Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Nihilism Today

Cleaverens
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 7:59:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
God died a long time ago... right? With the absence of religion many people believed that Western society would fall into nihilism. I still see huge amounts of religious activity going on today even in the West. I am wondering if this religious activity is genuine or is it simply a cover for the underlying materialism and nihilism that seems to be so rampant in today's culture. It seems to me that religion has taken a secondary position in many people's lives and simply acts as a cover for the fear of death. Is Christian morality dead? Is nihilism on the rise? What's going on?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 10:58:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 7:59:11 PM, Cleaverens wrote:
God died a long time ago... right? With the absence of religion many people believed that Western society would fall into nihilism. I still see huge amounts of religious activity going on today even in the West. I am wondering if this religious activity is genuine or is it simply a cover for the underlying materialism and nihilism that seems to be so rampant in today's culture. It seems to me that religion has taken a secondary position in many people's lives and simply acts as a cover for the fear of death. Is Christian morality dead? Is nihilism on the rise? What's going on?

Religion and belief are not always synonymous.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 5:45:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 7:59:11 PM, Cleaverens wrote:
God died a long time ago... right? With the absence of religion many people believed that Western society would fall into nihilism. I still see huge amounts of religious activity going on today even in the West. I am wondering if this religious activity is genuine or is it simply a cover for the underlying materialism and nihilism that seems to be so rampant in today's culture. It seems to me that religion has taken a secondary position in many people's lives and simply acts as a cover for the fear of death. Is Christian morality dead? Is nihilism on the rise? What's going on?

'Fall into nihilism', as if nihilism is a bad thing...
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 7:31:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 5:45:51 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 7:59:11 PM, Cleaverens wrote:
God died a long time ago... right? With the absence of religion many people believed that Western society would fall into nihilism. I still see huge amounts of religious activity going on today even in the West. I am wondering if this religious activity is genuine or is it simply a cover for the underlying materialism and nihilism that seems to be so rampant in today's culture. It seems to me that religion has taken a secondary position in many people's lives and simply acts as a cover for the fear of death. Is Christian morality dead? Is nihilism on the rise? What's going on?

'Fall into nihilism', as if nihilism is a bad thing...

Nihilism is an extremely destructive philosophy.
Nolite Timere
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 10:30:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 7:31:53 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:45:51 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 7:59:11 PM, Cleaverens wrote:
God died a long time ago... right? With the absence of religion many people believed that Western society would fall into nihilism. I still see huge amounts of religious activity going on today even in the West. I am wondering if this religious activity is genuine or is it simply a cover for the underlying materialism and nihilism that seems to be so rampant in today's culture. It seems to me that religion has taken a secondary position in many people's lives and simply acts as a cover for the fear of death. Is Christian morality dead? Is nihilism on the rise? What's going on?

'Fall into nihilism', as if nihilism is a bad thing...

Nihilism is an extremely destructive philosophy.

Do you think that applies to existential nihilism and/or moral nihilism? If so, why?
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 1:00:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Nihilism Today sounds like a magazine.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Cleaverens
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 5:54:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 10:30:17 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/5/2014 7:31:53 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:45:51 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 7:59:11 PM, Cleaverens wrote:
God died a long time ago... right? With the absence of religion many people believed that Western society would fall into nihilism. I still see huge amounts of religious activity going on today even in the West. I am wondering if this religious activity is genuine or is it simply a cover for the underlying materialism and nihilism that seems to be so rampant in today's culture. It seems to me that religion has taken a secondary position in many people's lives and simply acts as a cover for the fear of death. Is Christian morality dead? Is nihilism on the rise? What's going on?

'Fall into nihilism', as if nihilism is a bad thing...

Nihilism is an extremely destructive philosophy.

Do you think that applies to existential nihilism and/or moral nihilism? If so, why?

Moral nihilism on its own has the potential to be extremely destructive. By rejecting morality all together it is easy to imagine how people can commit actions that spread destruction. However, most moral nihilists I have met have another ideology that prohibits their actions to mostly conforming to the basic standards of society. In other words, their actions just so happen to coincide with societies expectations but instead of doing so in the name of morality, they do so in the name of whatever different ideology they possess.
Existential nihilism is an ideology I possess to a certain extent. I believe that there is no "outside" influence like a God that dictates what is right or wrong or gives a purpose to life. Only humans can find meaning in this world. However, I do strongly believe that there are healthy and unhealthy meanings to be found. I am afraid that society has fallen into such unhealthy practices such as hedonism and materialism which I have experienced and am now in the process of rejecting. Who knows though maybe hedonism and materialism are the truth!!
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 6:06:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 5:54:13 PM, Cleaverens wrote:
At 9/5/2014 10:30:17 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/5/2014 7:31:53 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:45:51 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 7:59:11 PM, Cleaverens wrote:
God died a long time ago... right? With the absence of religion many people believed that Western society would fall into nihilism. I still see huge amounts of religious activity going on today even in the West. I am wondering if this religious activity is genuine or is it simply a cover for the underlying materialism and nihilism that seems to be so rampant in today's culture. It seems to me that religion has taken a secondary position in many people's lives and simply acts as a cover for the fear of death. Is Christian morality dead? Is nihilism on the rise? What's going on?

'Fall into nihilism', as if nihilism is a bad thing...

Nihilism is an extremely destructive philosophy.

Do you think that applies to existential nihilism and/or moral nihilism? If so, why?

Moral nihilism on its own has the potential to be extremely destructive. By rejecting morality all together it is easy to imagine how people can commit actions that spread destruction.

But this is just a strawman, Moral Nihilism only rejects intrinsic moral/immoral actions, or objective morality. By extension, rejection of intrinsic/objective morality =/= necessarily destructive. If Moral Nihilism is the truth then I would be hard pressed to see why the resulting destructive effecting (assuming that's what it leads to) is actually a bad thing.

There doesn't seem to be a good way to answer that without begging the question.

However, most moral nihilists I have met have another ideology that prohibits their actions to mostly conforming to the basic standards of society. In other words, their actions just so happen to coincide with societies expectations but instead of doing so in the name of morality, they do so in the name of whatever different ideology they possess.

There are plenty if moral philosophies which are compatible with moral nihilism, such as objectivism and utilitarianism etc. I already explained that it doesn't mean that we should or desire to act in a destructive manner.

Existential nihilism is an ideology I possess to a certain extent. I believe that there is no "outside" influence like a God that dictates what is right or wrong or gives a purpose to life. Only humans can find meaning in this world. However, I do strongly believe that there are healthy and unhealthy meanings to be found. I am afraid that society has fallen into such unhealthy practices such as hedonism and materialism which I have experienced and am now in the process of rejecting. Who knows though maybe hedonism and materialism are the truth!!

It seems that materialism (I assume we are not talking about mind ohilosophy lol) is just a short-sighted philosophy. It seems good on small scales and short term, but is objectively undesirable for even the perpetrators if followed to its logical conclusion. Which seems to be a common (and bad) objection to nihilistic moral philosophies.

I would regard myself as a moral nihilist, but it seems clear that there are objective answers to what 'ought' to be in each circumstance, but that is delendant on the circumstance and sentient beings involved, and not an objective 'murder is always wrong' tautology for example.
Cleaverens
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2014 7:31:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 6:06:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:54:13 PM, Cleaverens wrote:
At 9/5/2014 10:30:17 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/5/2014 7:31:53 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:45:51 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 7:59:11 PM, Cleaverens wrote:
God died a long time ago... right? With the absence of religion many people believed that Western society would fall into nihilism. I still see huge amounts of religious activity going on today even in the West. I am wondering if this religious activity is genuine or is it simply a cover for the underlying materialism and nihilism that seems to be so rampant in today's culture. It seems to me that religion has taken a secondary position in many people's lives and simply acts as a cover for the fear of death. Is Christian morality dead? Is nihilism on the rise? What's going on?

'Fall into nihilism', as if nihilism is a bad thing...

Nihilism is an extremely destructive philosophy.

Do you think that applies to existential nihilism and/or moral nihilism? If so, why?

Moral nihilism on its own has the potential to be extremely destructive. By rejecting morality all together it is easy to imagine how people can commit actions that spread destruction.

But this is just a strawman, Moral Nihilism only rejects intrinsic moral/immoral actions, or objective morality. By extension, rejection of intrinsic/objective morality =/= necessarily destructive. If Moral Nihilism is the truth then I would be hard pressed to see why the resulting destructive effecting (assuming that's what it leads to) is actually a bad thing.

There doesn't seem to be a good way to answer that without begging the question.

However, most moral nihilists I have met have another ideology that prohibits their actions to mostly conforming to the basic standards of society. In other words, their actions just so happen to coincide with societies expectations but instead of doing so in the name of morality, they do so in the name of whatever different ideology they possess.

There are plenty if moral philosophies which are compatible with moral nihilism, such as objectivism and utilitarianism etc. I already explained that it doesn't mean that we should or desire to act in a destructive manner.

Existential nihilism is an ideology I possess to a certain extent. I believe that there is no "outside" influence like a God that dictates what is right or wrong or gives a purpose to life. Only humans can find meaning in this world. However, I do strongly believe that there are healthy and unhealthy meanings to be found. I am afraid that society has fallen into such unhealthy practices such as hedonism and materialism which I have experienced and am now in the process of rejecting. Who knows though maybe hedonism and materialism are the truth!!

It seems that materialism (I assume we are not talking about mind ohilosophy lol) is just a short-sighted philosophy. It seems good on small scales and short term, but is objectively undesirable for even the perpetrators if followed to its logical conclusion. Which seems to be a common (and bad) objection to nihilistic moral philosophies.

I would regard myself as a moral nihilist, but it seems clear that there are objective answers to what 'ought' to be in each circumstance, but that is delendant on the circumstance and sentient beings involved, and not an objective 'murder is always wrong' tautology for example.

If moral nihilism is just the rejection of intrinsic morality than I too am a moral nihilist. The problem is that I have heard numerous definitions of moral nihilism that seem to indicate that doing what 'ought' to be done in situations is meaningless or more specifically, there is no objective 'ought'. In other words, there is no reason to NOT spread destruction or suffering just because morality has no intrinsic meaning. This is most likely just a misunderstanding on my part and definitely part of a bias against nihilism I can't seem to shake haha. I am looking into moral pluralism and it seems pretty great so far. What are your thoughts on this?

So my big question, what do you take into consideration when deciding what is 'ought' to be done in various situations? I have observed many moral nihilists take the utilitarian approach as you mentioned earlier.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 11:09:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 10:30:17 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/5/2014 7:31:53 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:45:51 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 7:59:11 PM, Cleaverens wrote:
God died a long time ago... right? With the absence of religion many people believed that Western society would fall into nihilism. I still see huge amounts of religious activity going on today even in the West. I am wondering if this religious activity is genuine or is it simply a cover for the underlying materialism and nihilism that seems to be so rampant in today's culture. It seems to me that religion has taken a secondary position in many people's lives and simply acts as a cover for the fear of death. Is Christian morality dead? Is nihilism on the rise? What's going on?

'Fall into nihilism', as if nihilism is a bad thing...

Nihilism is an extremely destructive philosophy.

Do you think that applies to existential nihilism and/or moral nihilism? If so, why?

Both, but especially moral nihilism. It sets up a system with no boundaries; it ends in chaos. The whole idea is that there is no right way to do things; there are only things to do. The idea that human life has no inherent value only fuels this idea.
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 11:19:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 6:06:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:54:13 PM, Cleaverens wrote:
At 9/5/2014 10:30:17 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/5/2014 7:31:53 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:45:51 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 7:59:11 PM, Cleaverens wrote:
God died a long time ago... right? With the absence of religion many people believed that Western society would fall into nihilism. I still see huge amounts of religious activity going on today even in the West. I am wondering if this religious activity is genuine or is it simply a cover for the underlying materialism and nihilism that seems to be so rampant in today's culture. It seems to me that religion has taken a secondary position in many people's lives and simply acts as a cover for the fear of death. Is Christian morality dead? Is nihilism on the rise? What's going on?

'Fall into nihilism', as if nihilism is a bad thing...

Nihilism is an extremely destructive philosophy.

Do you think that applies to existential nihilism and/or moral nihilism? If so, why?

Moral nihilism on its own has the potential to be extremely destructive. By rejecting morality all together it is easy to imagine how people can commit actions that spread destruction.

But this is just a strawman, Moral Nihilism only rejects intrinsic moral/immoral actions, or objective morality. By extension, rejection of intrinsic/objective morality =/= necessarily destructive. If Moral Nihilism is the truth then I would be hard pressed to see why the resulting destructive effecting (assuming that's what it leads to) is actually a bad thing.

I agree. However, this is not about what is intrinsically connected, but about what may generally come to be. We can obviously imagine a well functioning society based on nihilistic philosophy, but this is not the point. The point is that the principles behind Nihilism can very well advocate pure, subjective utilitarian ideas (Nazism) as well as supporting heinous crimes. If ultimately there is no such thing as right or wrong, then one cannot say that donating to charity is any better or worse than murdering a child, because there is no moral philosophy to adhere to except that nothing means anything. This level of subjectivity is what is destructive to society. It doesn't matter how it is, it matters what it has a tendency to be.

There doesn't seem to be a good way to answer that without begging the question.

However, most moral nihilists I have met have another ideology that prohibits their actions to mostly conforming to the basic standards of society. In other words, their actions just so happen to coincide with societies expectations but instead of doing so in the name of morality, they do so in the name of whatever different ideology they possess.

There are plenty if moral philosophies which are compatible with moral nihilism, such as objectivism and utilitarianism etc. I already explained that it doesn't mean that we should or desire to act in a destructive manner.

Existential nihilism is an ideology I possess to a certain extent. I believe that there is no "outside" influence like a God that dictates what is right or wrong or gives a purpose to life. Only humans can find meaning in this world. However, I do strongly believe that there are healthy and unhealthy meanings to be found. I am afraid that society has fallen into such unhealthy practices such as hedonism and materialism which I have experienced and am now in the process of rejecting. Who knows though maybe hedonism and materialism are the truth!!

It seems that materialism (I assume we are not talking about mind ohilosophy lol) is just a short-sighted philosophy. It seems good on small scales and short term, but is objectively undesirable for even the perpetrators if followed to its logical conclusion. Which seems to be a common (and bad) objection to nihilistic moral philosophies.

I would regard myself as a moral nihilist, but it seems clear that there are objective answers to what 'ought' to be in each circumstance, but that is delendant on the circumstance and sentient beings involved, and not an objective 'murder is always wrong' tautology for example.
Nolite Timere
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 11:50:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 11:19:21 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/5/2014 6:06:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:54:13 PM, Cleaverens wrote:
At 9/5/2014 10:30:17 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/5/2014 7:31:53 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:45:51 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 7:59:11 PM, Cleaverens wrote:
God died a long time ago... right? With the absence of religion many people believed that Western society would fall into nihilism. I still see huge amounts of religious activity going on today even in the West. I am wondering if this religious activity is genuine or is it simply a cover for the underlying materialism and nihilism that seems to be so rampant in today's culture. It seems to me that religion has taken a secondary position in many people's lives and simply acts as a cover for the fear of death. Is Christian morality dead? Is nihilism on the rise? What's going on?

'Fall into nihilism', as if nihilism is a bad thing...

Nihilism is an extremely destructive philosophy.

Do you think that applies to existential nihilism and/or moral nihilism? If so, why?

Moral nihilism on its own has the potential to be extremely destructive. By rejecting morality all together it is easy to imagine how people can commit actions that spread destruction.

But this is just a strawman, Moral Nihilism only rejects intrinsic moral/immoral actions, or objective morality. By extension, rejection of intrinsic/objective morality =/= necessarily destructive. If Moral Nihilism is the truth then I would be hard pressed to see why the resulting destructive effecting (assuming that's what it leads to) is actually a bad thing.

I agree. However, this is not about what is intrinsically connected, but about what may generally come to be. We can obviously imagine a well functioning society based on nihilistic philosophy, but this is not the point.

Yes it is the point, because you asserted that it is a destructive philosophy, and now you concede that Nihilism doesn't itself lead to a destructive society. You need additional factors to make that happen.

The point is that the principles behind Nihilism can very well advocate pure, subjective utilitarian ideas (Nazism) as well as supporting heinous crimes.

Advocate, or just be 'conpatible', because you would need to actually show a logical progression from nihilism to 'advocating' such philosophies. I grant you that some destructive philosophies are indeed compatible with nihilism, but it necessarily doesn't follow from nihilism at all. I can make the exact same statement about existential statements, which can 'advocate' destructive societies (to which I commonly object to in religious ones for example), but I would never make the claim that it automatically follows from it.

If ultimately there is no such thing as right or wrong, then one cannot say that donating to charity is any better or worse than murdering a child

This is just false. And I wait for your argument for this.

, because there is no moral philosophy to adhere to except that nothing means anything. This level of subjectivity is what is destructive to society. It doesn't matter how it is, it matters what it has a tendency to be.

It rejects intrinsic and objective morals, that's it. Subjective morals can have objective answers to specific question.

There doesn't seem to be a good way to answer that without begging the question.

However, most moral nihilists I have met have another ideology that prohibits their actions to mostly conforming to the basic standards of society. In other words, their actions just so happen to coincide with societies expectations but instead of doing so in the name of morality, they do so in the name of whatever different ideology they possess.

There are plenty if moral philosophies which are compatible with moral nihilism, such as objectivism and utilitarianism etc. I already explained that it doesn't mean that we should or desire to act in a destructive manner.

Existential nihilism is an ideology I possess to a certain extent. I believe that there is no "outside" influence like a God that dictates what is right or wrong or gives a purpose to life. Only humans can find meaning in this world. However, I do strongly believe that there are healthy and unhealthy meanings to be found. I am afraid that society has fallen into such unhealthy practices such as hedonism and materialism which I have experienced and am now in the process of rejecting. Who knows though maybe hedonism and materialism are the truth!!

It seems that materialism (I assume we are not talking about mind ohilosophy lol) is just a short-sighted philosophy. It seems good on small scales and short term, but is objectively undesirable for even the perpetrators if followed to its logical conclusion. Which seems to be a common (and bad) objection to nihilistic moral philosophies.

I would regard myself as a moral nihilist, but it seems clear that there are objective answers to what 'ought' to be in each circumstance, but that is delendant on the circumstance and sentient beings involved, and not an objective 'murder is always wrong' tautology for example.
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 1:14:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 7:59:11 PM, Cleaverens wrote:
God died a long time ago... right?

That's what Nietzsche declared a long time ago, yes. Whether that's the case or not remains up for discussion.

With the absence of religion many people believed that Western society would fall into nihilism.

Are you so sure that hasn't happened, among the secular?

I still see huge amounts of religious activity going on today even in the West.

When Nietzsche declared that God was dead, he wasn't saying that no person after that point would believe. He was making a general comment about God as a concept, and God's place -or lack of a place- in society/culture going forward in the West.

I am wondering if this religious activity is genuine or is it simply a cover for the underlying materialism and nihilism that seems to be so rampant in today's culture.

Now, that... that is an interesting question. I think that what faith has become, at least in the United States, is considerably less 'pure' than it once was. Christianity was once the fabric that held our culture together, but now it's a dividing agent that has changed into something that can break up families and gives birth to a radically disturbing breed of right wing politics.

That's not to say that all Christians are right wing fanatics -surely not. I am a Christian, and I'm anything but. But to ignore the rise of fundamentalism and, for lack of a better way to put it, "redneck theology" especially in the South and Midwest in the United States is to live with one's head in the sand.

I think that to the extent that practitioners of a religion allow their religion to become something a platform for promulgating hatred and judgement of others (even if that hatred comes under the guise of concern for one's eternal soul), the religion itself becomes nihilistic and -most tragically- self destructive.

It seems to me that religion has taken a secondary position in many people's lives and simply acts as a cover for the fear of death. Is Christian morality dead? Is nihilism on the rise? What's going on?

I think that to the extent that the church becomes a platform to castigate gay people, the church is doing the cultural equivalent of committing suicide by carbon monoxide inhalation.
Tsar of DDO
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 3:59:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 11:50:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:19:21 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/5/2014 6:06:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:54:13 PM, Cleaverens wrote:
At 9/5/2014 10:30:17 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/5/2014 7:31:53 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:45:51 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 7:59:11 PM, Cleaverens wrote:
God died a long time ago... right? With the absence of religion many people believed that Western society would fall into nihilism. I still see huge amounts of religious activity going on today even in the West. I am wondering if this religious activity is genuine or is it simply a cover for the underlying materialism and nihilism that seems to be so rampant in today's culture. It seems to me that religion has taken a secondary position in many people's lives and simply acts as a cover for the fear of death. Is Christian morality dead? Is nihilism on the rise? What's going on?

'Fall into nihilism', as if nihilism is a bad thing...

Nihilism is an extremely destructive philosophy.

Do you think that applies to existential nihilism and/or moral nihilism? If so, why?

Moral nihilism on its own has the potential to be extremely destructive. By rejecting morality all together it is easy to imagine how people can commit actions that spread destruction.

But this is just a strawman, Moral Nihilism only rejects intrinsic moral/immoral actions, or objective morality. By extension, rejection of intrinsic/objective morality =/= necessarily destructive. If Moral Nihilism is the truth then I would be hard pressed to see why the resulting destructive effecting (assuming that's what it leads to) is actually a bad thing.

I agree. However, this is not about what is intrinsically connected, but about what may generally come to be. We can obviously imagine a well functioning society based on nihilistic philosophy, but this is not the point.

Yes it is the point, because you asserted that it is a destructive philosophy, and now you concede that Nihilism doesn't itself lead to a destructive society. You need additional factors to make that happen.

A lot of things are not bad in of themselves, but the potential consequences are what are bad. If society legalized all drugs then there is no necessary consequential impact on society, but there may very well be. This concept applies to nihilism, although as I'm about to argue, nihilism may also be inherently destructive.

It is also inherently destructive in the sense that if there does exist an objective morality, nihilism obliterates moral sense rendering an objective morality near impossible to adhere to.

The point is that the principles behind Nihilism can very well advocate pure, subjective utilitarian ideas (Nazism) as well as supporting heinous crimes.

Advocate, or just be 'conpatible', because you would need to actually show a logical progression from nihilism to 'advocating' such philosophies. I grant you that some destructive philosophies are indeed compatible with nihilism, but it necessarily doesn't follow from nihilism at all. I can make the exact same statement about existential statements, which can 'advocate' destructive societies (to which I commonly object to in religious ones for example), but I would never make the claim that it automatically follows from it.

You live in some idealistic world in your head where if something isn't inherently connected it therefore isn't flawed. No, other philosophies do not necessarily follow from Nihilism, but the fact that they can without contradiction, not according to nihilism, moral consequence is worrisome and is certainly a flaw.

If ultimately there is no such thing as right or wrong, then one cannot say that donating to charity is any better or worse than murdering a child

This is just false. And I wait for your argument for this.

If morality is ultimately completely subjective, then morality essentially does not exist. That being said, no action can be said to be right or wrong. If you base it on individual or societal standards morality is still completely subjective and still essentially does not exist since the standards it relies are too contingent and subjective.

, because there is no moral philosophy to adhere to except that nothing means anything. This level of subjectivity is what is destructive to society. It doesn't matter how it is, it matters what it has a tendency to be.

It rejects intrinsic and objective morals, that's it. Subjective morals can have objective answers to specific question.

Example?

There doesn't seem to be a good way to answer that without begging the question.

However, most moral nihilists I have met have another ideology that prohibits their actions to mostly conforming to the basic standards of society. In other words, their actions just so happen to coincide with societies expectations but instead of doing so in the name of morality, they do so in the name of whatever different ideology they possess.

There are plenty if moral philosophies which are compatible with moral nihilism, such as objectivism and utilitarianism etc. I already explained that it doesn't mean that we should or desire to act in a destructive manner.

Existential nihilism is an ideology I possess to a certain extent. I believe that there is no "outside" influence like a God that dictates what is right or wrong or gives a purpose to life. Only humans can find meaning in this world. However, I do strongly believe that there are healthy and unhealthy meanings to be found. I am afraid that society has fallen into such unhealthy practices such as hedonism and materialism which I have experienced and am now in the process of rejecting. Who knows though maybe hedonism and materialism are the truth!!

It seems that materialism (I assume we are not talking about mind ohilosophy lol) is just a short-sighted philosophy. It seems good on small scales and short term, but is objectively undesirable for even the perpetrators if followed to its logical conclusion. Which seems to be a common (and bad) objection to nihilistic moral philosophies.

I would regard myself as a moral nihilist, but it seems clear that there are objective answers to what 'ought' to be in each circumstance, but that is delendant on the circumstance and sentient beings involved, and not an objective 'murder is always wrong' tautology for example.
Nolite Timere
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 5:49:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 3:59:59 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:50:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/6/2014 11:19:21 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/5/2014 6:06:06 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:54:13 PM, Cleaverens wrote:
At 9/5/2014 10:30:17 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/5/2014 7:31:53 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:45:51 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 7:59:11 PM, Cleaverens wrote:
God died a long time ago... right? With the absence of religion many people believed that Western society would fall into nihilism. I still see huge amounts of religious activity going on today even in the West. I am wondering if this religious activity is genuine or is it simply a cover for the underlying materialism and nihilism that seems to be so rampant in today's culture. It seems to me that religion has taken a secondary position in many people's lives and simply acts as a cover for the fear of death. Is Christian morality dead? Is nihilism on the rise? What's going on?

'Fall into nihilism', as if nihilism is a bad thing...

Nihilism is an extremely destructive philosophy.

Do you think that applies to existential nihilism and/or moral nihilism? If so, why?

Moral nihilism on its own has the potential to be extremely destructive. By rejecting morality all together it is easy to imagine how people can commit actions that spread destruction.

But this is just a strawman, Moral Nihilism only rejects intrinsic moral/immoral actions, or objective morality. By extension, rejection of intrinsic/objective morality =/= necessarily destructive. If Moral Nihilism is the truth then I would be hard pressed to see why the resulting destructive effecting (assuming that's what it leads to) is actually a bad thing.

I agree. However, this is not about what is intrinsically connected, but about what may generally come to be. We can obviously imagine a well functioning society based on nihilistic philosophy, but this is not the point.

Yes it is the point, because you asserted that it is a destructive philosophy, and now you concede that Nihilism doesn't itself lead to a destructive society. You need additional factors to make that happen.

A lot of things are not bad in of themselves, but the potential consequences are what are bad. If society legalized all drugs then there is no necessary consequential impact on society, but there may very well be. This concept applies to nihilism, although as I'm about to argue, nihilism may also be inherently destructive.

It is also inherently destructive in the sense that if there does exist an objective morality, nihilism obliterates moral sense rendering an objective morality near impossible to adhere to.

The point is that the principles behind Nihilism can very well advocate pure, subjective utilitarian ideas (Nazism) as well as supporting heinous crimes.

Advocate, or just be 'conpatible', because you would need to actually show a logical progression from nihilism to 'advocating' such philosophies. I grant you that some destructive philosophies are indeed compatible with nihilism, but it necessarily doesn't follow from nihilism at all. I can make the exact same statement about existential statements, which can 'advocate' destructive societies (to which I commonly object to in religious ones for example), but I would never make the claim that it automatically follows from it.

You live in some idealistic world in your head where if something isn't inherently connected it therefore isn't flawed. No, other philosophies do not necessarily follow from Nihilism, but the fact that they can without contradiction, not according to nihilism, moral consequence is worrisome and is certainly a flaw.

If ultimately there is no such thing as right or wrong, then one cannot say that donating to charity is any better or worse than murdering a child

This is just false. And I wait for your argument for this.

If morality is ultimately completely subjective, then morality essentially does not exist. That being said, no action can be said to be right or wrong. If you base it on individual or societal standards morality is still completely subjective and still essentially does not exist since the standards it relies are too contingent and subjective.

If morality is subjective, then, it's subjective. Saying morality is subjective is not equivalent to saying it does not exist.

How can you go from saying morality is subjective to saying since it is subjective there is no sense of right and wrong? Saying right and wrong is relative doesn't negate a sense of morality; it only describes it as being relative.

If morality is not based on the individual or the collective, then, why do individuals and collectives have different morals?

Saying my looks are contingent or relative to me is not like saying they don't exist. Saying something is contingent or subjective doesn't negate its existence; it just merely says something is contingent or subjective. Please look those words up if you think they mean nonexistent.


, because there is no moral philosophy to adhere to except that nothing means anything. This level of subjectivity is what is destructive to society. It doesn't matter how it is, it matters what it has a tendency to be.

It rejects intrinsic and objective morals, that's it. Subjective morals can have objective answers to specific question.

Example?

There doesn't seem to be a good way to answer that without begging the question.

However, most moral nihilists I have met have another ideology that prohibits their actions to mostly conforming to the basic standards of society. In other words, their actions just so happen to coincide with societies expectations but instead of doing so in the name of morality, they do so in the name of whatever different ideology they possess.

There are plenty if moral philosophies which are compatible with moral nihilism, such as objectivism and utilitarianism etc. I already explained that it doesn't mean that we should or desire to act in a destructive manner.

Existential nihilism is an ideology I possess to a certain extent. I believe that there is no "outside" influence like a God that dictates what is right or wrong or gives a purpose to life. Only humans can find meaning in this world. However, I do strongly believe that there are healthy and unhealthy meanings to be found. I am afraid that society has fallen into such unhealthy practices such as hedonism and materialism which I have experienced and am now in the process of rejecting. Who knows though maybe hedonism and materialism are the truth!!

It seems that materialism (I assume we are not talking about mind ohilosophy lol) is just a short-sighted philosophy. It seems good on small scales and short term, but is objectively undesirable for even the perpetrators if followed to its logical conclusion. Which seems to be a common (and bad) objection to nihilistic moral philosophies.

I would regard myself as a moral nihilist, but it seems clear that there are objective answers to what 'ought' to be in each circumstance, but that is delendant on the circumstance and sentient beings involved, and not an objective 'murder is always wrong' tautology for example.
suaveguy
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 7:16:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/5/2014 7:31:02 PM, Cleaverens wrote:
So my big question, what do you take into consideration when deciding what is 'ought' to be done in various situations? I have observed many moral nihilists take the utilitarian approach as you mentioned earlier.

To preface all this, nihilism states that there's no intrinsic morality and therefore right and wrong can't be constructed around this. There is however extrinsic or contrived morality which is born out of our appeal to our own survival. With the existence of this extrinsic morality, we can then determine right and wrong around this instead in terms of whether the actions are constructive or destructive in consequence to this appeal to our own survival.

For examples, sometimes the answer is obvious: if you murder someone, there's a very good chance you will be harmed in some way. Sometimes the answer is not: if people continue to print emails, then it will waste paper, necessitating cutting down of more trees, which may contribute to destruction and extinction of wildlife, which will indirectly affect our food supply.

So what 'ought' to be done is subjective, defined around satisfying extrinsic morality. The lack of intrinsic morality doesn't necessarily permit destruction, because this destruction may work against this extrinsic morality.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 7:32:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 5:49:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If morality is ultimately completely subjective, then morality essentially does not exist. That being said, no action can be said to be right or wrong. If you base it on individual or societal standards morality is still completely subjective and still essentially does not exist since the standards it relies are too contingent and subjective.

If morality is subjective, then, it's subjective. Saying morality is subjective is not equivalent to saying it does not exist.

Something's existence really must be based on concrete standards. If we take the word "dog" and apply it to mean red, cat, table, shoe, ect. then the word "dog" is ultimately meaningless and therefore nonexistent. According to subjective morality, it could be immoral to donate to charity according to one individual but moral to donate to charity according to another. it could be immoral to sacrifice a human being to one individual but moral to another. There exists contradiction, and therefore meaninglessness.

How can you go from saying morality is subjective to saying since it is subjective there is no sense of right and wrong? Saying right and wrong is relative doesn't negate a sense of morality; it only describes it as being relative.

If morality is not based on the individual or the collective, then, why do individuals and collectives have different morals?

Saying my looks are contingent or relative to me is not like saying they don't exist. Saying something is contingent or subjective doesn't negate its existence; it just merely says something is contingent or subjective. Please look those words up if you think they mean nonexistent.


, because there is no moral philosophy to adhere to except that nothing means anything. This level of subjectivity is what is destructive to society. It doesn't matter how it is, it matters what it has a tendency to be.

It rejects intrinsic and objective morals, that's it. Subjective morals can have objective answers to specific question.

Example?

There doesn't seem to be a good way to answer that without begging the question.

However, most moral nihilists I have met have another ideology that prohibits their actions to mostly conforming to the basic standards of society. In other words, their actions just so happen to coincide with societies expectations but instead of doing so in the name of morality, they do so in the name of whatever different ideology they possess.

There are plenty if moral philosophies which are compatible with moral nihilism, such as objectivism and utilitarianism etc. I already explained that it doesn't mean that we should or desire to act in a destructive manner.

Existential nihilism is an ideology I possess to a certain extent. I believe that there is no "outside" influence like a God that dictates what is right or wrong or gives a purpose to life. Only humans can find meaning in this world. However, I do strongly believe that there are healthy and unhealthy meanings to be found. I am afraid that society has fallen into such unhealthy practices such as hedonism and materialism which I have experienced and am now in the process of rejecting. Who knows though maybe hedonism and materialism are the truth!!

It seems that materialism (I assume we are not talking about mind ohilosophy lol) is just a short-sighted philosophy. It seems good on small scales and short term, but is objectively undesirable for even the perpetrators if followed to its logical conclusion. Which seems to be a common (and bad) objection to nihilistic moral philosophies.

I would regard myself as a moral nihilist, but it seems clear that there are objective answers to what 'ought' to be in each circumstance, but that is delendant on the circumstance and sentient beings involved, and not an objective 'murder is always wrong' tautology for example.
Nolite Timere
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 8:38:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 7:32:44 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:49:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If morality is ultimately completely subjective, then morality essentially does not exist. That being said, no action can be said to be right or wrong. If you base it on individual or societal standards morality is still completely subjective and still essentially does not exist since the standards it relies are too contingent and subjective.

If morality is subjective, then, it's subjective. Saying morality is subjective is not equivalent to saying it does not exist.

Something's existence really must be based on concrete standards. If we take the word "dog" and apply it to mean red, cat, table, shoe, ect. then the word "dog" is ultimately meaningless and therefore nonexistent. According to subjective morality, it could be immoral to donate to charity according to one individual but moral to donate to charity according to another. it could be immoral to sacrifice a human being to one individual but moral to another. There exists contradiction, and therefore meaninglessness.

We haven't taken the word dog to mean those things, but we have taken the word thing to mean anything you can imagine. So, using your logic does this make a thing meaningless and nonexistent?

That's not only according to subjective morality but according to reality, as well. Some people do in fact believe being charitable is a good thing; however, there or others who believe it encourages the deadly sin of sloth. Furthermore, there are those who believe sacrificing lives for the greater good, as in going to war, is a patriotic and sacred service; yet, on the other hand, there are people who believe war is evil and unnecessary. These are in fact contradictions, but to say they don't exist is to deny reality.


How can you go from saying morality is subjective to saying since it is subjective there is no sense of right and wrong? Saying right and wrong is relative doesn't negate a sense of morality; it only describes it as being relative.

If morality is not based on the individual or the collective, then, why do individuals and collectives have different morals?

Saying my looks are contingent or relative to me is not like saying they don't exist. Saying something is contingent or subjective doesn't negate its existence; it just merely says something is contingent or subjective. Please look those words up if you think they mean nonexistent.


, because there is no moral philosophy to adhere to except that nothing means anything. This level of subjectivity is what is destructive to society. It doesn't matter how it is, it matters what it has a tendency to be.

It rejects intrinsic and objective morals, that's it. Subjective morals can have objective answers to specific question.

Example?

There doesn't seem to be a good way to answer that without begging the question.

However, most moral nihilists I have met have another ideology that prohibits their actions to mostly conforming to the basic standards of society. In other words, their actions just so happen to coincide with societies expectations but instead of doing so in the name of morality, they do so in the name of whatever different ideology they possess.

There are plenty if moral philosophies which are compatible with moral nihilism, such as objectivism and utilitarianism etc. I already explained that it doesn't mean that we should or desire to act in a destructive manner.

Existential nihilism is an ideology I possess to a certain extent. I believe that there is no "outside" influence like a God that dictates what is right or wrong or gives a purpose to life. Only humans can find meaning in this world. However, I do strongly believe that there are healthy and unhealthy meanings to be found. I am afraid that society has fallen into such unhealthy practices such as hedonism and materialism which I have experienced and am now in the process of rejecting. Who knows though maybe hedonism and materialism are the truth!!

It seems that materialism (I assume we are not talking about mind ohilosophy lol) is just a short-sighted philosophy. It seems good on small scales and short term, but is objectively undesirable for even the perpetrators if followed to its logical conclusion. Which seems to be a common (and bad) objection to nihilistic moral philosophies.

I would regard myself as a moral nihilist, but it seems clear that there are objective answers to what 'ought' to be in each circumstance, but that is delendant on the circumstance and sentient beings involved, and not an objective 'murder is always wrong' tautology for example.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 7:36:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 8:38:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/8/2014 7:32:44 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:49:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If morality is ultimately completely subjective, then morality essentially does not exist. That being said, no action can be said to be right or wrong. If you base it on individual or societal standards morality is still completely subjective and still essentially does not exist since the standards it relies are too contingent and subjective.

If morality is subjective, then, it's subjective. Saying morality is subjective is not equivalent to saying it does not exist.

Something's existence really must be based on concrete standards. If we take the word "dog" and apply it to mean red, cat, table, shoe, ect. then the word "dog" is ultimately meaningless and therefore nonexistent. According to subjective morality, it could be immoral to donate to charity according to one individual but moral to donate to charity according to another. it could be immoral to sacrifice a human being to one individual but moral to another. There exists contradiction, and therefore meaninglessness.

We haven't taken the word dog to mean those things, but we have taken the word thing to mean anything you can imagine. So, using your logic does this make a thing meaningless and nonexistent?

Yes. It is purely conceptual and but lacks meaning. is it nonexistent? Maybe in a loose sense no. However, when applied it is basically nonexistent. It is the concept of thing that is meaningless, and not whatever that thing might be that is.

That's not only according to subjective morality but according to reality, as well. Some people do in fact believe being charitable is a good thing; however, there or others who believe it encourages the deadly sin of sloth. Furthermore, there are those who believe sacrificing lives for the greater good, as in going to war, is a patriotic and sacred service; yet, on the other hand, there are people who believe war is evil and unnecessary. These are in fact contradictions, but to say they don't exist is to deny reality.


How can you go from saying morality is subjective to saying since it is subjective there is no sense of right and wrong? Saying right and wrong is relative doesn't negate a sense of morality; it only describes it as being relative.

If morality is not based on the individual or the collective, then, why do individuals and collectives have different morals?

Saying my looks are contingent or relative to me is not like saying they don't exist. Saying something is contingent or subjective doesn't negate its existence; it just merely says something is contingent or subjective. Please look those words up if you think they mean nonexistent.


, because there is no moral philosophy to adhere to except that nothing means anything. This level of subjectivity is what is destructive to society. It doesn't matter how it is, it matters what it has a tendency to be.

It rejects intrinsic and objective morals, that's it. Subjective morals can have objective answers to specific question.

Example?

There doesn't seem to be a good way to answer that without begging the question.

However, most moral nihilists I have met have another ideology that prohibits their actions to mostly conforming to the basic standards of society. In other words, their actions just so happen to coincide with societies expectations but instead of doing so in the name of morality, they do so in the name of whatever different ideology they possess.

There are plenty if moral philosophies which are compatible with moral nihilism, such as objectivism and utilitarianism etc. I already explained that it doesn't mean that we should or desire to act in a destructive manner.

Existential nihilism is an ideology I possess to a certain extent. I believe that there is no "outside" influence like a God that dictates what is right or wrong or gives a purpose to life. Only humans can find meaning in this world. However, I do strongly believe that there are healthy and unhealthy meanings to be found. I am afraid that society has fallen into such unhealthy practices such as hedonism and materialism which I have experienced and am now in the process of rejecting. Who knows though maybe hedonism and materialism are the truth!!

It seems that materialism (I assume we are not talking about mind ohilosophy lol) is just a short-sighted philosophy. It seems good on small scales and short term, but is objectively undesirable for even the perpetrators if followed to its logical conclusion. Which seems to be a common (and bad) objection to nihilistic moral philosophies.

I would regard myself as a moral nihilist, but it seems clear that there are objective answers to what 'ought' to be in each circumstance, but that is delendant on the circumstance and sentient beings involved, and not an objective 'murder is always wrong' tautology for example.
Nolite Timere
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 7:58:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 7:36:00 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/8/2014 8:38:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/8/2014 7:32:44 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:49:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If morality is ultimately completely subjective, then morality essentially does not exist. That being said, no action can be said to be right or wrong. If you base it on individual or societal standards morality is still completely subjective and still essentially does not exist since the standards it relies are too contingent and subjective.

If morality is subjective, then, it's subjective. Saying morality is subjective is not equivalent to saying it does not exist.

Something's existence really must be based on concrete standards. If we take the word "dog" and apply it to mean red, cat, table, shoe, ect. then the word "dog" is ultimately meaningless and therefore nonexistent. According to subjective morality, it could be immoral to donate to charity according to one individual but moral to donate to charity according to another. it could be immoral to sacrifice a human being to one individual but moral to another. There exists contradiction, and therefore meaninglessness.

We haven't taken the word dog to mean those things, but we have taken the word thing to mean anything you can imagine. So, using your logic does this make a thing meaningless and nonexistent?

Yes. It is purely conceptual and but lacks meaning. is it nonexistent? Maybe in a loose sense no. However, when applied it is basically nonexistent. It is the concept of thing that is meaningless, and not whatever that thing might be that is.

I made a topic on this:

http://www.debate.org...

Which would be compatible with nihilism.

That's not only according to subjective morality but according to reality, as well. Some people do in fact believe being charitable is a good thing; however, there or others who believe it encourages the deadly sin of sloth. Furthermore, there are those who believe sacrificing lives for the greater good, as in going to war, is a patriotic and sacred service; yet, on the other hand, there are people who believe war is evil and unnecessary. These are in fact contradictions, but to say they don't exist is to deny reality.


How can you go from saying morality is subjective to saying since it is subjective there is no sense of right and wrong? Saying right and wrong is relative doesn't negate a sense of morality; it only describes it as being relative.

If morality is not based on the individual or the collective, then, why do individuals and collectives have different morals?

Saying my looks are contingent or relative to me is not like saying they don't exist. Saying something is contingent or subjective doesn't negate its existence; it just merely says something is contingent or subjective. Please look those words up if you think they mean nonexistent.


, because there is no moral philosophy to adhere to except that nothing means anything. This level of subjectivity is what is destructive to society. It doesn't matter how it is, it matters what it has a tendency to be.

It rejects intrinsic and objective morals, that's it. Subjective morals can have objective answers to specific question.

Example?

There doesn't seem to be a good way to answer that without begging the question.

However, most moral nihilists I have met have another ideology that prohibits their actions to mostly conforming to the basic standards of society. In other words, their actions just so happen to coincide with societies expectations but instead of doing so in the name of morality, they do so in the name of whatever different ideology they possess.

There are plenty if moral philosophies which are compatible with moral nihilism, such as objectivism and utilitarianism etc. I already explained that it doesn't mean that we should or desire to act in a destructive manner.

Existential nihilism is an ideology I possess to a certain extent. I believe that there is no "outside" influence like a God that dictates what is right or wrong or gives a purpose to life. Only humans can find meaning in this world. However, I do strongly believe that there are healthy and unhealthy meanings to be found. I am afraid that society has fallen into such unhealthy practices such as hedonism and materialism which I have experienced and am now in the process of rejecting. Who knows though maybe hedonism and materialism are the truth!!

It seems that materialism (I assume we are not talking about mind ohilosophy lol) is just a short-sighted philosophy. It seems good on small scales and short term, but is objectively undesirable for even the perpetrators if followed to its logical conclusion. Which seems to be a common (and bad) objection to nihilistic moral philosophies.

I would regard myself as a moral nihilist, but it seems clear that there are objective answers to what 'ought' to be in each circumstance, but that is delendant on the circumstance and sentient beings involved, and not an objective 'murder is always wrong' tautology for example.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 8:13:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 7:36:00 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/8/2014 8:38:32 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 9/8/2014 7:32:44 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/7/2014 5:49:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If morality is ultimately completely subjective, then morality essentially does not exist. That being said, no action can be said to be right or wrong. If you base it on individual or societal standards morality is still completely subjective and still essentially does not exist since the standards it relies are too contingent and subjective.

If morality is subjective, then, it's subjective. Saying morality is subjective is not equivalent to saying it does not exist.

Something's existence really must be based on concrete standards. If we take the word "dog" and apply it to mean red, cat, table, shoe, ect. then the word "dog" is ultimately meaningless and therefore nonexistent. According to subjective morality, it could be immoral to donate to charity according to one individual but moral to donate to charity according to another. it could be immoral to sacrifice a human being to one individual but moral to another. There exists contradiction, and therefore meaninglessness.

We haven't taken the word dog to mean those things, but we have taken the word thing to mean anything you can imagine. So, using your logic does this make a thing meaningless and nonexistent?

Yes. It is purely conceptual and but lacks meaning. is it nonexistent? Maybe in a loose sense no. However, when applied it is basically nonexistent. It is the concept of thing that is meaningless, and not whatever that thing might be that is.

So, if the word thing is meaningless, how are we arguing over its meaning? How are we able to use it in coherent language if it has no meaning?


That's not only according to subjective morality but according to reality, as well. Some people do in fact believe being charitable is a good thing; however, there or others who believe it encourages the deadly sin of sloth. Furthermore, there are those who believe sacrificing lives for the greater good, as in going to war, is a patriotic and sacred service; yet, on the other hand, there are people who believe war is evil and unnecessary. These are in fact contradictions, but to say they don't exist is to deny reality.


How can you go from saying morality is subjective to saying since it is subjective there is no sense of right and wrong? Saying right and wrong is relative doesn't negate a sense of morality; it only describes it as being relative.

If morality is not based on the individual or the collective, then, why do individuals and collectives have different morals?

Saying my looks are contingent or relative to me is not like saying they don't exist. Saying something is contingent or subjective doesn't negate its existence; it just merely says something is contingent or subjective. Please look those words up if you think they mean nonexistent.


, because there is no moral philosophy to adhere to except that nothing means anything. This level of subjectivity is what is destructive to society. It doesn't matter how it is, it matters what it has a tendency to be.

It rejects intrinsic and objective morals, that's it. Subjective morals can have objective answers to specific question.

Example?

There doesn't seem to be a good way to answer that without begging the question.

However, most moral nihilists I have met have another ideology that prohibits their actions to mostly conforming to the basic standards of society. In other words, their actions just so happen to coincide with societies expectations but instead of doing so in the name of morality, they do so in the name of whatever different ideology they possess.

There are plenty if moral philosophies which are compatible with moral nihilism, such as objectivism and utilitarianism etc. I already explained that it doesn't mean that we should or desire to act in a destructive manner.

Existential nihilism is an ideology I possess to a certain extent. I believe that there is no "outside" influence like a God that dictates what is right or wrong or gives a purpose to life. Only humans can find meaning in this world. However, I do strongly believe that there are healthy and unhealthy meanings to be found. I am afraid that society has fallen into such unhealthy practices such as hedonism and materialism which I have experienced and am now in the process of rejecting. Who knows though maybe hedonism and materialism are the truth!!

It seems that materialism (I assume we are not talking about mind ohilosophy lol) is just a short-sighted philosophy. It seems good on small scales and short term, but is objectively undesirable for even the perpetrators if followed to its logical conclusion. Which seems to be a common (and bad) objection to nihilistic moral philosophies.

I would regard myself as a moral nihilist, but it seems clear that there are objective answers to what 'ought' to be in each circumstance, but that is delendant on the circumstance and sentient beings involved, and not an objective 'murder is always wrong' tautology for example.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2014 7:37:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 11:09:49 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/5/2014 10:30:17 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/5/2014 7:31:53 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 9/5/2014 5:45:51 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/4/2014 7:59:11 PM, Cleaverens wrote:
God died a long time ago... right? With the absence of religion many people believed that Western society would fall into nihilism. I still see huge amounts of religious activity going on today even in the West. I am wondering if this religious activity is genuine or is it simply a cover for the underlying materialism and nihilism that seems to be so rampant in today's culture. It seems to me that religion has taken a secondary position in many people's lives and simply acts as a cover for the fear of death. Is Christian morality dead? Is nihilism on the rise? What's going on?

'Fall into nihilism', as if nihilism is a bad thing...

Nihilism is an extremely destructive philosophy.

Do you think that applies to existential nihilism and/or moral nihilism? If so, why?

Both, but especially moral nihilism. It sets up a system with no boundaries; it ends in chaos. The whole idea is that there is no right way to do things; there are only things to do. The idea that human life has no inherent value only fuels this idea.

I vaguely remember an article some time ago which posed nihilism not as a positively, productive attitude with values, ideas, and ontological propositions (that positively nothing has value, the idea that our romantic ideas are fables, that Nothing is Real, Nothing has Meaning, etc.) but as a negative reaction to a set of values, ideas, and ontological propositions which it (nihilist discourse) holds to be destructive, alienating, or altogether infectious in one's contemporary political-social situation. Moreover, nihilism obtains when this destructive mutilation of romanticism (seeing social structures, reality, etc. not as abstractly failing to meet romanticist criterion but seeing all source of romanticist valuation mutilated or destroyed in practical, historical terms) is coupled with political impotence. That is, when all attempts at a rational practice of ameliorating destructive social or political tendencies have been exhausted and when the last measure and resort is uniform opposition and destruction. Opposition to the ideals which might be propagated within a given destructive society (not opposing morals because morality does not exist, but opposing Morality as it has been described and inscribed by a destructive social order) and destruction of the structures which uphold that society (whether it be the Church, Family, the State, Capital, really any capital-letter social signifier), not through rational political action or theorized social praxis but through immediate connection of this opposition to reality (social protest with no clear plan or replacement modeled, looting, rioting, engagement in anti-social behavior, etc.).

In this sense I think nihilism isn't something that we can say is either good or bad, that it leads to chaos or not, or that it's simply an intellectual opinion capable of truly being held by someone not caught up in a series of constant practical conflicts. Nihilism is a reaction to a system which is not only socially destructive but is capable of subsuming resistance (whether in the form of materially staggering levels of forces at its command or by inscribing disciplinary regulations into populations in a highly efficient and organized manner). It shouldn't necessarily be something to be opposed to. A better outlook as I see it would be (a) diagnostic in looking outward for the conditions which lend themselves to the inducement of nihilism as a thought into reality and (b) prognostic in seeking out or experimenting with different ways in which resistance can ground itself (whether in material reality, in symbolic-ideological terms, in the discipline one exercises over one's self, etc.). Nihilism isn't a philosophical quibble about the universal nature of morality; it's a political consequence which can be traced back to material tactics and concerns.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.