Total Posts:167|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Moral Nihilism - 2

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 2:19:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The other post grew quite clunky, and to be honest, I wanted to pursue this moral nihilistic stance further.

Seems to have got stuck in my brain, and I can't seem to let go of it so easily. So I'll go again.

Here's what Annhasle says:
"I follow risk/benefit analysis and choose which actions serve me the best."

I think that's quite an acceptable summary for a moral nihilist.

I countered that Hitler's actions fit in correctly with this viewpoint. This approach led to quite a lot of confusion, with various suppositions.

So, I'll try with another real life example.

Take Kim of North Korea.

He wants to do whatever he wants, including torturing and subjugating people, extending to killing them. To achieve this, he manipulated the society into thinking that he was basically infallible, and a God, and then proceeded to do whatever he wanted, as there's hardly any risk involved of anyone actually doing anything about it.

Could we then say that Kim is a moral nihilist? And his actions are not wrong?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 2:27:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't think we can honestly say anything is objectively good or bad. The default position would be to say everything is neutral. Therefore to say something is objectively good or bad you would need to bring objective evidence. No one has brought any real objective evidence other than in various religions and no one has proven the validity of any religion yet.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 2:30:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 2:19:19 PM, Indophile wrote:
The other post grew quite clunky, and to be honest, I wanted to pursue this moral nihilistic stance further.

Seems to have got stuck in my brain, and I can't seem to let go of it so easily. So I'll go again.

Here's what Annhasle says:
"I follow risk/benefit analysis and choose which actions serve me the best."

I think that's quite an acceptable summary for a moral nihilist.

I will not say that it is the same for each nihilist. That is purely my stance.

Could we then say that Kim is a moral nihilist? And his actions are not wrong?

Acting "immorally" does not make you a nihilist. And no, his actions are not wrong.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 2:31:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Are you trying to build some coorelation between insane dictators and moral nihilists?

You'll find it exceedingly difficult.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 2:33:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 2:31:56 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Are you trying to build some coorelation between insane dictators and moral nihilists?

You'll find it exceedingly difficult.

No, I'm not doing that. I'm just trying to find out if moral nihilism taken to its logical extreme results in such.
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
3/10/2011 2:36:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 2:30:53 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/10/2011 2:19:19 PM, Indophile wrote:
The other post grew quite clunky, and to be honest, I wanted to pursue this moral nihilistic stance further.

Seems to have got stuck in my brain, and I can't seem to let go of it so easily. So I'll go again.

Here's what Annhasle says:
"I follow risk/benefit analysis and choose which actions serve me the best."

I think that's quite an acceptable summary for a moral nihilist.

I will not say that it is the same for each nihilist. That is purely my stance.
Ok.

Could we then say that Kim is a moral nihilist? And his actions are not wrong?

Acting "immorally" does not make you a nihilist. And no, his actions are not wrong.

There's only right for society, and wrong for society. Any other right/wrong is immaterial. Would you agree?
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
3/10/2011 2:42:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 2:36:21 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/10/2011 2:30:53 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/10/2011 2:19:19 PM, Indophile wrote:
There's only right for society, and wrong for society. Any other right/wrong is immaterial. Would you agree?

That depends purely on the definition of the "right" and "wrong" being used.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 2:45:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 2:42:51 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/10/2011 2:36:21 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/10/2011 2:30:53 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/10/2011 2:19:19 PM, Indophile wrote:
There's only right for society, and wrong for society. Any other right/wrong is immaterial. Would you agree?

That depends purely on the definition of the "right" and "wrong" being used.

You want to substitute it with beneficial/harmful, justified/unjustified, logical/illogical, or some other pair?
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
3/10/2011 2:47:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 2:45:20 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/10/2011 2:42:51 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/10/2011 2:36:21 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/10/2011 2:30:53 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/10/2011 2:19:19 PM, Indophile wrote:
There's only right for society, and wrong for society. Any other right/wrong is immaterial. Would you agree?

That depends purely on the definition of the "right" and "wrong" being used.

You want to substitute it with beneficial/harmful, justified/unjustified, logical/illogical, or some other pair?

That would be equivocation. They have different meanings and intentions.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 2:53:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 2:47:29 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/10/2011 2:45:20 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/10/2011 2:42:51 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/10/2011 2:36:21 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/10/2011 2:30:53 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/10/2011 2:19:19 PM, Indophile wrote:
There's only right for society, and wrong for society. Any other right/wrong is immaterial. Would you agree?

That depends purely on the definition of the "right" and "wrong" being used.

You want to substitute it with beneficial/harmful, justified/unjustified, logical/illogical, or some other pair?

That would be equivocation. They have different meanings and intentions.

Hmm. I'm beginning to wonder now if the words right/wrong even exist in the English language. :)

So I'll bite the bullet. I'll define right as benefiting society in some manner, either now or in the future, or not causing harm.

Wrong - harmful to society's survival, leading to loss of innocent lives, detrimental to the smooth functioning of society.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 2:53:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 2:27:13 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I don't think we can honestly say anything is objectively good or bad. The default position would be to say everything is neutral. Therefore to say something is objectively good or bad you would need to bring objective evidence.

You can't have "evidence" for something abstract like morals. However, philosophers have offered reasoned arguments to support some forms of objective morality.

no one has proven the validity of any religion yet.

Buddhism has already been proven valid.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 2:54:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have a question, is there any inherent worth in the human being other than their personal or subjective worth to you. I mean in terms of utility. A human being is of no particular worth other than their usefulness is that correct?
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 3:00:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 2:54:07 PM, innomen wrote:
I have a question, is there any inherent worth in the human being other than their personal or subjective worth to you.

Certainly not. How exhausting.

I mean in terms of utility. A human being is of no particular worth other than their usefulness is that correct?

No and why should they? Useless and worthless and interchangable words, are they not?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 3:04:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 3:00:20 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 3/10/2011 2:54:07 PM, innomen wrote:
I have a question, is there any inherent worth in the human being other than their personal or subjective worth to you.

Certainly not. How exhausting.

I mean in terms of utility. A human being is of no particular worth other than their usefulness is that correct?

No and why should they? Useless and worthless and interchangable words, are they not?

So why do you think it such a stretch to think that someone like Stalin wasn't a Nihilist? This was pretty much the perspective he had. If there is no inherent value of man, indeed he is only as valuable as his usefulness, and if his removal is of greater value to you than his existence in terms of resources or whatever, then why would not Stalin be a Nihilist?
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 3:11:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 3:00:20 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 3/10/2011 2:54:07 PM, innomen wrote:
I have a question, is there any inherent worth in the human being other than their personal or subjective worth to you.

Certainly not. How exhausting.

I mean in terms of utility. A human being is of no particular worth other than their usefulness is that correct?

No and why should they? Useless and worthless and interchangable words, are they not?

Ha ha.
Next question would be, "Suppose everyone felt that way."
You can respond with this line from Catch-22.
"Then I'd certainly be a dmned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I?"

Another response would be: (Since your response indicates that you are just a parasite)
There are people who work diligently to benefit society without expecting any rewards, and you just use up their work, without giving anything in return.

And then you can answer, "Well, they are fools."
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 4:26:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 3:04:39 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/10/2011 3:00:20 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 3/10/2011 2:54:07 PM, innomen wrote:
I have a question, is there any inherent worth in the human being other than their personal or subjective worth to you.

Certainly not. How exhausting.

I mean in terms of utility. A human being is of no particular worth other than their usefulness is that correct?

No and why should they? Useless and worthless and interchangable words, are they not?

So why do you think it such a stretch to think that someone like Stalin wasn't a Nihilist? This was pretty much the perspective he had. If there is no inherent value of man, indeed he is only as valuable as his usefulness, and if his removal is of greater value to you than his existence in terms of resources or whatever, then why would not Stalin be a Nihilist?

Perhaps he was a nihilist. What is the relevance?
As I said to the OP, why are you trying to build a coorelation between insane dictators and nihilists? It's hardly a prerequisite.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 4:29:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 3:11:57 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/10/2011 3:00:20 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 3/10/2011 2:54:07 PM, innomen wrote:
I have a question, is there any inherent worth in the human being other than their personal or subjective worth to you.

Certainly not. How exhausting.

I mean in terms of utility. A human being is of no particular worth other than their usefulness is that correct?

No and why should they? Useless and worthless and interchangable words, are they not?

Ha ha.
Next question would be, "Suppose everyone felt that way."
You can respond with this line from Catch-22.
"Then I'd certainly be a dmned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I?"

Everybody DOES feel that way. You're all just in denial.

Another response would be: (Since your response indicates that you are just a parasite)
There are people who work diligently to benefit society without expecting any rewards, and you just use up their work, without giving anything in return.

And then you can answer, "Well, they are fools."

Not really. I believe in maximising my own satisfaction. If someone wants to work to benefit society and not receive any reward (ie. perform charity) that is their prerogative.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 4:31:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 4:26:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 3/10/2011 3:04:39 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/10/2011 3:00:20 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 3/10/2011 2:54:07 PM, innomen wrote:
I have a question, is there any inherent worth in the human being other than their personal or subjective worth to you.

Certainly not. How exhausting.

I mean in terms of utility. A human being is of no particular worth other than their usefulness is that correct?

No and why should they? Useless and worthless and interchangable words, are they not?

So why do you think it such a stretch to think that someone like Stalin wasn't a Nihilist? This was pretty much the perspective he had. If there is no inherent value of man, indeed he is only as valuable as his usefulness, and if his removal is of greater value to you than his existence in terms of resources or whatever, then why would not Stalin be a Nihilist?

Perhaps he was a nihilist. What is the relevance?
As I said to the OP, why are you trying to build a coorelation between insane dictators and nihilists? It's hardly a prerequisite.

Prerequisite, perhaps not, but it might easily correlate. To have zero value for man does change the rules a bit in civilization and society. Common decency for a stranger is illogical to a nihilist right? The implications for a society based on this are pretty astounding.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 4:40:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 4:31:37 PM, innomen wrote:
Prerequisite, perhaps not, but it might easily correlate. To have zero value for man does change the rules a bit in civilization and society. Common decency for a stranger is illogical to a nihilist right? The implications for a society based on this are pretty astounding.

I am not so logic based as Ann, so I can't speak for her.

Common decency for a stranger IS illogical. That does NOT prevent me from acting illogical. I am not a robot.

Simply because I don't believe anything is inherently right or wrong, doesn't prevent me from feeling guilt or compassion. I like kittens and puppies, though they are essentially useless creatures.

Perhaps the implications for society are not what you think. I would suggest that given the fact humans can choose to act against their morals gives them no value. We are a selfish pack of fvck-loving smart-apes and we should act accordingly.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 4:53:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 4:40:14 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 3/10/2011 4:31:37 PM, innomen wrote:
Prerequisite, perhaps not, but it might easily correlate. To have zero value for man does change the rules a bit in civilization and society. Common decency for a stranger is illogical to a nihilist right? The implications for a society based on this are pretty astounding.

I am not so logic based as Ann, so I can't speak for her.

Common decency for a stranger IS illogical. That does NOT prevent me from acting illogical. I am not a robot.

No, but your behavior is not in accordance with moral nihilism. I don't understand how you can have guilt, since they are usually based in morals, a sense of right and wrong.

Simply because I don't believe anything is inherently right or wrong, doesn't prevent me from feeling guilt or compassion. I like kittens and puppies, though they are essentially useless creatures.

I don't understand how you can have guilt, since they are usually based in morals, a sense of right and wrong. I can see how puppies and kittens could actually be of greater value to you than a 4 year old child. A nihilist would simply assess their personal worth and act accordingly.

Perhaps the implications for society are not what you think. I would suggest that given the fact humans can choose to act against their morals gives them no value. We are a selfish pack of fvck-loving smart-apes and we should act accordingly.

Yeah, but we can rise above our baser instincts, but nihilism sees no value in doing that. Kind of my larger point as to why i think it's a horrid system for a society.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 5:00:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 2:54:07 PM, innomen wrote:
I have a question, is there any inherent worth in the human being other than their personal or subjective worth to you.

Nope.

I mean in terms of utility. A human being is of no particular worth other than their usefulness is that correct?

They only have worth once someone ascribes worth to them. Out of my own self-interest, I avoid confrontations with the law and/or other people -- so that leads to me treating people as if they have worth. :P
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
jmar8542
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 5:01:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 5:00:25 PM, annhasle wrote:
They only have worth once someone ascribes worth to them. Out of my own self-interest, I avoid confrontations with the law and/or other people -- so that leads to me treating people as if they have worth. :P

Story of my life :P

People think I'm so respectful towards everyone because it's who I am. I guess being on people's good side and not getting in trouble mean nothing to them XD
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fvck off." - Richard Dawkins
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 5:05:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yeah, but we can rise above our baser instincts, but nihilism sees no value in doing that. Kind of my larger point as to why i think it's a horrid system for a society.

Yep, that is why it isn't a system for society. It doesn't work, it goes against all real logic.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 5:07:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 5:05:14 PM, jharry wrote:
Yeah, but we can rise above our baser instincts, but nihilism sees no value in doing that. Kind of my larger point as to why i think it's a horrid system for a society.

Yep, that is why it isn't a system for society. It doesn't work, it goes against all real logic.

Because morality is real logic? Hehe.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 5:07:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 5:00:25 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/10/2011 2:54:07 PM, innomen wrote:
I have a question, is there any inherent worth in the human being other than their personal or subjective worth to you.

Nope.

I mean in terms of utility. A human being is of no particular worth other than their usefulness is that correct?

They only have worth once someone ascribes worth to them. Out of my own self-interest, I avoid confrontations with the law and/or other people -- so that leads to me treating people as if they have worth. :P

So you are really not capable of any sort of "moral' indignation? The acts against the Native Americans could be completely reasonable and justifiable to you?
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 5:10:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 5:07:28 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/10/2011 5:00:25 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/10/2011 2:54:07 PM, innomen wrote:
So you are really not capable of any sort of "moral' indignation? The acts against the Native Americans could be completely reasonable and justifiable to you?

If they aren't reasonable, then they aren't logically justifiable and then I do not support the actions. I think that the Native Americans could have been very helpful in learning about the land, striking alliances and avoiding massive deaths which led to inherent instability of the land. So... I'm not exactly fond of the actions against the Native Americans.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 5:11:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 5:07:18 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/10/2011 5:05:14 PM, jharry wrote:
Yeah, but we can rise above our baser instincts, but nihilism sees no value in doing that. Kind of my larger point as to why i think it's a horrid system for a society.

Yep, that is why it isn't a system for society. It doesn't work, it goes against all real logic.

Because morality is real logic? Hehe.

When weighed against the opposite. :)
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 5:13:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 5:10:08 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/10/2011 5:07:28 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/10/2011 5:00:25 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/10/2011 2:54:07 PM, innomen wrote:
So you are really not capable of any sort of "moral' indignation? The acts against the Native Americans could be completely reasonable and justifiable to you?

If they aren't reasonable, then they aren't logically justifiable and then I do not support the actions. I think that the Native Americans could have been very helpful in learning about the land, striking alliances and avoiding massive deaths which led to inherent instability of the land. So... I'm not exactly fond of the actions against the Native Americans.

They were a barrier to greater wealth and a more powerful economy. They prevented the access to great resources. What we could learn from them hardly compares to what we can gain from their removal. They weren't of only a non worth, they held negative worth. Negative worth of a human being would be justification for their elimination, or at very least satisfaction over their removal.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 5:13:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 4:53:38 PM, innomen wrote:
No, but your behavior is not in accordance with moral nihilism.

Howso? I don't believe anything is inherently right or wrong. It is logical for me to oppose rape because I don't want my loved ones to be raped.

I don't understand how you can have guilt, since they are usually based in morals, a sense of right and wrong.

It's simple; it is hardwired into my brain. I oppose making judgements based entirely on guilt, or any emotional response for that matter. People feel guilty for stupid things and other people don't feel guilty for things that they should. Therefore, guilt is not a good way to judge if something is right or wrong.


I can see how puppies and kittens could actually be of greater value to you than a 4 year old child. A nihilist would simply assess their personal worth and act accordingly.

And so would a non-nihilist? You seem to be ignoring the fact that people with moral values do horrific things as well.

Yeah, but we can rise above our baser instincts, but nihilism sees no value in doing that. Kind of my larger point as to why i think it's a horrid system for a society.

Yes, we can rise about our baser instincts and use LOGIC to determine whether something is beneficial or detrimental. Nihilism is COMPLETELY about doing that.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2011 5:19:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/10/2011 5:13:58 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 3/10/2011 4:53:38 PM, innomen wrote:
No, but your behavior is not in accordance with moral nihilism.

Howso? I don't believe anything is inherently right or wrong. It is logical for me to oppose rape because I don't want my loved ones to be raped.

But those who are not your loved ones you really shouldn't care.

I don't understand how you can have guilt, since they are usually based in morals, a sense of right and wrong.

It's simple; it is hardwired into my brain. I oppose making judgements based entirely on guilt, or any emotional response for that matter. People feel guilty for stupid things and other people don't feel guilty for things that they should. Therefore, guilt is not a good way to judge if something is right or wrong.

Guilt is based on what exactly? Random experiences?

I can see how puppies and kittens could actually be of greater value to you than a 4 year old child. A nihilist would simply assess their personal worth and act accordingly.

And so would a non-nihilist? You seem to be ignoring the fact that people with moral values do horrific things as well.

Not at all, how do you figure that. If i actually can distinguish between something horrific, because i believe in right and wrong.

Yeah, but we can rise above our baser instincts, but nihilism sees no value in doing that. Kind of my larger point as to why i think it's a horrid system for a society.

Yes, we can rise about our baser instincts and use LOGIC to determine whether something is beneficial or detrimental. Nihilism is COMPLETELY about doing that.

I understand. It's a pretty terrible thing.