Naturalism = Nihilism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-07-2014, 06:33 AM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
"The general principles of our shared moral code are:
Not harming others
Being fair
Being loyal to a group
Respect for legitimate authority
Exalting what's pure, clean, and holy"

^ These are just your opinion(by your very own definition), why should I listen to any of it?
why should I be fair? just because you say so?
you can try and make up a morality out of thin air, but it's foundation-less, it's not just arbitrary - it's a lie(if it's claiming to be any more than your personal preference)!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2014, 06:38 AM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(27-07-2014 03:56 AM)Jason Wrote:  ...
Our morality is just is, part of our nature, no more or less basic than thirst, hunger or sexual drive.

What a great opening post.

Welcome to the forum, sir.

Smile

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2014, 06:56 AM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(27-07-2014 06:33 AM)nietzsche101 Wrote:  "The general principles of our shared moral code are:
Not harming others
Being fair
Being loyal to a group
Respect for legitimate authority
Exalting what's pure, clean, and holy"

^ These are just your opinion(by your very own definition), why should I listen to any of it?
why should I be fair? just because you say so?
you can try and make up a morality out of thin air, but it's foundation-less, it's not just arbitrary - it's a lie(if it's claiming to be any more than your personal preference)!

Show me ANY moral system that is any different ?
Name ONE that has it's origins anywhere other than human culture.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2014, 07:47 AM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(27-07-2014 06:33 AM)nietzsche101 Wrote:  "The general principles of our shared moral code are:
Not harming others
Being fair
Being loyal to a group
Respect for legitimate authority
Exalting what's pure, clean, and holy"

^ These are just your opinion(by your very own definition), why should I listen to any of it?
why should I be fair? just because you say so?
you can try and make up a morality out of thin air, but it's foundation-less, it's not just arbitrary - it's a lie(if it's claiming to be any more than your personal preference)!
You keep talking about "arbitrary" and "subjective" as if they always equate with meaningless. Sometimes they do (I could care less what your favorite color is).

But just because morals are, at their root, arbitrary and subjective does NOT mean they're meaningless to us. Numbers are also arbitrary and subjective (a quantity could have been named "three" rather than "one"). But they are still meaningful. If I owe you three million dollars and I pay you one million dollars "because it's all arbitrary and subjective", would you be OK with that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes avalon's post
27-07-2014, 08:34 AM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(27-07-2014 02:01 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(27-07-2014 01:31 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I can in fact. A nothing which possesses no identity. To exist is to possess an identity. A thing is this thing as opposed to that thing. Nothing is opposed to nothing and relates to nothing and can not be described except as a negation.
A nothing! Really?

You can't cite any of the following can you?
Tinkerbell the fairy
Bigfoot the hairy monster
Locness the sea serpent
Matilda the witch
Madussa the wench with the snake hair
YHWH the god of smite and imaginative ways to kill people
Santa Claus, the bearer of gifts

Because they, of course, exist, having possession of identity.

Can you suggest something else other than a NOTHING, that doesn't exist?

I was speaking of the the broadest possible concept of existence since you had just finished telling me that consciousness doesn't exist because it is not physical. None of those things that you listed exist objectively. They only exist subjectively in the imagination just like the concept of God. A contradiction can't exist in reality but it can in the mind which is why we can be wrong. God can't exist in reality because the concept of God contradicts the axioms and the primacy of existence. It can only exist in the imaginations of every believer which is why no one can agree on what God is. I would have made that distinction between the subjective and the objective if I hadn't been so tired last night. I apologize.

Incidentally consciousness can be viewed objectively but only as a secondary object. You can observe your consciousness but only in the act of grasping an object. So a consciousness has to be conscious of something outside itself before it can know that it is conscious. This is why the concept of a consciousness existing without objects, God, is a contradiction. This is the validation of the primacy of existence and it is devastating to theists.

A great way to stop a theist in their tracks is to ask them to give you a reliable way to distinguish between what they are calling "God" and something they may merely be imagining. Stops 'em dead every time because they literally can't answer the question since God is imaginary.

Another way is to point out the fallacy of the stolen concept. That is the fallacy of accepting a higher level concept such as truth or logic while rejecting a concept that is in it's genetic hierarchy. Since the concept of "God" contradicts the primacy of existence principle any argument meant to prove its existence in reality commits this fallacy which is why every argument for God fails. Every. Single. One. The concepts truth and logic and prove rest on the primacy of existence principle, that things are what they are independent of anyone's conscious action. You can't prove a contradiction. It is a weapon of mass destruction. It wipes every theist argument off the table at once. And not one of them realizes it because they don't have a proper axiomatic starting point. They don't examine their world view's fundamental principles. They take them for granted. The god belief affirms the primacy of consciousness and this taken to its logical conclusion results in a consciousness conscious of nothing, a contradiction.

Kalam, nope violates the primacy of existence.
First cause, nope violates the primacy of existence.
Argument from morality, nope violates the primacy of existence.
Ontological argument
Plantinga
irreducible complexity
Equinas's five proofs
watchmaker
TAG

All violate the primacy of existence and refute themselves.

So back to the argument I gave for objective morality. Do you still have objections to the first premise now that I have defined all of my terms and explained the concepts?

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2014, 08:49 AM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(27-07-2014 06:25 AM)nietzsche101 Wrote:  If naturalism is true....then I agree with everything you've said! "Morality doesn't exist. Our notion of it is arbitrary" this sums it up

Yes. I agree with that. Most of our "disagreement" came from me explaining why you might opt to not act against others for immediate gain.


(27-07-2014 06:25 AM)nietzsche101 Wrote:  - "You are the one who keeps asking why you should act one way instead of another"...

I keep asking this question because there are many naturalists, that do claim that there is objective morals/duties and that there is a certain way we should act...
take Sam Harris for example....



I'm trying to understand the reasoning for a naturalist to say such things...

Because it makes him happier/more comfortable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2014, 10:05 AM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(27-07-2014 06:33 AM)nietzsche101 Wrote:  ^ These are just your opinion(by your very own definition), why should I listen to any of it?
why should I be fair? just because you say so?
you can try and make up a morality out of thin air, but it's foundation-less, it's not just arbitrary - it's a lie(if it's claiming to be any more than your personal preference)!

Morality is very much like choosing a mate. I assume you're married and that you married the person you loved. This choice (like morality) was based on your deeply motivational feelings. Those feelings were subjective and arbitrary, but that does not make them meaningless nor random. You could not choose to love some person chosen at random as much as you love your wife. Likewise, your moral feelings are not meaningless random choices.
The only difference between your feelings towards your wife and morality is that the human race shares a number of general moral feelings, but we don't all feel the same about your wife (no offense to her, she may be wonderful but I love my own wife better).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2014, 01:28 PM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(27-07-2014 06:04 AM)avalon Wrote:  The general principles of our shared moral code are:
Not harming others
Being fair
Being loyal to a group
Respect for legitimate authority
Exalting what's pure, clean, and holy
One could easily discard moral belief and describe each of these behaviours in a non moral way.

Not harming others - I don't harm others because they might harm me in retaliation. I don't harm others because I don't want others harming me and hence I don't want to promote that behaviour in society. I don't harm others because I want to be safe in society hence I agree with a law protecting each other from harm.

Being fair - I don't cheat and con others because they might retaliate. I don't cheat and con because I don't want others cheating or conning me hence I don't want to promote...

Being loyal to a group - I am loyal to a group because I want them to be loyal to me. If we stick together as a group then we are stronger than any individual, this benefits me, it protects me.

Respect for legitimate authority - If we are to form a society with rules, we need a authority to help set the rules and to enforce them. Without enforced rules society is likely to be dangerous. It is in my best interest to have enforced rules.

Exalting what's pure, clean, and holy - Meh!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2014, 01:45 PM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(27-07-2014 08:34 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  So back to the argument I gave for objective morality. Do you still have objections to the first premise now that I have defined all of my terms and explained the concepts?
"If man is not exempt from the law of identity, if he possesses a specific nature, then there are objective moral principles or values that his life requires."

I disagree with this premise.

Natural law does not lead to objective moral principles or values, this is a non sequitur.

Your definition of values is too broad. You say humans need to breath air, that air is a value. But how do you go from that to "it is objectively immoral to commit murder, because of the nature of humans"?

I can see that murder is in the nature of humans, so is rape. Given a large group of humans and some time, these things will happen as it is in our nature.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
27-07-2014, 03:10 PM (This post was last modified: 27-07-2014 04:15 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(27-07-2014 06:25 AM)nietzsche101 Wrote:  If naturalism is true....then I agree with everything you've said! "Morality doesn't exist. Our notion of it is arbitrary" this sums it up

- "You are the one who keeps asking why you should act one way instead of another"...

I keep asking this question because there are many naturalists, that do claim that there is objective morals/duties and that there is a certain way we should act...
take Sam Harris for example....

I'm trying to understand the reasoning for a naturalist to say such things...

You might want to talk to your doctor. There may be pills for that.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: