Another Nihilism Thread

[Anonymous No.12526731]

Can anyone provide me with a valid argument against the fundamental claim of nihilism that morality is nonexistent in the face of reason? This isn't a bait thread, I would like a real answer.

We're taking the idea that logic itself is valid as a presupposition here, like it or not.

Also recommend literature which deals with this question or challenges it.

The litfu is just to grab attention, don't let it derail conversation, it's just a meaningless girl, after all.

[Anonymous No.12526781]

>>12526731
Because it’s just a bold faced lie.
If you were actually nihilist you’d value absolutely nothing and no one. It’s blatantly bullshit because none except psychopaths operates in this manner.

You’d have no friends, no lovers, no children, no job, no hobbies. You’d never call your mom on her birthday. You’d just do heroin all day, and lie to yourself that IM HAPPY CUS NOTHING REALLY MATTERS.

Wether you like it or not, we derive meaning and value from our lives and out interactions with others. The community and all those that inhabit it are living a shared meaningful purpose regardless of if we die at the end of it.

[Anonymous No.12526876]

>>12526731
read Camus bitch.

[Anonymous No.12526887]

>>12526876
not a bad rec OP

[Anonymous No.12526963]

There is no objective universal morality (i.e. one that would stand up to reason).
There is personal morality (i.e. we experience reality morally - we perceive actions as "right" or "wrong" whether or not we can logically justify the feeling).
There are differences between different people's personal morals (hence frequent disagreements) but there is enough common ground for societies to be able to form.
It is sometimes proposed that the fact that societies universally abhor actions like murder and betrayal is an indication that these actions may participate in the Platonic universal Wrong, but this is wrong - these actions are simply rejected by definition, because a society is defined by cooperation, and these things are the antitheses of cooperation.
Morality exists in order to promote cooperation, and as long as that aim is achieved, there is no reason to expect it to, for example, withstand logical scrutiny. It does not matter if no one is able to logically prove the correctness of their morality, or if the lines between right and wrong blur on close close inspection, as long as they cooperate anyway.

[Anonymous No.12526971]

>inb4 sum fag thinks he can't refute nihilism by saying "why don't you kill yourself then'

[Anonymous No.12526997]

>>12526781
why would a nihilist care about being happy or bother doing heroin? come on now.

[Anonymous No.12527004]

>>12526781
What do you mean, “if”? Brainlet.

[Anonymous No.12527010]

>>12526781
To go even further, to even state that "nothing matters" is paradoxical as the intended meaning of this statement is derived by some form of non-meaning, which gains it's meaning by the alleged absence of meaning.

It's impossible to even BE a nihilist, unless you're pic related.

[Anonymous No.12527086]

>>12526997
Good point. I retract that bit, even that in and of itself implies there’s some point to something.

[Anonymous No.12527097]

>>12526731
Rick and Morty

[Anonymous No.12527127]

>>12527010
>that pic
This level of shitposting shouldn't even be legal.

[Anonymous No.12527186]

>>12526731
>This isn't a bait thread
That's what all bait posters say.

>We're taking the idea that logic itself is valid as a presupposition here
Which "logic"? There are many logical theories, which one should we take as valid? Also, if I were a nihilist who didn't believe in anything why should I accept your "logic" as true?

You see, when you start asking these kinds of questions you've already abandoned nihilism and you're incapable of even talking about it. You can't put yourself in the shoes of a nihilist with your self-referential language; you're already too far gone into the delusions of "meaning". The nihilist speaks another tongue, and you can't understand him. The nihilist wouldn't be here arguing with you because there is no point in so doing. The nihilist exists within the realm of animal life; his mind is an Operative System that is supposed to fulfill certain biological imperatives and he doesn't attempt to step outside those bounds, he does not attempt to think metaphysical thoughts. The nihilist is not the philosophy undergrad who likes to talk about how life has no meaning; the nihilist is the stockbroker who doesn't talk about anything unless it serves his biological imperative of making money and fucking bitches. You can't refute what the nihilist says because the nihilist has nothing to say in the first place.

[Anonymous No.12527238]

Have you ever noticed that the most intelligent i.e rational and logical organisms have the strongest sense of morality?

[Anonymous No.12527246]

>>12527238
Ashkenazi Jews are very intelligent but they're kinda lacking in the morality department.

[Anonymous No.12527259]

>>12527246
Sociopaths are also characterized by high intelligence. But the point stands, morality can only be developed and understood by beings of higher intellect. That's why beasts are considered free from morality.

[Anonymous No.12527263]

>>12526731
Asexuality is the sexuality of nihilists.

[Anonymous No.12527272]

>>12527259
Are you moving the goal posts?

Also, dogs aren't too intelligent but they can be very loyal, sometimes even when it is against their own self-interest. I'd say that dogs are much more moral than some people, even though they're not as intelligent.

