Notices
Results 1 to 52 of 52

Thread: Share your thoughts on your ethical beliefs

  1. #1 Share your thoughts on your ethical beliefs 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    42
    The questions is often asked would you kill one to save a thousand?

    And the statement should be made that to not do so is unethical?

    But when did the universe established rules of ethics as to what is right and what is wrong.

    There is a strong social idea that there is an idea of right and wrong, and idea that gives birth to good and evil and often gods and devils.

    The sad thing about life is there is no real precedence of how to live.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    110
    You are correct, ethics and morals don't hold any cosmic significance, they are culturally-defined.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Moral nihilism, also known as ethical nihilism, is the meta-ethical view that morality does not exist; therefore no action is preferable to any other. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is not inherently right or wrong.
    Taken from wikipedia and is what i believe is the 100% objective truth to existance.

    What i dont understand is why people associate nihilism with pessimism and destruction, what it REALLY means is that there isnt any higher power that "takes sides" which means that existance is ultimately neutral and that there is perfect balance.

    So to get to the question, yes i would kill one to save a thousand simply because its the most logical choise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Lyn
    Lyn is offline
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    morality does not exist; therefore no action is preferable to any other
    I don't see how the second part follows from the first part. I believe morality is in large part relative but I don't think this logically entails the belief that all actions are of equal preference. Just because I can't prove that killing is wrong doesn't mean I see no difference in preference between slaughtering millions and not slaughtering millions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Lyn
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    morality does not exist; therefore no action is preferable to any other
    I don't see how the second part follows from the first part. I believe morality is in large part relative but I don't think this logically entails the belief that all actions are of equal preference. Just because I can't prove that killing is wrong doesn't mean I see no difference in preference between slaughtering millions and not slaughtering millions.
    You're misinterpreting the quote.

    Preferable is used in the context of "right/wrong", in that no action is "more" right/wrong than the other.

    Its apparent, that if we lived in a culture where systematized rape was lauded, it'd be something the avg would consider "correct", but in the modern societal context, we find that rape isn't praised...

    What makes either group "correct"? Nothing.

    In this universe, there are only actions, the universe didn't produce a list of right/wrong courses of action, other than those physically impossible -- If it is physically impossible, the universe regulates against it, thus we can characterize it as incorrect, wrong, in the context of the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Lyn
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    morality does not exist; therefore no action is preferable to any other
    I don't see how the second part follows from the first part. I believe morality is in large part relative but I don't think this logically entails the belief that all actions are of equal preference. Just because I can't prove that killing is wrong doesn't mean I see no difference in preference between slaughtering millions and not slaughtering millions.
    That would depend on the results you want to achieved with you're desired result.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Lyn
    Lyn is offline
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    109
    Exactly. The fact that I do not believe in absolute morality does not prevent me from considering some results to be more desirable than others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    42
    I would say that the universe has some very defined concepts, such as the weakest is usually dominated by the strongest. Really it is people that have created a counter unjustified. Which is itself is justified by the above. The majority rules over the minority.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Lyn
    Lyn is offline
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronman
    You're misinterpreting the quote.

    Preferable is used in the context of "right/wrong", in that no action is "more" right/wrong than the other.
    Your explanation makes sense, which leads me to think that the original quote is just poorly worded. It uses the word "preferable" when it is not really referring to any matter of preference at all. It is, as you say, referring to rightness and wrongness. Anyway, thank you for the clarification.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Moral nihilism, also known as ethical nihilism, is the meta-ethical view that morality does not exist; therefore no action is preferable to any other. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is not inherently right or wrong.
    Taken from wikipedia and is what i believe is the 100% objective truth to existance.

    What i dont understand is why people associate nihilism with pessimism and destruction, what it REALLY means is that there isnt any higher power that "takes sides" which means that existance is ultimately neutral and that there is perfect balance.

    So to get to the question, yes i would kill one to save a thousand simply because its the most logical choise.
    Because that from of thinking can be perceived as endorsement for committing actions that are negative/destructive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by blacknamed
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Moral nihilism, also known as ethical nihilism, is the meta-ethical view that morality does not exist; therefore no action is preferable to any other. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is not inherently right or wrong.
    Taken from wikipedia and is what i believe is the 100% objective truth to existance.

    What i dont understand is why people associate nihilism with pessimism and destruction, what it REALLY means is that there isnt any higher power that "takes sides" which means that existance is ultimately neutral and that there is perfect balance.

    So to get to the question, yes i would kill one to save a thousand simply because its the most logical choise.
    Because that from of thinking can be perceived as endorsement for committing actions that are negative/destructive.
    "that form of thinking" is seeking an objective truth, and such knowledge should be sought by any philosopher. If someone uses that knowledge as an EXCUSE to - as you put it "do negative/destructive actions" than that person is using that knowledge for his own subjective goals. It doesent change any facts at all.

    Also...

    If you werent human, but a force of living energy (For example sake) that observed earth and its species including the human race, would you consider a human killing thousands of other humans evil? The human race is pretty much destroying the planet and replicating completely out of control. They are responsible for countless deaths of the other animal species on their planet and so on. *ANY* outside observer would pretty much judge us the evil ones if measured by our own standards. Being the top of the food chain doesent give us the right to be so arrogant as to think we are special in any way.

    Evil and good are terms made up by humans. There is no "true" evil or good, only cause and effect.

    A human tribe wants the food resources in a forest. But a tribe of another lifeform also seeks this food resource. If the humans kill the other lifeform to get the food are they evil?

    ...

    Ok now consider that the OTHER lifeform kills the HUMANS for that food resource. Are they evil?

    Answer is that none of them are "evil" they are just 2 opposing forces.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    First you have to decide what you mean by making a moral statement.

    Are you a cognitivist or a non-cognitivist? Which is to say, do you believe moral statements represent truths or opinions?

    A moral subjectivist can still support their moral claims if they consider them to be a matter of opinion rather than truth. If I were a moral subjectivist, and I felt that killing was wrong from a system of morality of my own choosing, then that statement is not a statement of fact or falsehood, it is a statement of my preferences.

    Another possible systems of morality which can function within a non-cognitivist framework is prescriptivism. Which says that moral statements are imperatives. A common prescriptivist morality is Kant's Categorical Imperative. Religious morality is in many ways prescriptivist, however they conflate the prescripts with moral truths. In this system what is "right" or "wrong" is what follows the rules of whatever system you are working within.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    First you have to decide what you mean by making a moral statement.

    Are you a cognitivist or a non-cognitivist? Which is to say, do you believe moral statements represent truths or opinions?

    A moral subjectivist can still support their moral claims if they consider them to be a matter of opinion rather than truth. If I were a moral subjectivist, and I felt that killing was wrong from a system of morality of my own choosing, then that statement is not a statement of fact or falsehood, it is a statement of my preferences.

    Another possible systems of morality which can function within a non-cognitivist framework is prescriptivism. Which says that moral statements are imperatives. A common prescriptivist morality is Kant's Categorical Imperative. Religious morality is in many ways prescriptivist, however they conflate the prescripts with moral truths. In this system what is "right" or "wrong" is what follows the rules of whatever system you are working within.
    Yeah, they can be true and right/wrong, relative to there own systems; this truth doesn't transcend the bounds of their systems, definitely not the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by blacknamed
    The sad thing about life is there is no real precedence of how to live.
    There's four billion years of precedent. We can see what life does and predict what it will do. We know the rules of the game.

    Then even if life is just a machine we can judge good or bad, same as we can fairly judge a stalled windmill "bad" and one that spins "good".

    Humans, like windmills, aren't just anything. E.g. we're social mammals, and we're also creative individuals. There are general rules of life, of hominids, and so forth. There are also rules particular to persons. It is bad, dare I say evil, to push coins into your friend's ear. It is just plain wrong to expect candy bars ejected from his mouth. Just the tip of the iceberg, and no one's going to debate any of it.

    As for killing. Apart from the general rule against species killing their own, just me the individual would be bad to kill. It would be jarring, complicated, unpleasant, and I'm just not made for it. It might break me. You don't slice oranges with a soupspoon. I don't believe any one is built to kill, unless that person is twisted in a lot of bad ways, so they are not very human.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    One idea, just putting it out there, is that we all want to live the best lives possible. But we would have to be deluded to believe that we are more valuable than everyone else. So since we subjectively value ourselves we must value others, and hence the golden rule (from which the rest of ethics can be derived). Does that make sense to anyone?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    It makes sense though child development renders it redundant. Before we even develop theory of mind (that another might think or want something) we copy behaviours. So we're doing unto others as is done to us. We then approach the Golden Rule through experiments in reciprocity. This all gets so pre-philosophically entrenched that - my hypothesis - we are bound to later consciously "discover" it as young adults and think ourselves sophisticated for having these profound new ideas.

    I guess my point is that much philosophy and especially ethics is really an exercise in articulating things we resolved in childhood, which is worthwhile but unnecessary to having them in the first place. And of course no matter how hard you think about your core values and perceptions they won't budge much.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I don't believe any one is built to kill, unless that person is twisted in a lot of bad ways, so they are not very human.
    Had me laughing out loud there with "I don't believe any one is built to kill". You think the lifeforms that preceeded us the last millions of years of evolution and competition had any moral or ethical code? Humans are the perfect killing machines and nothing stopped us to get where we are today, because we crushed that opposition with our superior organisms along the way.

    I want you to name ONE thing the human species does better than killing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Pong wrote that. I meant kill another human being, in response to the OP's mention of ethical dilemmas where you kill X to save Y.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Pong wrote that. I meant kill another human being, in response to the OP's mention of ethical dilemmas where you kill X to save Y.
    Ah, sorry for misquoting and misunderstanding your post
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    29
    Every individual is right, and possibly wrong in the eyes of others. Therefore, ethics should be understood and not spoken.

    Also, anyone could kill if they believed it to be the best solution. Truly, one less human decreases the change of survival for human kind. That doesn't mean its never worth it, or "justified" to do so. It merely depends on the tools you are measuring with. Else homo sexuals should be prohibited anti-progressive behaviour.

    Its ethics that make people fragile to manipulation. Every person should sail by there own judgement. Thats why its so easy to fuck with freedom.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronman
    What makes either group "correct"? Nothing.

    In this universe, there are only actions, the universe didn't produce a list of right/wrong courses of action, other than those physically impossible -- If it is physically impossible, the universe regulates against it, thus we can characterize it as incorrect, wrong, in the context of the universe.
    Would you say that the actions of people like Pol Pot (or insert your favorite despot) were not wrong, then, but only perhaps unsuccessful, in that he lost the war? I am not criticizing your viewpoint, just trying to see what conclusions it leads to.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I don't believe any one is built to kill, unless that person is twisted in a lot of bad ways, so they are not very human.
    History and anthropology suggest that war is a very common, if not universal, human condition. One might argue that a pacifist is inhuman.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370

    Would you say that the actions of people like Pol Pot (or insert your favorite despot) were not wrong, then, but only perhaps unsuccessful, in that he lost the war? I am not criticizing your viewpoint, just trying to see what conclusions it leads to.
    My opinion on that is the following (unless i managed to misunderstand your question aswell )

    There can not be progress without knowledge. Pol pot seemed to hate intelligent people for some reason (read abit about him on wiki) and wanted utter obedience. I dont see how he wanted to start civilization "over" by destroying it.

    Purely objectively speaking as a Moral Nihilist id say that his action were not more good or evil than any other action as i believe in cause and effect only.

    However... the effect of the chain of actions he was trying to create seemed to just involve senseless murder and the destruction of wisdom and knowledge wich would stop progress.

    Starting "Over" is just idiotic cause...

    Start-----Seeing error/learning from error-----change-----progress

    If he just feels everything had to start over once something was wrong, instead of changeing things then:

    Start....seeing errors/------start over-----seeing errors-----start over

    To improve something you must change it by learning, not just start over and erase everything. This way thing will inevitably repeat itself endlessly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Purely objectively speaking as a Moral Nihilist id say that his action were not more good or evil than any other action as i believe in cause and effect only.
    If you are on the jury in his war crimes trial, do you vote guilty or not guilty?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Purely objectively speaking as a Moral Nihilist id say that his action were not more good or evil than any other action as i believe in cause and effect only.
    If you are on the jury in his war crimes trial, do you vote guilty or not guilty?
    If you want my personal and subjective opinion, then guilty. He did not contribute to any real progress of mankind and was therefore useless. And the mass murder he commited was not necessary. He was an idiot and an asshole and even death by torture wouldve been to nice of a death penalty compared to what he deserved.

    Then again from an objective point of view he is no more guilty than what a river should drown of any living life. We cant chose who we become, our personalityl is nothing more than a endless long sequense of actions and reactions. Pol pots actions and fate was inevitable and if there was a 100 paralell universes the same wouldve happened in all of them. The universe dont judge the path of atoms.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Your logic is impeccable, but unfortunately it has brought you to a point where you cannot unequivocally condemn mass slaughter of innocent people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I don't believe any one is built to kill, unless that person is twisted in a lot of bad ways, so they are not very human.
    History and anthropology suggest that war is a very common, if not universal, human condition. One might argue that a pacifist is inhuman.
    Violence stands out more than everyday people helping people, raising children, etc. We focus on it because it's exceptional. The explosion of progress and population proves we build more than destroy; and that despite the energy cost of destruction being much lower than building e.g. grow an adult vs. kill an adult.

    I'm wondering if humans burn more calories cleaning kitty litter boxes - just the one particular - than the calories of all ongoing military conflict combined.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Your logic is impeccable, but unfortunately it has brought you to a point where you cannot unequivocally condemn mass slaughter of innocent people.
    Could you explain this abit more detailed? English is not my native tongue and its the first time ive seen the word "unequivocally" in a written context so im not 100% sure what you are saying.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Your logic is impeccable, but unfortunately it has brought you to a point where you cannot unequivocally condemn mass slaughter of innocent people.
    Could you explain this abit more detailed? English is not my native tongue and its the first time ive seen the word "unequivocally" in a written context so im not 100% sure what you are saying.
    It means you don't seem entirely sure that it is wrong to kill millions of people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Your logic is impeccable, but unfortunately it has brought you to a point where you cannot unequivocally condemn mass slaughter of innocent people.
    Could you explain this abit more detailed? English is not my native tongue and its the first time ive seen the word "unequivocally" in a written context so im not 100% sure what you are saying.
    It means you don't seem entirely sure that it is wrong to kill millions of people.
    moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is not inherently right or wrong.
    Thats what i believe is the objective truth from an observers perspective regarding any life on any planet across the vast universe. There is only a CAUSE and an EFFECT. As i said earlier...

    But from a subjective perspective, that has its roots in our survival instinct and our ego. Meaning the opinion formed from ones wishes to influence the world in ones own favor. my opinion is that its 100% relative to the situation. For example:

    I would glady kill thousands of humans, if it was to save our species. (logical choise)
    I would gladly kill thousands of humans if it gave the cure to a disease, take cancer. That would benefit us all. (logical choise)
    I would NOT kill someone i loved personally though, for the same reasons... (Personal choise)

    So to make it perfectly clear (Atleast hopefully)

    No matter who you kill and for what reason it is not ever RIGHT, but neither is it ever WRONG. The universe dont have emotions, neither does it judge or punish or have a will of its own.

    So it is not wrong (or good for that matter) to do any action instead of another on the grand scale of things. But on a personal level it is relative to what chain of events one wants to set in motion by killing that many people.

    It seem like you want one ultimate and easy answer so im sorry if i failed to give you one

    If you have time and dont mind Harold id like to ask you something also. If you had to kill a young and innocent girl and a boy, that was infested with a disease you knew would spread and kill thousands of people. Would you do it or not?

    Then answer this: Why did you take that particular action.

    Then answer this: If you werent "yourself" but from another species traveling the galaxy, and saw this event happen. And the man that had this dilemma was someone else than you, but did exactly what you chose earlier. How would you judge his actions not knowing ANYTHING about human moral, ethical or personal codes?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Would you say that the actions of people like Pol Pot (or insert your favorite despot) were not wrong, then, but only perhaps unsuccessful, in that he lost the war? I am not criticizing your viewpoint, just trying to see what conclusions it leads to.
    His actions were neither wrong nor right, they had no cosmic significance, at all.

    He wasn't "wrong".

    The only reason I identify his actions as wrong (which I do) is because I was enculturated to do so. If I were raised in a society that praised murdering, or even deified Pol Pot, I would perceive his actions as positive and providential.

    I recognize that my concepts, limited as they are, of good/bad and right/wrong are purely culturally-defined.

    Did Pol Pot not die like everyone else before him? Did Hitler not die like everyone else before him?

    Its simple, your moral set and eidos - The framework of it - was conferred, not self-developed. Of course, this framework is outfitted with lessons derived from our own experiences, but the framework is the culture you've been assigned.

    That is whats truly shocking about this universe, the relative freedom that exists for anyone to do anything. A guy can annihilate the entire human stock, and nature would object to that at all, in fact, nature attempts, every second, to annihilate us (the term nature is used loosely, obviously).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    I would glady kill thousands of humans, if it was to save our species. (logical choise)
    What makes this a logical choice? Why do you value saving our species? We will all be gone when the sun explodes anyway.
    I would gladly kill thousands of humans if it gave the cure to a disease, take cancer. That would benefit us all. (logical choise)
    Yeah, so what?
    It seem like you want one ultimate and easy answer so im sorry if i failed to give you one

    If you have time and dont mind Harold id like to ask you something also. If you had to kill a young and innocent girl and a boy, that was infested with a disease you knew would spread and kill thousands of people. Would you do it or not?

    Then answer this: Why did you take that particular action.
    No, I am not looking for an easy answer, and I already agreed that your logic is impeccable. But I don't think you or anybody but some sort of psychopath could really think like that. We just aren't wired that way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370

    Why do you value saving our species? We will all be gone when the sun explodes anyway.

    I would gladly kill thousands of humans if it gave the cure to a disease, take cancer. That would benefit us all. (logical choise)
    Yeah, so what?

    No, I am not looking for an easy answer, and I already agreed that your logic is impeccable. But I don't think you or anybody but some sort of psychopath could really think like that. We just aren't wired that way.

    Im having a hard time understanding you. So you are a philanthropist and a fatalist? What exactly are your own views then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Im having a hard time understanding you. So you are a philanthropist and a fatalist? What exactly are your own views then?
    My ethical beliefs don't matter. I admit they are not logical. Whatever they are, I can't defend them. Right now, we are discussing moral nihilism.

    Now, what is the answer to the question above, where I asked why saving the species is a logical choice, given that the species is doomed anyway?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    ...your logic is impeccable. But I don't think you or anybody but some sort of psychopath could really think like that. We just aren't wired that way.
    The best answer to some dilemmas may be: "I'd wring my hands and pull my hair." Somehow people rarely get into such positions. Why is that? It's almost like we're averse to them. :wink:
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Im having a hard time understanding you. So you are a philanthropist and a fatalist? What exactly are your own views then?
    My ethical beliefs don't matter. I admit they are not logical. Whatever they are, I can't defend them. Right now, we are discussing moral nihilism.

    Now, what is the answer to the question above, where I asked why saving the species is a logical choice, given that the species is doomed anyway?
    Its a logical choise because saving the species is a must for further progress. Who knows what wonders science can unlock in time. Even if the chanse of us losing against the forces of the universe is 99,99% (As when you said, the sun explodes) we must fight it. In my opinion the fight is ultimately about self-aware life surviving against the brutal forces of unlife that we are surrounded by. Id sacifice anything and anyone for this purpose including myself without any moral hinderance getting in the way.

    Moral and ethical codes from a culture is questionable because they are based on subjective selfinterest and conformity, and not on objective truth and science. Religion, culture, dogmas and traditions are bad in my eyes also because they exist as lies that bind people together for the only reason of surviving and binding people.

    About your ethical beliefs Harold, they do kinda matter if you want to have a discussion about that very subject? Even if you take your opinions for granted you might have insight that others can learn from. Or help put things in another perspective. As far as i can guess you define yourself as morally upstanding guy that trust in the goodness of mankind. And that you let your feelings and not logic control your opinions. IF that is correct (as i said im just guessing wildly from your replies) im curious if you view moral nihilism as destructive or not because alot of people who misunderstand it do so. Sooo.... open up just a tiny bit for the sake of the discussion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    37
    I base my personal morals off the reactions of my actions.

    If my action will cause destruction i would most likley not go through with it

    If my action would create or bring joy in anyway i would do it.

    my actions are not right or wrong they are just actions

    Adjectives dont exsist out side of our minds
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Its a logical choise because saving the species is a must for further progress.
    No, that is not right. To apply logic, you have to start with a premise. Your premise is that further progress is good. Logic cannot tell you that further progress is good. That is your premise. There is no fundamental reason why further progress is good. Some people think further progress is bad, as a matter of fact.
    Moral and ethical codes from a culture is questionable because they are based on subjective selfinterest and conformity, and not on objective truth and science.
    Religion, culture, dogmas and traditions are bad in my eyes also because they exist as lies that bind people together for the only reason of surviving and binding people.
    Yours are no better. In fact they are not different. They come to you in the same way as to everybody else. You just have a different way of rationalizing.
    About your ethical beliefs Harold, they do kinda matter if you want to have a discussion about that very subject?
    In a nutshell, I believe that there is a right and wrong. I know that there is not an objective basis for what I believe, but I choose to believe it anyway. The alternative is to be some sort of robot or as I said, a psychopath, not a human being. Human beings do not think that way. They have opinions. They get angry at perceived injustice. So I have a blind spot, like most everybody else, and I recognize that. You have a blind spot too, but you just won't recognize or admit it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Now, what is the answer to the question above, where I asked why saving the species is a logical choice, given that the species is doomed anyway?
    Well, you'll likely be dead within 50 years, so why continue to survive diligently?

    The focus is simple, improve the quality of existence, enhance the standard from which humans exist.

    Similarly, you continue to live...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronman
    Well, you'll likely be dead within 50 years, so why continue to survive diligently?
    It's an evolutionarily reinforced imperative dictated by our genetics and enforced via our reward/punishment mechanisms.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronman

    Well, you'll likely be dead within 50 years, so why continue to survive diligently?

    The focus is simple, improve the quality of existence, enhance the standard from which humans exist.

    Similarly, you continue to live...
    Since you value the quality of existence and the standards by which humans exist, then you must not really be a moral nihilist. A moral nihilist would value nothing, would they?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronman

    Well, you'll likely be dead within 50 years, so why continue to survive diligently?

    The focus is simple, improve the quality of existence, enhance the standard from which humans exist.

    Similarly, you continue to live...
    Since you value the quality of existence and the standards by which humans exist, then you must not really be a moral nihilist. A moral nihilist would value nothing, would they?
    A true moral nihilists value his subjective and relative moral and ethical values and gut feeling like everyone else. BUT also accepts that objectivly speaking, they dont exist. That we live by cause and effect and we have merely invented them.

    If a self-claimed moral nihilist says the following "Moral and ethical values dont exists because they dont exist objectively, and therefore i can do what i want" would only do so in an attempt to free oneself of any responsibility. They would say so for ones own benefit, and this is where one seeks not knowledge and truth - but something else for ones own gain. Basicly this person says "For subjective reasons i dont believe in subjective morals so i can do whatever i want"


    I have values morals and ethics, and have a sense of justice and the like just like everyone else. However i accept that these are subjective and relative meanings and that the objective truth is that moral nihilism probarly is a fact based on science. Moral nihilism isnt destructive, because its not bad OR good. All it really states is that all life have the freedom to do what they want without being judged by the universe for it. As the laws of physics dont have emotions or feelings it gives us the freedom to be what we want to be.

    This means, if a psychopath wants to be a psychopath he can....
    If a nice guy wants to be a nice guy he can...

    Moral nihilism simply states that there is no ultimate truth to be judged by, by anyone. To speak more scientifically, there is no evil or good only opposites.

    As for answering the rest of your previous reply i have to think on it abit Harold. There is a saying that goes something like "Only a fool knows everything, a wise man knows he doesent" so im always open for being wrong in any way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Since you value the quality of existence and the standards by which humans exist, then you must not really be a moral nihilist. A moral nihilist would value nothing, would they?
    I don't value the quality by which others exist, there's no reason I should choose to help over not help, I believe improving the quality of life "feels" good, so I do it.

    Moral Nihilism is distinct from Nihilism, but its important to remember that Nihilism doesn't prescribe a specific course of action, it illustrates a philosophical viewpoint.

    My actions may contradict my philosophy, that's where enculturation and genetics factor themselves.

    Nihilism doesn't hold: "Don't have emotions, you're not supposed to care cause nothing means anything!". It holds that: "There's no intrinsic value, and objective meaning, so 'stuff' is quite meaningless, intrinsically, therefore do as thou pleases."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronman
    My actions may contradict my philosophy, that's where enculturation and genetics factor themselves.
    If I understand you correctly, you do not live your life according to your philosophy; it is just an intellectual exercise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    If I understand you correctly, you do not live your life according to your philosophy; it is just an intellectual exercise.
    I do when its beneficial.

    I'm able to exploit my philosophy, as means to enhance my own quality of life/peace of mind. Its a comfortable feeling to know that "It doesn't matter".

    I think an absolute nihilist lifestyle could produce a scenario similar to Buridan's Ass, in that each choice has equal value (none), so one exists in a state of inaction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Fascinating conversation about nihilism. :-D

    Zen is nihilism in action? In this case you're not even judged by yourself.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Only thing that really annoys me about Nihilism is how people think its destructive and negative by nature. Its not good and not bad, thats exactly the point. If i could define it in another word id choose the word "Balance"

    This is in my opinion a good example to show a true nihilistic mindset. Hypothetically, scientists finds out beyond doubt life has no objective purpose or meaning:

    The Nihilist:

    Its no problem. I accept that what is, is. And what isnt, isnt. My reality is what i have now. For good or worse and i will enjoy what i can, and accept what i cant. Because life doesent have purpose, doesent mean i cant enjoy what is real right here right now. But it also means i must accept that there isnt more to it.

    The not-nihilist:

    If there is nothing more than why live at all? /suicide

    Or...

    A life of depression, hopelessness, despair, sorrow and fear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Aha. So nihilism may unbridle humanism, as the most obvious "something to do." On the other hand, you perhaps did not intend to suggest hedonism, but you did. Would you trust the morality of a hedonistic nihilist?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Aha. So nihilism may unbridle humanism, as the most obvious "something to do." On the other hand, you perhaps did not intend to suggest hedonism, but you did. Would you trust the morality of a hedonistic nihilist?
    How did i do that? I wasnt thinking about hedonism or humanism at all when writing that. (If you were replying to my post) :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    "what i have now... what is real right here right now" I trust is not the form of a panda in conditions of a sci-fi novel. You're a human being immersed in human conditions. A nihilist flattens all satellite values i.e they don't matter. Cue humanism, at least inadvertently by default.


    "i will enjoy what i can... enjoy what is real right here right now" is the hedonist's motto, bang on. I don't see where you derive that from except the sunny side of human (or better yet: panda) inclinations.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    "what i have now... what is real right here right now" I trust is not the form of a panda in conditions of a sci-fi novel. You're a human being immersed in human conditions. A nihilist flattens all satellite values i.e they don't matter. Cue humanism, at least inadvertently by default.


    "i will enjoy what i can... enjoy what is real right here right now" is the hedonist's motto, bang on. I don't see where you derive that from except the sunny side of human (or better yet: panda) inclinations.
    I really dont get your panda-thing. explain?

    As to the bolded out text, i meant that as in that a Nihilist - seeking to remove any artificial values and anything not proven. Would live by the truth and facts to what CAN be proven and is real.

    i will enjoy what i can... enjoy what is real right here right now


    Means this lifetime, considering any afterlife is false untill proven. What ethical and moral code one would want to follow beyond that is up to them.

    Objective truth has no moral or ethical code. Only subjective truths have created these values.

    If a man want, wishes or dreams that a stone was instead a piece of wood. It doesent change the fact that the stone is a stone. Just as people want, dream and wish for a higher existance for example - or an afterlife.

    Hypothetically again, if scientists proved life has no inherent meaning or purpose - and that equalled X.

    Then people wanting, dreaming, thinking , believing and wishing the truth was Z, Y etc wouldnt CHANGE the fact that the answer is X.


    Hedonism is a school of ethics which argues that pleasure has an ultimate importance, and that humanity's most important pursuit is sensual self-indulgence.
    And what exact values does a man need to believe in to be "put" into this category? And who are to judge if that is the right choise? Can a man not bathe in self indulgence and still be a good person that helps others like a humanitarian?
    You can put 10 titles on a person to define him and still the truth could be he wouldnt even be close to the final definition.

    As for my personal opinions and feelings in all these discussions, i have no agenda but truth. Since i was little ive been so obsessed with what is true, that ive always tried to look on myself and others from a 3rd person perspective - an observer. Ive tried erasing my own personal feelings and opinions on every level and go beyond biased thinking to the point were i can no longer call myself "human" What i write here is not a representation or extension of the person i am. It is the soulless, emotionless eyes of nothingness seeing what is, and what isnt. (maybe abit dramaticly explained)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Panda-thing. "My reality is what i have now." You're reality is human. And, you "accept that what is, is." Another person might want more, and pursue his inner panda-nature, or the eternal pandus, or whatever.

    Enjoy. How does nihilism point there? I think that's your human values speaking. You've leaped from morally disinterested nihilism to a life-purpose only some modern humans assert. I'm not judging that. I'm suggesting you got it from humanity not nihilism.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell
    Only thing that really annoys me about Nihilism is how people think its destructive and negative by nature. Its not good and not bad, thats exactly the point. If i could define it in another word id choose the word "Balance"
    It is neither good nor bad if people think it is destructive and negative.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •