Naturalism = Nihilism?

[true scotsman]

(26-07-2014 03:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  

(26-07-2014 02:41 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  To say that moral principles don't exist is to deny the metaphysically given asserted.

Fixed that for you.

The metaphysically given exists whether I assert it or not. By metaphysically given I mean existence excluding the man made. Although the man made is also part of existence but it is not metaphysically given. Are you seriously denying that existence exists? And how would you demonstrate existence doesn't exist without existing yourself. You are dealing with an axiomatic concept here. How did you "fix" my statement if nothing exists.

[true scotsman]

(26-07-2014 04:09 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  [quote='cjlr' pid='612182' dateline='1406408403']

Fixed that for you.

The metaphysically given exists whether I assert it or not. Are you seriously denying that existence exists? The metaphysically given does not need to be proved, its existence is perceptually self evident. So there is no problem in asserting that existence exists without providing an argument for the truth of that statement. All I need to do is point to it.

[true scotsman]

(26-07-2014 04:13 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  

(26-07-2014 04:09 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  [quote='cjlr' pid='612182' dateline='1406408403']

Fixed that for you.

The metaphysically given exists whether I assert it or not. Are you seriously denying that existence exists? The metaphysically given does not need to be proved, its existence is perceptually self evident. So there is no problem in asserting that existence exists without providing an argument for the truth of that statement. All I need to do is point to it.

Sorry for the double post but it is worth repeating.

[cjlr]

(26-07-2014 04:09 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  The metaphysically given exists whether I assert it or not. By metaphysically given I mean existence excluding the man made. Although the man made is also part of existence but it is not metaphysically given. Are you seriously denying that existence exists? And how would you demonstrate existence doesn't exist without existing yourself. You are dealing with an axiomatic concept here. How did you "fix" my statement if nothing exists.

"Existence exists" is a tautology from which no further inference may be drawn.

[true scotsman]

(26-07-2014 04:38 PM)cjlr Wrote:  

(26-07-2014 04:09 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  The metaphysically given exists whether I assert it or not. By metaphysically given I mean existence excluding the man made. Although the man made is also part of existence but it is not metaphysically given. Are you seriously denying that existence exists? And how would you demonstrate existence doesn't exist without existing yourself. You are dealing with an axiomatic concept here. How did you "fix" my statement if nothing exists.

"Existence exists" is a tautology from which no further inference may be drawn.

All truths are essentially tautologies. A bachelor is an unmarried man.

"existence exists" does not stand alone. Along with its corollary axioms "consciousness", "identity" and the primacy of existence it is the basis for all future inferences. These four axioms are implicit in all knowledge. If they weren't true then you couldn't assert that "existence exists is a tautology from which no further inference may be drawn".

For instance if your statement were true would it be true because you want it to be true (the primacy of consciousness) or would its truth obtain independently of anyone's wishes, likes, dislikes, or demands? (the primacy of existence). Your statement presupposes existence, consciousness, identity and the primacy of existence are true.

The axioms are the starting point of of all future knowledge.

[Bucky Ball]

(26-07-2014 03:06 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  

(26-07-2014 03:02 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  It is only to a living being that values are possible. Remember what I said in an earlier post; knowledge of right and wrong is like all other knowledge, it is contextual. The fact that knowledge is contextual does not make it subjective.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with committing suicide provided you do so for rational reasons in which case the context would change from life as your standard of value to death as your standard of value. If however you want to live then breathing is an objective value. Do you agree?

Also Stevil, I never said that moral values were inherent. They are not. But man's nature is inherent. That is the basis for objective morality. The concept "value" presupposes the answer to the question of value to whom and for what?

Please define "man's nature" and "metaphysical".

[true scotsman]

(26-07-2014 05:18 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  

(26-07-2014 03:06 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Also Stevil, I never said that moral values were inherent. They are not. But man's nature is inherent. That is the basis for objective morality. The concept "value" presupposes the answer to the question of value to whom and for what?

Please define "man's nature" and "metaphysical".

Metaphysical pertains to the fundamental nature of existence. by metaphysically given I mean all of existence excluding the man made. The man made still exists but it did not have to be. For example stars, matter, energy, trees, glaciers, Hydrogen, neutrinos, Giraffes, DNA, lightning, gravity, and black holes are the metaphysically given. The man made refers to houses, watches, ice cream cones, hot air balloons and toothpaste.

Man's nature means a living organism possessing volitional consciousness and a conceptual faculty. This is speaking in fundamental terms. By man's nature I'm talking about man's metaphysically given attributes. The limits within which man must act.

[Stevil]

(26-07-2014 03:39 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I measure and quantify man's nature by direct observation.

The thing about observation of human nature is that we see diversity.
It is well within the bounds of human nature to:
Act out of kindness
Kill for fun
Be respectful of other people, their bodies, their wishes
Rape women
Be a pacifist, avoid violence, avoid harming animals
Create wars and kill people in mass to further ambition or ideals

(26-07-2014 03:39 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I resolve disagreements with reason.

Reason alone is meaningless. What is reasonable to you may be unreasonable to someone else.

(26-07-2014 03:39 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Honestly the issue of abortion is one of the only issues I have not reached a conclusion about. ...
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject.

I am not concerned with regards to the ethics or morality of abortion.
My concerns are whether myself and my loved ones are endangered, whether society becomes violent and unstable. If there is no danger to me or society then it is not my concern and I do not give government the power to decide.
Therefor I consider abortion to fall outside the realm of government and thus it is a concern for the mother, it is her choice, whether I like it or not.

[photon9]

(25-07-2014 08:55 PM)nietzsche101 Wrote:  "you've expressed nothing but dissatisfaction with every bit of commentary we have offered you"
-that's because nobody's presented a satisfactory case against "moral nihilism", at least not to me!


"What are you really looking for?"
I'm sick of people trying to "have their cake and eat it to"... I want the secular humanists, to either acknowledge that a certain kind of faith is needed to sustain their beliefs....
or, to come out and admit moral nihilism, honestly!

False dichotomy

[GirlyMan]

(25-07-2014 08:55 PM)nietzsche101 Wrote:  "What are you really looking for?"
I'm sick of people trying to "have their cake and eat it to"... I want the secular humanists, to either acknowledge that a certain kind of faith is needed to sustain their beliefs....
or, to come out and admit moral nihilism, honestly!

What's your beef with "moral nihilism"? I'll admit it if it helps you sleep at night.