Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Best Arguments Against Nihilism

Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 11:34:37 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 10:29:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
Go.

I think using words like good and bad describe whether something furthers or reaches a goal. A screwdriver's goal is to fit into a screw and rotate it. If it doesnt do that, it is "bad" screwdriver. I believe this is a fact.

Similarly, it seems like a fact that concious creatures have preferences and their goal is to fullfil them. So if i said "denying preferences is bad", i think i will have asserted an objective verifiable fact. To say nothing is intrinsicly good or bad would be false.

Of course my quote is more a rule of thumb. An action or something would only be objectively good after considering all the preferences involved in it.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 7:04:24 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 10:29:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
Go.

Which kind of nihilism?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 10:09:29 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 7:04:24 AM, n7 wrote:
At 7/20/2016 10:29:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
Go.

Which kind of nihilism?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 4:57:13 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 10:29:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
Go.

I once asked a self proclaimed Nihilist if he would be ambivalent to the idea of living in a world populated solely of psychopaths. He didn't answer.

He said that morals were a social construct. I asked him if empathy is a social construct. He replied that they were not the same, to which I asked if he could identify one moral question that could not be answered with empathy. He didn't have an answer for that either.

For one to not be a hypocritical Nihilist, I think they should have answers for these questions. Do you disagree?
Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 5:25:53 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 4:57:13 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/20/2016 10:29:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
Go.

I once asked a self proclaimed Nihilist if he would be ambivalent to the idea of living in a world populated solely of psychopaths. He didn't answer.

He said that morals were a social construct. I asked him if empathy is a social construct. He replied that they were not the same, to which I asked if he could identify one moral question that could not be answered with empathy. He didn't have an answer for that either.

For one to not be a hypocritical Nihilist, I think they should have answers for these questions. Do you disagree?

Moral nihilists can be hypocrits. Just because they choose to act "morally" doesnt mean moral nihilism is false.
famousdebater
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 8:16:26 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 10:29:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
Go.

You definitely need to specify about what type of nihilism your talking about. I'm an ethical nihilist, though I'm not a metaphysical nihilist. It's difficult to negate the concept as a whole since there are so many things to cover. If you could be more specific about the type of nihilism, then it could be more easily negated.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 9:17:55 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 5:25:53 PM, Internet wrote:
At 7/21/2016 4:57:13 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/20/2016 10:29:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
Go.

I once asked a self proclaimed Nihilist if he would be ambivalent to the idea of living in a world populated solely of psychopaths. He didn't answer.

He said that morals were a social construct. I asked him if empathy is a social construct. He replied that they were not the same, to which I asked if he could identify one moral question that could not be answered with empathy. He didn't have an answer for that either.

For one to not be a hypocritical Nihilist, I think they should have answers for these questions. Do you disagree?

Moral nihilists can be hypocrits. Just because they choose to act "morally" doesnt mean moral nihilism is false.

If moral nihilists value the role of morality in their lives and in society as a whole, then how is the concept relevant?

If purposely causing another conscious being suffering needlessly is not 'wrong', then what definition would you attribute to the word 'wrong'? If a nihilist was severely abused, would they consider it 'wrong'? If so, aren't they admitting 'wrong' has meaning?

For nihilism to have value as a concept, consciousness would have to not have value. If nihilists attribute value to their own consciousness and other people's consciousness through empathy, isn't that contradictory?

If you can answer these, maybe I'll be swayed :)
Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 11:14:50 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 9:17:55 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/21/2016 5:25:53 PM, Internet wrote:
At 7/21/2016 4:57:13 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/20/2016 10:29:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
Go.

I once asked a self proclaimed Nihilist if he would be ambivalent to the idea of living in a world populated solely of psychopaths. He didn't answer.

He said that morals were a social construct. I asked him if empathy is a social construct. He replied that they were not the same, to which I asked if he could identify one moral question that could not be answered with empathy. He didn't have an answer for that either.

For one to not be a hypocritical Nihilist, I think they should have answers for these questions. Do you disagree?

Moral nihilists can be hypocrits. Just because they choose to act "morally" doesnt mean moral nihilism is false.

If moral nihilists value the role of morality in their lives and in society as a whole, then how is the concept relevant?

If purposely causing another conscious being suffering needlessly is not 'wrong', then what definition would you attribute to the word 'wrong'? If a nihilist was severely abused, would they consider it 'wrong'? If so, aren't they admitting 'wrong' has meaning?

For nihilism to have value as a concept, consciousness would have to not have value. If nihilists attribute value to their own consciousness and other people's consciousness through empathy, isn't that contradictory?

If you can answer these, maybe I'll be swayed :)

I dont understand, a concept is only true if people act as if it is? People act against what they believe all the time. Sometimes people dont like their own conclusions they draw.

No one (to my knowledge) really wants be a nihilist or acts as if there are no morals, their just being honest with themselves about there being no objectively true moral propositions. To the nihilist, objectively speaking, people are just expressing themselves when they make moral judgements, or their simply not being sincere since none of them can justify their claim.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 11:24:20 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 11:14:50 PM, Internet wrote:
At 7/21/2016 9:17:55 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/21/2016 5:25:53 PM, Internet wrote:
At 7/21/2016 4:57:13 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/20/2016 10:29:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
Go.

I once asked a self proclaimed Nihilist if he would be ambivalent to the idea of living in a world populated solely of psychopaths. He didn't answer.

He said that morals were a social construct. I asked him if empathy is a social construct. He replied that they were not the same, to which I asked if he could identify one moral question that could not be answered with empathy. He didn't have an answer for that either.

For one to not be a hypocritical Nihilist, I think they should have answers for these questions. Do you disagree?

Moral nihilists can be hypocrits. Just because they choose to act "morally" doesnt mean moral nihilism is false.

If moral nihilists value the role of morality in their lives and in society as a whole, then how is the concept relevant?

If purposely causing another conscious being suffering needlessly is not 'wrong', then what definition would you attribute to the word 'wrong'? If a nihilist was severely abused, would they consider it 'wrong'? If so, aren't they admitting 'wrong' has meaning?

For nihilism to have value as a concept, consciousness would have to not have value. If nihilists attribute value to their own consciousness and other people's consciousness through empathy, isn't that contradictory?

If you can answer these, maybe I'll be swayed :)

I dont understand, a concept is only true if people act as if it is? People act against what they believe all the time. Sometimes people dont like their own conclusions they draw.

No one (to my knowledge) really wants be a nihilist or acts as if there are no morals, their just being honest with themselves about there being no objectively true moral propositions. To the nihilist, objectively speaking, people are just expressing themselves when they make moral judgements, or their simply not being sincere since none of them can justify their claim.

I'm not saying it wasn't true. Im saying I don't see how its a relevant concept.

Do you see any difference between someone that is a moral nihilist and someone that just believes in subjective morality?

Sam Harris did an interesting TED Talk where he said that science and answer moral questions. If science can define and quantify what is moral, there could be a solid argument for moral objectivity in the sense that humans basically share a common experience. Some things objectively cause suffering and other things objectively cause flourishing.

Its an interesting video -

https://www.youtube.com...
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 11:42:34 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 11:14:50 PM, Internet wrote:
At 7/21/2016 9:17:55 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/21/2016 5:25:53 PM, Internet wrote:
At 7/21/2016 4:57:13 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/20/2016 10:29:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
Go.

I once asked a self proclaimed Nihilist if he would be ambivalent to the idea of living in a world populated solely of psychopaths. He didn't answer.

He said that morals were a social construct. I asked him if empathy is a social construct. He replied that they were not the same, to which I asked if he could identify one moral question that could not be answered with empathy. He didn't have an answer for that either.

For one to not be a hypocritical Nihilist, I think they should have answers for these questions. Do you disagree?

Moral nihilists can be hypocrits. Just because they choose to act "morally" doesnt mean moral nihilism is false.

If moral nihilists value the role of morality in their lives and in society as a whole, then how is the concept relevant?

If purposely causing another conscious being suffering needlessly is not 'wrong', then what definition would you attribute to the word 'wrong'? If a nihilist was severely abused, would they consider it 'wrong'? If so, aren't they admitting 'wrong' has meaning?

For nihilism to have value as a concept, consciousness would have to not have value. If nihilists attribute value to their own consciousness and other people's consciousness through empathy, isn't that contradictory?

If you can answer these, maybe I'll be swayed :)

I dont understand, a concept is only true if people act as if it is? People act against what they believe all the time. Sometimes people dont like their own conclusions they draw.

No one (to my knowledge) really wants be a nihilist or acts as if there are no morals, their just being honest with themselves about there being no objectively true moral propositions. To the nihilist, objectively speaking, people are just expressing themselves when they make moral judgements, or their simply not being sincere since none of them can justify their claim.

Here is another interesting question...

If a moral nihilist found out their neighbor was burning his dog alive for fun, would they object? If so, what would their reasoning be?

Its true that the universe doesn't care but the nihilist most likely would. Is the universe required to have an opinion to confirm their opinion is correct?
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 1:13:42 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 10:29:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
Go.

Ask Envisage. If I remember correctly, he's a nihilist, so he could tell you what he finds to be the most troubling arguments.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 6:50:44 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 4:57:13 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/20/2016 10:29:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
Go.

I once asked a self proclaimed Nihilist if he would be ambivalent to the idea of living in a world populated solely of psychopaths. He didn't answer.

He said that morals were a social construct. I asked him if empathy is a social construct. He replied that they were not the same, to which I asked if he could identify one moral question that could not be answered with empathy. He didn't have an answer for that either.

For one to not be a hypocritical Nihilist, I think they should have answers for these questions. Do you disagree?

You didn't even try to empathize with the nihilist there, because you defined their position according to your own preconceptions rather than trying to understand what their actual views entailed. That's what I would call hypocritical.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Chaosism
Posts: 2,662
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 1:10:19 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 11:42:34 PM, matt8800 wrote:

Here is another interesting question...

I hold a position of moral nihilism.

If a moral nihilist found out their neighbor was burning his dog alive for fun, would they object? If so, what would their reasoning be?

Yes, because I value the well-being of living beings that are capable of suffering. This doesn't mean they have intrinsic value, in of and themselves.

Its true that the universe doesn't care but the nihilist most likely would. Is the universe required to have an opinion to confirm their opinion is correct?

Moral statements are based on opinion which are treated as true only by one's agreement with the statement; no actual truth value can be assigned to such a statement. Moral value is not an intrinsic aspect of the universe, and morality is the product of mind of us socially evolved beings. The bottom line is that, yes, morality is a real, inescapable influence behind the actions and judgments of humans, but these judgments are entirely subjective in nature.

Ask me further questions if you wish, Matt. :)
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 2:48:59 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 1:10:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 7/21/2016 11:42:34 PM, matt8800 wrote:

Here is another interesting question...

I hold a position of moral nihilism.

If a moral nihilist found out their neighbor was burning his dog alive for fun, would they object? If so, what would their reasoning be?

Yes, because I value the well-being of living beings that are capable of suffering. This doesn't mean they have intrinsic value, in of and themselves.

Its true that the universe doesn't care but the nihilist most likely would. Is the universe required to have an opinion to confirm their opinion is correct?

Moral statements are based on opinion which are treated as true only by one's agreement with the statement; no actual truth value can be assigned to such a statement. Moral value is not an intrinsic aspect of the universe, and morality is the product of mind of us socially evolved beings. The bottom line is that, yes, morality is a real, inescapable influence behind the actions and judgments of humans, but these judgments are entirely subjective in nature.

Ask me further questions if you wish, Matt. :)

Yes, I agree with that. I think some people take a position without thinking it through or asking questions. I like to ask those questions :)
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 2:53:49 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 6:50:44 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 7/21/2016 4:57:13 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/20/2016 10:29:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
Go.

I once asked a self proclaimed Nihilist if he would be ambivalent to the idea of living in a world populated solely of psychopaths. He didn't answer.

He said that morals were a social construct. I asked him if empathy is a social construct. He replied that they were not the same, to which I asked if he could identify one moral question that could not be answered with empathy. He didn't have an answer for that either.

For one to not be a hypocritical Nihilist, I think they should have answers for these questions. Do you disagree?

You didn't even try to empathize with the nihilist there, because you defined their position according to your own preconceptions rather than trying to understand what their actual views entailed. That's what I would call hypocritical.

First, how are you going to understand how someone else defines their position unless you ask tough questions?

Second, I didn't say that I disagreed but I do think a nihilist should know the answers to those questions. I cant take a nihilist too seriously if they don't.

How would you answer those questions?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 3:42:12 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 1:10:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 7/21/2016 11:42:34 PM, matt8800 wrote:

Here is another interesting question...

I hold a position of moral nihilism.

If a moral nihilist found out their neighbor was burning his dog alive for fun, would they object? If so, what would their reasoning be?

Yes, because I value the well-being of living beings that are capable of suffering. This doesn't mean they have intrinsic value, in of and themselves.

Its true that the universe doesn't care but the nihilist most likely would. Is the universe required to have an opinion to confirm their opinion is correct?

Moral statements are based on opinion which are treated as true only by one's agreement with the statement; no actual truth value can be assigned to such a statement. Moral value is not an intrinsic aspect of the universe, and morality is the product of mind of us socially evolved beings. The bottom line is that, yes, morality is a real, inescapable influence behind the actions and judgments of humans, but these judgments are entirely subjective in nature.

Ask me further questions if you wish, Matt. :)

Here is a thought....

It appears to me that because many nihilists cannot find objective value in morality, they discount the subjective value. While there may not be an interventionist god of the universe, we are our own god of the universe in our head. We can build our subjective morality according to objective truths, such as people feel pain when we hurt them.

Why does my subjective morality matter to me? Because it enriches and increases the value of my subjective experience of life to me. When others build their subjective morality based on what I consider to be an incorrect foundation, it detracts from the value of my experience.

I think it boils down to the question: should we attribute value to life and consciousness and if so, why?

Is our concern for other people's wellbeing just an illusion? Only if the world in our head isn't real. It seems reasonable to consider that if anything is real or relevant, it is the world in our head. We woke up one day and discovered we were alive and realized it will some day end. While some may argue it doesn't matter, we can live the life of a rat or something better according to our own standards. If it matters in my universe (head), then I'm not so sure if it matters to me whether it is objective or subjective because that is the only universe I live in.

Thoughts?
Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 4:18:31 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 3:42:12 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/22/2016 1:10:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 7/21/2016 11:42:34 PM, matt8800 wrote:

Here is another interesting question...

I hold a position of moral nihilism.

If a moral nihilist found out their neighbor was burning his dog alive for fun, would they object? If so, what would their reasoning be?

Yes, because I value the well-being of living beings that are capable of suffering. This doesn't mean they have intrinsic value, in of and themselves.

Its true that the universe doesn't care but the nihilist most likely would. Is the universe required to have an opinion to confirm their opinion is correct?

Moral statements are based on opinion which are treated as true only by one's agreement with the statement; no actual truth value can be assigned to such a statement. Moral value is not an intrinsic aspect of the universe, and morality is the product of mind of us socially evolved beings. The bottom line is that, yes, morality is a real, inescapable influence behind the actions and judgments of humans, but these judgments are entirely subjective in nature.

Ask me further questions if you wish, Matt. :)

Here is a thought....

It appears to me that because many nihilists cannot find objective value in morality, they discount the subjective value. While there may not be an interventionist god of the universe, we are our own god of the universe in our head. We can build our subjective morality according to objective truths, such as people feel pain when we hurt them.

Why does my subjective morality matter to me? Because it enriches and increases the value of my subjective experience of life to me. When others build their subjective morality based on what I consider to be an incorrect foundation, it detracts from the value of my experience.

I think it boils down to the question: should we attribute value to life and consciousness and if so, why?

Is our concern for other people's wellbeing just an illusion? Only if the world in our head isn't real. It seems reasonable to consider that if anything is real or relevant, it is the world in our head. We woke up one day and discovered we were alive and realized it will some day end. While some may argue it doesn't matter, we can live the life of a rat or something better according to our own standards. If it matters in my universe (head), then I'm not so sure if it matters to me whether it is objective or subjective because that is the only universe I live in.


Thoughts?

Subjectivism boils down to nihilism in my opinion. If you cant objectively prove your moral propositions, then they dont exist any more than santa.

I have listened to Sam Harris and how he tries to link whats good to well-being (after you linked me the video in the other thread I gave up on), but he doesnt really justify the link, he just appeals to commonsense which I didnt find satisfying. That aside, I dont see how you can call yourself a subjectivist when your try to give an objective basis for morality.

Getting back on topic, I came here to see arguments against nihilism. Were you giving one or just pointing out how hypocritical some nihilists are?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,662
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 4:20:37 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 3:42:12 PM, matt8800 wrote:

Here is a thought....

My apologies in advance for breaking your post up so much...

It appears to me that because many nihilists cannot find objective value in morality, they discount the subjective value...

I find that to be a strawman that is often propped up by theistic opponents more than anything: if there is no objective morality, then morality is worthless. It's actually aimed at atheists pretty often. Granted, I haven't discussed this matter much with other nihilists, but I feel that if such people did, then they arrived at their position emotionally rather than rationally. But, just because it doesn't have objective meaning to the universe doesn't mean it doesn't have meaning to us.

...While there may not be an interventionist god of the universe, we are our own god of the universe in our head...

I don't think I'd phrase it that way because of how little control we actually have over it. Our nature and the environmental influences and experiences that shape us also shape our sense of morality. Humans are not very rational creatures, and it's easy for us to justify away wrongdoings and to dehumanize others. Check out the Migram Obedience Experiment for a tiny sample of this capability. My personal view is that our morality is the ruler of us. For example, I personally sacrifice almost all of my time and resources towards the benefit of all those around me, and the compulsions and desires I have are the very things that drive me to such actions.

...We can build our subjective morality according to objective truths, such as people feel pain when we hurt them.

Absolutely, but you still have to assume the value of the well-being of said person for it to be considered morally wrong.

Why does my subjective morality matter to me? Because it enriches and increases the value of my subjective experience of life to me. When others build their subjective morality based on what I consider to be an incorrect foundation, it detracts from the value of my experience.

I basically agree with this. We act upon the world in according with our own desires, be it benevolent or malevolent. We act to help another person because we have the desire to, and this action helps bring the world towards our own ideal. Granted, though, many of our desired are interally contradictory, so this ideal world ins't necessarily a fully coherent notion. In any case, we are also compelled to act against that which brings the world away from this idea, as you expressed.

I think it boils down to the question: should we attribute value to life and consciousness and if so, why?

Is it really even a choice? Can you opt to cease caring about the well-being of those around you? Morality is an intrinsic aspect of humanity.

Is our concern for other people's wellbeing just an illusion? Only if the world in our head isn't real. It seems reasonable to consider that if anything is real or relevant, it is the world in our head...

That, I'm not entirely in agreement with. We do have to take care in parsing that which is truth within our perception and that which is true outside of it, because they often aren't in concordance. Some things in our head must be overcome. For instance, I believe that the common and often strong desire for retributive justice is generally immoral, because I don't believe that those who commit evil are truly responsible for their evils because they didn't choose their nature or how their brains were configured. This is a simplification of an entirely separate matter, though.

...We woke up one day and discovered we were alive and realized it will some day end. While some may argue it doesn't matter, we can live the life of a rat or something better according to our own standards. If it matters in my universe (head), then I'm not so sure if it matters to me whether it is objective or subjective because that is the only universe I live in.

I largely agree, here.

Thoughts?

I had some, though the value of them may be questionable. ;P
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 5:03:56 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 4:18:31 PM, Internet wrote:
At 7/22/2016 3:42:12 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/22/2016 1:10:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 7/21/2016 11:42:34 PM, matt8800 wrote:

Here is another interesting question...

I hold a position of moral nihilism.

If a moral nihilist found out their neighbor was burning his dog alive for fun, would they object? If so, what would their reasoning be?

Yes, because I value the well-being of living beings that are capable of suffering. This doesn't mean they have intrinsic value, in of and themselves.

Its true that the universe doesn't care but the nihilist most likely would. Is the universe required to have an opinion to confirm their opinion is correct?

Moral statements are based on opinion which are treated as true only by one's agreement with the statement; no actual truth value can be assigned to such a statement. Moral value is not an intrinsic aspect of the universe, and morality is the product of mind of us socially evolved beings. The bottom line is that, yes, morality is a real, inescapable influence behind the actions and judgments of humans, but these judgments are entirely subjective in nature.

Ask me further questions if you wish, Matt. :)

Here is a thought....

It appears to me that because many nihilists cannot find objective value in morality, they discount the subjective value. While there may not be an interventionist god of the universe, we are our own god of the universe in our head. We can build our subjective morality according to objective truths, such as people feel pain when we hurt them.

Why does my subjective morality matter to me? Because it enriches and increases the value of my subjective experience of life to me. When others build their subjective morality based on what I consider to be an incorrect foundation, it detracts from the value of my experience.

I think it boils down to the question: should we attribute value to life and consciousness and if so, why?

Is our concern for other people's wellbeing just an illusion? Only if the world in our head isn't real. It seems reasonable to consider that if anything is real or relevant, it is the world in our head. We woke up one day and discovered we were alive and realized it will some day end. While some may argue it doesn't matter, we can live the life of a rat or something better according to our own standards. If it matters in my universe (head), then I'm not so sure if it matters to me whether it is objective or subjective because that is the only universe I live in.


Thoughts?

Subjectivism boils down to nihilism in my opinion. If you cant objectively prove your moral propositions, then they dont exist any more than santa.

I have listened to Sam Harris and how he tries to link whats good to well-being (after you linked me the video in the other thread I gave up on), but he doesnt really justify the link, he just appeals to commonsense which I didnt find satisfying. That aside, I dont see how you can call yourself a subjectivist when your try to give an objective basis for morality.

Getting back on topic, I came here to see arguments against nihilism. Were you giving one or just pointing out how hypocritical some nihilists are?

I am simply pointing out that many, not all, nihilists haven't thought out their position very well. Before people start claiming what position they take on morality, they should probably have an idea about how that position is relevant if that position is going to impact what kind of life they choose to live.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 5:26:17 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 4:18:31 PM, Internet wrote:


Getting back on topic, I came here to see arguments against nihilism. Were you giving one or just pointing out how hypocritical some nihilists are?

Even though I dont see much practical relevance, I am not giving an argument against Nihilism.

Here is what I am saying...Nihilists still value the concept of morality. Shouldn't a Nihilist at least be able to articulate why? A few of the more sophisticated ones can but many cannot. The Nihilist I was speaking to was preaching to me with the dogma of a theist yet could not explain his position from a practical standpoint. I might have agreed with his position if it was complete but his was not.
Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 8:28:34 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 5:26:17 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/22/2016 4:18:31 PM, Internet wrote:


Getting back on topic, I came here to see arguments against nihilism. Were you giving one or just pointing out how hypocritical some nihilists are?

Even though I dont see much practical relevance, I am not giving an argument against Nihilism.

Here is what I am saying...Nihilists still value the concept of morality. Shouldn't a Nihilist at least be able to articulate why? A few of the more sophisticated ones can but many cannot. The Nihilist I was speaking to was preaching to me with the dogma of a theist yet could not explain his position from a practical standpoint. I might have agreed with his position if it was complete but his was not.

If the nihilist explained that he still feels motivation to fulflil his desires, would that complete his position as you say? Would that explain why he "values" morality?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 8:46:25 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 8:28:34 PM, Internet wrote:
At 7/22/2016 5:26:17 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/22/2016 4:18:31 PM, Internet wrote:


Getting back on topic, I came here to see arguments against nihilism. Were you giving one or just pointing out how hypocritical some nihilists are?

Even though I dont see much practical relevance, I am not giving an argument against Nihilism.

Here is what I am saying...Nihilists still value the concept of morality. Shouldn't a Nihilist at least be able to articulate why? A few of the more sophisticated ones can but many cannot. The Nihilist I was speaking to was preaching to me with the dogma of a theist yet could not explain his position from a practical standpoint. I might have agreed with his position if it was complete but his was not.

If the nihilist explained that he still feels motivation to fulflil his desires, would that complete his position as you say? Would that explain why he "values" morality?

No, I would be more curious as to whether he knows why he might have altruistic motives. Chaosism was able to articulate his perspective as a nihilist well and is apparent he has put some thought into it. I find many other nihilists have not.

As I mentioned, I am not disputing the validity of nihilism. I just think more need to connect the dots as to why they say the concept of morality is moot yet they live as though the concept of morality matters a lot.
Internet
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 9:19:42 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 8:46:25 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/22/2016 8:28:34 PM, Internet wrote:
At 7/22/2016 5:26:17 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/22/2016 4:18:31 PM, Internet wrote:


Getting back on topic, I came here to see arguments against nihilism. Were you giving one or just pointing out how hypocritical some nihilists are?

Even though I dont see much practical relevance, I am not giving an argument against Nihilism.

Here is what I am saying...Nihilists still value the concept of morality. Shouldn't a Nihilist at least be able to articulate why? A few of the more sophisticated ones can but many cannot. The Nihilist I was speaking to was preaching to me with the dogma of a theist yet could not explain his position from a practical standpoint. I might have agreed with his position if it was complete but his was not.

If the nihilist explained that he still feels motivation to fulflil his desires, would that complete his position as you say? Would that explain why he "values" morality?

No, I would be more curious as to whether he knows why he might have altruistic motives. Chaosism was able to articulate his perspective as a nihilist well and is apparent he has put some thought into it. I find many other nihilists have not.

As I mentioned, I am not disputing the validity of nihilism. I just think more need to connect the dots as to why they say the concept of morality is moot yet they live as though the concept of morality matters .

He acts altruisticly because he has compassion, most likely.Is this not a sufficient answer?

I dont mean to give you a hard time, but if your op wasnt to challenge the validity of nihilism, what did you mean you would have been "swayyed" if they did answer your questions? Do you think they arent actually nihilists and are just confused?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 11:46:01 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 9:19:42 PM, Internet wrote:
At 7/22/2016 8:46:25 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/22/2016 8:28:34 PM, Internet wrote:
At 7/22/2016 5:26:17 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/22/2016 4:18:31 PM, Internet wrote:


Getting back on topic, I came here to see arguments against nihilism. Were you giving one or just pointing out how hypocritical some nihilists are?

Even though I dont see much practical relevance, I am not giving an argument against Nihilism.

Here is what I am saying...Nihilists still value the concept of morality. Shouldn't a Nihilist at least be able to articulate why? A few of the more sophisticated ones can but many cannot. The Nihilist I was speaking to was preaching to me with the dogma of a theist yet could not explain his position from a practical standpoint. I might have agreed with his position if it was complete but his was not.

If the nihilist explained that he still feels motivation to fulflil his desires, would that complete his position as you say? Would that explain why he "values" morality?

No, I would be more curious as to whether he knows why he might have altruistic motives. Chaosism was able to articulate his perspective as a nihilist well and is apparent he has put some thought into it. I find many other nihilists have not.

As I mentioned, I am not disputing the validity of nihilism. I just think more need to connect the dots as to why they say the concept of morality is moot yet they live as though the concept of morality matters .

He acts altruisticly because he has compassion, most likely.Is this not a sufficient answer?

I dont mean to give you a hard time, but if your op wasnt to challenge the validity of nihilism, what did you mean you would have been "swayyed" if they did answer your questions? Do you think they arent actually nihilists and are just confused?

I just don't see how its a relevant concept. I cant get over how nihilists discount morality but live their lives as if morality matters. This seems contradictory to me. I admit it is a subject I only have a cursory understanding of and was probing a bit simply to see how nihilists would answer.
Heterodox
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 10:57:23 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 11:46:01 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/22/2016 9:19:42 PM, Internet wrote:
At 7/22/2016 8:46:25 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/22/2016 8:28:34 PM, Internet wrote:
At 7/22/2016 5:26:17 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/22/2016 4:18:31 PM, Internet wrote:


Getting back on topic, I came here to see arguments against nihilism. Were you giving one or just pointing out how hypocritical some nihilists are?

Even though I dont see much practical relevance, I am not giving an argument against Nihilism.

Here is what I am saying...Nihilists still value the concept of morality. Shouldn't a Nihilist at least be able to articulate why? A few of the more sophisticated ones can but many cannot. The Nihilist I was speaking to was preaching to me with the dogma of a theist yet could not explain his position from a practical standpoint. I might have agreed with his position if it was complete but his was not.

If the nihilist explained that he still feels motivation to fulflil his desires, would that complete his position as you say? Would that explain why he "values" morality?

No, I would be more curious as to whether he knows why he might have altruistic motives. Chaosism was able to articulate his perspective as a nihilist well and is apparent he has put some thought into it. I find many other nihilists have not.

As I mentioned, I am not disputing the validity of nihilism. I just think more need to connect the dots as to why they say the concept of morality is moot yet they live as though the concept of morality matters .

He acts altruisticly because he has compassion, most likely.Is this not a sufficient answer?

I dont mean to give you a hard time, but if your op wasnt to challenge the validity of nihilism, what did you mean you would have been "swayyed" if they did answer your questions? Do you think they arent actually nihilists and are just confused?

I just don't see how its a relevant concept. I cant get over how nihilists discount morality but live their lives as if morality matters. This seems contradictory to me. I admit it is a subject I only have a cursory understanding of and was probing a bit simply to see how nihilists would answer.

For how much money would you sell a priceless artifact you own?

Do you think I would buy it for that amount?

Why?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 2:34:15 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 10:57:23 PM, Heterodox wrote:
At 7/22/2016 11:46:01 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/22/2016 9:19:42 PM, Internet wrote:
At 7/22/2016 8:46:25 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/22/2016 8:28:34 PM, Internet wrote:
At 7/22/2016 5:26:17 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/22/2016 4:18:31 PM, Internet wrote:


Getting back on topic, I came here to see arguments against nihilism. Were you giving one or just pointing out how hypocritical some nihilists are?

Even though I dont see much practical relevance, I am not giving an argument against Nihilism.

Here is what I am saying...Nihilists still value the concept of morality. Shouldn't a Nihilist at least be able to articulate why? A few of the more sophisticated ones can but many cannot. The Nihilist I was speaking to was preaching to me with the dogma of a theist yet could not explain his position from a practical standpoint. I might have agreed with his position if it was complete but his was not.

If the nihilist explained that he still feels motivation to fulflil his desires, would that complete his position as you say? Would that explain why he "values" morality?

No, I would be more curious as to whether he knows why he might have altruistic motives. Chaosism was able to articulate his perspective as a nihilist well and is apparent he has put some thought into it. I find many other nihilists have not.

As I mentioned, I am not disputing the validity of nihilism. I just think more need to connect the dots as to why they say the concept of morality is moot yet they live as though the concept of morality matters .

He acts altruisticly because he has compassion, most likely.Is this not a sufficient answer?

I dont mean to give you a hard time, but if your op wasnt to challenge the validity of nihilism, what did you mean you would have been "swayyed" if they did answer your questions? Do you think they arent actually nihilists and are just confused?

I just don't see how its a relevant concept. I cant get over how nihilists discount morality but live their lives as if morality matters. This seems contradictory to me. I admit it is a subject I only have a cursory understanding of and was probing a bit simply to see how nihilists would answer.

For how much money would you sell a priceless artifact you own?

Do you think I would buy it for that amount?

Why?

I don't know, maybe. What does the artifact mean to you?

Can you elaborate on the connection a bit more?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 5:22:14 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 10:29:35 PM, Danielle wrote:
Go.

God. In the end, it is the only argument against it.