Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Moral Nihilism and Fairness

Ad_Infinitum
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 2:20:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If we grant that the premise that moral nihilism is an accurate picture of moral reality, then is anything truly fair or unfair? If so, what mechanisms and standards do you use to weigh what is or isn't fair?
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 2:27:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 2:20:30 AM, Ad_Infinitum wrote:
If we grant that the premise that moral nihilism is an accurate picture of moral reality, then is anything truly fair or unfair? If so, what mechanisms and standards do you use to weigh what is or isn't fair?

Um, wat?
Of course something can still be fair or unfair and you would use the same mechanisms you use to make the judgement now.
"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...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 2:45:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 2:20:30 AM, Ad_Infinitum wrote:
If we grant that the premise that moral nihilism is an accurate picture of moral reality, then is anything truly fair or unfair? If so, what mechanisms and standards do you use to weigh what is or isn't fair?

In the realm of moral philosophy, nothing would be "fair or unfair". In other realms, it depends how you define fair. In political philosophy, for example, you get different results from defining it as "equal freedom from coercion" vs. "equality of income".
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 2:54:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 2:27:03 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 6/2/2011 2:20:30 AM, Ad_Infinitum wrote:
If we grant that the premise that moral nihilism is an accurate picture of moral reality, then is anything truly fair or unfair? If so, what mechanisms and standards do you use to weigh what is or isn't fair?

Um, wat?
Of course something can still be fair or unfair and you would use the same mechanisms you use to make the judgement now.

Like what? Mechanisms?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 2:59:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
assuming fairness means "in accordance with rules or standards" (first google defintion) you'd have some cases where things were fair (ie within the context of an event with clearly defined rules) and other cases where the fairness criterion didn't apply (anything without a set of standards).

so yeah. in baseball there would still be fair or foul balls. could you be more specific as to what you mean by fairness? :P
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 3:01:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 2:59:03 AM, belle wrote:
assuming fairness means "in accordance with rules or standards" (first google defintion) you'd have some cases where things were fair (ie within the context of an event with clearly defined rules) and other cases where the fairness criterion didn't apply (anything without a set of standards).

so yeah. in baseball there would still be fair or foul balls. could you be more specific as to what you mean by fairness? :P

I don't know about the OP but I'm curious about objective "rules" and how they are decided.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 3:05:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 3:01:18 AM, jharry wrote:
I don't know about the OP but I'm curious about objective "rules" and how they are decided.

in most cases they're not considered "objective" but are simply agreed to by all parties that are bound by them. like with games, you either play by the rules or you are ejected. presumably society could run on a similar model. you benefit from it, you follow certain rules (don't kill people, etc). as for the standard used in choosing which rules... depends who you ask. some would say the NAP, others would take a more pragmatic stance, etc
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 3:10:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 3:05:00 AM, belle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 3:01:18 AM, jharry wrote:
I don't know about the OP but I'm curious about objective "rules" and how they are decided.

in most cases they're not considered "objective" but are simply agreed to by all parties that are bound by them. like with games, you either play by the rules or you are ejected. presumably society could run on a similar model. you benefit from it, you follow certain rules (don't kill people, etc). as for the standard used in choosing which rules... depends who you ask. some would say the NAP, others would take a more pragmatic stance, etc

I'm confused. Would that end up being moral relativism, just excluding the word moral?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 3:14:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 3:10:33 AM, jharry wrote:
At 6/2/2011 3:05:00 AM, belle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 3:01:18 AM, jharry wrote:
I don't know about the OP but I'm curious about objective "rules" and how they are decided.

in most cases they're not considered "objective" but are simply agreed to by all parties that are bound by them. like with games, you either play by the rules or you are ejected. presumably society could run on a similar model. you benefit from it, you follow certain rules (don't kill people, etc). as for the standard used in choosing which rules... depends who you ask. some would say the NAP, others would take a more pragmatic stance, etc

I'm confused. Would that end up being moral relativism, just excluding the word moral?

well moral relativists actually make the claim that what is moral differs depending on the person or the society, and just ends up in a royal mess, contradicting itself. what i said isn't contradictory in the relevant way (making absolute claims that absolute claims can't be true) so in that sense i would say no. what i said was purely descriptive, not prescriptive. (i'm not making any moral claims myself, just reasoning out the relation between nihilism and fairness as i understand them)
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 3:18:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 2:54:27 AM, jharry wrote:
At 6/2/2011 2:27:03 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 6/2/2011 2:20:30 AM, Ad_Infinitum wrote:
If we grant that the premise that moral nihilism is an accurate picture of moral reality, then is anything truly fair or unfair? If so, what mechanisms and standards do you use to weigh what is or isn't fair?

Um, wat?
Of course something can still be fair or unfair and you would use the same mechanisms you use to make the judgement now.

Like what? Mechanisms?

Fair: 1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice.
Is it free from bias?
Is it free from dishonesty?
Is it free from injustice?
"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...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 3:20:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 3:14:23 AM, belle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 3:10:33 AM, jharry wrote:
At 6/2/2011 3:05:00 AM, belle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 3:01:18 AM, jharry wrote:
I don't know about the OP but I'm curious about objective "rules" and how they are decided.

in most cases they're not considered "objective" but are simply agreed to by all parties that are bound by them. like with games, you either play by the rules or you are ejected. presumably society could run on a similar model. you benefit from it, you follow certain rules (don't kill people, etc). as for the standard used in choosing which rules... depends who you ask. some would say the NAP, others would take a more pragmatic stance, etc

I'm confused. Would that end up being moral relativism, just excluding the word moral?

well moral relativists actually make the claim that what is moral differs depending on the person or the society, and just ends up in a royal mess, contradicting itself. what i said isn't contradictory in the relevant way (making absolute claims that absolute claims can't be true) so in that sense i would say no. what i said was purely descriptive, not prescriptive. (i'm not making any moral claims myself, just reasoning out the relation between nihilism and fairness as i understand them)

Yeah. But it nihilism is just removing the claim. The laws and rules will still be there. Just under a different name or label.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 3:24:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 3:20:26 AM, jharry wrote:
Yeah. But it nihilism is just removing the claim. The laws and rules will still be there. Just under a different name or label.

its also removing the claim, considered by nihilists to be unsupportable, that any universal claim to what is right and what is wrong can be justified philosophically. basically they see no argument that can succeed in justifying moral intuitions, but observe that many behaviors that are prompted by moral rules are beneficial in allowing humans to live and work together in a society with a minimum of friction. so rather than making some grand unjustified claim about how moral rules are laws that apply to everyone, they make the much simplier claim that people are better off if they follow certain mutual restrictions when interacting with each other.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 3:36:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 3:24:54 AM, belle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 3:20:26 AM, jharry wrote:
Yeah. But it nihilism is just removing the claim. The laws and rules will still be there. Just under a different name or label.

its also removing the claim, considered by nihilists to be unsupportable, that any universal claim to what is right and what is wrong can be justified philosophically. basically they see no argument that can succeed in justifying moral intuitions, but observe that many behaviors that are prompted by moral rules are beneficial in allowing humans to live and work together in a society with a minimum of friction. so rather than making some grand unjustified claim about how moral rules are laws that apply to everyone, they make the much simplier claim that people are better off if they follow certain mutual restrictions when interacting with each other.

And no matter what it falls back subjective rules and laws. In reality anyway.

It all seems so irrelevant to me. In the end people are still going to be against murder and they will restrict it. People will still be against abortion and if there is enough people they will restrict it. Same goes for everything from jaywalking to drugs. The reality is there are morals but this just allows someone to call it something else.

Maybe I'm too simple minded but it seems like a pointless stance.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 3:38:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 3:36:04 AM, jharry wrote:
At 6/2/2011 3:24:54 AM, belle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 3:20:26 AM, jharry wrote:
Yeah. But it nihilism is just removing the claim. The laws and rules will still be there. Just under a different name or label.

its also removing the claim, considered by nihilists to be unsupportable, that any universal claim to what is right and what is wrong can be justified philosophically. basically they see no argument that can succeed in justifying moral intuitions, but observe that many behaviors that are prompted by moral rules are beneficial in allowing humans to live and work together in a society with a minimum of friction. so rather than making some grand unjustified claim about how moral rules are laws that apply to everyone, they make the much simplier claim that people are better off if they follow certain mutual restrictions when interacting with each other.

And no matter what it falls back subjective rules and laws. In reality anyway.

It all seems so irrelevant to me. In the end people are still going to be against murder and they will restrict it. People will still be against abortion and if there is enough people they will restrict it. Same goes for everything from jaywalking to drugs. The reality is there are morals but this just allows someone to call it something else.

Maybe I'm too simple minded but it seems like a pointless stance.

i think you're confusing moral feelings or moral intuitions with with morals. of course those opinions exist, and will continue to exist. the question is whether or not they can be justified by some rational argument. if they can't then it makes no sense to call them "morals" and impose them on everyone for that reason.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 3:51:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 3:38:22 AM, belle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 3:36:04 AM, jharry wrote:
At 6/2/2011 3:24:54 AM, belle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 3:20:26 AM, jharry wrote:
Yeah. But it nihilism is just removing the claim. The laws and rules will still be there. Just under a different name or label.

its also removing the claim, considered by nihilists to be unsupportable, that any universal claim to what is right and what is wrong can be justified philosophically. basically they see no argument that can succeed in justifying moral intuitions, but observe that many behaviors that are prompted by moral rules are beneficial in allowing humans to live and work together in a society with a minimum of friction. so rather than making some grand unjustified claim about how moral rules are laws that apply to everyone, they make the much simplier claim that people are better off if they follow certain mutual restrictions when interacting with each other.

And no matter what it falls back subjective rules and laws. In reality anyway.

It all seems so irrelevant to me. In the end people are still going to be against murder and they will restrict it. People will still be against abortion and if there is enough people they will restrict it. Same goes for everything from jaywalking to drugs. The reality is there are morals but this just allows someone to call it something else.

Maybe I'm too simple minded but it seems like a pointless stance.

i think you're confusing moral feelings or moral intuitions with with morals. of course those opinions exist, and will continue to exist. the question is whether or not they can be justified by some rational argument. if they can't then it makes no sense to call them "morals" and impose them on everyone for that reason.

I'm not sure if I am or not. Justified wouldn't having anything to do with it, would it?

If the laws or options are still exist they are there. Justified or not.

So a nilist can say I can't oppose abortion on moral grounds. Well whoop de do, that isn't directed at you. I can still oppose anything if I feel it has a negative impact. Just like murder, whether it is moral or not we can still oppose it and restrict or punish.

It looks like a debate winner but that is honestly where it ends. In words on a piece of paper or words spewed into the air. As soon as they leave the mind they become utterly useless and at best circular.

It can go round and round but in the end the same "morals" will be put in place but just not called morals.

They will still be enforced on everyone on the society they are in. Just like the baseball player in the game. He can play by the rules or get up in the stands. He may not think hitting the ball in a certain direction is a foul ball, he can scream at the top of his lungs that it is a subjective rule and has no objective justification for it. But in the end he will be kicked out if the game and probably laughed at for being so egotistical.

In the end reality trumps nilism.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 3:59:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 3:51:16 AM, jharry wrote:
If the laws or options are still exist they are there. Justified or not.

the opinions exist, sure, but the ability to force them on other people? those actions that have a clear negative impact on others who haven't given their consent will be agreed to be mutually harmful and collectively punished when engaged in. those actions that only effect the actor(s) with their consent will be ignored.

if you think abortion is wrong, then say so, and don't get one yourself. but don't try to force others not to have them because its not justified.

stealing or fraud, on the other hand, is clearly something that one would not want to happen to them, and something they would probably be willing to give up the opportunity to perform if it means reaping the benefits of human cooperation. this is a method of justifying a collective punishment of theft without appealing to morals. theres no such method justifying a collective punishment for abortion. thats the difference.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 4:12:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 3:59:31 AM, belle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 3:51:16 AM, jharry wrote:
If the laws or options are still exist they are there. Justified or not.

the opinions exist, sure, but the ability to force them on other people? those actions that have a clear negative impact on others who haven't given their consent will be agreed to be mutually harmful and collectively punished when engaged in. those actions that only effect the actor(s) with their consent will be ignored.

if you think abortion is wrong, then say so, and don't get one yourself. but don't try to force others not to have them because its not justified.

stealing or fraud, on the other hand, is clearly something that one would not want to happen to them, and something they would probably be willing to give up the opportunity to perform if it means reaping the benefits of human cooperation. this is a method of justifying a collective punishment of theft without appealing to morals. theres no such method justifying a collective punishment for abortion. thats the difference.

That still isn't enough. Any argument for abortion is subjective. A womens right to her body is subjective, if there are no rights. And moral nilism isn't grounds to objectively make my vote to stop abortion unjustifiable. Especially if there is no right or wrong. And even more so if there is no free will. It is determined that I feel abortion is a negative, if I change my mind it was determined. But that is a whole different conversation.

Just like the baseball game. If there isn't enough players who agree with the rules the game won't be played or the rules will change to accommodate enough players so the game can go on. The rules are entirely subjective, there is no possible objective rules.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 4:15:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Belle, I'm extremely tired. It's 4am for me. I think you for the conversation and I apologize if I'm coming off as a arse.

I'm probably talking out of my arse right now anyway. Thanks again for putting up with me and I would love to continue this tomorrow if your willing. Night. :)
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 5:41:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 2:20:30 AM, Ad_Infinitum wrote:
If we grant that the premise that moral nihilism is an accurate picture of moral reality, then is anything truly fair or unfair? If so, what mechanisms and standards do you use to weigh what is or isn't fair?

Fair:

1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.
2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.
3. moderately large; ample: a fair income.


I believe those three definitions of 'fair' are still applicable without an ethical standard.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 5:45:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 5:41:46 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 2:20:30 AM, Ad_Infinitum wrote:
If we grant that the premise that moral nihilism is an accurate picture of moral reality, then is anything truly fair or unfair? If so, what mechanisms and standards do you use to weigh what is or isn't fair?

Fair:

1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.
2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.
3. moderately large; ample: a fair income.


I believe those three definitions of 'fair' are still applicable without an ethical standard.

"fair" itself is an ethical ideal. Namely saying that things should be fair is an ethical statement. Why should things be fair? Why shouldn't they allowed to be unfair?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 5:57:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 5:45:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 5:41:46 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 2:20:30 AM, Ad_Infinitum wrote:
If we grant that the premise that moral nihilism is an accurate picture of moral reality, then is anything truly fair or unfair? If so, what mechanisms and standards do you use to weigh what is or isn't fair?

Fair:

1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.
2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.
3. moderately large; ample: a fair income.


I believe those three definitions of 'fair' are still applicable without an ethical standard.

"fair" itself is an ethical ideal.

Not all concepts of "fair" are based on ethics, obviously. Look above.

Namely saying that things should be fair is an ethical statement.

Not ALL the time. Did you not see the definitions?

Why should things be fair?

Being fair helps maintain relationships between individuals civil, which is in the best interest of the collective.

Why shouldn't they allowed to be unfair?

Because it is detrimental.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 6:10:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 5:57:38 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 5:45:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 5:41:46 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 2:20:30 AM, Ad_Infinitum wrote:
If we grant that the premise that moral nihilism is an accurate picture of moral reality, then is anything truly fair or unfair? If so, what mechanisms and standards do you use to weigh what is or isn't fair?

Fair:

1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.
2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.
3. moderately large; ample: a fair income.


I believe those three definitions of 'fair' are still applicable without an ethical standard.

"fair" itself is an ethical ideal.

Not all concepts of "fair" are based on ethics, obviously. Look above.

Namely saying that things should be fair is an ethical statement.

Not ALL the time. Did you not see the definitions?

The definitions are for what "is" fair, not "why" things should be fair, so obviously the definitions have no meaning in that.


Why should things be fair?

Being fair helps maintain relationships between individuals civil, which is in the best interest of the collective.

In order to accept that we would have to accept that the collective best interest is "good" or "right."


Why shouldn't they allowed to be unfair?

Because it is detrimental.

While the detrimental is "bad" or "wrong."

e.g. moral opinions.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 6:14:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 6:10:03 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 5:57:38 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 5:45:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 5:41:46 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 2:20:30 AM, Ad_Infinitum wrote:
If we grant that the premise that moral nihilism is an accurate picture of moral reality, then is anything truly fair or unfair? If so, what mechanisms and standards do you use to weigh what is or isn't fair?

Fair:

1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.
2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.
3. moderately large; ample: a fair income.


I believe those three definitions of 'fair' are still applicable without an ethical standard.

"fair" itself is an ethical ideal.

Not all concepts of "fair" are based on ethics, obviously. Look above.

Namely saying that things should be fair is an ethical statement.

Not ALL the time. Did you not see the definitions?

The definitions are for what "is" fair, not "why" things should be fair, so obviously the definitions have no meaning in that.

Except that not all concepts of fair are based on ethics! If I said "You should be fair", I'm not asserting that it would be 'ethical' for you to do so (since I'm a moral nihilist). I'm asserting that you should be fair because the alternative is detrimental and therefore not preferable.


Why should things be fair?

Being fair helps maintain relationships between individuals civil, which is in the best interest of the collective.

In order to accept that we would have to accept that the collective best interest is "good" or "right."

It is the only way for society to progress which then furthers my own self-interest along with others -- I believe that is desirable to anyone.


Why shouldn't they allowed to be unfair?

Because it is detrimental.

While the detrimental is "bad" or "wrong."

e.g. moral opinions.

Detrimental isn't unethical or immoral. It's simply not desirable.
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
6/2/2011 6:15:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There is no reason why things should be fair, except that it would be nice.
"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...
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 6:19:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 6:15:36 PM, tvellalott wrote:
There is no reason why things should be fair, except that it would be nice.

Actually there is a good reason. Being 'fair' (keep in mind that the definition of 'fair' that I'm using is "adhering to the rules") builds trust within relationships. And within any society, whether that be relationships between individuals or collectives, it is beneficial to remain civil -- trust increases the chance of civility while also maintaining the relationship. In summary, being 'fair' not only helps YOU but also those around you -- which furthers your self-interest.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 6:26:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 6:14:40 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 6:10:03 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 5:57:38 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 5:45:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 5:41:46 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 2:20:30 AM, Ad_Infinitum wrote:
If we grant that the premise that moral nihilism is an accurate picture of moral reality, then is anything truly fair or unfair? If so, what mechanisms and standards do you use to weigh what is or isn't fair?

Fair:

1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.
2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.
3. moderately large; ample: a fair income.


I believe those three definitions of 'fair' are still applicable without an ethical standard.

"fair" itself is an ethical ideal.

Not all concepts of "fair" are based on ethics, obviously. Look above.

Namely saying that things should be fair is an ethical statement.

Not ALL the time. Did you not see the definitions?

The definitions are for what "is" fair, not "why" things should be fair, so obviously the definitions have no meaning in that.

Except that not all concepts of fair are based on ethics! If I said "You should be fair", I'm not asserting that it would be 'ethical' for you to do so (since I'm a moral nihilist). I'm asserting that you should be fair because the alternative is detrimental and therefore not preferable.

I disagree,

1) What is best for society =/= what is best for me.
2) Why should I prefer what is best for society? Why can I not want to see it burn and everyone die?



Why should things be fair?

Being fair helps maintain relationships between individuals civil, which is in the best interest of the collective.

In order to accept that we would have to accept that the collective best interest is "good" or "right."

It is the only way for society to progress which then furthers my own self-interest along with others -- I believe that is desirable to anyone.

No it's not, but apart from that, in order for us to "desire" that we must equate it as "good."

Likewise, something be detrimental must be equated as "bad." Things cannot be measured against each other without a value system.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 6:34:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 6:26:01 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 6:14:40 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 6:10:03 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 5:57:38 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 5:45:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
The definitions are for what "is" fair, not "why" things should be fair, so obviously the definitions have no meaning in that.

Except that not all concepts of fair are based on ethics! If I said "You should be fair", I'm not asserting that it would be 'ethical' for you to do so (since I'm a moral nihilist). I'm asserting that you should be fair because the alternative is detrimental and therefore not preferable.

I disagree,

1) What is best for society =/= what is best for me.

Actually, for my self-interest to progress, I need society to do so as well. Inventions, innovations, improvements, discoveries -- these all happen due to a collective. By realizing that my self-interest is (sadly) tied to such progression, I've come to accept that functioning as part of the collective is in my best interest.

2) Why should I prefer what is best for society? Why can I not want to see it burn and everyone die?

Humans are instinctively social creatures. My self-interest would not be best served as a loner.

It is the only way for society to progress which then furthers my own self-interest along with others -- I believe that is desirable to anyone.

No it's not, but apart from that, in order for us to "desire" that we must equate it as "good."

How is it not?

And no, desirable is not the same as "good".

Likewise, something be detrimental must be equated as "bad." Things cannot be measured against each other without a value system.

*sigh*

If I recognize something as counterproductive to my egotistical ways, I will do my best to avoid it. I do not need to have a "value system" to recognize it nor is it necessary.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 7:06:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 6:34:33 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 6:26:01 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 6:14:40 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 6:10:03 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 5:57:38 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/2/2011 5:45:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
The definitions are for what "is" fair, not "why" things should be fair, so obviously the definitions have no meaning in that.

Except that not all concepts of fair are based on ethics! If I said "You should be fair", I'm not asserting that it would be 'ethical' for you to do so (since I'm a moral nihilist). I'm asserting that you should be fair because the alternative is detrimental and therefore not preferable.

I disagree,

1) What is best for society =/= what is best for me.

Actually, for my self-interest to progress, I need society to do so as well. Inventions, innovations, improvements, discoveries -- these all happen due to a collective. By realizing that my self-interest is (sadly) tied to such progression, I've come to accept that functioning as part of the collective is in my best interest.

2) Why should I prefer what is best for society? Why can I not want to see it burn and everyone die?

Humans are instinctively social creatures. My self-interest would not be best served as a loner.

It is the only way for society to progress which then furthers my own self-interest along with others -- I believe that is desirable to anyone.

No it's not, but apart from that, in order for us to "desire" that we must equate it as "good."

How is it not?

And no, desirable is not the same as "good".

actually, it is. desirable means that it is "better" than the alternative. "better" is the grammartically correct version of "gooder" or "more good."


Likewise, something be detrimental must be equated as "bad." Things cannot be measured against each other without a value system.

*sigh*

If I recognize something as counterproductive to my egotistical ways, I will do my best to avoid it. I do not need to have a "value system" to recognize it nor is it necessary.

You have to have a value system to desire those egotistical ways.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 7:13:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
We have to remember that moral nihilism is a meta-ethical view about objectivity. It does not stop one from inventing values or arriving at morality through means outside of appealing to values that supposedly are not enmeshed in the fabric of the universe.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 7:19:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 7:13:27 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
We have to remember that moral nihilism is a meta-ethical view about objectivity. It does not stop one from inventing values or arriving at morality through means outside of appealing to values that supposedly are not enmeshed in the fabric of the universe.

That is a false use of the words. nihilism means (by its roots) "belief of nothing." So "moral nihilism" means "belief of no morals." If they want it applied to only objective morals, then they are objective moral nihilists.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"