about the issue of morality and arrive at logical and practical conclusions which I have already gone through in this thread. Ironically I put strong emphasis on maximizing control over my beliefs and continually reviewing them for inefficiencies and changing them accordingly. It's exactly that element that makes you so proud of your philosophy and distinguishes it from normative objective morality theories, I just take mine one step further and recognise that everything can be reviewed and adjusted not just interpretation and implementation.

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

Re: Defining Nihilism

Post by Spectrum » January 25th, 2018, 7:25 pm

Judaka wrote:
January 25th, 2018, 5:43 am
You're stramanning my position on genetic engineering. I'm saying that people disagree on moral issues and you're talking about people becoming more moral. That in itself is a threat.
It is obvious there are different views on morality with different conclusions. So your saying people disagree on moral issues is merely something very normal.

But note,
Wiki wrote:Morality (from the Latin moralis "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1]
Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]
Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
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"?
What you're saying might've sounded less idealistic if there was some indication that you recognised you are taking one interpretation out of an infinite possible interpretations rather than using this example of chattel slavery as proof. You don't entertain the idea that chattel slavery may come back in the future or recognise it hasn't actually been banned for a very long time relative to how long it has existed or that chattel slavery has simply been replaced by other forms of greed and selfishness. There's no intellectual honesty in your approach at all, I find it hard to believe your speculations are based on anything but idealism.
I did not insist Chattel Slavery cannot come back.
It is possible for a rogue country to void their Laws on Abolishment of Slavery and made Chattel Slavery legal regardless of the condemnation and sanctions by the majority of countries.

My point is we can use the case of the present state where all countries has enacted Laws to abolish Chattel Slavery to study the principles, mechanics and process of this evolution with reference to morality. Once we understand these moral elements we may be able to take preventive steps to ensure no countries revert back to Chattel Slavery.

Yes, my speculation is based on idealism [the impossible] in this case. It has to and MUST be as there is no other effective alternative.
With morality [especially] the target must be the impossible ideals and the striving toward these ideals but with the strong awareness we will never reach the impossible ideals. What we are interested in reality is the optimal results in this case, i.e. the consequence of continual improvements at all times.

My objectives aren't the same as yours and I have free will so biology isn't controlling my distinctions either. So I don't know how you expect to have the same objectives as me.
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.
I think you're just misusing the term objective truth, can you please define what you mean without using either of those words? Solidly grounded and justified doesn't require objective truth, opinions can be justified and soldily grounded but I agree that we do need that for our distinctions to have meaning.
I have defined 'objective' earlier, i.e. it is intersubjective consensus.
Truth = accorded with reality based on solid ground and justified.

Opinions are not solidly grounded and justified. Opinions are merely freely expressed views that are not based on solid grounds and justifications.
In contrast to 'opinion' we have 'truth' aka 'knowledge' which must be solidly grounded and justified, e.g. scientific knowledge. Note knowledge (truth) = Justified True Belief [Plato].
In this subject, so far you seem to be heading towards steering a rudderless boat without hope and doing nothing and without direction.
I just don't agree that governmental bodies should be telling anybody what to think and enforcing it using genetic engineering, that's tyranny. I have plenty of ideas about how individuals can think about the issue of morality and arrive at logical and practical conclusions which I have already gone through in this thread. Ironically I put strong emphasis on maximizing control over my beliefs and continually reviewing them for inefficiencies and changing them accordingly. It's exactly that element that makes you so proud of your philosophy and distinguishes it from normative objective morality theories, I just take mine one step further and recognise that everything can be reviewed and adjusted not just interpretation and implementation.
I have already emphasized what I proposed should be fool proof and if implemented has to be voluntary because it is the most practical and efficient thing to do.

What I had proposed cover your expectations, i.e. "recognise that everything can be reviewed and adjusted" except it is more sophisticated with different levels for consideration.

What I have placed as the ultimate objective is an ideal, i.e. the highest good, i.e. the absolute moral law. It is understood this ideal is impossible to achieve but it is critical necessary to act as a guide for practical actions re morality and ethics.

Then we have to establish penultimate objectives in alignment with the ultimate. These penultimate objectives are the ones we must seriously strive to achieve in reality. It is these penultimate objectives that need to be reviewed and changed where necessary but all times they are in alignment towards the impossible-to-achieve ultimate ideal.

In your case, without an impossible-to-achieve ultimate ideal, you are ultimately rudderless and likely to get lost.

You can raise the question, what if my "impossible-to-achieve ultimate ideal" is not the 'right' moral ideal and it could be an ideal towards 'evil' instead of the highest good.
As I have stated, this "impossible-to-achieve ultimate ideal" must be solidly grounded and strongly justified to the degree "it is than which no greater good can exists." How? I know how it is to be done but I will not go into the details here.
What I have presented here are the principles and theory [at least] of how we go about getting to it.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Post Reply