[Anonymous No.12527283]

>>12527272
But dogs were bred for those qualities from wolves for thousands of years. I believe that the dog simply understand that it can bond with a human in a symbiotic relationship where both parties benefit. The same can be seen with rhinos and birds, the birds eat the rhinos' parasites while the rhino affords protection.

[Anonymous No.12527297]

>>12527283
The same holds for humans. Humans bred themselves for moral qualities. You shouldn't think that humans are magical beings and the laws of nature do not apply to us.

[Anonymous No.12527317]

>>12527297
What. Who bred humans for moral qualities?
I don't think humans are special, they're just slightly more evolved monkeys but we can learn to distinguish from right and wrong. Being nice to each other and forming symbiotic bonds has allowed us to survive. If we see it in rational and logical terms, morality is an evolutionary advantage, hence it is logical and rational to have morals.

[Anonymous No.12527340]

>>12527259
Ah too loose with your definitions. Morals span a wide range. If you mean morals as aesthetics or ethics which ine can overlay your life with to increase the richness of experience and ease friction of human interaction, sure. If you mean the morals as personified by your average snake handling baptist or the ooga booga tribe, with a variety of taboos to ward off the fire god’s demons; not so much.

[Anonymous No.12527372]

>>12527340
The former.

[Anonymous No.12527381]

I will never have anyone that genuinely cares about me. What's the fucking point?

[Anonymous No.12527437]

>>12527317
>Who bred humans for moral qualities?
>Being nice to each other and forming symbiotic bonds has allowed us to survive.
You answered your own question. Humans bred themselves for moral qualities because it was an evolutionary advantage. People who showed evident signs of immorality were stigmatized or killed, and thus they could not pass down their genes. Humans, and Nature herself, selected in favor of certain moral traits; in this respect, we're not very different from dogs.

[Anonymous No.12527439]

>>12527381
Define “genuine”?

[Anonymous No.12527454]

>>12527437
So we proved OP wrong

[Anonymous No.12527462]

>>12527381
>I will never have anyone that genuinely cares about me.

>It should be all about me.
>Me, me, I! Look at me! I'm so fucking important!

Not gonna make it.

[Anonymous No.12527471]

>>12527454
how does any of that convo go against nihilism?

[Anonymous No.12527480]

>>12527471
It doesn't go against Nihilism itself but it does refute the claim that morality is nonexistent in the face of reason

[Anonymous No.12527483]

>>12527480
how does it do that

[Anonymous No.12527559]

>>12527381
stop posting frogs and you might turn it all around

[Anonymous No.12527623]

>>12527483
we established that morality has helped humanity survived, surviving by using every tool we have is the logical thing to do, therefore if morality is a tool for survival then the logical thing to do is to be moral. So reason and morality can exist in the same place and time

[Anonymous No.12527803]

>>12527381
>What's the fucking point?
See, even you don't genuinely care about yourself, else you wouldn't ask such stupid questions. Try working on that, it's better than waiting for a chance encounter, and at the end you might not even need one.

[Anonymous No.12527881]

>>12526781
bald
it's a bald-faced lie
bald
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/bald-faced

[Anonymous No.12527958]

>>12527263
That would be the opposite.

The nihilist isn't the one who reads Ligotti and spend all day brooding. The nihilist spend his time scrolling on Facebook, watching cartoons with his bowl of cheerios and in fact is perfectly fine with his life, it doesn't matter after all.

[Anonymous No.12528262]

nihilism is a shitty state of mind.

if nothing matters, why choose to be in a shitty state of mind? it doesn't matter that you're a nihilist, so why be one?

[Anonymous No.12528269]

Reason of what? Nihilism is as vague of a term as apathy, without actually claiming what someone is taking the stance towards you can say whatever you want about it

[Anonymous No.12528274]

>>12528262
Hard to make yourself believe in something else when you know deep down that it's made-up bullshit.

[Anonymous No.12528307]

>>12528274
But so is nihilism.

[Anonymous No.12528310]

>>12527958
That would be the consumer hedonist

[Anonymous No.12528311]

>>12528307
I'm sure this little game is meaningful to you, but it isn't helpful at all.

[Anonymous No.12528986]

Nihilism is a very dubious term to begin with. Originally meant to slander people who tried to break with aristocratic values and orthodoxy in favour of reason and the natural sciences.

If you've read Fathers and Sons it's pretty obvious that the Nihilist isn't some nobody without standards or goals (the big 'Whatever'); its descriptive for someone who pays little attention to the dominant moral structures.

Nihilism is a negative term: it has a lot in common with the word freedom- both are signifiers for an absence, rather than any positive quality.

This entails that the Nihilist gets lodged in with all who defy the moral consensus; be it junkies, criminals or corrupt stockbrokers.

Moreover, the Nihilist as this isolated state of reason/logic doesn't exist in the real world; just as a hypothetical, or a naive illusion held by those who expect to find meaning in a logical formula.

We're all bound to a certain history and a system of meaning derived from it. Those who come closest to this Nihilistic ideal are those who've never had, lost or disregarded these ties partially.

[Anonymous No.12529001]

>>12526781
I'm not arguing that I myself am a completely reasonable being and I understand that I should neck myself, me being irrational as a person is not a refutation of a more universal argument.

>>12526876
I read the Stranger a few years ago, he doesn't as much answer these questions as he does just bring them up, I'll try some more of his works though.

>>12527186
Also maybe I should have been more clear, I only mean moral and existential nihilism, not metaphysical nihilism which is just taking things to laughable extremes. A moral or existential nihilist's thinking can be fully derived from the period of enlightenment and the thinking that arose from which that reason and mechanics are the only legitimate source of knowing, and, accepting reason, therefor they can not see any mechanical reason that they should continue to live, as morals and meaning do not live up to the scrutiny. That the natural world is all that one can reasonably know without faith. A metaphysical nihilist denies even the systems of logic/mechanics/reasoning and therefore the world around them. I don't subscribe to that theory as I don't operate on the faith that nothing is real, and I don't know of any reasonable arguments for metaphysical nihilism.

I'm a bit confused as to what you mean by the first paragraph however, can you link me to any systems of logic which are without flaw and in contradiction with each other? When I said what I said, I meant logic in its near most basal form, being understood to be true, but maybe my understanding of logic is wrong?


>>12527259
Just as humans, beasts engage in altruism.
>>12527317
He's right, most species develop an altruistic tendency to maintain symbiotic relationships.

>>12527623
Surviving is not the logical thing to do. Nonexistence is. Why would you want to continue surviving when you can have parasites latch onto you and beasts tear you to ribbons, other than your irrational evolutionary instincts? I have extreme doubt that any man has lived a life where happiness outweighed suffering unless he had a mental disorder.

I am actually in doubt of nihilism on faith from the half-evidence that we wouldn't have the urge to survive if it were true, otherwise I'd be dead by now and not asking these questions, but I'm yet to see any good reasoning as to why I should be in doubt.

[Anonymous No.12529007]

a pointless language game

[Anonymous No.12529239]

A nihlist is simply someone who isn't spooked.

[Anonymous No.12529296]

>>12526731
To use reason you need to be alive

[Anonymous No.12529898]

>>12527623
>surviving by using every tool we have is the logical thing to do
how so

[Anonymous No.12530137]

>>12526731
'Cause reason is a spiritual construction where "good" and "bad" were replaced by "viable" and "unviable".

[Anonymous No.12530144]

A nihlist is someone who take a lot of black and white pictures of themselves.

[Anonymous No.12530145]

>>12527097
Couldn't agree more

[Anonymous No.12530151]

>>12530144
and watches alt-porn

[Anonymous No.12530245]

>>12526731
Before reaching the understanding that the existence of belief in morality is synonymous with proof of objective morality itself, it's easy to fall into nihilism. I'd also like to comment that just because morality exists does not mean that life is always enjoyable, fair, or even possessing of meaning at least in my eyes.

The quickest way to prove the existence of object morality is to think on how it could have spawned. If there was a time without morality in proto-humans, how then did they imagine morality? There were no concepts of good or evil, or a choice being more 'righteous' than another choice to any degree. It would have simply been inconceivable to the proto-humans that anything beyond base, animalistic decision making was the right thing to do. It would have been like asking a blind man to describe the properties of the color red. It's also not as simple as blindly throwing out, "oh, it was an evolutionary adaptation." That would be unlikely because it would give sentience to the process of evolution, and demand that this sentient evolution decided to bestow on humanity a system that more often that not is completely illogical and counter-intuitive to survival. Further, even if you miraculously instill an understanding of morality into one proto-human, how the hell are you going to convince the entire human race about morality? See, it has nothing to do with various cultures having 'differing' senses of morality, and everything to do with them even being able to conceive what a moral code even is. Once the existence of morality itself is proven, then there must be an objective one as morality could not have developed on its own account. This objective morality had to have been created by something as with rules there is always a rule-maker. And as such you have entered into yet another argument for the existence of a god.

I would also recommend that anyone attacking this argument think primarily on the example of the blind man. This is because there is no more representative example than asking a blind man to see a specific color. The idea of morality alone would be so inherently alien to a morality-less existence that its nearly inconceivable to say that such an existence conceived it and then spread it to every other such existence.

[Anonymous No.12530647]

What's the point of these threads?

[Anonymous No.12530950]

>>12526731
What a stupid assumption that morality is nonexistent in the face of reason. According to 95% of philosophers reason is necessary for morality. Why do people assume meaningless crap like that?

[Anonymous No.12531394]

>>12530950
So, are you going to post a refutation to the claim or continue throwing a temper tantrum and prolong the thread?

>>12530647
Plunging the hopeless denying that they are hopeless further into despair for a CIA psy-op.

[Anonymous No.12531429]

1- all humans are born hating (e.g.) pain
i.e.
1- needless pain is something hated (by all humans due to biology)
2- if everyone (will always) hate something, it is immoral (to them)
3-(to all humans) needless pain is immoral
Sorry for obnoxious bracket spam, but thats my thoughts on it. If all humans (or at least the vast majority) are biologically inclined to dislike something, so no matter who you are you hate it, that is immoral to me.

[Anonymous No.12531547]

>>12531429
Wrong. People don't hate pain, it just makes them feel extremely uncomfortable.

[Anonymous No.12531549]

>>12531429
>if you hste something you must think it is immoral
yikes. I hate grime and crunk music but that doesn't mean I think it is immoral. why do moraltards think they can get away with this kind of logic?

[Anonymous No.12531614]

>>12531547
the difference isn't important to me
>>12531549
the point is pain is biologically pre-determined (like other things such as loneliness) to be something all humans hate from birth. Your distaste for grime music isn't the same as something all humans vehemently ha- sorry, are vehemently uncomfortable with. The fact its a biological kneejerk reaction to hate the thing is what my point it about.

[Anonymous No.12531641]

>>12531614
>the point is pain is biologically pre-determined (like other things such as loneliness) to be something all humans hate from birth. Your distaste for grime music isn't the same as something all humans vehemently ha- sorry, are vehemently uncomfortable with. The fact its a biological kneejerk reaction to hate the thing is what my point it about.
none of that gets around my criticism of what you said. whether or not the hate one has of a particular thing is genetic or learned doesn't matter here. hating something doesn't mean you think it is immoral

[Anonymous No.12531792]

>>12531429
Your argument is flawed, but even if it were not the conclusion would still be to simply kill yourself and everyone around you to avoid all that "immoral" (as you call it, it's not actually immoral) and simply needless pain that you would cause unto yourself and others.

[Anonymous No.12531889]

>>12530245
>That would be unlikely because it would give sentience to the process of evolution, and demand that this sentient evolution decided to bestow on humanity a system that more often that not is completely illogical and counter-intuitive to survival.

You have a shallow understanding of evolutionary biology. There is absolutely nothing illogical about the moral standards of the vast majority of human societies from the point of view of their compatibility with evolution. In regards to this, two of the main points you are likely to be ignoring are: (1) evolution is primarily gene-centered, not species-centered or individual-centered. Most human morality can be explained directly from this evolutionary framework. (2) Evolution is ultimately stochastic, many things don't make sense simply because random shit happens.

[Anonymous No.12531974]

>>12527381
You lost yourself, and wish to find happiness in someone else, you must learn to despise others, love yourself, care for yourself, and then the world will open it's arms for you.

[Anonymous No.12532041]

>>12526963
>we perceive actions as "right" or "wrong" whether or not we can logically justify the feeling
Can you expand more on that?
What does it mean "justify the feeling"? Simply saying that you did it because it felt good to you?

[Anonymous No.12532051]

>>12527238
>strongest sense of morality?
What do you mean by this? the "smartest" people are the ones who have the same morals as you do? well no shit you'd say that.

[Anonymous No.12532651]

nihilism is for fags

[Anonymous No.12532684]

>>12529001
>Read The Stranger

Read The Myth of Sisyphus

[Anonymous No.12533199]

>>12526731
Do things inherently matter to the universe? No. The universe is not a sentient being.

Do things inherently matter to us? Obviously.
We are existence do the lack of existence (death) is antithetical to us. Pain hurts etc.

[Anonymous No.12534491]

>>12527437
>is-ought gap bridged because evolution or something
lmao this shit is WEAK

>>12526731
Doesn't Kant argue for the existence of objective morality? I haven't read Kant and you probably don't want to because that shit is hard.

I would try to argue that a lot of knowledge would be impossible without at least some rudimentary morality. But I believe that some form of knowledge is possible, and therfore there are at least some moral questions that have a right answer.

To see why knowledge and morality are linked, I want you to consider the question of how we should categorise the world and why? There obviously is some goal in mind. You might want to argue that the reason we do this is because of evolution or such and such and that it is inevitable, but then you are refuting that there is a reason to categorise as a consequence of your knowledge, and thus this argument is self-defeating. Whatever goal this is then, is something which we should strive to optimise. I think this could lead you to more advanced statements about morality.

This does say nothing about the ontological status of moral statements, but i would argue it is unimportant whether morality has to be mind-independent. In the end, the most fundamental thing there is, is your experience. For all principles that are necessary for your experience, we should obey the extension of principles to other situations.

[Anonymous No.12534629]

>>12527623
The argument against this thought that it may no longer be necessary or the more efficient way to survive in our modern society.

[Anonymous No.12534638]

>>12528274
Obviously anything we try to describe linguistically is made up because it's medium that is relatively new. That doesn't how ever discount an inherent human nature we are incapable to put into words.

[Anonymous No.12535238]

>>12531429
I think "needless" pain is very subjective, vague and can be interpreted in too many ways. Even if that moral is universal you wouldnt be able to apply it the same way to everyone.

[Anonymous No.12535586]

>>12534491
There is no 'is-ought' gap. It's an abstract dichotomy which tries to place moral knowledge in a fundamentally different category from all other knowledge, which isn't possible. The 'is' is implicit in any 'ought', the descriptive is implicit in the normative. Always.

[Anonymous No.12535613]

>>12535586
I recommend that you pick up a book, like something by Hume, and learn to read. It won't be easy, but I have my hopes for you sweetie :)

[Anonymous No.12535666]

>>12526731
If the claim is rather that morality can't be universal and can't precede valuing agents, then there's no valid argument against that.

Morality clearly exists though, if we define it reasonably. Values are just slightly abstracted preferences. Morals are a step further in that chain of abstraction -- formulae which codify knowledge about achieving certain preferred outcomes. We all have preferences, and we have facility for abstraction and reasoning, so morality does inhere to our very natures (it just isn't universal because our natures aren't entirely identical i.e. divergent preferences).

[Anonymous No.12535674]

>>12535613
If you understand Hume's argument then demonstrate how it's correct, instead of appealing to authority like the pleb you are.

[Anonymous No.12535769]

>>12535674
Sure little boi.
The argument is basically this: Hume thinks that people just skip the part where they draw normative conclusions from descriptive. That's it.

[Anonymous No.12535836]

>>12535586
>There is no 'is-ought' gap.
Yes there is.
>It's an abstract dichotomy
We're talking about the abstract field of philosophy
>which tries to place moral knowledge in a fundamentally different category from all other knowledge
Which is true, all lingustics and philosophets agree with this categorisation
>which isn't possible.
It certainly is. Meaning is use and all that.
>The 'is' is implicit in any 'ought', the descriptive is implicit in the normative. Always.
That's not what we are talking about. We are talking about if moral statements can be validly deduced from descriptive statements.

[Anonymous No.12535893]

>>12535769
There's no gap. A normative statement is inherently descriptive. When you make a normative statement, is there not an intent? Is there not a belief that the prescribed behaviour is more effective in achieving 'x' outcome? Maybe try thinking about it.

>>12535836
Yes, but abstractions which make claims must relate back to the concrete. Some abstractions are abstract to the point of departing fully into imagination.

Morality is either a kind (subset) of knowledge or it isn't. There's no parallel superset of knowledge discrete from everything else. If that's true, what is your logic for it?

Of course it's what we're talking about. If the 'is' is implicit in the 'ought', then there's no concrete distinction. When you say someone 'should' do something, you mean 'doing x more effectively achieves y'. It's all -is-.

[Anonymous No.12535944]

>>12535893
I think we should just skip this autistic nonsense and go down to the important issue.

Say if "x is wrong is true", or x "is good" is true, what observable difference could then be detected between the two scenarios?

[Anonymous No.12535951]

>>12535944
Good/bad isn't universal, true/false is.

[Anonymous No.12535960]

>>12535944
If you said 'x is good for y' then you could evaluate truth.

[Anonymous No.12535970]

>>12535951
What observable difference would there be if morality was objective or if morality was subjective?

[Anonymous No.12535975]

>>12535893
>is there not intent in a normative statement
of course there is brainlet, its social signaling. you’re vying for allocations of resources and attention that benefit your genome.
>norm statement descriptive
of an abstraction or an alternative phenomena, it doesn’t describe the state of the thing as it originally presented but is a marked departure towards a perception you wish you had but did not of course experience. Its wincing at the splayed out viscera of a dying animal and then describing a situation where it was not so, this isn’t what we call an “empirical” description of what is.

The intelligent con and rule the stupid, the strong rape and coerce the weak, your description of an orthogonal species of phenomena where this “isn’t so” or is “less efficacious for ‘x’” (for me and mine or what i hope to become) isn’t related to what is at the moment being referenced. achronicity and contextual transposition while making loose appeals to the necessarily a posteriori nature of all judgements to smuggle normative statements, excuse me, descriptions of calcified, dormant possible or previous outcomes, is sophistry, or maybe just mentally ill incompetent reasoning.

[Anonymous No.12535977]

>>12535960
What observable difference would there be if "x is good for me" was true compared to "x is bad for me"?

[Anonymous No.12536022]

Fuckin' Nihilists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_29yvYpf4w

[Anonymous No.12536051]

>>12535970
Well, look around at all the conflict between populations with divergent preferences who think they have a universal moral authority.

>>12535975
It's not just signalling, there's a a descriptive belief somewhere that 'x' behaviours will more likely result in 'y' outcomes. If I say "You should eat your vegetables" what is implicit is "vegetables are beneficial to your health."

Yes I appreciate the abstraction, but the fact is that humans process a great deal through our conceptual capacity, and abstractions end up having a great impact upon our lives. You're being a little too autistic, even for me.

>>12535977
Go for a relaxing walk in the park and then crush one of your fingers with a hammer, then let me know.

[Anonymous No.12536133]

>>12526731
Nihilism is stupid. Morality isn't non-existant. It is just irrelevant and doesn't have any power in and of itself. There's divine law making goodness good and evil bad. Morality is simply a consequence of humanity. To transcend one's humanity, one must create values of his own, like Nietzsche would put it and he was right and based and also redpilled

[Anonymous No.12536146]

>>12526731 (OP)
Nihilism is stupid. Morality isn't non-existant. It is just irrelevant and doesn't have any power in and of itself. There's no actual divine law making goodness good and evil bad. Morality is simply a consequence of humanity. To transcend one's humanity, one must create values of his own, like Nietzsche would put it and he was right and based and also redpilled
What I would like to know is why OP thinks reason is somehow incompatible with morality.

[Anonymous No.12536259]

>>12536051
People disagreeing about morals is possible if morality is subjective and if morality is objective. Give me a good verfiable difference and not this wishy washy nonsense.

What's the observable difference that would be difference if me smashing myself with a hammer would be good compared to the opposite?

[Anonymous No.12536404]

>>12526781
>imagine being this brainlet

[Anonymous No.12536413]

>>12527259
>>12527238
>brainlets thinking morality=goodness

[Anonymous No.12536434]

>>12536259
It's not objective vs subjective. Subjectivity occurs within objective reality. Morals are objective, just not universal.

The difference between good and bad is in the outcome, but since circumstances and agents vary, the standard of good and bad likewise varies.

Injuring yourself would impair your wellbeing. Unless you did it to achieve some other more critical outcome, it would be bad for you. Good/bad can only possibly relate to our nature (the conditions of our wellbeing). While there is significant overlap in our natures (this overlap is what morality is founded upon), morals can't be strictly universal.

[Anonymous No.12536461]

>>12536434
Show me the empirical evidence that my well being is good for me.

[Anonymous No.12536571]

>>12536461
It can't be any other way. You're incapable of taking an intentional action which isn't in the interest of some aspect of your wellbeing, even fleeting and short-sighted. It's not that wellbeing is good for you, it's that wellbeing is the standard of what is good for you.

[Anonymous No.12536579]

>>12536571
Give me the empircal evidence nigga

[Anonymous No.12536605]

>>12536579
I have. Try to give me an example of intentionally not acting in the interest of some aspect of your wellbeing. It is the measure of good/bad, it is what all preference serves (or at least attempts to).

[Anonymous No.12536684]

>>12536413
I bet you think ethics =/= morality too

[Anonymous No.12537083]

>>12536571
I could intentionally run directly into a wall just prove you wrong right now.

Congratulations on making the most retarded argument in this thread so far.

[Anonymous No.12537146]

>>12526731

The single most important thing to understand about morality is that it is absolutely not something innate
All it is is a tool formulated and used by humans to achieve their goals and mitigate some of their perceived flaws
To say that morality is nonexistent in the face of reason is kind of like saying we wouldn't need wrenches if we all just had wrenches for hands

[Anonymous No.12537190]

>>12526731
Inductive reasoning is flawed. Nihilists induct morality doesn't exist. One argument is a lack of empirical or temporal evidence. This doesn't disprove the metaphysical, but this doesn't matter to empiricists and so they continue to believe there is no morality. The argument on wikipedia is one that stems from queerness, and it is a retarded argument. Therefore there are no strong reasons, should you not be an empiricists, that morality does not exist.
I highly doubt you are a nihilist, since you are still alive and not in jail. If you believe in achieving more utility in your life, the objective moralities of religion and philosophies promoting individual sovereignty would provide the most benefit. Religions give unfalsifiable claims about the metaphysical world, and people cannot really disprove you. Also the world's irreligious just copy religious morals for the most part, so you could just do that anyways. Believing in subjective moralities such as the relativism espoused by tumblr warriors will make you insecure about your beliefs, as people will try to poke holes in them all the time. I do not recommend secular humanism or materialism. I recommend religion and egoism.

[Anonymous No.12537233]

>>12527127
seconded

[Anonymous No.12537236]

>>12526731

Because you are a human and we are able to recognize good and bad. You can pretend otherwise, but every human knows the difference between being happy and being depressed. Just like there is a difference between being healthy and unhealthy. Fat activist can insist they are healthy and they can play word games to make it seem as if they are fine but the bottom line is they are not and anyone who has been fat and fit at different points in their life knows the difference. You could say health is only a made up human concept because really to the universe it makes no difference if you're in peak condition or an alcoholic constantly shitting yourself. It's still just matter. How can you say one person is healthier than the other if you don't value human life.

You can say being healthy is pointless because we all die in the end, but the time you spend here is majorly altered by your health. It doesn't matter to the universe if you have a good time or not but it does to you because you're the one suck with the experience. The difference in a healthy vs unhealthy lifestyle is self evident, even if you think one isn't better than the other.

Morality is the same way. Being a moral person feels good because there is a way human are supposed to act that is in harmony with the environment and each other. Morality is built into us like health is. It might not matter to the universe but it drastically effects your life. Morality exists in nature as there are countless examples of animals that live together with social order. The evolutionary reasons for this are obvious.

You ever do something selfless? It's good for your soul and feels completely different from the pleasure you get for anything else. You see people who value morality and they are always more happy and at peace that people who don't. It's a big difference like the one you see between someone healthy vs someone who just doesn't care.

Imagine a time when science was not so advanced and health is not understood. The differences between healthy and unhealthy still exist even though you can't get technical with it. If you don't think there really is a difference than why not try being moral? Everything is pointless anyway so just give it a go.

I'll tell you, once you're there you stop caring if any of it matters because it's just so good to be. I used to be super depressed but now I love life so much I could die right now with no regrets.

[Anonymous No.12538145]

>>12536605
Acrually you haven't you have just repeated descrptive egoism. Give me the evidence.

[Anonymous No.12538433]

>>12538145
Our ego-centered psychology is the evidence.

[Anonymous No.12538466]

>>12538433
How is it the evidence?

[Anonymous No.12538493]

>>12538466
What kind of evidence are you looking for?

[Anonymous No.12538510]

>>12538493
Evidence that support your moral system.

[Anonymous No.12538530]

>>12538510
The necessary valuing of our own well-being within our psychology is the evidence. Any preference you have, no matter what, will be oriented towards your own well-being.

[Anonymous No.12538550]

>>12538530
How is this evidence that I ought to pursue my wellbeing?

[Anonymous No.12538561]

>>12538550
Because there is no ought which can be conceived without an associated well-being gained. If you have any preference, then you have the evidence you want. Or are you saying you don't have any preferences?

[Anonymous No.12538589]

>>12526731
Yes, but you would point at the proof, ignoring that it is valid, and claim that it is untrue.

Nihilism is not the natural logical result of the assumption that there is no objective morality. Nihilism is what Nietzsche, the man who coined the term, argued vehemently against.

We are not to see that morality is nonexistent in the face of reason. We are to recognize the role of reason in forming a value system that defines our morals and goals.

Read Thus Spake Zarathustra or any Nietzsche before you just presume to accept any Nietzschean concept as your principal ideal.

[Anonymous No.12538605]

>>12526731
>Can anyone provide me with a valid argument against the fundamental claim of nihilism that morality is nonexistent in the face of reason?
Reason is pointless in itself. It's a tool to attain things you want, aka. goals. Morality; the dictation of the hierarchy of being. Whenever a deduction can be made that morality and being are worthless, it strikes right back at the deduction itself. The only deductions worth doing (a moral imperative; to seek a better state, a higher place, a greater ordering of being) are the ones that don't oppose themselves. Likewise, logic should be internally consistent.

[Anonymous No.12538676]

>>12527004
This very much

[Anonymous No.12538881]

>>12537083
You'd only be doing that to prove yourself right (which you wouldn't actually do), thereby satisfying a petty psychological aspect of your wellbeing.

This anon connects the (what I thought were obvious) dots for you nicely >>12538561

[Anonymous No.12538924]

>>12538605
Close, but morality can't be universal in the way logic is. Reason is indeed pointless in itself... One has to -feel- a way about something -- have a preference -- to reason about it. So, morality is a consequence of our nature as beings, our preferences and needs. We don't need to look beyond that nature for the purpose and architecture of morality (and it's fallacious to do so).

[Anonymous No.12538930]

Nihilism is ultimately another view of the world much in the same way various religions are different views of the world. The problem is that nihilism is one of the worse ones for you.

[Anonymous No.12538991]

>>12538561
Yes there is.
"I ought to kill myself", no wellbeing gained there bucko.

[Anonymous No.12539084]

>>12538991
Not so fast buckaroo. Why are you killing yourself?

[Anonymous No.12539245]

>>12537236
So what happens when you are confronted with a human that recognises good in what you recognise as bad and vice versa? How are you able to draw an ought? How do you know your not the fat activist insisting on your own moral code for reasons that are not correct?

[Anonymous No.12539252]

>>12538881
So your morality boils down to people ought to do whatever they want because they will be well off in some way because of it?

If crushing my hand with a hammer makes me happy, I ought to do it?

[Anonymous No.12539459]

>>12539252
Basically yes. I'd argue that crushing your hand for no other reason than temporary masochistic pleasure is actually maladaptive (as in if this was the norm for human behaviour, we wouldn't exist), but when we get down to it any claim of why something should or shouldn't be done is an expression of preference (which always serves some kind of wellbeing). Keep in mind I'm arguing that there is no universal 'ought' which precedes us, only abstractions of 'is'.

Now, we can certainly talk about the overlap in our nature (which is what morality actually deals with). So I can argue that no, you shouldn't crush your hand with a hammer because our conditions of wellbeing are similar enough that I know this to be an unsustainable and maladaptive behaviour. It is conceivable though, that some unusual person could achieve such bliss from the act, or some kind of epiphany of self-mastery, that the rest of their lives would greatly improved... In which case my assessment would've been wrong.

It's difficult to deal with such nuance all the time, and the norms of the majority are going to be given priority, so realistically we have to take a heuristic approach most of the time and go with general rules (I'm a general rule utilitarian).

[Anonymous No.12539479]

>>12539245
Someone can be wrong about what's actually best for them, or another could be wrong about what they think is best for that person. We also have to acknowledge that there can be genuine competition between the wellbeing of divergent collectives. We just have to take a heuristic approach and work with the overlap in natures the best we can.

[Anonymous No.12539563]

>>12526963
>we perceive actions as "right" or "wrong" whether or not we can logically justify the feeling
The complexity of feelings are usually made into coherent notions due to insecurity and are so invalid except to those whom we have made the claims. The Germans are good at introspection and the Americans are good at claiming to have an inner life. But we all know the Americans are only claiming an inner life on the basis of the information gleaned from a good Western movie. To feel something right or wrong is not really to feel something at all, but is instead to provide a screen for the complexity of feeling that has no unity in consciousness.
---
Dear China and America (texas) and Saudi Arabia, objective universal morality exists, and I am the final colonizer. My civilization is objectively better than yours and there will be no discussions when your lands are confiscated and your people dealt with once and for all. The era of moral relativism is at a close and the lightbringer dances with the perrenialists now. None shall be spared, nor reason given to any culture that does not make itself subordinate to the will. You have been warned. Terror shall know no end for moral relativists who use religion and politics to divide the people of earth into your playground of rape and murder and torture. The grounds of the one morality shall be made solid with the corpses of your nations, your peoples, your culture if you do not bow to the sacred will. I come for you beyond this being, beyond this flesh; I come for you from beyond the depths of the ocean, there beyond in which I am not except here that I am. I will arrive.

[Anonymous No.12540933]

>>12537146
You're right it's a tool, but it is innate if you think about. It's a direct consequence of having preferences/conditions of wellbeing paired with a capacity for abstract problem solving.

[Anonymous No.12541605]

>>12526731
I can't provide you with an argument because I actually agree with it; objectively speaking all is meaningless and morality is bullshit. I guess the only (overstated) thing to say is that we can act in a way that makes us feel like we're doing something meaningful, against our better knowledge. I suppose the only thing one can do is to chase this feeling?
I would recommend the zarathustra book by nietzsche as that really motivated me for a while but its effects seem to have died off in me, so I'm not sure if it's really that useful. Who is the litfu tho?
> it's just a meaningless girl, after all
Dreaming of getting into a relationship with a cute girl may just be the only reason I haven't offed myself yet so don't be so sure about that.

[Anonymous No.12541942]

>>12538924
>but morality can't be universal in the way logic is.
Well it doesn't have to be, but why not? Morality could be a sequence of forms, set to evaluate things by their intended purpose. For example, the purpose of tools is clear, and moral. It is considered a form of madness to intentionally misuse tools. Evil is a perspective error. To make a goal about missing the point.
>We don't need to look beyond that nature for the purpose and architecture of morality (and it's fallacious to do so).
We can't look beyond that so long as we remain human. Hence all possible answers exist within that domain.

[Anonymous No.12542140]

>>12541942
That is interesting, but it doesn't address the fact that divergent valuing agents can have genuinely competing conditions of wellbeing. So yes, we can treat the function of morality as universal -- it is a tool which serves wellbeing; but the moral formulae themselves will necessarily be specific to a degree for a given collective of valuing agents (as the tool is employed in the service of their particular nature).

>We can't look beyond that so long as we remain human. Hence all possible answers exist within that domain.
I suspect that's the case for any sophisticated sentient life. Yet thinkers still imagine convoluted transcendental explanations for morality which all but ignore the obvious provenance of our specific nature.