Existentialism entails moral relativism

[Anonymous No.5689325]

If we accept that a man is only a cumulative of his actions, isn't it necessary to then accept that there is no moral truth? We can fall into certain patterns that promote our social well being, but these patterns are completely dependent on what behaviors we choose to promote and suppress. We could argue that evolution requires specific social behaviors, but then man must first exist if he is to evolve or interact socially. Morality is thus an arbitrary means to our own end.

[Anonymous No.5689334]

>>5689325

Yep, it takes times for teenagers and fedoras to realize this.

Theism provides a complete package. You get teleology, a purpose for your morals (the good of mankind, salvation, etc) and you get a solid foundation (ordained by an all knowing all loving creator).

Existentialism has no basis and no purpose, it's just a banal reaction to nihilism.

[Anonymous No.5689336]

>>5689334

>it takes times

time*

[Anonymous No.5689339]

Actually if you think about it, it's two sides of a coin. I don't know if you've heard of the Satanic Bible, but it espouses the reality of the self. And the bible espouses a bunch of complex, abstract moral standards. But they weren't abstract at the time, and if they were, they were written down for a reason. Those moral standards were thought to contribute to a well-functioning society, perhaps why Christianity is the less phlegmatic and more altruistic of the two biblical religions. But to think about it this way is truly novel: on one end of the spectrum you have evil, which is the free expression of self, and on the other good, which is the complete enslavement of the self. Somewhere in the middle you have 'Nietzschean morality'. Which is like totem-pole, in essence. Towards the end of Essay 2 in The Genealogy of Morals, if I remember correctly, he speaks of a system like this. One which commonly recognizes and mutually understands the cultural conception of 'morality', something that doesn't physically register in a lot of people's minds.

[Anonymous No.5689341]

>>5689334
Lol religion offers things to focus on to pretend you're not actually nihilist

I'm a nihilist, wuw

[Anonymous No.5689356]

>>5689341

nihilism can be used to defeat itself, it's not that hard. It's like how zen buddhists will get a glimpse of the "emptiness of all phenomena" and realize everything is co-dependent (Relative/transient/indifferent)...

but then they start treating emptiness like an ideology (nihilism), instead of taking it to its logical conclusion where emptiness is revealed to be empty itself thus rendering it void -- (nihilism's critique of the world is itself empty/pointless). They never take it to the end....

If they did they would eventually complete the circle and go back to what is good/true.

[Anonymous No.5689360]

>>5689325
Life entails moral relativism. I don't see why this is still considered problematic. We've known this since the Sophists, it's about time we accept it.

[Anonymous No.5689361]

>>5689356
>If they did they would eventually complete the circle and go back to what is good/true.
Why would you say that? It seems much more reasonable to end up with a sort of Pyrrhonian quietism.

[Anonymous No.5689362]

>>5689356
Nihilism to me ends up being a discourse more than an emotion when facing the world, it's more to me that "meaning", if it exists, can't be carved or sought, and is much more ethereal than anyone wants to admit. No one can survive feeling that it's all pointless, but I just know it is that way and do it anyway. I guess what I'm saying is your post makes sense because I'm kind of like that

[Anonymous No.5689366]

>>5689361
>Why would you say that?

nihilism is the relativistic/pointless view of Truth & Morality.

But since it eat's itself up completely, we are left with the possibility of truth and morality.

The question then is do you champion Truth or Lies? Good or Evil? Up to you.

[Anonymous No.5689370]

>>5689360
All people believe in relativism and absolutes.

Nietzschean masters are absolute about power but relativistic about introspection and art, Nietzschean slaves are relativistic about power but absolutist about introspection and art

There is not one person without a single moral guidepost where he has decided on one fundamental good

[Anonymous No.5689382]

>>5689366
Relativism is wrong because it still relies on the abstract human to function

Moral absolutism states that there are multiple human subjects with an absolute similarity, and they all must obey a set of rules between subjects that doesn't vary. Moral relativism still accepts the idea of human subjects with absolute qualities, but doesn't believe every rule applies to every person

Literally every moralist is a relativist. No one believes in equal punishment for adults and children, for instance, the allowance for things like that is a type of relativism.

Nihilism on the other hand is the loss of coordination in the human subject itself. It stops making sense to even say there is a basis for moral reasoning. There just is, and is not, and what is likely, and what is not, and what I can do and what I cannot. There is no higher rule, there is simply cause and effect

[Anonymous No.5689383]

>>5689366
Which kind of nihilism are you talking about? The nihilism people normally mean is existential nihilism, the claim that life is without meaning or value or purpose. That doesn't mean that there are no truths. This is not self-defeating.

If you're talking about moral nihilism, that is the claim that there is no objective morality and that one kind of behaviour can't be said to be inherently preferable to another. But this is not self-defeating, since this meta-ethical claim isn't a moral statement.

The inconsistency is imagined.

[Anonymous No.5689386]

>>5689366
You cannot champion truth and good. That's like being a king who is shrewd and believes in his divinity. Two types of people can be called king, but only idiots can believe they are divinely king.

[Anonymous No.5689387]

>>5689334
Well, if you like making absolute claims without having to back them up, theism is indeed the way to go.

[Anonymous No.5689388]

>>5689383
>existential nihilism

Existentialism is a reaction to nihilism, it is not a "school" or "type" of nihilism.

Fucken hell

> That doesn't mean that there are no truths. This is not self-defeating.... moral nihilism, that is the claim that there is no objective morality

Nihilism undermines the notion of epistemic "truth" and any normative "morality" by rendering them all relativistic and groundless or beyond human reach.

It is self-defeating because it doesn't apply its critique to itself, it never self-reflects.

The only time it does self-reflect is via existentialism or absurdism. And those have their own problems as well.

[Anonymous No.5689393]

>>5689325
>We can fall into certain patterns that promote our social well being, but these patterns are completely dependent on what behaviors we choose to promote and suppress
That's not actually true, as not all behavior patterns have the same results. For an example, some might lead to extinction. If you don't like going extinct, you should probably act in ways that don't lead there.

[Anonymous No.5689395]

>>5689388
No, because ethics have no reasonable basis. There are reasonable and unreasonable ways to achieve your ethics, but ethics are not reasoned.

For instance, I really like fucking. It is an ethical desire for me to fuck. There is no reasoned cause for this. I can reason to achieve this end, but the end isn't reasoned. Only an idiot justifies their end as an absolute end

[Anonymous No.5689397]

>>5689395
>No, because ethics have no reasonable basis. There are reasonable and unreasonable ways to achieve your ethics, but ethics are not reasoned.

repeating nihilist dogma won't help you here.

[Anonymous No.5689402]

>>5689393
Right, but we're still choosing. Given basic rationality, existence seems favorable to non existence, so we make choices that reflect that.

[Anonymous No.5689404]

>>5689397
Repeating Kant will help you?

Tell me the rational basis for wanting to fuck. I'm not talking about a rational basis for how I want to fuck, not an appeal to biology, I mean explain where the axiom of ethics comes from. There has to be an absolute good from which all else can be reasoned.

>implying you have a good response to Hume's is-ought problem

[Anonymous No.5689407]

>>5689402
>basic rationality
Lol, meaning "it seems this way so it's true"?

[Anonymous No.5689411]

>>5689404
>Tell me the rational basis for wanting to fuck.

Wanting to fuck is not a moral category, it's a fact of life, like digestion or rain fall.

How you go about intercourse is a moral category, since you can use it to harm others, harm yourself, etc...

[Anonymous No.5689422]

>>5689407
Go back to the evolution example, then. Certain behavioral patterns arise once organisms witness their consequence. They still have the choice to make detrimental decisions, but the majority of organisms won't in an attempt to preserve their well being. I'm not deriving any truth, I'm just making an observation about how things are. People tend to favor existing, and their choices reflect this.

[Anonymous No.5689537]

>>5689388
>Existentialism is a reaction to nihilism, it is not a "school" or "type" of nihilism.
'Existentialism' and 'existential nihilism' are different things.

>Nihilism undermines the notion of epistemic "truth" and any normative "morality" by rendering them all relativistic and groundless or beyond human reach.
At least read a Wikipedia page before spouting your ignorance. Nihilism is a term of negation that means different things when applied to different fields. There is no singular 'nihilism' that is clearly defined.

Also, moral nihilism and moral relativism are different things.

>It is self-defeating because it doesn't apply its critique to itself, it never self-reflects.
Again, there is no singular critique known as nihilism. You have to be specific. What you seem to be referring to is more of an all encompassing scepticism, but scepticisms and nihilisms are different. A nihilistic approach often says 'no' where a sceptical one is more 'no comment'.

You should define what you mean specifically by nihilism so that I know which idea or strawman thereof you are actually criticising.

[Anonymous No.5689540]

>>5689402
>irrational instinct is basic rationality now
ayy

[Anonymous No.5689544]

>>5689325
Enlightening post

[Anonymous No.5689549]

>>5689388
>Nihilism undermines the notion of epistemic "truth"
No, it doesn't. A (competent) nihilist wouldn't deny that is true that all triangles are three sided, say.

[Anonymous No.5689582]

>>5689549

>humans are incapable of making mistakes in geometric reasoning

Ya, I'm sure a "competent" nihilist believes that.

>>5689537

>muh definitions

all "forms" of nihilism suffer the same problem of deconstruction. They deconstruct other concepts but they never self-reflect and deconstruct themselves, their own process, their own assumptions and criteria, that would be too dangerous...and would ruin the whole project.

[Anonymous No.5689652]

>>5689582
Not necessarily in a strictly logical sense, but I would agree that by its radical negation regarding other beliefs nihilistic approaches do raise the question why their 'no' is any less nonsensical than another one's 'yes'.

In other words, why not remain completely sceptical?

[Anonymous No.5689657]

>>5689544

you have got to be shitting me

>man is only a cumulative of his actions

What in the fuck does that even mean? This is some serious bullshit. Why the fuck should my ontological status be dependent on things I have done when I HAVE TO ALREADY EXIST IN ORDER TO DO THINGS?

Do you realize how fucking stupid this is? Did you think about this for 5 seconds before posting this shit?

[Anonymous No.5689681]

This is the worst thread on philosophy I have ever read in my entire life. Promptly resume (more likely, begin) your studies with great vigor.

[Anonymous No.5689877]

>>5689681

>le epic philosophy thread