Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Criticism of Nihilism & Moral Relativism

llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 1:35:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is a philosophy of no morals the same as being immoral? I thought the point of moral philosophy was to make society better. How does a philosophy of immorality make society better? If it doesn't then why is it a moral philosophy? More importantly, is it a philosophy that is evil?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 1:46:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
On the bold, yes. The philosophy of no morality do not recognize the moral distinction of the two moral opposite, thus they moral is the same as immoral. So it is possible to call them immoral or moral depend purely on your own judgement because to them it is pointless anyway.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 1:52:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If I am to argue from the nihilist point of view, I would rather say that "making society better" is too generalized concept as do the concept of morality, if you want to protect people from harm that's will be "better security", if it is to make a better living as in more food and less stressing effort that would be economy, if it is to simply increase happiness that would be be entertainment.

All of this have nothing do with the concept of right and wrong at all, so in a sense it can be meaningless, and probably just some one point of view on how the world should be.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 1:53:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Moral relativism and Nihilism are two different things.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 2:07:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Moral nihilism is the recognition that no meta-ethical means exists to assert that one ethical system is superior to another with designating an arbitrary criterion.

It is a philosophical statement of fact.

The next question is: Unless you plan to live in your bed, you're going to be making moral decisions today. So, what'll it be?

A vast majority of individuals get along just fine in society without actively resorting to utilitarian calculations or categorical imperatives. They use the social moral mechanisms built into our biology which trains us from birth (barring mutations/birth defects) to internalize what is right versus wrong. Unless he underwent certain traumas as a child, a moral nihilist who sees someone being raped will have a "gut feeling" that something wrong is happening. The same kind of gut feeling that leads to soldiers diving on bombs to save their companions.

Trying to assert your morality philosophically is an useless task which serves little other than to justify your own self-worth and righteousness when imposing your morality on others.

The sooner you recognize that the way you live your life can only be justified to YOU by YOURSELF, the sooner you stop trying to impose morality that goes beyond core biological principles like infliction of pain, death, hunger, and other feeling subject to mirror neuron reaction.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 3:44:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is a philosophy of no morals the same as being immoral?

I"d say any "philosophy of no morals" is amoral, not immoral. I'd also say it would be impossible to ever live by such a theoretical perspective.

I thought the point of moral philosophy was to make society better.

That can be a point to it. I'm not sure that talking about a given philosophy having a single definite point makes sense, though.

How does a philosophy of immorality make society better?

Impossible to answer without knowing what a "philosophy of immorality" looks like. But if you mean an amoral social system, I don't think one would look like anything because it would be impossible to implement. An amoral society wouldn't be interested in questions of "better" though, so the question as phrased doesn't necessarily translate into a meaningful one in prerequisite world.

If it doesn't then why is it a moral philosophy?

It wouldn't be. It would be amoral and, arguably, aphilosophical.

More importantly, is it a philosophy that is evil?

No, because it would be one in which questions of good and evil made no sense. Also, most - if not all - moral theories can be put to evil ends. But no philosophy has "no morals" and even if one did, we could not live by it.
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 1:09:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I appreciate the criticism Gaincruncher but an amoral/immoral contrast is splitting hairs. I think it applies to either and a preference for one or the other is simply a preference. The meaning of the line doesn't change with the preference for one word over the other but the one I used has familiarity and associations.

I don't mean it to cover all bases because I wanted it to be natural. I shouldn't have to say that a philosophy of morals is a moral philosophy, Nihilism is a philosophy that addresses morals and it is therefore a moral philosophy.I expect that the reader can reason that much.

if it is evil isn't a conclusion, it's asking for your opinion and therefore leading you to reflect on the reasoning.

Anything could be debated from the meaning of society to the meaning of is, but there comes a point in which you have to give people the right to believe whatever they want. If they don't want to believe that it is reasonable then they don't have to.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 5:20:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I appreciate the criticism Gaincruncher but an amoral/immoral contrast is splitting hairs. I think it applies to either and a preference for one or the other is simply a preference. The meaning of the line doesn't change with the preference for one word over the other but the one I used has familiarity and associations.

Your opening question was whether a philosophy of no morals was the same as being immoral. The answer to this is no, it would be amoral as it means operating outside of a moral framework.

I don't mean it to cover all bases because I wanted it to be natural. I shouldn't have to say that a philosophy of morals is a moral philosophy, Nihilism is a philosophy that addresses morals and it is therefore a moral philosophy. I expect that the reader can reason that much.

But you are talking about a "philosophy of immorality", which isn't a useful or sensible term. Immoral behaviour is that which a given philosophy argues makes the world worse, by definition. No philosophy - at least none that I"ve ever heard of - sets out to make the world a worse place, so you need to frame why you consider something to be a "philosophy of immorality" because those who follow it believe it to be a way of living that makes the world better. This requires outside context, beyond which the philosophical position itself outlines.

That's not even getting to moral nihilism, which is an especially difficult one to ask the question of because it claims there is no such thing as moral and immoral in the sense the question requires there to be. It is an amoral philosophy and doesn"t claim to be otherwise. This is not the same as being immoral. The fact it says nothing about morality because it doesn"t consider it to exist means, in all meaningful terms, it is both amoral and aphilosophical on the subject of morality, merely becoming a position reached via other philosophical arguments.

if it is evil isn't a conclusion, it's asking for your opinion and therefore leading you to reflect on the reasoning.

Anything could be debated from the meaning of society to the meaning of is, but there comes a point in which you have to give people the right to believe whatever they want. If they don't want to believe that it is reasonable then they don't have to.

I'm not sure what the above means or how it relates to my points. Could you clarify, please?
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 12:01:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 5:20:51 AM, Graincruncher wrote:

Your opening question was whether a philosophy of no morals was the same as being immoral. The answer to this is no, it would be amoral as it means operating outside of a moral framework.



They are philosophies which address morals and advocate that you have none and are therefore moral philosophies that are immoral.

We aren't talking about something like chemistry which doesn't advocate any morals and therefore advocates none. We are talking about philosophies which advocate that you have no morals and therefore advocates none. One of those is immoral. This is not an opinion.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 5:29:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 12:01:20 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
We aren't talking about something like chemistry which doesn't advocate any morals and therefore advocates none. We are talking about philosophies which advocate that you have no morals and therefore advocates none. One of those is immoral. This is not an opinion.

No, if they advocate that there are no morals then they are an amoral system. You are arguing with a definition, as lack of morality is a-morality. Immorality is doing something a given moral system considers to be in conflict with the moral norms posed by its own framework.

So, if immorality is a state of conflict with moral norms then we can discuss it whichever particular norms we pick. However, if we pick a system that has no moral norms with which behavior can come into conflict, we have an amoral one. Your example even agrees with this, since both rely on the clause "therefore advocates none". Any system that advocates no morals is an amoral one.

The point is, you cannot meaningfully discuss "immoral" without the contrasting measure of "moral" to judge it against. If a system does away with " or lacks " one then it automatically lacks the other as well. A philosophy that advocates no morals - i.e. makes the claim that moral propositions are meaningless for whatever reason - is by definition an amoral one, as there is no internally coherent means for discussing moral value-judgements and norms.

Equally, since no moral system (at least that I'm aware of) lays out rules for what constitutes moral behavior and then advocates doing immoral things, there is no such thing as a philosophy that promotes doing immoral things by its own terms. The things it advocates, using the internal normative framework, are moral by the terms of that philosophy. That is how "moral" functions; those things within a system that are promoted as desirable behavior. It is only by reference to something external - another philosophical position - that we can say that the advocated morals of the first system are "immoral". Internal to the relevant system, those things that it advocates are moral. Or it advocates none and is an amoral system.

So yes, what you've stated is an opinion. An incorrect one. Either what you really mean is "are immorality and amorality the same thing?" (answer: no, with a but) or you need to state which position/grounds you are using to say that these systems promote immoral behaviour, because it can't be any that is internal to them. By what standard are you saying the moral claims of a given philosophy are immoral? What makes the proposed standard preferable to the one you're critiquing?

The problem is that you've either gone too specific (in which case the answer is 'no') or too broad (in which case you need to provide more information before your question is answerable). But a system denies the validity of all moral propositions is, internally, an amoral one. If you want to call it immoral, you have to explain why.
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2013 2:52:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Your argument is that it's not immoral because it advocates that morals don't exist yet that qualifies it as immoral. Your argument defeats itself. Before you say that's not what immoral means, yes it does. It really does. Actually it really does. You should probably learn that word over again because that's what that word means.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2013 6:30:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/14/2013 2:52:11 AM, llamainmypocket wrote:
Your argument is that it's not immoral because it advocates that morals don't exist yet that qualifies it as immoral. Your argument defeats itself. Before you say that's not what immoral means, yes it does. It really does. Actually it really does. You should probably learn that word over again because that's what that word means.

"Amoral should not be confused with immoral, which refers to an agent doing or thinking something he or she knows or believes to be wrong."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"" adj
1.having no moral quality; nonmoral
2.without moral standards or principles

usage Amoral is often wrongly used where immoral is meant. Immoral is properly used to talk about the breaking of moral rules, amoral about people who have no moral code or about places or situations where moral considerations do not apply"

http://dictionary.reference.com...

"Amoral is distinct in meaning from immoral: while immoral means "not conforming to accepted standards of morality", amoral implies "not concerned with morality". The difference is illustrated in the following two examples: the client pays for the amoral expertise of the lawyer; the council judged the film to be immoral and obscene."

http://oxforddictionaries.com...

"Usage: Amoral is sometimes confused with immoral. The a- at the beginning of the word means `without' or `lacking', so the word is properly used of people who have no moral code, or about places or situations where moral considerations do not apply: the film was violent and amoral. In contrast immoral should be used to talk about the breaking of moral rules, as in: drug dealing is the most immoral and evil of all human activities."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

You really are an ignorant imbecile.
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2013 1:34:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Should not" isn't an argument. It is your personal opinion.

It is immoral to be indifferent to rape and that is by definition immoral. You're trying to message meaning out of the word to imply that you actually have to rape to be immoral and that's not true because being indifferent to it is immoral. That is consistent with the words meaning.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2013 6:36:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/14/2013 1:34:57 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
"Should not" isn't an argument. It is your personal opinion.

It is immoral to be indifferent to rape and that is by definition immoral. You're trying to message meaning out of the word to imply that you actually have to rape to be immoral and that's not true because being indifferent to it is immoral. That is consistent with the words meaning.

It was not an opinion, it was a quote from one of the several links I provided to show you that you are wrong. I'm not saying anything of the sort and you should either read my posts and have a bit of a think before replying, or not reply at all. I am working with the definitions of the words. The definitions that are used every day in every philosophy department of every university in the world. You could continue to argue a point that you have never had any hope of winning or you could move on and try and address some of the points you've been diligently ignoring.
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2013 1:16:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/14/2013 6:36:05 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/14/2013 1:34:57 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
"Should not" isn't an argument. It is your personal opinion.

It is immoral to be indifferent to rape and that is by definition immoral. You're trying to message meaning out of the word to imply that you actually have to rape to be immoral and that's not true because being indifferent to it is immoral. That is consistent with the words meaning.

It was not an opinion, it was a quote from one of the several links I provided to show you that you are wrong. I'm not saying anything of the sort and you should either read my posts and have a bit of a think before replying, or not reply at all. I am working with the definitions of the words. The definitions that are used every day in every philosophy department of every university in the world. You could continue to argue a point that you have never had any hope of winning or you could move on and try and address some of the points you've been diligently ignoring.

That's actually just another opinion. An opinion isn't an argument. It is a request for faith. You do that because you don't actually have an argument. It seems rationale because you want it to be.

I used the word in a manner that is consistent with its use and it is therefore it's meaning. You will find that this a factual statement.

My opinion,
I really wish that you didn't seem so distressed on this issue. I think you are taking the argument way too seriously. You're supposed to look at it and say, I see what he means and it makes sense.

You don't have to embrace it. You can actually add to the argument or take away from it and that will change the argument. That's what you've been doing. You are free to do that. What I have a problem with is that is seems as though you need me to conform to your beliefs to give validity to your opinion. That's a personally issue that you have. It has nothing to do with me.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2013 5:26:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/15/2013 1:16:29 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
That's actually just another opinion. An opinion isn't an argument. It is a request for faith. You do that because you don't actually have an argument. It seems rationale because you want it to be.

No, it's a matter of fact. One backed up with multiple sources. Oh, and years of academic experience. That is what those words mean. You cannot try and start any sort of intelligible discussion by defining one as the other - against all common convention and use - and claim you have made a point. The two concepts - of knowingly acting against moral convention and having no moral convention to act against - are still very much what they are. You seem to be trying to argue that amorality is, by definition, immorality through some failure to act clause. If this is your argument, articulate it properly.

I used the word in a manner that is consistent with its use and it is therefore it's meaning. You will find that this a factual statement.

No, you did not. You may have used it in the same way as you have heard some others use it, but that is not the majority or 'official' definition. The two words represent two distinct concepts. Either you are not using them in that way - in which case say, and explain why - or your argument is inherently flawed. I do not need to check as to the veracity of your statement, since I'm more than familiar enough with ethics as a field of study to know you're speaking from the wrong hole.

My opinion,
I really wish that you didn't seem so distressed on this issue. I think you are taking the argument way too seriously. You're supposed to look at it and say, I see what he means and it makes sense.

I'm not distressed by the issue, I just pointed out (politely) that your argument was mistaken because you were trying to conflate two distinct terms to make a point. If your point was to argue that amorality is immoral in some way, you should say so. You should also include what moral position you are taking to show why you think this. You've done none of this, instead choosing to rail against me, dictionaries and anything else that conflicts with whatever point it is you think you're making.

You don't have to embrace it. You can actually add to the argument or take away from it and that will change the argument. That's what you've been doing. You are free to do that. What I have a problem with is that is seems as though you need me to conform to your beliefs to give validity to your opinion. That's a personally issue that you have. It has nothing to do with me.

I do not have to embrace it, no. Because it is incorrect. I showed why, you got your panties in a twist and now here we are. I do not need you to conform to my beliefs, but if you want to debate anyone then you are going to have to be clear in what you are saying and make sure you're not using terms in ways other than the most commonly accepted way. In the area of ethics, that means 'amoral' means 'without any morals framework' and 'immoral' means 'acting against the norms of a given moral framework'. This is nothing to do with any personality issues I may or may not have, nor your reliance on ad hominems when your argument turns out to be gibberish. This is everything to do with your reality problem though, since you seem to think you're the sole arbiter of definition and everyone should somehow know what you mean, even when the dictionary definitions and 'professional' users say otherwise.

Either you don't want to engage or you do. If you do want to engage, you need to establish that you are using terminology in the same way as everyone else. You did not and are not. Why you're so upset with me for pointing this out in the hope of moving the discussion somewhere potentially interesting, I'm not entirely sure. A few suspicions, though.
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 12:10:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do I have to illustrate?

How do you feel about rape? Do you have no opinion? Are you indifferent? Is that immoral? Do you think that opinion is in accord with moral standards?

Would you like me to take this question to another forum for a poll? How do you think they would answer? Do you think they would answer differently in another country? Are all counties opposed to those not in accord with moral standards?

Do you see the flaw in thinking that amoral and immoral are truly distinct? That's actually why people use immoral as you say they can't. Because not being in accord with the moral standard is IMMORAL. ****ing DUH!
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 12:16:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Graincruncher, are you interested in debating me on this one? That definitions should be used in the fashion that the majority of individuals accept and use them?
I disagree, there is no particularly good reason to use accepted definitions if one party isn't aware of them.
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 12:19:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You are pissing me of with your nonsense. I'm sure you would love it if i exchanged immoral with fluffiness but it's not going to freaking happen. The reason is...

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THAT WORD MEANS.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 5:35:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 12:10:03 AM, llamainmypocket wrote:
Do I have to illustrate?

No, I'm well aware of why the words mean what they do.

How do you feel about rape? Do you have no opinion? Are you indifferent? Is that immoral? Do you think that opinion is in accord with moral standards?

I believe rape is wrong. It is therefore not in accord with my moral standards - it is immoral. From my moral position - one which makes normative claims - it is wrong.

Counter-example: Islam prohibits alcohol. I am not a follow of Islam and I believe that consuming alcohol is not itself subject to any moral rules (i.e. drinking alcohol doesn't itself have any moral value one way or the other). Is it immoral for me to drink alcohol?

Would you like me to take this question to another forum for a poll? How do you think they would answer? Do you think they would answer differently in another country? Are all counties opposed to those not in accord with moral standards?

You can openly admit to resorting to an argument ad populum if you like, but it isn't going to change the fact that the words represent distinct concepts. It also won't change the fact that you're profoundly misunderstanding what I'm saying. There are many different conflicting moral frameworks. An act may be moral in one, immoral in another and amoral in a third. So, as I've been saying all along, the answer to these questions would depend on which moral perspective I am being asked to consider them from.

Do you see the flaw in thinking that amoral and immoral are truly distinct? That's actually why people use immoral as you say they can't. Because not being in accord with the moral standard is IMMORAL. ****ing DUH!

No, because what you're failing to grasp is that you are trying to decide whether a chess move is good or even valid according to the rules of football. WHICH moral standards are they not in accord with? If there are NO moral standards, how can someone be in accordance or conflict with them?

Graincruncher, are you interested in debating me on this one? That definitions should be used in the fashion that the majority of individuals accept and use them?
I disagree, there is no particularly good reason to use accepted definitions if one party isn't aware of them.

Am I interested in debating with someone who doesn't bother to check their terminology, thinks discussion can take place without bothering to tell people when you're using your own, distinct definitions of pivotal terms and hasn't studied the subject in any depth? I'm afraid the answer to such a tempting offer must be a 'no'.

You are pissing me of with your nonsense. I'm sure you would love it if i exchanged immoral with fluffiness but it's not going to freaking happen. The reason is...

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THAT WORD MEANS.

Every single academic philosopher, dictionary and other authority on the topic agrees with me. However upset you're getting that reality doesn't bend to your will is very much your problem. Not mine.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 6:52:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Woah GrainCruncher, different guy here. I'm not taking Ilainmypocket's side. This just seemed to be an interesting topic in its own right. I'll butt out now...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 7:27:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 6:52:23 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
Woah GrainCruncher, different guy here. I'm not taking Ilainmypocket's side. This just seemed to be an interesting topic in its own right. I'll butt out now...

Haha, sorry! You got caught up in the frustration there. What was the debate you had in mind?
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 2:27:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Your argument is a request that I have faith in your interpretation of the rules which is supported by the perception of quality in that interpretation. The interpretation is subjective and therefore an opinion and therefore an argument based on opinion... An argument based on opinion is a request for faith in those opinions and therefore invalid as an argument.

It's amazing really... You try to make me look bad and make yourself look good and that is evidence of your attempt to support an opinion by faith on the contrast of quality between us... It doesn't matter if your Ghandi or Isaac Newton. Your argument is not connected through reason. It's connected through opinion.

Don't make assumptions about the state of my feelings. You don't effect me on that level.

I will actually continue to use the word in question as I have used it. I find that using a word in a manner that is consistent with how it is used then it is also consistent with its meaning. This is reasonable because its meaning is derived from its use. This is an argument because it is reasonable.

If at some point I decide to use the word "cool" to mean neat and the meaning of a word is derived from its use and it is used this way then it is reasonable to use cool to mean neat. An argument of opinion that neat would be better is totally subjective.

If there is any distinction between these two words then it is razor thin. I think you need to back away from this argument because two words which are this close can be used interchangeably.
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 2:37:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Look at what you did... You made me make an argument against you. /eye roll

All that I had to do was justify my use of the word in a reasonable way. I did that and it's reasonable... I knew I was right from the beginning.

Go ahead and say it. My use of the word is reasonable. that isn't an opinion. It's that there is a reason which supports it and therefore is reasonable. To deny this is unreasonable.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 5:32:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 7:27:09 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 6/17/2013 6:52:23 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
Woah GrainCruncher, different guy here. I'm not taking Ilainmypocket's side. This just seemed to be an interesting topic in its own right. I'll butt out now...

Haha, sorry! You got caught up in the frustration there. What was the debate you had in mind?

lol, no problem, figured as much.

Debate topic would be something similar to the following:
When attempting to engage rational discussion, we should insist that all parties use the conventional definitions of all words. I would be Con
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 10:18:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 1:35:51 AM, llamainmypocket wrote:
Is a philosophy of no morals the same as being immoral?

This question doesn't make sense. I am, for all intents and purposes, a moral nihilist; objective morals don't exist and subjective morals are useless. Does that mean I don't have a conscious? The problem I have with morality is the language associated. Right, wrong. Good, bad. The best way I can put it is that there are things I think are desirable and things I think are undesirable. I use these PARTICULAR words because my entire existence revolves around satiating my desires. But here is the kicker. Hedonism is not mutually exclusive from altruism. One can be selfless for completely selfish reasons. The warm fuzzy feeling you get when you make someone else happy. This is a very human trait. I don't need morals to get that feeling. It's beyond conscious thought. It's primal.

I thought the point of moral philosophy was to make society better.

The way to hell is paved with good intentions.

How does a philosophy of immorality make society better?

Not one single nihilist I know (and I know a few) suggests a immorality. Most of what is considered 'moral' (not killing, hurting, raping, stealing) are violations of rights that I do believe in. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you and all that jazz.

If it doesn't then why is it a moral philosophy? More importantly, is it a philosophy that is evil?

Argh, I should have read these questions first and then responded. Then I would have known that you sir, know absolutely nothing about what moral nihilists believe and I would have just ignored this thread. But I've already typed a bunch of words, so meh.
"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
6/17/2013 10:20:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 2:07:57 AM, Wnope wrote:
Moral nihilism is the recognition that no meta-ethical means exists to assert that one ethical system is superior to another with designating an arbitrary criterion.

It is a philosophical statement of fact.

The next question is: Unless you plan to live in your bed, you're going to be making moral decisions today. So, what'll it be?

A vast majority of individuals get along just fine in society without actively resorting to utilitarian calculations or categorical imperatives. They use the social moral mechanisms built into our biology which trains us from birth (barring mutations/birth defects) to internalize what is right versus wrong. Unless he underwent certain traumas as a child, a moral nihilist who sees someone being raped will have a "gut feeling" that something wrong is happening. The same kind of gut feeling that leads to soldiers diving on bombs to save their companions.

Trying to assert your morality philosophically is an useless task which serves little other than to justify your own self-worth and righteousness when imposing your morality on others.

The sooner you recognize that the way you live your life can only be justified to YOU by YOURSELF, the sooner you stop trying to impose morality that goes beyond core biological principles like infliction of pain, death, hunger, and other feeling subject to mirror neuron reaction.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Wnope, you're fvcking awesome.
"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...
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 10:24:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The road to hell is paved with good intentions stands as an argument?

You can believe whatever you want. I don't don't care. You can fail to understand the argument and I don't care. I personally think that you are lying but that's just a belief.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 10:30:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A vast majority of individuals get along just fine in society without actively resorting to utilitarian calculations or categorical imperatives. They use the social moral mechanisms built into our biology which trains us from birth (barring mutations/birth defects) to internalize what is right versus wrong. Unless he underwent certain traumas as a child, a moral nihilist who sees someone being raped will have a "gut feeling" that something wrong is happening. The same kind of gut feeling that leads to soldiers diving on bombs to save their companions.

So what? As a rational individual who realizes that there are no moral truths, you have to acknowledge that your own internal urges to moralize are simply evolutionary urges that don't actually link up to anything true. Given that, I'd be inclined to ignore them or at least seek to suppress them.

I lived as a nihilist for some time. I remember what it was like trying to re-orient my life around that worldview.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 1:18:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 10:24:37 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions stands as an argument?

It's not really an argument. I'm just saying that people who try to make things 'better' often end up perpetrating the worst acts of human suffering on their fellow man.

You can believe whatever you want. I don't don't care. You can fail to understand the argument and I don't care. I personally think that you are lying but that's just a belief.

You're not making an argument, but asking a whole bunch of loaded questions with the intent of smearing moral nihilism as a philosophy of purposeful immorality. Do you want to have a debate?
Let's do: "RESOLVED: Moral nihilism is a philosophy of immorality."
Lol.
"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...