How do you escape ethical nihilism without faith?

File: 28 KB, 317x400, andy-kaufman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 03:13:12 2013 No.3334112 [Reply] [Original]

How do you escape ethical nihilism without faith?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 03:15:12 2013 No.3334116 Become the Fonz

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 03:15:12 2013 No.3334117 Why would you want to escape facts?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 03:15:12 2013 No.3334118 File: 925 KB, 1844x1230, 1356020488052.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] lol idk kill urself

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 03:19:12 2013 No.3334129 >>3334118 Existentialism is pretty faith-based, I'd say.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 03:21:12 2013 No.3334134 You don't. lrn2kierkegaard

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 03:30:12 2013 No.3334144 >>3334112 How do you assert ethical nihilism?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 03:33:12 2013 No.3334148 >>3334144 Pragmatically.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 03:44:12 2013 No.3334161 >>3334148 State your thesis, give evidence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 03:48:12 2013 No.3334169 >>3334161 Nihilism isn't a position, it's the lack of one. It's on you to prove the objectivity of your morality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 03:52:12 2013 No.3334176 >>3334169 You clearly believe that Ethical Nihilism is a smart theory. Tell me why you do.

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 03:58:12 2013 No.3334191

>>3334169
Would you honestly not give a shot if someone accused you of computing an act that you didn't, or spread any kind of scandalous misinformation about you? Unless you can in all honesty say you wouldn't care, it would seem the burden of proof is on YOU.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 03:59:12 2013 No.3334193 >>3334191 give a shit committing an act

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 04:04:12 2013 No.3334202 >>3334191 What does it matter what I feel?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 04:10:12 2013 No.3334211 Ethical nihilism is more an inability of choice than a choice of inability.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 04:11:12 2013 No.3334217 Lots of whiskey/whisky. But mostly Whisky

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 04:13:12 2013 No.3334220

>>3334202
Well, it doesn't. But "there is no meaning" is a conclusion based just as much on feeling. Don't act like it is the neutral position - agnosticism towards meaning is the truly neutral position. And I would argue this must be coupled with the fact that every human being orients their life as though it has SOME semblance of a meaning, no matter how minute or obtuse. So at the least, this universal instinct towards meaning is worth addressing and exploring.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 04:47:12 2013 No.3334279 I torture you and your family OP. Tell me why this isn't wrong.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 04:50:12 2013 No.3334283 >>3334176 It's smart in the sense that it doesn't make any unverifiable statements about morality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 04:51:12 2013 No.3334287 >>3334279 That's not how burden on proof works. Tell me why it IS wrong, you're the one making the claim. Nihilism is the lack of a claim.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 04:55:12 2013 No.3334293 >>3334129 I think it's more logic based, it would be logical to believe that lies aren't true and that propaganda isn't what's best for your mind.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 04:55:12 2013 No.3334295 >>3334279 In what sense is it wrong?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 04:57:12 2013 No.3334299 >>3334293 >lies aren't true and that propaganda isn't what's best for your mind. What does this have to do with existentialism?

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 04:57:12 2013 No.3334300

>>3334295
Inflicting pain on the people you love. I think ethical nihilism might be a bit much, but to say that homosexuality and drug abuse is not inherently wrong would make more sense. Depending on who you ask, murder and torture might not be a horrible thing, it all depends on your perspective. Do you think the person torturing and murdering people thinks that it is wrong to do? What if they don't care? What then?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 04:58:12 2013 No.3334302 >>3334299 Religion. Existentialism is basically the rejection of deity based religions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 04:59:12 2013 No.3334305 >>3334300 What is wrong with inflicting pain on the people I love?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:00:12 2013 No.3334308 >>3334302 Not at all, in fact. Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky were both very religious existentialists. What are you talking about?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:00:12 2013 No.3334310 >>3334305 Just that, you are hurting someone. Would you mind if someone hung you up on a wall and burned you with cigarettes and stabbed you in your dick? I'm sure you wouldn't like that very much, so why should you do it to someone else.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:01:12 2013 No.3334311 >>3334308 Oh, I mean existential nihilism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:01:12 2013 No.3334312 >>3334310 >it makes me sad >therefore objective morality

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:02:12 2013 No.3334315 >>3334310 What does what I like have to do with what is right or wrong? Why shouldn't I do it to someone else?

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:04:12 2013 No.3334321

>>3334287
Ethical nihilism is not the lack of a claim. It is a term for a variety of positions including the idea that ethical truths are unknowable, all ethical claims are false, ethical claims have no truth value, and so on. Incidentally, because you are the one offering the controversial viewpoint of ethical nihilism, the burden of proof falls to you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:05:12 2013 No.3334322 >>3334315 >Why shouldn't I do it to someone else? because that's how we derive ought (and should) statements, you disingenuous teenaged twit. >>3334312 what is this "objective" you speak? where is it?

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:05:12 2013 No.3334325

>>3334312
I'm not saying it is objectively wrong, you can't put an opinion in an objective lens. But I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that most people would agree that torture isn't something they would wish upon themselves, if someone isn't consenting then it is subjectively wrong to that person. Would you care if your mother was raped in front of you? Sadness isn't the only emotion that would come up with kind of experience. It would be very traumatizing to most people, sociopaths excluded. You can say that morals are subjective but you can't say that you wouldn't think someone was wrong if they had you tied up and were torturing you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:07:12 2013 No.3334328 >>3334322 >Why shouldn't I do it to someone else? >because that's how we derive ought (and should) statements I shouldn't inflict pain on others because you've derived ought statements? Based on what?

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:07:12 2013 No.3334330

>>3334321
>that ethical truths are unknowable, all ethical claims are false, ethical claims have no truth value, and so on

Arguments for objective ethics have no truth value unless you can prove otherwise. That's not a position, it's the lack of one. I don't have a position until you can prove the universality of your ethical code.

>Incidentally, because you are the one offering the controversial viewpoint of ethical nihilism, the burden of proof falls to you.

This is like creationists say "Well atheism is controversial, so you have to PROVE God isn't real, and until then he is." That's not how it works, nihilism is the lack of a position.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:08:12 2013 No.3334332 >>3334325 Why are emotions important?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:12:12 2013 No.3334342 File: 51 KB, 338x288, autismal as hell.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3334332

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:12:12 2013 No.3334343 >>3334328 >I shouldn't inflict pain on others because you've derived ought statements? >you i've invented language? >Based on what? cultural consensus

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:13:12 2013 No.3334346 >>3334332 they directly inform our moral sense

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:13:12 2013 No.3334348 >>3334343 >cultural consensus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:15:12 2013 No.3334354

>>3334330
>Arguments for objective ethics have no truth value
Please show how this is not a claim.

>Who has the burden of proof.
Atheism is far less controversial than the claim that rape is not wrong, which ethical nihilism implies. You are being controversial, you have the burden of proof.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:17:12 2013 No.3334358 >>3334343 Why is cultural consensus important? >>3334346 Why is your notion of morality based on emotions important?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:17:12 2013 No.3334359 >>3334348 >argument ad populum is fallacious in the context of ethics

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:17:12 2013 No.3334360 >>3334348 see under exceptions > social conventions, you swine i'm sick of you two-bit wikipedia rhetoricians

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:20:12 2013 No.3334365 >>3334358 >Why is cultural consensus important? because people act as if it is. >Why is your notion of morality based on emotions important? >your lol

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:20:12 2013 No.3334367

>>3334354
>Please show how this is not a claim.

"I won't believe X until it is proven true" isn't a claim.

>Atheism is far less controversial than the claim that rape is not wrong, which ethical nihilism implies. You are being controversial, you have the burden of proof.

How controversial something is has nothing to do with burden of proof. 50 years ago when Atheism was more controversial, the burden of proof would have been on them to prove that God didn't, and until they did he was real? That's nonsense, listen to yourself.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:20:12 2013 No.3334368 >>3334365 What reason do I have to pay attention to what people act like?

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:23:12 2013 No.3334374

>>3334330
>Arguments for objective ethics have no truth value unless you can prove otherwise. That's not a position, it's the lack of one.

Of course it's a position, you're pointing out an exception to the axiomatic assumption of truth value for any given statement and replacing it with the same thing except you added [except for stuff that has to do with ethical claims] at the end.

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:25:12 2013 No.3334379

>>3334368
>What reason do I have to pay attention to what people act like?

What does that have to do with anything? You asked why cultural consensus was important, and that was the answer. Who cares about whether you feel justified in paying attention to people or not? It's irrelevant.

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:25:12 2013 No.3334381

>How do you escape ethical nihilism without faith?

Why would you want to escape it? That's like asking 'how do I escape the world being a sphere?'

Nihilism doesn't mean you can't apply bayesianism (a probability value) to everything, and act according to that. If anything, nihilism is liberating. You can decide your own values, submit to base emotions like empathy without being directed by theology or bizarre moral systems.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:25:12 2013 No.3334383 >>3334325 >but you can't say that you wouldn't think someone was wrong if they had you tied up and were torturing you. and why the fuck is that? christ, /lit/ really is a dumb board.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:28:12 2013 No.3334389 File: 318 KB, 680x630, Picture 3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >/lit/ - literature.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:29:12 2013 No.3334390 >>3334383 > DISINGENUITY PARTY WOOOO

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:31:12 2013 No.3334394 >>3334390 You realise it makes absolutely no difference whether or not he's being disingenuous, yes?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:33:12 2013 No.3334404 >>3334389 /lit/ is such a try-hard board

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:35:12 2013 No.3334408

>>3334367

>"I won't believe X until it is proven true" isn't a claim.
You're right, that isn't. However, ethical nihilism does make a claim.

>How controversial something is has nothing to do with burden of proof.

Sure it does. If everyone believes in god, and I say that 'God is dead, prove me wrong' I wouldn't be providing adequate reason for my strange belief. Yes, the atheists would have needed to shift the burden of proof.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:37:12 2013 No.3334411 >>3334404 >hehe i'll throw some buzzwords around as though I'm making some sort of peircing insight into the board culture get. out.

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:41:12 2013 No.3334421

>>3334408
>You're right, that isn't. However, ethical nihilism does make a claim.

"I won't believe X until it is proven true" is the same as "Arguments for objective ethics have no truth value", because so far nobody has proven the validity of objective ethics.

> If everyone believes in god, and I say that 'God is dead, prove me wrong' I wouldn't be providing adequate reason for my strange belief. Yes, the atheists would have needed to shift the burden of proof.

Atheism, like nihilism, is the lack of a position. God doesn't exist from a logical point of view, until sufficient evidence is provided proving his existence. The same is true concerning morality. If the majority of people believed in Unicorns, that wouldn't mean that they were real until I prove that they don't exist. That's a fallacy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:49:12 2013 No.3334440 File: 12 KB, 260x400, The-Ethics-of-Ambiguity-9780806501604.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Well OP, you read this book.

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:55:12 2013 No.3334449

>>3334421
>"I won't believe X until it is proven true" is the same as "Arguments for objective ethics have no truth value", because so far nobody has proven the validity of objective ethics.

So until someone proves a statement, no-one supports that statement? No.

>Atheism, like nihilism, is the lack of a position.
Atheism.
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
>is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more putatively meaningful aspects of life.
>Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived.

Yes, moral nihilism is a position, not a suspension of epistemic judgement. Let's move on.

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 05:58:12 2013 No.3334453

>>3334449
>So until someone proves a statement, no-one supports that statement?

No, that's not what I said. People may support that statement, but it's illogical to support it until it is proven.

>Atheism a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

Is this supposed to prove me wrong? This is not a position, it's what we talked about earlier, "I won't believe X until it is proven true". God hasn't been proven to exist so Atheists don't believe in him.

>Yes, moral nihilism is a position, not a suspension of epistemic judgement.

They don't exist until somebody can prove that they do, that's how logic works. Prove the existence of objective morality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 06:00:12 2013 No.3334456 File: 50 KB, 500x500, 1352441182578.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3334381 >submit to base emotions like empathy How much slipknot do you listen to per day.

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 06:06:12 2013 No.3334468

>>3334456
What? I was saying I like 'submitting to base emotions like empathy.' Even though it may have no 'meaning' I like being able to relate to people on an emotional level, I like that the suffering of others causes me an unpleasant feeling, and that I find pleasure in their happiness.

What has that got to do with slipknot? Or are you confusing empathy with apathy?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 06:08:12 2013 No.3334472 u can't srry Your choices are a) despair b) ironic romanticism c) self deception

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 06:23:12 2013 No.3334514

>>3334453

>"I won't believe X until it is proven true" is the same as "Arguments for objective ethics have no truth value", because so far nobody has proven the validity of objective ethics.
>People may support that statement, but it's illogical to support it until it is proven.

You making a claim that is not proven is not the same as you stating that you will not believe in something until it is proven true. One is an assertion, the other describes how your belief may change on a condition. The second statement is false too - one may logically believe something if it is probable even if its not proven (The sun will rise tomorrow)

>Is this supposed to prove me wrong?
>b : the doctrine that there is no deity

C'mon man - it was right there. Atheism is not 'I don't believe in god until its proven true' - it states that there is no god. Do you not understand what a doctrine or an assertion is?

Atheism is a position, Ethical Nihilism is a position (as previous the quotes show) if you support nihilism, the burden of proof is on you because saying that rape is not bad is strange like saying you've found aliens in your backyard.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 06:26:12 2013 No.3334523 >>3334468 What is 'base' about empathy? Is it sinful to relate to other human beings? The slipknot reference indicates your wording brings to mind teenagers hateful of humanity.

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 06:30:12 2013 No.3334543

>>3334514
>if you support nihilism, the burden of proof is on you because saying that rape is not bad is strange like saying you've found aliens in your backyard.

You seem confused. Ethical nihilism says that there is not a single shred of evidence to suppose that a magical code of morality exists in the universe, independent of our species, and that somehow it's knowable and we must all submit to it.

Your stance is that a magical code does exist, despite their being no evidence(the same as a claim of aliens in your backyard), so the burden of proof falls with you to demonstrate it.

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 06:44:12 2013 No.3334599

hear. The essence of "god" was/is meaning and guiding principle, the meaning after god's death and the cause of it, was/is "logic". Now logic, our temporary god, is losing its meaning to us as well because it's not.. deep enough. We have exhausted its game potential. It ends up in nihilism. The coming god is not faith, no that's just how a logician would determine it. What is the coming god?

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 06:45:12 2013 No.3334603

>>3334543
Well atleast we agree that ethical nihilism is a claim, now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
>The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
>When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.

You are clearly supporting Ethical Nihilism. You haven't provided any warrant (reasons) for your position. You have the burden of proof. I don't have the burden of proof because I am agnostic about moral nihilism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 06:49:12 2013 No.3334611 >>3334543 >magical Go back to reading Dawkins & co, you humongous pseudo-intellectual arse. >proof Confirmed for not knowing how science actually works. Oh, it's your usual teenage baby-nihilist everybody! Settle down

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 06:50:12 2013 No.3334614 >>3334599 *must not be escaped with faith instead of "the coming god isn't faith"

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 06:54:12 2013 No.3334628

>>3334330
>This is like creationists say "Well atheism is controversial, so you have to PROVE God isn't real, and until then he is." That's not how it works, nihilism is the lack of a position.

Confirmed for not reading anything outside Dawkins, Darwin and the Genesis chapter of the Bible. Stop feeding the troll guys.

>>>/b/ >>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 06:55:12 2013 No.3334630 >>3334603 Your statement isn't true until you prove it to be true. If objective morality cannot be proven, then nihilism is the only logically consistent code of ethics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 06:56:12 2013 No.3334637 File: 45 KB, 317x400, namfuak-ydna.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3334112 How do you escape ethical faith without nihilism?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 06:58:12 2013 No.3334641 >>3334630 Kill yourself, squab.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:00:12 2013 No.3334645 ITT: Step 1. Nothing Step 2. I've invented x, you must believe it. Step 3. Well, prove x and I'll think about it. Step 4. No. you prove x is wrong.

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:02:12 2013 No.3334646

>>3334630
What you're saying is like saying, "You can't prove that God exists, therefore I'm an atheist." Well, you can't prove that God DOESN'T exist.

Something can be true without being proven to be true. For example, it was true that the earth was round even when nobody had proven it. The burden of proof is on both of you equally.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:02:12 2013 No.3334650 >>3334645 >Step 1. Nothing so pleb it hurts

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:04:12 2013 No.3334651 >>3334650 >so pleb it hurts What a fantastic argument. I'm humbled by your intellect.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:05:12 2013 No.3334652 File: 37 KB, 670x496, 1357441224280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3334651 Pls stop your autism is scaring the children.

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:06:12 2013 No.3334653

>>3334112
Pyrrhonic Scepticism is the most intellectually honest position. That said, I'm fine with making a few more assumptions and go with hedonism. Good feels feel good, bad feels feel bad. Trying to feel good instead of bad seems pretty reasonable to me, since feeling good is the only thing inherently good.

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:07:12 2013 No.3334658

>>3334630
>If objective morality cannot be proven then nihilism is the only logically consistent code of ethics.

No, there is also Relativism. Secondly, why would we simply accept Ethical Nihilism if we can't prove Objective morality? We may be unable to prove Moral Nihilism true also.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:09:12 2013 No.3334660 >>3334653 Depends how you define good. Some may think shooting up using money from selling your Momma's TV as not quite within the bounds of good.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:11:12 2013 No.3334672 >>3334660 Being an asshole can limit the amount of pleasure you feel in the future. For example, people won't like you/help you out, you might even go to jail. Hedonism =/= YOLO

>>	sage Tue Jan 8 07:13:12 2013 No.3334678 >>3334651 why would you think that was an argument? you're really bad at reading comprehension, i was just calling you a pleb.

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:14:12 2013 No.3334681

>>3334646
You can't ever prove something to a generalized agnostic. Some possibility will always exist where there is reason that the evidence is potentially wrong.

Morality isn't like other claims. it's not a tangible thing. It's different to 'prove that there is no time traveller stealing my socks, or 'prove that vampires don't exist'. Morality is an abstract concept that only exists in words invented by us, it doesn't occupy anything physical.

You can conceive of things as being wrong and right, because things can subjectively benefit you. You have a biological imperative. But at no point do the concepts actualise.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:15:12 2013 No.3334686 do elephants, sharks, or giraffes kill each other? no. if they in fact do - demonstrate it here, now stop contemplating on killing your own member(s) of species

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:15:12 2013 No.3334688 >andy-kaufman.jpg Good show, OP

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:16:12 2013 No.3334691 >>3334681 Good ideas well written.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:17:12 2013 No.3334693 >>3334686 >do elephants, sharks, or giraffes kill each other? Yes. >if they in fact do - demonstrate it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_d8KoL4NKM Now, what were we talking about again?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:17:12 2013 No.3334695 >>3334660 Sure, because it makes them feel pretty bad overal. Hedonism isn't necesarily Cyrenaic. For example, an Epicurean or a Buddhist woulndn't do such a thing probably, and both are some kind of hedonists.

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:20:12 2013 No.3334707

>>3334672
Just interested here:
What if though the only way to obtain some pleasure is by doing something that will deny me pleasure in the future? Imagine if some m8 were to slobber on my bird at the pub, I might need to r0ight reck em. What if my pleasure is the deliberate displeasure of another?

Or perhaps I am torn between getting a good sleep for work tomorrow or hitting f5 one final time. Which pleasure (not feeling like shit or the possibility of a good laugh) do I prioritize?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:21:12 2013 No.3334711 >>3334695 Mmm. But what if you don't feel guilty about such actions - you are blessed with a light conscience.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:22:12 2013 No.3334713 >>3334693 >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_d8KoL4NKM no. i only saw 1 shark there. i said explicitly - same species, 1:1, not lower grade. there was no kill anyway.

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:25:12 2013 No.3334722

>>3334707
>Just interested here:
>What if though the only way to obtain some pleasure is by doing something that will deny me pleasure in the future?
Weigh it out and decide, I guess.

>Imagine if some m8 were to slobber on my bird at the pub, I might need to r0ight reck em.
Then "reck" him, or don't. Determine where your priorities are. Do you want to get in a fight? Could you lose? Are his friends right behind you?

>What if my pleasure is the deliberate displeasure of another?
Then maybe you'd be one of those guys in jail who rapes other guys. Wouldn't that be fun?

>Or perhaps I am torn between getting a good sleep for work tomorrow or hitting f5 one final time. Which pleasure (not feeling like shit or the possibility of a good laugh) do I prioritize?
That's up to you.

Hedonism is about what makes YOU happy. It's not something that can be discussed like other philosophy. The subjectivity inherent in the philosophy prevents me from making any claims that are set in stone apart from "seek pleasure."

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:26:12 2013 No.3334727 >>3334713 The other shark was in his mouth. If there wasn't a kill, the shark had the other shark in his mouth and down his throat. I think his objective was clear.

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:29:12 2013 No.3334743

>>3334711
Then the TV selling part is in itself not bad for you. But there may be consequences, both legally and socially, that might make you suffer. It would generally be unadvisable because of this. Also, maintaining a heroin addiction or something like that is pretty foolish from a hedonist perspective, because the short lived joys rarely outweigh the heaps of suffering you're setting yourself up for. I'd say a sensible hedonist would rarely steal and would be very careful around addictive substances.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:30:12 2013 No.3334747 >>3334727 but it wasn't the same species, bro. doesn't count :( find another example, champ.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:31:12 2013 No.3334748 >>3334722 It's nice and simple. I like it. Probably not too different on average than what many people do too.

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:38:12 2013 No.3334768
File: 341 KB, 500x375, Costanza bat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3334747
>Invokes the union of the sets of all sharks, giraffes and elephants
>Asks if killing is a nonsymmetric relation in this union
>mfw it is
>mfw the rules suddenly change for no apparent reason, probably because the initial question was deemed too easy in retrospect
>mfw whoever asked this question is dumb

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:41:12 2013 No.3334771

>>3334722
This.

>>3334748
Many people sort of do it half consciously. I think most people have the tendency to seek out good feelings, but generally suck at it. Approaching an hedonistic way of life rationally like with the hedonistic calculus can solve a lot of this. But I also think there are plenty of people who are unconscious hedonists and need to be unconscious of their hedonism for them to derive the most pleasure out of it. An example of this would be a religious person. He wouldn't be happy if he thought he did everything for pleasure, because it's precisely not acting for pleasure but for some higher principle that makes him feel the most pleasure.

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:44:12 2013 No.3334782

>>3334768
The original question made two fallacious arguments simultaneously:

1. If animal 'A' doesn't kill it's own species, then the statement "Killing your own species is wrong" must be objectively true.
2. It's natural not to kill your own species, therefore I can make a moral claim.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:48:12 2013 No.3334796 >>3334768 you're an idiot, i explicitly said 1:1 species - demonstrate it, or delete your pathetically failed thread

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:51:12 2013 No.3334803 >>3334796 I'm the OP of the thread. I'm not him. I haven't made a single post other than the original one. This shit is pathetically hilarious.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:51:12 2013 No.3334805 >>3334112 Ethical nihilism is a position of faith.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:52:12 2013 No.3334806 >>3334782 i see no fallacies whatsoever, smartypants. yes, therefore it is objective.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:54:12 2013 No.3334813 >>3334803 >This shit is pathetically hilarious. delete the thread, dumb-fuck your thread has invoked a horde of 13 year old nihilists of /b/, /sci/ and /reddit/ altogether

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 07:58:12 2013 No.3334822

>>3334813

Sorry I've polluted this beautiful, serious board full of topical discussion and rigorous thinking.

I doubt you've been here long if you don't think this place has been beyond hope since week one.

I come here for the kicks, and I occasionally provide them. /lit/ is great when read as satire taking the piss out of the postmodern condition. Enjoy it.

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:00:12 2013 No.3334830

>>3334796
That doesn't make any sense and regardless is simply not true.
This is what you originally said:
>do elephants, sharks, or giraffes kill each other? no. if they in fact do - demonstrate it

>here, now stop contemplating on killing your own member(s) of species
>>3334686

Shortly following this statement, after my first response, you said this, word for word, caps for emphasis:
no. i only saw 1 shark there. i said explicitly - SAME SPECIES, 1:1, not lower grade. there was no kill anyway.
>>3334713

SAME SPECIES. But you explicitly said that the action simply had to be shark-on-shark. It's not my fault the taxonomical definition of a "shark" and your interpretation of what a shark is, diverge. The video I posted was of a shark eating another shark. That's what you asked for. If you can't see the shark tail sticking out of the mouth of the larger shark, try enlarging the footage, or maybe shove your face up by the screen.

Also, this argument is utterly stupid, I watched spiders eat their kin all the time at my house during high school. It's a well-documented fact that multiple species of various taxa eat others from the same species - In fact, there's even a special subclass of this called "filial cannibalism," describing the tendency for a species to eat their own YOUNG - look it up.

Stop calling people idiots when it's clear you haven't made a single step to pose either a cogent argument nor even begun to research the drivel you deface this board with.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:03:12 2013 No.3334838 File: 256 KB, 494x359, c2OYc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3334830 dat autism. so do you have that video for me or not?

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:03:12 2013 No.3334840
File: 44 KB, 485x634, epicurus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Guys is this discussion truly contributing to your pleasure and happiness or are you just tricked into persevering because you wrongly think you will get satisfaction out of dominating this argument while all you will get is frustration and disappointment?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:05:12 2013 No.3334846 >>3334805 Any appeal to morality results in a fallacy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:08:12 2013 No.3334861 >>3334840 Yes. The realisation that morality is constructed by humans and doesn't exist independent of our species allows individuals to escape from oppressive moral systems.

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:17:12 2013 No.3334889

>>3334838
WELP, here are a few links:
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/9/5090.full.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691142/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10937237
http://www.zoo.cam.ac.uk/zoostaff/manica../ms/2002_Manica_Biol_Rev.pdf
http://www.. jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2409171?uid=3739768&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101510346423

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:17:12 2013 No.3334890

>>3334846
The suspension of judgement is the only way of not making a faulty assumption because one doesn't assume. Ethical nihilism makes the assumption that morality doesn't exist. Which is about as useful as saying that love doesn't exist, while it is a concept people use all around the world and it is something people treat as a reality in their lives. Just like morality. Saying that it doesn't exist is a useless statement and arguably a faulty one.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:18:12 2013 No.3334891 >>3334861 Fine then, good luck with your endeavour.

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:19:12 2013 No.3334894

Here are a few more.
>>3334889
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00303208?LI=true#page-1
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2096826?uid=3739768&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101510346423
http://www.ecology.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~nokuda/research%26education/paper%20PDF/Okuda%201996.pdf
http://artifex.org/~ecoreaders/lit/Polis1981.pdf
https://www.orangutan-health.org/res/file/Publications/Dellatore%20et%20al-%20Orangutan%20cannibalism.pdf
http://www.uic.edu/depts/ovcr/iesp/Publications/Faculty%20Publications/Wise/Wise%20DH%202006%20Annu%20Rev%20Entomol_Cannibalism.pdf
http://arctic.synergiesprairies.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/download/2149/2126
http:// vipersgarden.at/PDF_files/PDF-957.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1810085/pdf/15801616.pdf
http://www.eve.ucdavis.edu/mlloeb/page1/files/Pfennig%20et%20al%201991.pdf
http://www.. int-res.com/articles/meps/7/m007p033.pdf

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:20:12 2013 No.3334900

>>3334894
Last but not least....
http://www.usask.ca/biology/chivers/70.pdf
http://people.oregonstate.edu/~blaustea/pdfs/Wildy%20Oe.pdf
http://tauweb-prod1.tau.ac.il/lifesci/departments/zoology/members/meiri/documents/Pafilisetal2009insulargigantisminDiavatesPodarcisgaigeae.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1379774?uid=3739768&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101510346423

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:20:12 2013 No.3334901 >>3334890 A morality claim is more akin to saying the universe loves us, not that love exists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:23:12 2013 No.3334909 >>3334901 I didn't say anything about objective morality. It's just that ethical nihilism (morality doesn't exist at all) is a bit of a silly claim, since it clearly exists conceptually and functions in that way.

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:23:12 2013 No.3334910

>>3334861
>doesn't exist independent
Though it might, you never know. Perhaps it's in fact written in Bible and Jesus WAS the son of God (or any other prophet and God in this case). Ethics accompanied with solidarity is a must for sustaining a humane society. Are you denying this?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:27:12 2013 No.3334930 File: 70 KB, 248x252, 1346790769706.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3334889 >>3334894 >>3334900 cannibalism =/= intentionally and consciously killing your own also, those are not videos. try again

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:28:12 2013 No.3334935

>>3334909
The two aren't independent. You can't go from observing the behavioural traits of species on this planet, that either benefit the individual of the collective, to claiming evil or something being inherently wrong.

It you want morality on any level you need objective morality. Otherwise you're just saying that a particular action provides a result that either benefits or hinders different actions, not that those actions are 'right'.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:30:12 2013 No.3334945 >>3334930 >moving the goalposts this many times Seriously, fuck yourself raw.

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:31:12 2013 No.3334949

>>3334910
>Ethics accompanied with solidarity is a must for sustaining a humane society. Are you denying this?

I'd question your grounds for assuming that humane somehow equates with 'right.' I wouldn't deny that the human species, adopting a code of ethics or practise, can provide 'flourishing' within it's system. I would deny the claim that it is inherently 'non-evil' or 'right' to do so.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:31:12 2013 No.3334950 File: 175 KB, 462x435, 1357240414718.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3334945 good luck next time bro

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:32:12 2013 No.3334953 >>3334930 You sick fuck, you want nothing other than to see intraspecific cannibal carnage. If we linked a video you'd probably masturbate to it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:33:12 2013 No.3334955 >>3334950 Not even the other guy wasting his time with your sorry ass.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:36:12 2013 No.3334965 File: 167 KB, 1250x1425, 1344549579664.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >redditors getting Star War: Knights of the TOLD republic by resident /lit/ nihilists

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:40:12 2013 No.3334973

>>3334935
Morality doesn't need to claim evil or things being inherently wrong. It just needs to claim good and bad according to a certain perspective.

I don't see why you think you would need objective morality. Morality is a particular subset of value judgements. Do you need objective taste as well? Objective beauty? Objective pleasure?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:40:12 2013 No.3334975 >>3334953 >>3334955 just admit your defeat, laughable little nihilists. if you intuitively think that killing your own is ok , do us - the humanity - a favor, and kill yourselves.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:41:12 2013 No.3334978 >>3334965 I though a 'star wars' meant: to give ones light sabre a hand solo. "Don't come in, mother, I'm having a star wars marathon."

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:43:12 2013 No.3334983 File: 40 KB, 530x300, impatient watch man.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3334975 Prove that it is objectively wrong. I'm waiting.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:43:12 2013 No.3334984 >>3334975 What one thinks hardly matters.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:46:12 2013 No.3334991 >>3334984 204me

Anonymous Tue Jan 8 08:54:12 2013 No.3335009

>>3334975
>if you intuitively think that killing your own is ok

He's not saying that at all. He's saying it's void of any moral bias, not ok, not wrong. Subjectively he probably opposes killing as it inevitably has emotions attached to the act, or consequences that have an impact on him.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 12:11:12 2013 No.3335376 File: 47 KB, 307x269, McDowell.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3334112 Me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 8 13:45:12 2013 No.3335663 >>3334472 HAHAHA

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature