Naturalism = Nihilism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-07-2014, 10:57 AM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(29-07-2014 07:36 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(29-07-2014 01:32 AM)nietzsche101 Wrote:  On a practical level, I don't think anyone is a nihilist!....

What I was trying to make clear to you; is that these objective values(if real) must have their foundation in something beyond this natural world!

and that believing in them, takes a leap of faith..... and that we should be honest, and acknowledge that we both have a certain kind of faith

I don't agree with that because there isn't anything beyond this natural world.

Nietzsche,

The question "how can we know what is right and what is wrong?" presupposes that there is a standard that applies to something that is knowable and by definition the supernatural is unknowable. The question also implies an objective standard because if right and wrong were subjective the question would be pointless. The "we" in that question also presupposes that the concepts right and wrong are not subjective but objective. The question presupposes a standard that we all share.

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
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
29-07-2014, 01:06 PM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(29-07-2014 01:32 AM)nietzsche101 Wrote:  On a practical level, I don't think anyone is a nihilist!....

What I was trying to make clear to you; is that these objective values(if real) must have their foundation in something beyond this natural world!

and that believing in them, takes a leap of faith..... and that we should be honest, and acknowledge that we both have a certain kind of faith
Its strange to me how you acknowledge that subjective morality really isn't a morality but merely a personal opinion. I agree with that.

And you recognise that there is no evidence for any objective values, hence you also recognise the requirement for faith with regards to believing in objective values and believing that you have the capability to know what these objective values are.

I don't have this faith, I remain unconvinced with regards to objective morality. But you insist that I am not a moral nihilist.
Why do you think that I must have this belief in morality even when I tell you that I lack this belief?

It is possible that you have built up a strawman understanding of what it means to lack a belief in moral rights and wrongs. For instance you assume I can't value things. I value lots of things, I value food, clothes, shelter, I value an entertaining movie, I value my life, I value my freedom, I value my friends, but none of this means that I claim to know the difference between right and wrong and that I claim these rights and wrongs apply to other people.
The sillyness of moral belief is the "so what". Let's say for argument's sake that moral rights and moral wrongs exist. Please tell me what are the consequences of doing things that are morally wrong? Do you think the universe is going to conspire against me to punish me for my wrongs? Do you think that in an unfounded, unprecedented afterlife that I will reap the consequences of any of my moral transgressions?
In my opinion, if there are no consequences then there are no objective moral rights and moral wrongs.
Of course our actions in the real world often do have consequences, but not because of objective morality. If you try and harm someone, they will try to defend themselves, and in defending themselves you then become in harms way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2014, 01:16 PM
Naturalism = Nihilism?
Wouldn't a moral absolute necessarily be a universal law? If so, wouldn't we be unable to defy it?

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
[+] 1 user Likes Cardinal Smurf's post
29-07-2014, 03:16 PM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(29-07-2014 01:16 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  Wouldn't a moral absolute necessarily be a universal law? If so, wouldn't we be unable to defy it?
And in that case there would be no choice and since morality requires choice then this disqualifies as a moral.
It's not immoral to travel faster than the speed of light.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2014, 10:23 PM (This post was last modified: 30-07-2014 12:31 AM by nietzsche101.)
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
@Clydelee
Quote - " Until you give a logical progression of how things hall apart from moral nihilism, you're just asserting an ending point without examining reality rationally."

well you see even concepts like; rationality, truth, empirical evidence, the desire to live, empathy, tolerance (ect) are all worthless unless they are VALUED.



Quote - "To your $100 scenario. You could potentially benefit more from giving the money back. You could get lucky and get a job from the person who dropped the wallet. "

You seem to want to say that doing the right thing (in the utilitarian sense) is always the most rational thing to do for our own self interest... this notion is laughable!
- let's say the wallet contained $1,000,000, and no one else was around to see me pick it up..... is it still rational to give the man back his wallet, because "he might give me a job, or something"?







@Truescot
okay, so we agree that there are objective moral values.. we just disagree on where they come from..
can you please try and explain again (in layman's terms) how they originate from this natural world, and why we have a duty to pay them any attention?





@ Stevil
Quote - "And you recognise that there is no evidence for any objective values"

I recognise that there is no empirical evidence, for any objective value... ie. it can't be found in a test tube

This is not to say that there is no evidence.... there are other forms of evidence, my own personal experience is one of these.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2014, 12:59 AM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(29-07-2014 10:23 PM)nietzsche101 Wrote:  @Clydelee
Quote - " Until you give a logical progression of how things hall apart from moral nihilism, you're just asserting an ending point without examining reality rationally."

well you see even concepts like; rationality, truth, empirical evidence, the desire to live, empathy, tolerance (ect) are all worthless unless they are VALUED.
Moral nihilism isn't the inability for a person to value things, such as an interesting movie, a tasty meal, sex...

Moral nihilism is a lack of belief in moral truths. A lack of belief in objective right and objective wrong. An easy way to disprove moral nihilism would be to describe an objective method of discovery for these moral truths. Thus far no moral truths have ever been discovered.

(29-07-2014 10:23 PM)nietzsche101 Wrote:  @ Stevil
Quote - "And you recognise that there is no evidence for any objective values"

I recognise that there is no empirical evidence, for any objective value... ie. it can't be found in a test tube

This is not to say that there is no evidence.... there are other forms of evidence, my own personal experience is one of these.
Personal experience is a poor way to gain knowledge especially if you are seeking objective facts, such as objective morals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
30-07-2014, 01:35 AM (This post was last modified: 30-07-2014 01:49 AM by nietzsche101.)
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
QUOTE - "Moral nihilism isn't the inability for a person to value things, such as an interesting movie, a tasty meal, sex..."

^ No one would disagree with this!

Infact, what I am trying to say is that an "interesting movie, a tasty meal, sex" and other hedonistic desires would most likely be the forefront of the moral nihilists' life(do you agree?) - Not any arbitrary "ought"; be it reason, honesty, tolerance, or whatever!



When I look around this world: manipulation, thievery, dishonesty are all very good tools to help one archive these hedonistic desires........... as they say "nice guys finish last!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2014, 02:29 AM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(30-07-2014 01:35 AM)nietzsche101 Wrote:  ...
When I look around this world: manipulation, thievery, dishonesty are all very good tools to help one archive these hedonistic desires........... as they say "nice guys finish last!"

Speaking as a hedonist, I can meet these desires without resorting to those tactics.


And please use the fucking 'Reply' button.

Thanks.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
30-07-2014, 04:30 AM
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.

The "Law of Identity" is a trivial tautology from which not much of anything can be derived. There are no natural rights, rights are agreed upon by groups of people.
Evolution provided us with the means for survival to reproduce; that's what evolution does. Self-preservation is one of those. It is a drive, not a right.

Quote: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.

No, true scotsman, you don't.

First, evolution has nothing to do with 'survival of the species'. Species aren't selected, individuals are. The species is a gene pool that changes over time by selection of individuals.

Quote: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.

Measured against what? The scale you choose is itself subjectively defined.

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

How does a function become a right? You are essentially stating that life is a right.
It is a right only if we mutually agree it is.

Quote: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.

Who says? You are declaring that that property is a right.
It is a right only if we mutually agree it is.

Quote: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.

We agree to certain behaviors to insure our safety and comfort because we like those more than danger and discomfort.

Well, except for those nuts who engage in extreme sports. Dodgy

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
30-07-2014, 04:38 AM
RE: Naturalism = Nihilism?
(30-07-2014 01:35 AM)nietzsche101 Wrote:  Infact, what I am trying to say is that an "interesting movie, a tasty meal, sex" and other hedonistic desires would most likely be the forefront of the moral nihilists' life(do you agree?) - Not any arbitrary "ought"; be it reason, honesty, tolerance, or whatever!



When I look around this world: manipulation, thievery, dishonesty are all very good tools to help one archive these hedonistic desires........... as they say "nice guys finish last!"
The thing is, a very very low percentage of people are moral nihilists. Most people are theists taught to believe in a specific morality where their god is always watching, keeping record and ready to judge on the day of reckoning, and yet theists commit the crimes disproportionately to atheists. Us atheists are under represented in prisons (possibly).
It seems we can be "good" without god.
Well, I'm telling you that there is no reason to believe that we can't be law abiding without "good".
In fact, I claim to have no knowledge of good, so I have no motivation to stop people being bad (whatever that means). I have no desires to force my own opinions and values onto others. Tolerance and diversity are the polar opposite of morality. Morality entails intolerance and conformity. A desire to stop other people doing "immoral" things, a desire to interfere, to oppress, to manipulate people into behaving according to your own moral standard.
Just look at the abortion debates. Many people whom value freedom feel compelled to stop women having abortions, many people whom value humanism feel torn between their belief in freedom vs their belief that abortion might just be a crime against the rights of the unborn. People on the edge, wondering if they should interfere in the mother's choice, wondering if they should support the law to force her to carry against her will.
This is morality for you.
People whom believe in objective morality are a danger and a threat to all those whom don't share their belief, whom don't share their specific morals.
Guess what? You will be hard pressed to find two people whom agree with all morals. Pretty much everyone on the planet has different morals to you.
And you sit there telling us that morality is objective, thinking that everyone is bound to your beliefs. How far would you go to stop people being immoral in your eyes?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: