Moral Nihilism and what it truly means.

[modernnihilst]

If you thoroughly investigated the situation and came to this conclusion then your argument would carry weight. But I'm pretty certain that you probable have not read all of the major religions books from cover to cover.

And so your argument is light.

I've read most i can find, in my book collection are the Old Testament, New Testament, Best of Testament(those that listen to metal will get a chuckle out of that one), the Quoran, and the assorted tales of nordic and greek myths and beliefs. I've even though about adding the satanic bible(notice how thats the only "relegion" that isnt caps at the begining) just to see what those chuckleheads believe. All but the nordic have been read and im working on the nordic one. I do however conceide that that argument is light but is was a gross simplification of the differences.

 

[kidcanman]

Yup pretty much sums it up best. Untill God appears to the world or proof that God does not exist all we have are semantics.

We have God because that's what we believe.

You have semantics because that is what you believe.

death will settle the matter

 

[modernnihilst]

We have God because that's what we believe.

You have semantics because that is what you believe.

death will settle the matter

I'm in no rush to find out. Either way I hope this has been as enlightening for you as it has for me

 

[kidcanman]

I'm in no rush to find out. Either way I hope this has been as enlightening for you as it has for me

I think it has :yes

 

[modernnihilst]

This is just a bit of a side note. First let me say thank you for those that responded thus far. You have made what was an initially fearfull subject for me(breaching my beliefs on a Christian website). I have in the past tried to get to know Christians and thier beliefs in the past and have only been beaten over the head and shoulders with the bible(and let me say that book is HEAVY). When asked by Mike to create a thread on this subject at first I was a bit hesitant to do so but it turns out that most of you are just as curious about me and my beliefs as i am about you and yours. Again thanks

 

[JNathanK]

EXACTLY. This is of course what ive been trying to say.



Where you see flaws I see benefits. But we'll just agree to disagree, or at least i will

I think you're missing my point though. In the modernist/post-modernist mind, logos is valued above all else, and eros is devalued and/or ignored. In a purely logical mode of thinking, contrasting opposites, whether its particle or wave, light or dark, self or non-self, etc, will be seen as separate. Much of logic is about putting labels and figures on things to set them apart from each other.

However, more intuitive forms of perceptions reveal the reality that opposites are in fact part of a unified whole, in that one couldn't exist without the contrast of the other. Light wouldn't be without dark, and the self couldn't exist without everything external to it.

Everything is inseparable from everything else, and that includes you, me, our surroundings, everyone else, and the whole of the cosmos. This is what I identify as the absolute, and this is what all my moral ideals are based in. Whether people know or value that they're a part of an integrated whole is beside the point. They are, and to not know this is just ignorance.

What is love? Well, its ultimately based in empathy. Why be empathetic? ...because, even though our egos can give us the illusion that were separate from everyone and everything else, we really aren't. Unconditional love, as a first principal, best respects the reality of our inseparability to others. Moral relativists tend to argue in terms of rational self interest, which I'm, in a way, doing as well. However, I'm acknowledging the truth that everyone else is an extension of my own being and visa versa. To harm others would, in effect, be me harming myself.

 

[modernnihilst]

I think you're missing my point though. In the modernist/post-modernist mind, logos is valued above all else, and eros is devalued and/or ignored. In a purely logical mode of thinking, contrasting opposites, whether its particle or wave, light or dark, self or non-self, etc, will be seen as wholly separable opposites.

However, more intuitive forms of perceptions reveal the reality that opposites are in fact part of a unified whole, in that one couldn't exist without the contrast of the other. Light wouldn't be without dark, and the self couldn't exist without everything external to it.

Everything is inseparable from everything else, and that includes you, me, our surroundings, everyone else, and the whole of the cosmos. This is what I identify as the absolute, and this is what all my morality is based in. Whether people know or value that they're a part of an integrated whole is beside the point. They are, and to not know this is just ignorance.

We both seem to be missing each others points although you do have a solid grasp of the basics of the philosophical basis of Nihilism, you seem to be missing a bit on Moral Nihilim. I accept that Nietzscheistic Nilihism is not possiable to be strictly adhered to due to its intrinsic conflicts with itself. However Moral Nihilism has no such conflicts. Moral Nihilism states that while a belief may be held by most of socitey it is not an absolute because there are those that dissent(see my example of the nose picking). Using the Scientific Method(as an example) a theory is first developed(see moral). Then it must be tested(see lived with). If 100% of the time the theory is correct and repeatable it can then become law. However if one time out of, say 1 billion shows a different result outside of the theory it must be discarded.
Moral Nihilism states that in all cases of moral judgements and morals themselves there is an inherent exception. In some cases the exception is not extreme in others it is. But being an exception it can not be said to be an absolute. Take me for instance I'm a Moral Nihilist, however if tomorrow I wake up and God is at the foot of my bed and procedes to show me heaven and being the Christian God there is of course hope for me if I repent and accept him into my life and live by his words. I can gaurentee the gas pedal would not leave the floorboards of my Porche untill i got to the correct church(cause I'd ask). This is the exception for me.
We seem to be arguing different sides of the same coin here. I have to accept your arguments against Nietzscheistic Nihilism for two reasons, one even Nietzsche himself couldnt get past the very same points, and two you present valid arguments against Nietzscheistic Nihilism. However Moral Nihilism still has valid points, mainly that morals can not by thier nature be called absolute truth because of the intrinsic nature of man. Man is after all a fickle creature and prone to chinging beliefs, rules, and thier laws to popular wants and desires. Man is therefore the reason Nihilism can and does exist. Its mans own faliability that cause the exceptions that allow for a lack of absolute because we as human beings are individual. I look different from you, my thought processes are different from yours, my beliefs are different than yours.
I am a bit confused though by your assertion of physical properties into the discussion(ie "Everything is inseparable from everything else, and that includes you, me, our surroundings, everyone else, and the whole of the cosmos") according to current physics this is true to an extent however, it is moralistically insignificant in the meta-physical sence where I though this discussion was occuring. If i misunderstand plz help me understand(I like this conversation and dont really want it to end)

 

[JNathanK]

although you do have a solid grasp of the basics of the philosophical basis of Nihilism, you seem to be missing a bit on Moral Nihilim.

I'll admit that your brand of nihilism is more honest, in that you take your belief that there is no intrinsic value (other than that there is no intrinsic value) in anything to its absolute, logical conclusion. However, I'm not just arguing against Nietchsche's pursuit to find value in a Godless world but against Nihilism in general, including your take on it.

The way I see human beings is that our minds are like filters. There's an absolute, the integrated whole, and our minds filter it. Some of us may not be aware of our relationship to that absolute, just as a blind person might not be aware of the shape of a mountain, but its still there. Its not just a matter of subjectivity. There really is something there the blind person doesn't see, just as a psychopath is unaware of their interconnectedness to those they harm.

 

[modernnihilst]

I'll admit that your brand of nihilism is more honest, in that you take your belief that there is no intrinsic value in anything to its absolute, logical conclusion. However, I'm not just arguing against Nietchsche's pursuit to find value in a Godless world but against Nihilism in general, including your take on it.

The way I see human beings is that our minds are like filters. There's an absolute, the integrated whole, and our minds filter it. Some of us may not be aware of that absolute, just as a blind person might not be aware of the shape of a mountain, but its still there. Its not just a matter of subjectivity. There really is something there the blind person doesn't see, just as a psychopath is unaware of their interconnectedness to those they harm.

In regards to the psychopath and those they harm I am forced to cede your position as being correct. However as a counter point does that same psychopath and thier victim affect you if you know niether? Logically one must state that it does not.

 

[JNathanK]

In regards to the psychopath and those they harm I am forced to cede your position as being correct. However as a counter point does that same psychopath and thier victim affect you if you know niether? Logically one must state that it does not.

Of course it affects me, even on a logical level. For example, I might not know the murderer or the victim personally, but these types of atrocities affect everyone. Word gets out about deranged people like that and their crimes, and more people shut their selves out from each other out of fear. They put locks on their doors and interact less with their neighbors for fear that there may be a psycho in their vicinity. The social effects of this type of behavior stretch well beyond the initial crime.

Things can affect you whether you're conscious of it or not. I might not be aware of a microscopic germ that infects my body. I might not know what it looks like and how it interacts with my immune system, but I'll know when I get sick.

Every component of this world is reflected in every other component. The world in which a specific person is axe murdered to death would be different for me than the world in which that specific person isn't. I may never meet that person, or their assailant, or their family, or know of the difference, but it would be there, whether, from my point of view, the difference would be atomically slight or astronomically large.

The cliche of this would be the butterfly effect, but there's a lot of truth in the concept.

 

[Mike]

I can off the top of my head name 3 cultures in history that do not agree with the statement that murder is wrong. 1) Sparta, when a child was born they were given to a "priest" and that priests job was to judge the "worthyness" of that child(read look for physical deformitys or signs of weakness) if the infant did not pass the judgement. they were left to die. 2) before i mention this one I DO NOT SUPPORT WHAT THEY DID IN ANY FASHION. Nazi's, they had no problem exterminating those who they did not feel fit into thier "master plan". We all know what they did(or at least should). 3) China, the Chineese culture and contenent is a wee bit over crowded and most familys want sons(or one of each) if two female children or a "deformed" child are born to the same family SOMETIMES that second child is allowed to die(not sure if its still done couldnt find any current information). I'm fairly sure there are others but those are just the ones off the top of my head.

I really believe these are invalid examples. Now, I'll admit, I don't have much knowledge of Sparta. That said, I can speak more toward China and Nazi Germany. In China, you have a system of atheism that drives its culture. Mothers will put themselves a risk of severe punishment in order to protect a child. Whether the government of China promotes the slaughter of children, there is an understanding within the culture that it is wrong.

So too with Nazi Germany. The people that supported what was happening in their society were being caught up in the ultimate study or human behavior; not human morals. Many within Germany knew it was wrong. Others needed to be woken from their haze to be reminded that they supported something that was universally wrong. With those two examples explained, I am confident that we'd find Spartans, down to the individual as opposed to the leadership would have said killing an innocent child is wrong.

I asked you if you thought killing an innocent child is inherently wrong, and I guess I understand your position now. It's a sad position to take, and I'd say only the Lord could remove it from your heart, but you were eventually clear. It seems like you avoided the crux of my question for a while, but you eventually got there.

 

[modernnihilst]

I really believe these are invalid examples. Now, I'll admit, I don't have much knowledge of Sparta. That said, I can speak more toward China and Nazi Germany. In China, you have a system of atheism that drives its culture. Mothers will put themselves a risk of severe punishment in order to protect a child. Whether the government of China promotes the slaughter of children, there is an understanding within the culture that it is wrong.

So too with Nazi Germany. The people that supported what was happening in their society were being caught up in the ultimate study or human behavior; not human morals. Many within Germany knew it was wrong. Others needed to be woken from their haze to be reminded that they supported something that was universally wrong. With those two examples explained, I am confident that we'd find Spartans, down to the individual as opposed to the leadership would have said killing an innocent child is wrong.

I asked you if you thought killing an innocent child is inherently wrong, and I guess I understand your position now. It's a sad position to take, and I'd say only the Lord could remove it from your heart, but you were eventually clear. It seems like you avoided the crux of my question for a while, but you eventually got there.

The point of that quote from me was to answer a specific charge from Free where he(?) asserted that all cultures throughout history had an inherent problem with murder. Those 3 regardless of reasons did not.

I did attempt to avoid the crux for a while because its not a subject on which many people can understand the position and how I (an otherwise pleasent person) can take said position.

On the subject of murder, heres one for you. Two pro fighters in this case MMA fighters in a fight one of the fighters is caught in a neck crank, a submission move where if the fighter caught in it does not tap out thier neck would be broken, he doesn't tap out and the other fighter breaks his neck and he dies. Is the fighter that won the fight wrong for killing his opponet?

 

[Mike]

The point of that quote from me was to answer a specific charge from Free where he(?) asserted that all cultures throughout history had an inherent problem with murder. Those 3 regardless of reasons did not.

And my point was that I disagree with you here. The German society didn't accept the murder as justified. This notion was promoted by the propaganda spewed by the Nazi party and Nazi party controlled media. Those that did follow the Nazi party into these atrocities let themselves be manipulated by it. There were many people who privately worked against the Nazi Party, so I would submit that this underlying rejection of what they were doing demonstrates that murder wasn't necessarily condoned by the German people.

Certainly, the government is the force behind China's ongoing human rights violations; not the parents; not the people; not the culture. For the same reason as Nazi Germany, this example doesn't serve your purpose either, IMO.

 

[modernnihilst]

And my point was that I disagree with you here. The German society didn't accept the murder as justified. This notion was promoted by the propaganda spewed by the Nazi party and Nazi party controlled media. Those that did follow the Nazi party into these atrocities let themselves be manipulated by it. There were many people who privately worked against the Nazi Party, so I would submit that this underlying rejection of what they were doing demonstrates that murder wasn't necessarily condoned by the German people.

Certainly, the government is the force behind China's ongoing human rights violations; not the parents; not the people; not the culture. For the same reason as Nazi Germany, this example doesn't serve your purpose either, IMO.

Ok I'll give you china, however regarding nazi culture. I was refering to the nazi's themselves as the culture still exists to a point and still doesnt aperently see an issue with the killing thing. therefore a valid point.

 

[jasoncran]

Ok I'll give you china, however regarding nazi culture. I was refering to the nazi's themselves as the culture still exists to a point and still doesnt aperently see an issue with the killing thing. therefore a valid point.

any society has proportion of men or women that see now wrong in crimes. should then conclude that crime is ok and that evil just is? yet all men who arent psycopaths long for the day that evil is gone. in the agnostic or athiestic worldiew(naturalism) this shouldnt be as there no rhyme or reason why or the ability of nature that has no intellegence to make us that way.

yet allmost all believe in what goes around comes around. in christianity that is called the law of sowing and reaping.

sow sin reap sin, sow blessings reap blessings.

 

[Free]

I can off the top of my head name 3 cultures in history that do not agree with the statement that murder is wrong. 1) Sparta, when a child was born they were given to a "priest" and that priests job was to judge the "worthyness" of that child(read look for physical deformitys or signs of weakness) if the infant did not pass the judgement. they were left to die. 2) before i mention this one I DO NOT SUPPORT WHAT THEY DID IN ANY FASHION. Nazi's, they had no problem exterminating those who they did not feel fit into thier "master plan". We all know what they did(or at least should). 3) China, the Chineese culture and contenent is a wee bit over crowded and most familys want sons(or one of each) if two female children or a "deformed" child are born to the same family SOMETIMES that second child is allowed to die(not sure if its still done couldnt find any current information). I'm fairly sure there are others but those are just the ones off the top of my head.

But the issue with these groups is that to them, in certain instances, it is justifiable, so they don't see it as murder. I can all but guarantee that all three had, or still have, situations where one would be guilty of murder. Of course we disagree with these groups and believe they have in fact murdered, or still do murder, in every instance. But this disagreement does not mean that morality is not absolute.

from Free where he(?)

Yes, I'm a he.

 

[modernnihilst]

But the issue with these groups is that to them, in certain instances, it is justifiable, so they don't see it as murder. I can all but guarantee that all three had, or still have, situations where one would be guilty of murder. Of course we disagree with these groups and believe they have in fact murdered, or still do murder, in every instance. But this disagreement does not mean that morality is not absolute.


Yes, I'm a he.

The issue I have with calling morality an absolute is the exceptions. These exceptions occur everywhere (yes even the Catholic Church, as there were several popes murderd/forceably removed from thier position plus all the crusades, and I wont even go into the horrors of the inquisition) for something to be an absolute there must be NO exceptions whatsoever. gravity is an absolute, for it has no exception, morality has too many for me to consider it an absolute.

wasnt sure bout the guy(your pic has a dude and a chick wasnt sure what one was you)

 

[Free]

The issue I have with calling morality an absolute is the exceptions. These exceptions occur everywhere (yes even the Catholic Church, as there were several popes murderd/forceably removed from thier position plus all the crusades, and I wont even go into the horrors of the inquisition) for something to be an absolute there must be NO exceptions whatsoever. gravity is an absolute, for it has no exception, morality has too many for me to consider it an absolute.

Exceptions, or rather disagreements at certain points, do not mean that morality is not absolute.

 

[modernnihilst]

Exceptions, or rather disagreements at certain points, do not mean that morality is not absolute.

From the dictionary absolute: 1.free from imperfection; complete; perfect

ergo an exception voids absoluteness.

 

[Free]

From the dictionary absolute: 1.free from imperfection; complete; perfect

ergo an exception voids absoluteness.

I suggest you need to use the proper definitions that pertain to such a discussion.