Total Posts:155|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What are your views on moral nihilism ?

muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 11:53:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
How do you go about your morals then? I can see it has some flaws, but whats your issue with it.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 11:55:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 11:53:38 AM, muzebreak wrote:
How do you go about your morals then? I can see it has some flaws, but whats your issue with it.

My issue with it is that it's irrelevant to any discussion about morality.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 11:56:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 11:55:17 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:53:38 AM, muzebreak wrote:
How do you go about your morals then? I can see it has some flaws, but whats your issue with it.

My issue with it is that it's irrelevant to any discussion about morality.

No, its irrelevant to any discussion about objective morality.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 11:57:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 11:56:08 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:55:17 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:53:38 AM, muzebreak wrote:
How do you go about your morals then? I can see it has some flaws, but whats your issue with it.

My issue with it is that it's irrelevant to any discussion about morality.

No, its irrelevant to any discussion about objective morality.

No, it's irrelevant to ANY thing related to 'what we ought to do.'
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 12:00:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 11:57:52 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:56:08 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:55:17 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:53:38 AM, muzebreak wrote:
How do you go about your morals then? I can see it has some flaws, but whats your issue with it.

My issue with it is that it's irrelevant to any discussion about morality.

No, its irrelevant to any discussion about objective morality.

No, it's irrelevant to ANY thing related to 'what we ought to do.'

How so?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 12:02:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 12:00:05 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:57:52 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:56:08 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:55:17 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:53:38 AM, muzebreak wrote:
How do you go about your morals then? I can see it has some flaws, but whats your issue with it.

My issue with it is that it's irrelevant to any discussion about morality.

No, its irrelevant to any discussion about objective morality.

No, it's irrelevant to ANY thing related to 'what we ought to do.'

How so?

Because it makes no comment on it.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 12:05:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 12:02:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 12:00:05 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:57:52 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:56:08 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:55:17 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:53:38 AM, muzebreak wrote:
How do you go about your morals then? I can see it has some flaws, but whats your issue with it.

My issue with it is that it's irrelevant to any discussion about morality.

No, its irrelevant to any discussion about objective morality.

No, it's irrelevant to ANY thing related to 'what we ought to do.'

How so?

Because it makes no comment on it.

Ok, we must be mixed up somewhere here.

My definition of moral nihilism is that all morality is subjective, and that there are no absolute moralities. Nothing is always bad. Whats yours?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 12:14:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 12:05:01 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/1/2013 12:02:37 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 12:00:05 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:57:52 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:56:08 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:55:17 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:53:38 AM, muzebreak wrote:
How do you go about your morals then? I can see it has some flaws, but whats your issue with it.

My issue with it is that it's irrelevant to any discussion about morality.

No, its irrelevant to any discussion about objective morality.

No, it's irrelevant to ANY thing related to 'what we ought to do.'

How so?

Because it makes no comment on it.

Ok, we must be mixed up somewhere here.

My definition of moral nihilism is that all morality is subjective, and that there are no absolute moralities. Nothing is always bad. Whats yours?

Your definition of moral nihilism is the same as mine. My point is that moral nihilism is irrelevant because it doesn't have any guidance on what one ought to do, rendering it useless. It doesn't say that we should live as if all morality is subjective anymore than that we should live with the precept that objective morality exists.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 1:09:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's the most enlightening moral philosophy available. Essentially, nothing is wrong and you can do whatever the fvck you want. Who wouldn't anyone want that?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 1:10:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I find amoralism troubling. Logically, we possess within each one of us a highly sophisticated intelligence. This gives us the ability of artificiality, or that which goes beyond the natural. Simply looking at the artifices around us, we can see that we are rapidly changing the world to suit our personal whims. Organisms of non-artificiality change the world with subtlety, and only based on what they need to survive. Humans change the world acutely, and only based on what they don't need to survive.

The balance of privilege and responsibility can never be violated. The more intelligence (i.e., privilege) you have, then necessarily the more morality (i.e., responsibility) you also have. The Bible reflects this, science reflects this, and common sense reflects this.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 1:41:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think it's true in the wrong way that nihilism is "irrelevant" to discussions about morality, but it's the kind of irrelevance that relates scientific discussion to astrology. Scientific arguments about the absence of any measurable impact by celestial bodies on daily events makes science irrelevant to astrological discussion, but that's because science makes astrology irrelevant; similarly, nihilism is irrelevant to discussions about what's right and what's wrong, but that, I argue, is because nihilism makes morality irrelevant.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 2:19:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 11:50:43 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Personally, I find the whole notion of moral nihilism to be extraordinarily irrelevant and useless.

That's a stupid perception you have there. Moral nihilism doesn't have to demonstrate relevance or use...it has to demonstrate truth. If you can't cannot attack the truth of it, then you might as well not attack it at all.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 2:25:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 2:19:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:50:43 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Personally, I find the whole notion of moral nihilism to be extraordinarily irrelevant and useless.

That's a stupid perception you have there. Moral nihilism doesn't have to demonstrate relevance or use...it has to demonstrate truth. If you can't cannot attack the truth of it, then you might as well not attack it at all.

You don't understand what I'm saying. My point was that even if moral nihilism is true, it is irrelevant to any discussion about morality.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 2:29:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 2:25:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:19:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:50:43 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Personally, I find the whole notion of moral nihilism to be extraordinarily irrelevant and useless.

That's a stupid perception you have there. Moral nihilism doesn't have to demonstrate relevance or use...it has to demonstrate truth. If you can't cannot attack the truth of it, then you might as well not attack it at all.

You don't understand what I'm saying. My point was that even if moral nihilism is true, it is irrelevant to any discussion about morality.

Moral nihilism, if understand and integrated properly, shouldn't influence anyone's actions whatsoever.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 2:31:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 2:29:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:25:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:19:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:50:43 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Personally, I find the whole notion of moral nihilism to be extraordinarily irrelevant and useless.

That's a stupid perception you have there. Moral nihilism doesn't have to demonstrate relevance or use...it has to demonstrate truth. If you can't cannot attack the truth of it, then you might as well not attack it at all.

You don't understand what I'm saying. My point was that even if moral nihilism is true, it is irrelevant to any discussion about morality.

Moral nihilism, if understand and integrated properly, shouldn't influence anyone's actions whatsoever.

It doesn't influence action in a positive way--by obviating the need of morality, it exerts a negative influence by rejecting the reduction of life to a series of normative questions.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 2:34:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 2:29:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:25:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:19:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:50:43 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Personally, I find the whole notion of moral nihilism to be extraordinarily irrelevant and useless.

That's a stupid perception you have there. Moral nihilism doesn't have to demonstrate relevance or use...it has to demonstrate truth. If you can't cannot attack the truth of it, then you might as well not attack it at all.

You don't understand what I'm saying. My point was that even if moral nihilism is true, it is irrelevant to any discussion about morality.

Moral nihilism, if understand and integrated properly, shouldn't influence anyone's actions whatsoever.

I don't mean 'shouldn't influence...,' I mean if it does influence someone's actions, it would be completely up to that person and moral nihilism would be neutral. Because all actions are neutral under moral nihilism, moral nihilism has nothing to say about morality. Therefor, it is fallacious to bring up moral nihilism in any discussion pertaining to morality (except discussion pertaining to moral nihilism itself, of course).
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 2:38:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 2:34:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:29:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:25:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:19:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:50:43 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Personally, I find the whole notion of moral nihilism to be extraordinarily irrelevant and useless.

That's a stupid perception you have there. Moral nihilism doesn't have to demonstrate relevance or use...it has to demonstrate truth. If you can't cannot attack the truth of it, then you might as well not attack it at all.

You don't understand what I'm saying. My point was that even if moral nihilism is true, it is irrelevant to any discussion about morality.

Moral nihilism, if understand and integrated properly, shouldn't influence anyone's actions whatsoever.

I don't mean 'shouldn't influence...,' I mean if it does influence someone's actions, it would be completely up to that person and moral nihilism would be neutral. Because all actions are neutral under moral nihilism, moral nihilism has nothing to say about morality. Therefor, it is fallacious to bring up moral nihilism in any discussion pertaining to morality (except discussion pertaining to moral nihilism itself, of course).

Moral nihilism says that normative ethics is a fictitious construction. It's not fallacious to invoke it in an ethical discussion--it just shows that ethics is bullsh*t, and that we get nowhere by talking about it. If nihilism is true, you don't get to just dismiss it and pretend that you can still have meaningful conversations about right and wrong.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 2:42:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 2:38:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:34:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:29:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:25:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:19:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:50:43 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Personally, I find the whole notion of moral nihilism to be extraordinarily irrelevant and useless.

That's a stupid perception you have there. Moral nihilism doesn't have to demonstrate relevance or use...it has to demonstrate truth. If you can't cannot attack the truth of it, then you might as well not attack it at all.

You don't understand what I'm saying. My point was that even if moral nihilism is true, it is irrelevant to any discussion about morality.

Moral nihilism, if understand and integrated properly, shouldn't influence anyone's actions whatsoever.

I don't mean 'shouldn't influence...,' I mean if it does influence someone's actions, it would be completely up to that person and moral nihilism would be neutral. Because all actions are neutral under moral nihilism, moral nihilism has nothing to say about morality. Therefor, it is fallacious to bring up moral nihilism in any discussion pertaining to morality (except discussion pertaining to moral nihilism itself, of course).

Moral nihilism says that normative ethics is a fictitious construction. It's not fallacious to invoke it in an ethical discussion--it just shows that ethics is bullsh*t, and that we get nowhere by talking about it. If nihilism is true, you don't get to just dismiss it and pretend that you can still have meaningful conversations about right and wrong.

I disagree. Moral nihilism is neutral on any action, so to bring it up to argue one way or the other on any action would be fallacious. Even a response such as "I am neutral on the subject" because of moral nihilism would be taking an action, and be just as fallacious.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 3:29:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 2:25:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:19:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:50:43 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Personally, I find the whole notion of moral nihilism to be extraordinarily irrelevant and useless.

That's a stupid perception you have there. Moral nihilism doesn't have to demonstrate relevance or use...it has to demonstrate truth. If you can't cannot attack the truth of it, then you might as well not attack it at all.

You don't understand what I'm saying. My point was that even if moral nihilism is true, it is irrelevant to any discussion about morality.

I don't think you understand the meaning of understand, by your use of it. Maybe I can help elucidate what seems to be a disconnect in communication.

You: Nihilism is irrelevant and useless.

Me: Relevance and usefulness are not objects in argument. Truth is all that matters.

You: Yoo dont undurstand my complecated argyument! I'm saying that truth does not matter, nihilism is irrelevant and useless.

Me: Yes, I heard you the first time. But if you concede that nihilism is true, what exactly are you opposing? The mere mention of truth? Argument is not an engagement pursuant of utility. Argument is designed to reveal that which is true or most rational. Therefore to claim that nihilism is irrelevant is not to attack it in any meaningful way. Your sentiments here are quite stupid, unless of course the discussion has the explicit purpose of finding ways to usefully govern human society, THEN you could bring up the whole "relevance" complaint...but such was never established, therefore your complaint is moot.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 4:43:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 3:29:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:25:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:19:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:50:43 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Personally, I find the whole notion of moral nihilism to be extraordinarily irrelevant and useless.

That's a stupid perception you have there. Moral nihilism doesn't have to demonstrate relevance or use...it has to demonstrate truth. If you can't cannot attack the truth of it, then you might as well not attack it at all.

You don't understand what I'm saying. My point was that even if moral nihilism is true, it is irrelevant to any discussion about morality.

I don't think you understand the meaning of understand, by your use of it. Maybe I can help elucidate what seems to be a disconnect in communication.

You: Nihilism is irrelevant and useless.

Me: Relevance and usefulness are not objects in argument. Truth is all that matters.

You: Yoo dont undurstand my complecated argyument! I'm saying that truth does not matter, nihilism is irrelevant and useless.

Me: Yes, I heard you the first time. But if you concede that nihilism is true, what exactly are you opposing? The mere mention of truth? Argument is not an engagement pursuant of utility. Argument is designed to reveal that which is true or most rational. Therefore to claim that nihilism is irrelevant is not to attack it in any meaningful way. Your sentiments here are quite stupid, unless of course the discussion has the explicit purpose of finding ways to usefully govern human society, THEN you could bring up the whole "relevance" complaint...but such was never established, therefore your complaint is moot.

"Relevance and usefulness are not objects in argument. Truth is all that matters."

...while simultaneously saying (paraphrasing here) "There is no objective morality. Any philosophy that uses axioms of morality cannot be justified." So I don't know how you justify 'truth' being a moral virtue.

And there's no need for mockery, by the way :P

You seem to be stuck on my statement that moral nihilism is irrelevant, so I'll try to explain it more thoroughly. My thesis is that moral nihilism is irrelevant because it has no objections to any action taken, so it is contradictory to use moral nihilism as an argument against any action taken (such as action using what you see as invalid objective morality). Essentially, moral nihilism has nothing to say about anything. And in its eyes, using false objective morality to justify action is no less justified than the path you are on.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 4:45:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 4:43:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 3:29:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:25:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:19:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:50:43 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Personally, I find the whole notion of moral nihilism to be extraordinarily irrelevant and useless.

That's a stupid perception you have there. Moral nihilism doesn't have to demonstrate relevance or use...it has to demonstrate truth. If you can't cannot attack the truth of it, then you might as well not attack it at all.

You don't understand what I'm saying. My point was that even if moral nihilism is true, it is irrelevant to any discussion about morality.

I don't think you understand the meaning of understand, by your use of it. Maybe I can help elucidate what seems to be a disconnect in communication.

You: Nihilism is irrelevant and useless.

Me: Relevance and usefulness are not objects in argument. Truth is all that matters.

You: Yoo dont undurstand my complecated argyument! I'm saying that truth does not matter, nihilism is irrelevant and useless.

Me: Yes, I heard you the first time. But if you concede that nihilism is true, what exactly are you opposing? The mere mention of truth? Argument is not an engagement pursuant of utility. Argument is designed to reveal that which is true or most rational. Therefore to claim that nihilism is irrelevant is not to attack it in any meaningful way. Your sentiments here are quite stupid, unless of course the discussion has the explicit purpose of finding ways to usefully govern human society, THEN you could bring up the whole "relevance" complaint...but such was never established, therefore your complaint is moot.

"Relevance and usefulness are not objects in argument. Truth is all that matters."

...while simultaneously saying (paraphrasing here) "There is no objective morality. Any philosophy that uses axioms of morality cannot be justified." So I don't know how you justify 'truth' being a moral virtue.

And there's no need for mockery, by the way :P

You seem to be stuck on my statement that moral nihilism is irrelevant, so I'll try to explain it more thoroughly. My thesis is that moral nihilism is irrelevant because it has no objections to any action taken, so it is contradictory to use moral nihilism as an argument against any action taken (such as action using what you see as invalid objective morality). Essentially, moral nihilism has nothing to say about anything. And in its eyes, using false objective morality to justify action is no less justified than the path you are on.

For all intensive purposes of this dialogue, I will concede that objective morality doesn't exist. My point still stands.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 4:55:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 4:43:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 3:29:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:25:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:19:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:50:43 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Personally, I find the whole notion of moral nihilism to be extraordinarily irrelevant and useless.

That's a stupid perception you have there. Moral nihilism doesn't have to demonstrate relevance or use...it has to demonstrate truth. If you can't cannot attack the truth of it, then you might as well not attack it at all.

You don't understand what I'm saying. My point was that even if moral nihilism is true, it is irrelevant to any discussion about morality.

I don't think you understand the meaning of understand, by your use of it. Maybe I can help elucidate what seems to be a disconnect in communication.

You: Nihilism is irrelevant and useless.

Me: Relevance and usefulness are not objects in argument. Truth is all that matters.

You: Yoo dont undurstand my complecated argyument! I'm saying that truth does not matter, nihilism is irrelevant and useless.

Me: Yes, I heard you the first time. But if you concede that nihilism is true, what exactly are you opposing? The mere mention of truth? Argument is not an engagement pursuant of utility. Argument is designed to reveal that which is true or most rational. Therefore to claim that nihilism is irrelevant is not to attack it in any meaningful way. Your sentiments here are quite stupid, unless of course the discussion has the explicit purpose of finding ways to usefully govern human society, THEN you could bring up the whole "relevance" complaint...but such was never established, therefore your complaint is moot.

"Relevance and usefulness are not objects in argument. Truth is all that matters."

...while simultaneously saying (paraphrasing here) "There is no objective morality. Any philosophy that uses axioms of morality cannot be justified." So I don't know how you justify 'truth' being a moral virtue.

You twit, I never said that truth was a moral virtue. Your myopic reading skills are making it very difficult to sustain a conversation. What I said is that truth is the object of argument. We are just interested in finding and knowing what is true. No morality there!

Is that clear enough?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 5:07:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 4:55:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 4:43:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 3:29:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:25:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:19:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:50:43 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Personally, I find the whole notion of moral nihilism to be extraordinarily irrelevant and useless.

That's a stupid perception you have there. Moral nihilism doesn't have to demonstrate relevance or use...it has to demonstrate truth. If you can't cannot attack the truth of it, then you might as well not attack it at all.

You don't understand what I'm saying. My point was that even if moral nihilism is true, it is irrelevant to any discussion about morality.

I don't think you understand the meaning of understand, by your use of it. Maybe I can help elucidate what seems to be a disconnect in communication.

You: Nihilism is irrelevant and useless.

Me: Relevance and usefulness are not objects in argument. Truth is all that matters.

You: Yoo dont undurstand my complecated argyument! I'm saying that truth does not matter, nihilism is irrelevant and useless.

Me: Yes, I heard you the first time. But if you concede that nihilism is true, what exactly are you opposing? The mere mention of truth? Argument is not an engagement pursuant of utility. Argument is designed to reveal that which is true or most rational. Therefore to claim that nihilism is irrelevant is not to attack it in any meaningful way. Your sentiments here are quite stupid, unless of course the discussion has the explicit purpose of finding ways to usefully govern human society, THEN you could bring up the whole "relevance" complaint...but such was never established, therefore your complaint is moot.

"Relevance and usefulness are not objects in argument. Truth is all that matters."

...while simultaneously saying (paraphrasing here) "There is no objective morality. Any philosophy that uses axioms of morality cannot be justified." So I don't know how you justify 'truth' being a moral virtue.

You twit, I never said that truth was a moral virtue. Your myopic reading skills are making it very difficult to sustain a conversation. What I said is that truth is the object of argument. We are just interested in finding and knowing what is true. No morality there!

Is that clear enough?

Your belligerent replies are unwarranted and unnecessary, and I don't wish to partake in a hostile dialogue.
Please understand that I am just as interested in pursuing the truth as you are. I was merely pointing out that you axiomatically presume that discovering the truth is something that we "ought" to do while at the same time claiming that unjustified moral axioms are mere whims, and pursuing them is somehow 'immoral' (a contradiction if I ever saw one).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 5:09:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 4:55:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 4:43:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 3:29:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:25:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:19:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:50:43 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Personally, I find the whole notion of moral nihilism to be extraordinarily irrelevant and useless.

That's a stupid perception you have there. Moral nihilism doesn't have to demonstrate relevance or use...it has to demonstrate truth. If you can't cannot attack the truth of it, then you might as well not attack it at all.

You don't understand what I'm saying. My point was that even if moral nihilism is true, it is irrelevant to any discussion about morality.

I don't think you understand the meaning of understand, by your use of it. Maybe I can help elucidate what seems to be a disconnect in communication.

You: Nihilism is irrelevant and useless.

Me: Relevance and usefulness are not objects in argument. Truth is all that matters.

You: Yoo dont undurstand my complecated argyument! I'm saying that truth does not matter, nihilism is irrelevant and useless.

Me: Yes, I heard you the first time. But if you concede that nihilism is true, what exactly are you opposing? The mere mention of truth? Argument is not an engagement pursuant of utility. Argument is designed to reveal that which is true or most rational. Therefore to claim that nihilism is irrelevant is not to attack it in any meaningful way. Your sentiments here are quite stupid, unless of course the discussion has the explicit purpose of finding ways to usefully govern human society, THEN you could bring up the whole "relevance" complaint...but such was never established, therefore your complaint is moot.

"Relevance and usefulness are not objects in argument. Truth is all that matters."

...while simultaneously saying (paraphrasing here) "There is no objective morality. Any philosophy that uses axioms of morality cannot be justified." So I don't know how you justify 'truth' being a moral virtue.

You twit, I never said that truth was a moral virtue. Your myopic reading skills are making it very difficult to sustain a conversation. What I said is that truth is the object of argument. We are just interested in finding and knowing what is true. No morality there!

Is that clear enough?

Please be cognizant of the fact that the 'irrelevance' you keep bring up has nothing to do with the truth being irrelevant. I am not advocating that we ignore the truth, or ignore x=x. I am saying that it is impossible that the lack of objective morality has anything to say about morality.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 5:13:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 5:07:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 4:55:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 4:43:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 3:29:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:25:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:19:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:50:43 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Personally, I find the whole notion of moral nihilism to be extraordinarily irrelevant and useless.

That's a stupid perception you have there. Moral nihilism doesn't have to demonstrate relevance or use...it has to demonstrate truth. If you can't cannot attack the truth of it, then you might as well not attack it at all.

You don't understand what I'm saying. My point was that even if moral nihilism is true, it is irrelevant to any discussion about morality.

I don't think you understand the meaning of understand, by your use of it. Maybe I can help elucidate what seems to be a disconnect in communication.

You: Nihilism is irrelevant and useless.

Me: Relevance and usefulness are not objects in argument. Truth is all that matters.

You: Yoo dont undurstand my complecated argyument! I'm saying that truth does not matter, nihilism is irrelevant and useless.

Me: Yes, I heard you the first time. But if you concede that nihilism is true, what exactly are you opposing? The mere mention of truth? Argument is not an engagement pursuant of utility. Argument is designed to reveal that which is true or most rational. Therefore to claim that nihilism is irrelevant is not to attack it in any meaningful way. Your sentiments here are quite stupid, unless of course the discussion has the explicit purpose of finding ways to usefully govern human society, THEN you could bring up the whole "relevance" complaint...but such was never established, therefore your complaint is moot.

"Relevance and usefulness are not objects in argument. Truth is all that matters."

...while simultaneously saying (paraphrasing here) "There is no objective morality. Any philosophy that uses axioms of morality cannot be justified." So I don't know how you justify 'truth' being a moral virtue.

You twit, I never said that truth was a moral virtue. Your myopic reading skills are making it very difficult to sustain a conversation. What I said is that truth is the object of argument. We are just interested in finding and knowing what is true. No morality there!

Is that clear enough?

Your belligerent replies are unwarranted and unnecessary, and I don't wish to partake in a hostile dialogue.
Please understand that I am just as interested in pursuing the truth as you are. I was merely pointing out that you axiomatically presume that discovering the truth is something that we "ought" to do while at the same time claiming that unjustified moral axioms are mere whims, and pursuing them is somehow 'immoral' (a contradiction if I ever saw one).

Well when you manufacture contradictions by citing things that I never said, with wording & implications that I never used, I can't help but get irritated. Not once was morality included in any of my responses here, and I invite you to re-read them again, and again, and again, and AGAIN until that finally sinks in.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 5:19:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 5:13:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 5:07:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 4:55:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 4:43:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 3:29:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:25:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:19:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:50:43 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Personally, I find the whole notion of moral nihilism to be extraordinarily irrelevant and useless.

That's a stupid perception you have there. Moral nihilism doesn't have to demonstrate relevance or use...it has to demonstrate truth. If you can't cannot attack the truth of it, then you might as well not attack it at all.

You don't understand what I'm saying. My point was that even if moral nihilism is true, it is irrelevant to any discussion about morality.

I don't think you understand the meaning of understand, by your use of it. Maybe I can help elucidate what seems to be a disconnect in communication.

You: Nihilism is irrelevant and useless.

Me: Relevance and usefulness are not objects in argument. Truth is all that matters.

You: Yoo dont undurstand my complecated argyument! I'm saying that truth does not matter, nihilism is irrelevant and useless.

Me: Yes, I heard you the first time. But if you concede that nihilism is true, what exactly are you opposing? The mere mention of truth? Argument is not an engagement pursuant of utility. Argument is designed to reveal that which is true or most rational. Therefore to claim that nihilism is irrelevant is not to attack it in any meaningful way. Your sentiments here are quite stupid, unless of course the discussion has the explicit purpose of finding ways to usefully govern human society, THEN you could bring up the whole "relevance" complaint...but such was never established, therefore your complaint is moot.

"Relevance and usefulness are not objects in argument. Truth is all that matters."

...while simultaneously saying (paraphrasing here) "There is no objective morality. Any philosophy that uses axioms of morality cannot be justified." So I don't know how you justify 'truth' being a moral virtue.

You twit, I never said that truth was a moral virtue. Your myopic reading skills are making it very difficult to sustain a conversation. What I said is that truth is the object of argument. We are just interested in finding and knowing what is true. No morality there!

Is that clear enough?

Your belligerent replies are unwarranted and unnecessary, and I don't wish to partake in a hostile dialogue.
Please understand that I am just as interested in pursuing the truth as you are. I was merely pointing out that you axiomatically presume that discovering the truth is something that we "ought" to do while at the same time claiming that unjustified moral axioms are mere whims, and pursuing them is somehow 'immoral' (a contradiction if I ever saw one).

Well when you manufacture contradictions by citing things that I never said, with wording & implications that I never used, I can't help but get irritated. Not once was morality included in any of my responses here, and I invite you to re-read them again, and again, and again, and AGAIN until that finally sinks in.

All arguments pertaining to what we ought to do (such as your statement that truth trumps convenience), invoke moral axioms whether you spell it out or not.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 5:21:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 5:07:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 4:55:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 4:43:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 3:29:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:25:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:19:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:50:43 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Personally, I find the whole notion of moral nihilism to be extraordinarily irrelevant and useless.

That's a stupid perception you have there. Moral nihilism doesn't have to demonstrate relevance or use...it has to demonstrate truth. If you can't cannot attack the truth of it, then you might as well not attack it at all.

You don't understand what I'm saying. My point was that even if moral nihilism is true, it is irrelevant to any discussion about morality.

I don't think you understand the meaning of understand, by your use of it. Maybe I can help elucidate what seems to be a disconnect in communication.

You: Nihilism is irrelevant and useless.

Me: Relevance and usefulness are not objects in argument. Truth is all that matters.

You: Yoo dont undurstand my complecated argyument! I'm saying that truth does not matter, nihilism is irrelevant and useless.

Me: Yes, I heard you the first time. But if you concede that nihilism is true, what exactly are you opposing? The mere mention of truth? Argument is not an engagement pursuant of utility. Argument is designed to reveal that which is true or most rational. Therefore to claim that nihilism is irrelevant is not to attack it in any meaningful way. Your sentiments here are quite stupid, unless of course the discussion has the explicit purpose of finding ways to usefully govern human society, THEN you could bring up the whole "relevance" complaint...but such was never established, therefore your complaint is moot.

"Relevance and usefulness are not objects in argument. Truth is all that matters."

...while simultaneously saying (paraphrasing here) "There is no objective morality. Any philosophy that uses axioms of morality cannot be justified." So I don't know how you justify 'truth' being a moral virtue.

You twit, I never said that truth was a moral virtue. Your myopic reading skills are making it very difficult to sustain a conversation. What I said is that truth is the object of argument. We are just interested in finding and knowing what is true. No morality there!

Is that clear enough?

Your belligerent replies are unwarranted and unnecessary, and I don't wish to partake in a hostile dialogue.
Please understand that I am just as interested in pursuing the truth as you are. I was merely pointing out that you axiomatically presume that discovering the truth is something that we "ought" to do while at the same time claiming that unjustified moral axioms are mere whims, and pursuing them is somehow 'immoral' (a contradiction if I ever saw one).

I suppose truth is a moral axiom then?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 5:22:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you are so confident in the relevance of moral nihilism, please provide an example of moral nihilism providing any valid guidance for any action, choice, policy or decision made by anyone at anytime.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 5:22:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 5:21:53 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 4/1/2013 5:07:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 4:55:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 4:43:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 3:29:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:25:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2013 2:19:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/1/2013 11:50:43 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Personally, I find the whole notion of moral nihilism to be extraordinarily irrelevant and useless.

That's a stupid perception you have there. Moral nihilism doesn't have to demonstrate relevance or use...it has to demonstrate truth. If you can't cannot attack the truth of it, then you might as well not attack it at all.

You don't understand what I'm saying. My point was that even if moral nihilism is true, it is irrelevant to any discussion about morality.

I don't think you understand the meaning of understand, by your use of it. Maybe I can help elucidate what seems to be a disconnect in communication.

You: Nihilism is irrelevant and useless.

Me: Relevance and usefulness are not objects in argument. Truth is all that matters.

You: Yoo dont undurstand my complecated argyument! I'm saying that truth does not matter, nihilism is irrelevant and useless.

Me: Yes, I heard you the first time. But if you concede that nihilism is true, what exactly are you opposing? The mere mention of truth? Argument is not an engagement pursuant of utility. Argument is designed to reveal that which is true or most rational. Therefore to claim that nihilism is irrelevant is not to attack it in any meaningful way. Your sentiments here are quite stupid, unless of course the discussion has the explicit purpose of finding ways to usefully govern human society, THEN you could bring up the whole "relevance" complaint...but such was never established, therefore your complaint is moot.

"Relevance and usefulness are not objects in argument. Truth is all that matters."

...while simultaneously saying (paraphrasing here) "There is no objective morality. Any philosophy that uses axioms of morality cannot be justified." So I don't know how you justify 'truth' being a moral virtue.

You twit, I never said that truth was a moral virtue. Your myopic reading skills are making it very difficult to sustain a conversation. What I said is that truth is the object of argument. We are just interested in finding and knowing what is true. No morality there!

Is that clear enough?

Your belligerent replies are unwarranted and unnecessary, and I don't wish to partake in a hostile dialogue.
Please understand that I am just as interested in pursuing the truth as you are. I was merely pointing out that you axiomatically presume that discovering the truth is something that we "ought" to do while at the same time claiming that unjustified moral axioms are mere whims, and pursuing them is somehow 'immoral' (a contradiction if I ever saw one).

I suppose truth is a moral axiom then?

One of many.