Naturalism = Nihilism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-07-2014, 09:38 PM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(28-07-2014 09:36 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(28-07-2014 07:55 PM)Stevil Wrote:  OK, please demonstrate how we can objectively distinguish whether rape or murder are right or wrong?

Sure. First we need an objective measuring stick or standard of value, man's life and the requirements or rights that his nature requires for his survival. Once we have that we use it to evaluate our choices and actions. If man is to live together in society he must hold the rights of his fellow men as absolutes. If we violate the rights of one man we have abandoned the concept of rights and forfeited our own.

Basically morality boils down to individual rights. These rights are not given, held or received by anyone's permission. They are metaphysically given which means unalienable. They can't be violated except by force.

I've already told you why rape and murder are wrong, they are harmful to man's life. They are a violation of individual rights.

Given? From whence do they come?

No, they are socially constructed on top of basic evolved emotions.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2014, 10:05 PM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(28-07-2014 09:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-07-2014 09:36 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Sure. First we need an objective measuring stick or standard of value, man's life and the requirements or rights that his nature requires for his survival. Once we have that we use it to evaluate our choices and actions. If man is to live together in society he must hold the rights of his fellow men as absolutes. If we violate the rights of one man we have abandoned the concept of rights and forfeited our own.

Basically morality boils down to individual rights. These rights are not given, held or received by anyone's permission. They are metaphysically given which means unalienable. They can't be violated except by force.

I've already told you why rape and murder are wrong, they are harmful to man's life. They are a violation of individual rights.

Given? From whence do they come?

No, they are socially constructed on top of basic evolved emotions.

I've already explained this. They stem from the law of identity. And yes they are socially constructed but what makes them objective is if they are based on what is good for man according to his nature which is not socially constructed. And yes evolution plays a role. Doesn't it make sense that we would evolve to respect natural rights or that which is required by our nature for our proper survival since evolution is all about survival.

I know what you're going to say, evolution is about survival of the species not the individual but with the evolution of our conceptual faculty we are able to discover these rights by induction practice them intentionally and that is what I think allowed us to become civilized.

Is civilization a huge improvement over living in small tribes and fighting each other for food and territory? I think so. Is civilization and the division of labor that comes with it objectively good? I think so.

Breathing is a right because it is required by your nature so no one has a right to suffocate you.

You have a right to produce, maintain and dispose of property because your nature as man requires it so no one has a right to steal your property.

It didn't matter if slavery was generally accepted in the 18th and 19th century, it was wrong, objectively wrong, because it was a violation of man's right to life, liberty and property. If every single person on the planet agreed that it was OK to steal Chas's property it would still be wrong.

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
28-07-2014, 10:19 PM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(28-07-2014 10:05 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(28-07-2014 09:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  Given? From whence do they come?

No, they are socially constructed on top of basic evolved emotions.

I've already explained this. They stem from the law of identity. And yes they are socially constructed but what makes them objective is if they are based on what is good for man according to his nature which is not socially constructed. And yes evolution plays a role. Doesn't it make sense that we would evolve to respect natural rights or that which is required by our nature for our proper survival since evolution is all about survival.

I know what you're going to say, evolution is about survival of the species not the individual but with the evolution of our conceptual faculty we are able to discover these rights by induction practice them intentionally and that is what I think allowed us to become civilized.

Is civilization a huge improvement over living in small tribes and fighting each other for food and territory? I think so. Is civilization and the division of labor that comes with it objectively good? I think so.

Breathing is a right because it is required by your nature so no one has a right to suffocate you.

You have a right to produce, maintain and dispose of property because your nature as man requires it so no one has a right to steal your property.

It didn't matter if slavery was generally accepted in the 18th and 19th century, it was wrong, objectively wrong, because it was a violation of man's right to life, liberty and property. If every single person on the planet agreed that it was OK to steal Chas's property it would still be wrong.

Put it this way. Who would you rather live with? People who hold your rights as sacrosanct as their own or people who have no objective standard of right and wrong. Would you rather live next to John Locke or Attila the Hun.

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
28-07-2014, 10:47 PM (This post was last modified: 28-07-2014 10:51 PM by nietzsche101.)
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
@true scotsman

(Correct me if I'm wrong) but, isn't Ayn Rands standard for her so called "morality" just....

egoism = right......... altruism = wrong.........?


even if we grant you, that this is some metaphysical truth

.....so what?

it just redefines morality to mean... "put yourself before all others"... how is this a real standard for morality?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2014, 11:09 PM (This post was last modified: 28-07-2014 11:19 PM by nietzsche101.)
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
in regards to my previous example; of the man, dropping his wallet. I pick it up with $100 in it. should I give it back or not....?

- The moralist would say "yes you should give it back"

- The amoralist (moral nihilist), would say "do as you like"

- It seems Rand would say, that "it would actually be immoral to give it back"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2014, 11:32 PM
Naturalism = Nihilism?
(28-07-2014 10:05 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I've already explained this. They stem from the law of identity.

Law?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2014, 12:09 AM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(28-07-2014 11:09 PM)nietzsche101 Wrote:  in regards to my previous example; of the man, dropping his wallet. I pick it up with $100 in it. should I give it back or not....?

- The moralist would say "yes you should give it back"

- The amoralist (moral nihilist), would say "do as you like"

- It seems Rand would say, that "it would actually be immoral to give it back"

No. That is not what Rand would say. If you want to know what she would say I suggest you pick up one of her non-fiction books. As for what I would do I have already answered your moral question and you apparently didn't read it.

You couldn't possibly have gotten "It seems Rand would say, that "it would actually be immoral to give it back" from anything that Rand has ever written or anything that I have written. My answer to your moral dilemma was antithetical to "it would be immoral to give it back". The selfish pleasure I would receive from returning the money would outweigh the value of any amount of unearned wealth because you see a rational egoist, which is what Objecivism advocates, does not desire the unearned, neither in matter or spirit. If it would be immoral to steal it then it would necessarily be moral to give it back . I want to say also that I would devote a considerable amount of effort and drive a considerable distance to return the money and I would not consider that a sacrifice. I would be honoring my own values. Now who would you rather find your lost wallet whether it contained $100 or $10,000, me, a committed Objectivist or a moral nihilist?

Honestly you really aught to pick up a book and educate yourself. I suggest you start with The Virtue of Selfishness. You may have rejected theism but you have bought into its moral code hook, line and sinker. Ask yourself why that is and whether it is justified or not.

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
29-07-2014, 12:13 AM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(28-07-2014 11:32 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  
(28-07-2014 10:05 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I've already explained this. They stem from the law of identity.

Law?

Yes, just like the law of Gravity, The laws of Thermodynamics or the law of non-contradiction which is just another way of saying the law of identity. You know, A is A. The law that logic is based on. Nothing and no one in the universe is exempt from it unless you can give me an example of something that is?

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
29-07-2014, 12:16 AM (This post was last modified: 29-07-2014 12:21 AM by nietzsche101.)
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
"the selfish pleasure I would receive from returning the money would outweigh the value of any amount of unearned wealth"

- says who, you? Rand?

certainly not everyone!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2014, 12:23 AM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(28-07-2014 10:47 PM)nietzsche101 Wrote:  @true scotsman

(Correct me if I'm wrong) but, isn't Ayn Rands standard for her so called "morality" just....

egoism = right......... altruism = wrong.........?


even if we grant you, that this is some metaphysical truth

.....so what?

it just redefines morality to mean... "put yourself before all others"... how is this a real standard for morality?

No, more like rational egoism =right, altruism = unspeakably evil.

The choice has always been to cut your own throat for your neighbor's good or your neighbor's throat for your own good. Objectivism says hey let's do away with the entire concept of throat cutting. That seems like a really good ethical standard, don't you agree?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: