Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

If God/Superman was a nihilist?

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 3:03:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Considering that I personally don't understand how it would be good for society if everybody was a nihilist, I read through the "moral nihilism" post......and didn't come away much enlightened!

So, I am positing a simple question.

Assuming God exists, and is part of our society, how would that society be if God was a nihilist?

If you don't like God, you can easily substitute, say, Superman. In fact, that makes even more sense.

Some of the problems that I foresee. Considering God/Superman cannot be easily killed, if at all, by us humans, and the fact they could live quite a long time, it's not difficult to foresee God/Superman getting bored of their life eventually and then start viewing us as we tend to do ants (that is, quite inconsequential, though not all of us do that). The next step they would take is to entertain themselves, and that can include a hell of a lot of things, not all of which would be pleasant to us!

So, how would you justify their nihilism?

PS - This question could be quite useful to justify any "-ism", I would think....
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 3:27:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 3:16:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
If he was a nihilist, it would be the exact same as if he didn't exist.

Meaning, he won't affect anything/have any effect on anything? Could that then be extrapolated to all nihilists?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 3:33:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 3:27:25 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 3:16:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
If he was a nihilist, it would be the exact same as if he didn't exist.

Meaning, he won't affect anything/have any effect on anything? Could that then be extrapolated to all nihilists?

My statement was not fully accurate.

Assuming we had no power to harm or even effect the Nihilist God, he would do nothing. Since he would not have any opinions or judgments on right or wrong, he would have no motivation to "correct" us when we were doing wrongs, nor any motivation to "reward" us when doing rights.

If we did have the power to effect him in some way, then he might do only minimalist things, to preserve himself (though that would not be a total nihilist, as a total nihilist would have no interest in even self-preservation, he would likely be a practical nihilist, which is more of a minimal moralist).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 3:38:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 3:33:35 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/9/2011 3:27:25 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 3:16:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
If he was a nihilist, it would be the exact same as if he didn't exist.

Meaning, he won't affect anything/have any effect on anything? Could that then be extrapolated to all nihilists?

My statement was not fully accurate.

Assuming we had no power to harm or even effect the Nihilist God, he would do nothing. Since he would not have any opinions or judgments on right or wrong, he would have no motivation to "correct" us when we were doing wrongs, nor any motivation to "reward" us when doing rights.

If we did have the power to effect him in some way, then he might do only minimalist things, to preserve himself (though that would not be a total nihilist, as a total nihilist would have no interest in even self-preservation, he would likely be a practical nihilist, which is more of a minimal moralist).

Are you meaning to say that he won't even interact with us? It'd be better if you replace God with Superman. And you did not answer my other specific question. If he starts to entertain himself what would that lead to....
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 3:44:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
moral nihilist =/= lack of social consciousness.

They only believe that there are no object morals. Superman might decide not to kill us if he would feel guilty from the action.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 3:50:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 3:44:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
moral nihilist =/= lack of social consciousness.

They only believe that there are no object morals. Superman might decide not to kill us if he would feel guilty from the action.

Tomorrow, if he does not feel guilty from the action, he might kill us. So our survival rests on the whims of Superman. Extrapolating that, society rests on the whims of the powerful. This is not how a society should be.

Hence, it makes sense (if survival makes sense) to have some rules. And rules make sense only if they can be enforced. Since Superman cannot be forced to do anything, it only makes sense if those rules stem from within Superman.

What does this lead to?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 3:58:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 3:44:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
moral nihilist =/= lack of social consciousness.

They only believe that there are no object morals. Superman might decide not to kill us if he would feel guilty from the action.

That doesn't really fit the etymology of the word. "nihil" - nothing at all. And "ist" - indicate adherence to a certain doctrine or custom.

So a moral nihilist is one who adheres to a moral doctrine of nothing at all. If you mean an "objective moral nihilist", than I would agree. That would be some one that believes that objective morals do not exist, not that morals do not exist.

Just to clarify, morals - principles of right and wrong. Nearly every definition of "morals" does not include "objective"
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 4:00:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 3:50:34 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 3:44:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
moral nihilist =/= lack of social consciousness.

They only believe that there are no object morals. Superman might decide not to kill us if he would feel guilty from the action.

Tomorrow, if he does not feel guilty from the action, he might kill us. So our survival rests on the whims of Superman. Extrapolating that, society rests on the whims of the powerful. This is not how a society should be.

Hence, it makes sense (if survival makes sense) to have some rules. And rules make sense only if they can be enforced. Since Superman cannot be forced to do anything, it only makes sense if those rules stem from within Superman.

What does this lead to?

Yet there is no higher power though. Even if there were a god, god has no way effected us in present day. "Moral" rules were created by man. They are also arbitrary based on what society values and its goals. Since people, at least in the US, value all types of human beings, its illegal to enslave a human or kill them. This was not the case before 1860, when the freedom of a black person was not valued.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 4:02:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 4:00:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/9/2011 3:50:34 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 3:44:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
moral nihilist =/= lack of social consciousness.

They only believe that there are no object morals. Superman might decide not to kill us if he would feel guilty from the action.

Tomorrow, if he does not feel guilty from the action, he might kill us. So our survival rests on the whims of Superman. Extrapolating that, society rests on the whims of the powerful. This is not how a society should be.

Hence, it makes sense (if survival makes sense) to have some rules. And rules make sense only if they can be enforced. Since Superman cannot be forced to do anything, it only makes sense if those rules stem from within Superman.

What does this lead to?

Yet there is no higher power though. Even if there were a god, god has no way effected us in present day. "Moral" rules were created by man. They are also arbitrary based on what society values and its goals. Since people, at least in the US, value all types of human beings, its illegal to enslave a human or kill them. This was not the case before 1860, when the freedom of a black person was not valued.

What's this got to do with the original question? If you don't like God, you can replace him with Superman. And everybody knows Superman does not exist. So how would society be if Superman lived in it and was a nihilist?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 4:32:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 4:02:53 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 4:00:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/9/2011 3:50:34 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 3:44:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
moral nihilist =/= lack of social consciousness.

They only believe that there are no object morals. Superman might decide not to kill us if he would feel guilty from the action.

Tomorrow, if he does not feel guilty from the action, he might kill us. So our survival rests on the whims of Superman. Extrapolating that, society rests on the whims of the powerful. This is not how a society should be.

Hence, it makes sense (if survival makes sense) to have some rules. And rules make sense only if they can be enforced. Since Superman cannot be forced to do anything, it only makes sense if those rules stem from within Superman.

What does this lead to?

Yet there is no higher power though. Even if there were a god, god has no way effected us in present day. "Moral" rules were created by man. They are also arbitrary based on what society values and its goals. Since people, at least in the US, value all types of human beings, its illegal to enslave a human or kill them. This was not the case before 1860, when the freedom of a black person was not valued.

What's this got to do with the original question? If you don't like God, you can replace him with Superman. And everybody knows Superman does not exist. So how would society be if Superman lived in it and was a nihilist?

Superman kills people. What's your point? You question then is:

So, how would you justify their nihilism?

That's a loaded question. Nihilism doesn't justify anything. It just states that objective morals don't exist. It's like saying "how would you justify evolution?" The question is nonsense.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 6:35:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 4:32:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/9/2011 4:02:53 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 4:00:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/9/2011 3:50:34 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 3:44:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
moral nihilist =/= lack of social consciousness.

They only believe that there are no object morals. Superman might decide not to kill us if he would feel guilty from the action.

Tomorrow, if he does not feel guilty from the action, he might kill us. So our survival rests on the whims of Superman. Extrapolating that, society rests on the whims of the powerful. This is not how a society should be.

Hence, it makes sense (if survival makes sense) to have some rules. And rules make sense only if they can be enforced. Since Superman cannot be forced to do anything, it only makes sense if those rules stem from within Superman.

What does this lead to?

Yet there is no higher power though. Even if there were a god, god has no way effected us in present day. "Moral" rules were created by man. They are also arbitrary based on what society values and its goals. Since people, at least in the US, value all types of human beings, its illegal to enslave a human or kill them. This was not the case before 1860, when the freedom of a black person was not valued.

What's this got to do with the original question? If you don't like God, you can replace him with Superman. And everybody knows Superman does not exist. So how would society be if Superman lived in it and was a nihilist?

Superman kills people. What's your point? You question then is:

So, how would you justify their nihilism?

That's a loaded question. Nihilism doesn't justify anything. It just states that objective morals don't exist. It's like saying "how would you justify evolution?" The question is nonsense.

Where did I say that nihilism justifies the killings? I was asking how he could justify being a nihilist in the first place!

Or to be clearer, would being a nihilist prohibit him from taking those actions?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 6:35:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 4:56:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If we go the Divine Command route, God is an omnipotent subjectivist, which I would say is far worse than a nihilist.

So it maybe, but what would be the case if God was, in fact, a nihilist?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 7:53:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 6:35:48 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 4:56:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If we go the Divine Command route, God is an omnipotent subjectivist, which I would say is far worse than a nihilist.

So it maybe, but what would be the case if God was, in fact, a nihilist?

He'd be more chill.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 8:08:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 6:35:02 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 4:32:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/9/2011 4:02:53 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 4:00:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/9/2011 3:50:34 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 3:44:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
moral nihilist =/= lack of social consciousness.

They only believe that there are no object morals. Superman might decide not to kill us if he would feel guilty from the action.

Tomorrow, if he does not feel guilty from the action, he might kill us. So our survival rests on the whims of Superman. Extrapolating that, society rests on the whims of the powerful. This is not how a society should be.

Hence, it makes sense (if survival makes sense) to have some rules. And rules make sense only if they can be enforced. Since Superman cannot be forced to do anything, it only makes sense if those rules stem from within Superman.

What does this lead to?

Yet there is no higher power though. Even if there were a god, god has no way effected us in present day. "Moral" rules were created by man. They are also arbitrary based on what society values and its goals. Since people, at least in the US, value all types of human beings, its illegal to enslave a human or kill them. This was not the case before 1860, when the freedom of a black person was not valued.

What's this got to do with the original question? If you don't like God, you can replace him with Superman. And everybody knows Superman does not exist. So how would society be if Superman lived in it and was a nihilist?

Superman kills people. What's your point? You question then is:

So, how would you justify their nihilism?

That's a loaded question. Nihilism doesn't justify anything. It just states that objective morals don't exist. It's like saying "how would you justify evolution?" The question is nonsense.

Where did I say that nihilism justifies the killings? I was asking how he could justify being a nihilist in the first place!

Or to be clearer, would being a nihilist prohibit him from taking those actions?

There's no 'justifying' anything!? nobody is bound by moral 'rules', only their own actions.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 8:25:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 8:08:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/9/2011 6:35:02 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 4:32:11 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/9/2011 4:02:53 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 4:00:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/9/2011 3:50:34 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 3:44:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
moral nihilist =/= lack of social consciousness.

They only believe that there are no object morals. Superman might decide not to kill us if he would feel guilty from the action.

Tomorrow, if he does not feel guilty from the action, he might kill us. So our survival rests on the whims of Superman. Extrapolating that, society rests on the whims of the powerful. This is not how a society should be.

Hence, it makes sense (if survival makes sense) to have some rules. And rules make sense only if they can be enforced. Since Superman cannot be forced to do anything, it only makes sense if those rules stem from within Superman.

What does this lead to?

Yet there is no higher power though. Even if there were a god, god has no way effected us in present day. "Moral" rules were created by man. They are also arbitrary based on what society values and its goals. Since people, at least in the US, value all types of human beings, its illegal to enslave a human or kill them. This was not the case before 1860, when the freedom of a black person was not valued.

What's this got to do with the original question? If you don't like God, you can replace him with Superman. And everybody knows Superman does not exist. So how would society be if Superman lived in it and was a nihilist?

Superman kills people. What's your point? You question then is:

So, how would you justify their nihilism?

That's a loaded question. Nihilism doesn't justify anything. It just states that objective morals don't exist. It's like saying "how would you justify evolution?" The question is nonsense.

Where did I say that nihilism justifies the killings? I was asking how he could justify being a nihilist in the first place!

Or to be clearer, would being a nihilist prohibit him from taking those actions?

There's no 'justifying' anything!? nobody is bound by moral 'rules', only their own actions.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself well at all.....

I'm trying to understand how society would be if there lived a powerful being in it, like Superman, who just happens to be a nihilist.

This Superman could very well be a Christian, or an atheist, or whatever, but that's not my supposition.

I'm just supposing that he's a nihilist. What would his actions be with respect to the common people? How would he interact with them? How would the other people react to him being a nihilist? What would be the end result of such a being living in society?

That's the gist of what I'm trying to find out. I'm not trying to justify anything.

You previously said that Superman might decide not to kill us if he would feel guilty from the action. Where would this guilt stem from? As is, he does not need anything from society, and thus is not bound to it. How would being a nihilist play out in this situation?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 8:33:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 7:53:59 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/9/2011 6:35:48 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 4:56:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If we go the Divine Command route, God is an omnipotent subjectivist, which I would say is far worse than a nihilist.

So it maybe, but what would be the case if God was, in fact, a nihilist?

He'd be more chill.

Don't you think he's quite chill now itself? :)

As it is, he's hardly seen, heard or sensed. All he's supposed to have done is authored some books thousands of years ago and got some people to read it to other people. That's about it, I think. Oh yes, the books say a lot, but most of the important predictions have never been verified and never can be, by any living person.

I'd say, that's quite a chill response, considering the awesome powers that he's supposed to possess, and the insane amount of time he's possessed them without getting bored out of his senses and just using them to relieve the stultifying tedium!

You'd be hard put to find a chiller person in the whole universe!! :)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 8:42:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 8:33:05 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 7:53:59 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/9/2011 6:35:48 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 4:56:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote

Don't you think he's quite chill now itself? :)

As it is, he's hardly seen, heard or sensed. All he's supposed to have done is authored some books thousands of years ago and got some people to read it to other people. That's about it, I think. Oh yes, the books say a lot, but most of the important predictions have never been verified and never can be, by any living person.

I'd say, that's quite a chill response, considering the awesome powers that he's supposed to possess, and the insane amount of time he's possessed them without getting bored out of his senses and just using them to relieve the stultifying tedium!

You'd be hard put to find a chiller person in the whole universe!! :)

You're right; he's completely chill. Even though he's also... "jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, blood thirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"

Thank you Richard Dawkins, for summing that up so nicely. xD
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 8:42:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 8:25:06 PM, Indophile wrote:

You previously said that Superman might decide not to kill us if he would feel guilty from the action. Where would this guilt stem from? As is, he does not need anything from society, and thus is not bound to it. How would being a nihilist play out in this situation?

Well guilt is necessary for social interactions in our society. Social interactions are necessary for survival for humans.

However, superman would probably have no evolutionary need to save others since he does not depend on human interaction. And I also suppose that if society tried to attack him, he'd have no reason to defend.

He may just do nothing. If he gets joy from killing, he might. Although, it would seem illogical for him to get joy from doing it. Although, some people get joy from killing ants. And basically, nobody thinks twice about killing ants, so superman wouldn't think twice about killing us.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 9:14:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 8:42:49 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/9/2011 8:33:05 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 7:53:59 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/9/2011 6:35:48 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 4:56:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote

Don't you think he's quite chill now itself? :)

As it is, he's hardly seen, heard or sensed. All he's supposed to have done is authored some books thousands of years ago and got some people to read it to other people. That's about it, I think. Oh yes, the books say a lot, but most of the important predictions have never been verified and never can be, by any living person.

I'd say, that's quite a chill response, considering the awesome powers that he's supposed to possess, and the insane amount of time he's possessed them without getting bored out of his senses and just using them to relieve the stultifying tedium!

You'd be hard put to find a chiller person in the whole universe!! :)

You're right; he's completely chill. Even though he's also... "jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, blood thirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"

Thank you Richard Dawkins, for summing that up so nicely. xD

Heh, but none of that's actually been proved. So, I'd take it with a pinch of salt. Just because I write a book wherein I portray myself as all those hyperventilated hyperbolic things, it doesn't necessarily mean that I'm any of those.

Actually any single thing we know about God comes from those books/messengers. They are one and the same. So, there you have it.

Unless you, or Richard Dawkins, or anyone can actually prove without a doubt that God actually behaves in that manner, you cannot deny that God is, in fact, quite chill.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 9:19:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 8:42:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/9/2011 8:25:06 PM, Indophile wrote:

You previously said that Superman might decide not to kill us if he would feel guilty from the action. Where would this guilt stem from? As is, he does not need anything from society, and thus is not bound to it. How would being a nihilist play out in this situation?

Well guilt is necessary for social interactions in our society. Social interactions are necessary for survival for humans.
Well, is there any common founts for that guilt to stem from, or is it just "make it up as we go along"? I mean, guilt comes from doing a wrong thing/not doing the right thing or being perceived to have done any of those. And the thing is, a nihilist may not feel guilty about certain stuff.

However, superman would probably have no evolutionary need to save others since he does not depend on human interaction. And I also suppose that if society tried to attack him, he'd have no reason to defend.

He may just do nothing. If he gets joy from killing, he might. Although, it would seem illogical for him to get joy from doing it. Although, some people get joy from killing ants. And basically, nobody thinks twice about killing ants, so superman wouldn't think twice about killing us.

Is that the logical conclusion to Superman being a nihilist? That "Superman wouldn't think twice about killing us"?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 9:31:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 9:19:33 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 8:42:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/9/2011 8:25:06 PM, Indophile wrote:

You previously said that Superman might decide not to kill us if he would feel guilty from the action. Where would this guilt stem from? As is, he does not need anything from society, and thus is not bound to it. How would being a nihilist play out in this situation?

Well guilt is necessary for social interactions in our society. Social interactions are necessary for survival for humans.
Well, is there any common founts for that guilt to stem from, or is it just "make it up as we go along"? I mean, guilt comes from doing a wrong thing/not doing the right thing or being perceived to have done any of those. And the thing is, a nihilist may not feel guilty about certain stuff.

Guilt is 100% made up as we go. It's an emotional response not a logical response. A moral nihilist recognizes this. Moral nihilists are not sociopaths, just do not believe in objective morality.
See this video to show how our "moral reasoning" is very inconsistent.

However, superman would probably have no evolutionary need to save others since he does not depend on human interaction. And I also suppose that if society tried to attack him, he'd have no reason to defend.

He may just do nothing. If he gets joy from killing, he might. Although, it would seem illogical for him to get joy from doing it. Although, some people get joy from killing ants. And basically, nobody thinks twice about killing ants, so superman wouldn't think twice about killing us.

Is that the logical conclusion to Superman being a nihilist? That "Superman wouldn't think twice about killing us"?

Depends if he has a guilt response. We assume no, so he wouldn't care.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 10:03:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 9:31:03 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/9/2011 9:19:33 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 8:42:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/9/2011 8:25:06 PM, Indophile wrote:

You previously said that Superman might decide not to kill us if he would feel guilty from the action. Where would this guilt stem from? As is, he does not need anything from society, and thus is not bound to it. How would being a nihilist play out in this situation?

Well guilt is necessary for social interactions in our society. Social interactions are necessary for survival for humans.
Well, is there any common founts for that guilt to stem from, or is it just "make it up as we go along"? I mean, guilt comes from doing a wrong thing/not doing the right thing or being perceived to have done any of those. And the thing is, a nihilist may not feel guilty about certain stuff.

Guilt is 100% made up as we go. It's an emotional response not a logical response. A moral nihilist recognizes this. Moral nihilists are not sociopaths, just do not believe in objective morality.
See this video to show how our "moral reasoning" is very inconsistent.
Quite an informative video, though obvious.

However, superman would probably have no evolutionary need to save others since he does not depend on human interaction. And I also suppose that if society tried to attack him, he'd have no reason to defend.

He may just do nothing. If he gets joy from killing, he might. Although, it would seem illogical for him to get joy from doing it. Although, some people get joy from killing ants. And basically, nobody thinks twice about killing ants, so superman wouldn't think twice about killing us.

Is that the logical conclusion to Superman being a nihilist? That "Superman wouldn't think twice about killing us"?

Depends if he has a guilt response. We assume no, so he wouldn't care.
Of course he wouldn't care. But would we, as a society? Or should we? It seems that, for you, as long as it's "logically" consistent, it's fine.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2011 10:48:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 10:03:31 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 9:31:03 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/9/2011 9:19:33 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 8:42:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/9/2011 8:25:06 PM, Indophile wrote:
However, superman would probably have no evolutionary need to save others since he does not depend on human interaction. And I also suppose that if society tried to attack him, he'd have no reason to defend.

He may just do nothing. If he gets joy from killing, he might. Although, it would seem illogical for him to get joy from doing it. Although, some people get joy from killing ants. And basically, nobody thinks twice about killing ants, so superman wouldn't think twice about killing us.

Is that the logical conclusion to Superman being a nihilist? That "Superman wouldn't think twice about killing us"?

Depends if he has a guilt response. We assume no, so he wouldn't care.
Of course he wouldn't care. But would we, as a society? Or should we? It seems that, for you, as long as it's "logically" consistent, it's fine.

Well, we are programmed to care. And for my own survival, I would care. But, the action can be deemed no more wrong then destroying a rock. Both are just pieces of matter.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jmar8542
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 2:21:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 8:33:05 PM, Indophile wrote:
As it is, he's hardly seen, heard or sensed. All he's supposed to have done is authored some books thousands of years ago and got some people to read it to other people. That's about it, I think. Oh yes, the books say a lot, but most of the important predictions have never been verified and never can be, by any living person.

http://www-psych.stanford.edu...
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fvck off." - Richard Dawkins
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 9:00:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 10:48:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/9/2011 10:03:31 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 9:31:03 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/9/2011 9:19:33 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 8:42:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/9/2011 8:25:06 PM, Indophile wrote:
However, superman would probably have no evolutionary need to save others since he does not depend on human interaction. And I also suppose that if society tried to attack him, he'd have no reason to defend.

He may just do nothing. If he gets joy from killing, he might. Although, it would seem illogical for him to get joy from doing it. Although, some people get joy from killing ants. And basically, nobody thinks twice about killing ants, so superman wouldn't think twice about killing us.

Is that the logical conclusion to Superman being a nihilist? That "Superman wouldn't think twice about killing us"?

Depends if he has a guilt response. We assume no, so he wouldn't care.
Of course he wouldn't care. But would we, as a society? Or should we? It seems that, for you, as long as it's "logically" consistent, it's fine.

Well, we are programmed to care. And for my own survival, I would care. But, the action can be deemed no more wrong then destroying a rock. Both are just pieces of matter.

Well, finally you reached at this point.

Since such an action can be deemed not wrong, and society, for its survival, would want such an act deemed wrong and punishable, it makes sense for society to prohibit the nihilist approach.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 10:57:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Assuming God exists, and is part of our society, how would that society be if God was a nihilist?:

A nihilist God and deism seem to parallel. It would be a completely indifferent God.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 2:26:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/9/2011 6:35:48 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/9/2011 4:56:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If we go the Divine Command route, God is an omnipotent subjectivist, which I would say is far worse than a nihilist.

So it maybe, but what would be the case if God was, in fact, a nihilist?

Then God would be a nihilist.