Total Posts:156|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Morality/Guilt Ramble

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 4:28:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's a bit of a ramble I know.

Morality is subjective. There are no objective moral values. We can define any number of things to be the basis of a moral code, genetic purity, human happiness, personal happiness, submission to God. But each of these choices are arbitrary are in practice if not in theory, wholly subjective.

Morality is therefore a matter of taste. I am somewhat reminded of the ‘gay scene' from the film Spartacus (the old one with Charlton Heston).

So where does that leave me? Am I to operate purely from self-interest? Well actually I already do, so probably does everyone else. Does that mean I constantly, lie, steal, cheat etc. Well no... because I have moral conditioning. Certain actions give me a guilt response, actions that violate it cause me guilt, which is a ‘harm' and so therefore counterproductive and not in my own self interest.

However, where does my guilt response come from? I am sure it is part innate, but it is mostly a product of socialisation and conditioning. My guilt is just essentially a matter of taste. Like any other taste I make choices based on it, though I do not choose it. My guilt prevents me from retaliating when attacked by a mugger, my taste buds make me choose steak instead of haddock at a restaurant.

My guilt has no objective value or truth, does this mean I should strive to ignore it? Is it logical/rational/advantageous for me to try and break my social conditioning and become a fully liberated person free to follow his whims? Would I be happier without my guilt? I could still function as a full member of society because I understand how people operate so that's not a problem.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 4:29:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 4:28:43 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It's a bit of a ramble I know.

Morality is subjective. There are no objective moral values. We can define any number of things to be the basis of a moral code, genetic purity, human happiness, personal happiness, submission to God. But each of these choices are arbitrary are in practice if not in theory, wholly subjective.

Morality is therefore a matter of taste. I am somewhat reminded of the ‘gay scene' from the film Spartacus (the old one with Charlton Heston).

So where does that leave me? Am I to operate purely from self-interest? Well actually I already do, so probably does everyone else. Does that mean I constantly, lie, steal, cheat etc. Well no... because I have moral conditioning. Certain actions give me a guilt response, actions that violate it cause me guilt, which is a ‘harm' and so therefore counterproductive and not in my own self interest.

However, where does my guilt response come from? I am sure it is part innate, but it is mostly a product of socialisation and conditioning. My guilt is just essentially a matter of taste. Like any other taste I make choices based on it, though I do not choose it. My guilt prevents me from retaliating when attacked by a mugger, my taste buds make me choose steak instead of haddock at a restaurant.

My guilt has no objective value or truth, does this mean I should strive to ignore it? Is it logical/rational/advantageous for me to try and break my social conditioning and become a fully liberated person free to follow his whims? Would I be happier without my guilt? I could still function as a full member of society because I understand how people operate so that's not a problem.

Join the Nihilists, Cerebral.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 4:33:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 4:29:53 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:


Join the Nihilists, Cerebral.

Just to clarify, do nihilists negate morality in theory, and in practice. If I recognise that morality does not exist yet still choose to operate under it is that still nihilism?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 4:34:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
C_N, you're halfway to Nihilism. Tell you what, you can start out as a moral skeptic (lukewarm nihilism, really) and see how that works for you. :)
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 4:34:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 4:29:53 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:28:43 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I don't understand ethics at all.

Join the Nihilists, Cerebral.

That's probably a good idea.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 4:34:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 4:33:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:29:53 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:


Join the Nihilists, Cerebral.

Just to clarify, do nihilists negate morality in theory, and in practice. If I recognise that morality does not exist yet still choose to operate under it is that still nihilism?


No, that's retardation.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 4:36:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 4:33:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Just to clarify, do nihilists negate morality in theory, and in practice. If I recognise that morality does not exist yet still choose to operate under it is that still nihilism?

If nihilists negate the existence of moral facts, it follows (obviously) that no action can be considered moral or immoral. However, most nihilists still act in such a way that would be considered "moral" assuming morality existed.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 4:37:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 4:34:35 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:33:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:29:53 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:


Join the Nihilists, Cerebral.

Just to clarify, do nihilists negate morality in theory, and in practice. If I recognise that morality does not exist yet still choose to operate under it is that still nihilism?


No, that's retardation.

Haha...

But operating under morality is advantageous.

Taste is subjective, morality is taste.

So does that mean it is rational to lick a dog turd?

Stupid analogy I know...
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 4:40:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 4:37:24 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:34:35 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:33:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:29:53 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:


Join the Nihilists, Cerebral.

Just to clarify, do nihilists negate morality in theory, and in practice. If I recognise that morality does not exist yet still choose to operate under it is that still nihilism?


No, that's retardation.

Haha...

I'm not kidding.

But operating under morality is advantageous.

How so?

Taste is subjective, morality is taste.

No, morality is something you cannot prove, and operating under it's influence does not give anything 'new' to your life that you couldn't' find elsewhere. Taste is something that I (and you) use on a daily basis and can obviously be proven with the existence of taste buds.

So does that mean it is rational to lick a dog turd?

Rationally, since you have taste buds and most likely do not enjoy the taste of turd, no.

Stupid analogy I know...

Yes. ;)
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 4:43:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 4:40:57 PM, annhasle wrote:

Rationally, since you have taste buds and most likely do not enjoy the taste of turd, no.

And rationally since I have guilt and do not like it, I should act in ways that do not provoke it. Even if guilt is subjective.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 4:48:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 4:43:32 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:40:57 PM, annhasle wrote:

Rationally, since you have taste buds and most likely do not enjoy the taste of turd, no.

And rationally since I have guilt and do not like it, I should act in ways that do not provoke it. Even if guilt is subjective.

Well, sure. It's in your best interest to remain comfortable and away from things that 'bother' you. But avoiding guilt does nothing to prove the existence or advantages of morality.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 4:50:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 4:48:03 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:43:32 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:40:57 PM, annhasle wrote:

Rationally, since you have taste buds and most likely do not enjoy the taste of turd, no.

And rationally since I have guilt and do not like it, I should act in ways that do not provoke it. Even if guilt is subjective.

Well, sure. It's in your best interest to remain comfortable and away from things that 'bother' you. But avoiding guilt does nothing to prove the existence or advantages of morality.

I get confused, isn't that the primary purpose of morality? We have reached this point before... someone explain it to me or back me up here!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 4:56:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 4:50:35 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:48:03 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:43:32 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:40:57 PM, annhasle wrote:

Rationally, since you have taste buds and most likely do not enjoy the taste of turd, no.

And rationally since I have guilt and do not like it, I should act in ways that do not provoke it. Even if guilt is subjective.

Well, sure. It's in your best interest to remain comfortable and away from things that 'bother' you. But avoiding guilt does nothing to prove the existence or advantages of morality.

I get confused, isn't that the primary purpose of morality? We have reached this point before... someone explain it to me or back me up here!

To establish guilt? No. Morality is there to show if something is 'wrong' or 'right' (Yes, that is grossly oversimplified)... Pretty useless in my eyes, but <shrugs>....

Many attribute guilt to immoral actions since they find it to be a result of acting immorally (derp, derp) but I fail to see the connection that they swear is there. Can you not avoid actions based upon logic instead of ascribing to this idea of 'wrong' or 'right'??
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 5:01:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 4:50:35 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I get confused, isn't that the primary purpose of morality?

It's the standard to analyse one's and others actions in the aim of reaching 'I should do' statements.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 5:05:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 5:01:36 PM, Puck wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:50:35 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I get confused, isn't that the primary purpose of morality?

It's the standard to analyse one's and others actions in the aim of reaching 'I should do' statements.

But as such it is surely based on some form of logic, even if it's "I must do or not do the sh!t contained in this book" and/or guilt?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 5:10:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Of course as both moral actions and 'immoral' actions provoke guilt it's all a bit silly.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 5:19:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 5:05:09 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
But as such it is surely based on some form of logic, even if it's "I must do or not do the sh!t contained in this book" and/or guilt?

What do you mean by logic? Rationalising it, or logical premises in a logically valid structure etc? The former is generally a component, take Divine Command, which you noted, there is still the 'why I should' component to the 'I should do' aspect (though they don't to revolve around the same statements in that case).

I'm still not sure where you are going with guilt. Guilt is an emotive evaluation of action 'I should not have done' - as such one can wrangle it into a moral statement, but it's not a universally effective evaluator given many people are not fully cognisant of the processes that lead to the guilt feeling as evidenced by asking why a lot of times to any claims made in response to that feeling.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 5:21:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 5:10:02 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Of course as both moral actions and 'immoral' actions provoke guilt it's all a bit silly.

To call it moral presupposes already the standard or system of which you are claiming it is so. :P
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 5:24:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 4:33:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:29:53 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:


Join the Nihilists, Cerebral.

Just to clarify, do nihilists negate morality in theory, and in practice. If I recognise that morality does not exist yet still choose to operate under it is that still nihilism?

If you negate in theory, you have to negate in practice. You may still operate in accordance with some moral principle or another, though only for practical reasons.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 5:36:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 5:26:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:34:12 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:29:53 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:28:43 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I don't understand ethics at all.

Join the Nihilists, Cerebral.

That's probably a good idea.

Perhaps it is contagious. :)

I'm not about to become a nihilist, if that's how you interpreted what I said. I'm just pointing out that C_N thinks he's a relativist, but he's really more of a non-cognitivist (ie. a nihilist). He's just too damn stubborn to realize it.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 5:38:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 5:36:06 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/24/2010 5:26:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:34:12 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:29:53 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:28:43 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I don't understand ethics at all.

Join the Nihilists, Cerebral.

That's probably a good idea.

Perhaps it is contagious. :)

I'm not about to become a nihilist, if that's how you interpreted what I said. I'm just pointing out that C_N thinks he's a relativist, but he's really more of a non-cognitivist (ie. a nihilist). He's just too damn stubborn to realize it.

I know. That was me (likely failing at) being clever.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 5:39:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 5:36:06 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/24/2010 5:26:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:34:12 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:29:53 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:28:43 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I don't understand ethics at all.

Join the Nihilists, Cerebral.

That's probably a good idea.

Perhaps it is contagious. :)

I'm not about to become a nihilist, if that's how you interpreted what I said. I'm just pointing out that C_N thinks he's a relativist, but he's really more of a non-cognitivist (ie. a nihilist). He's just too damn stubborn to realize it.

C_N obviously has no idea what he is, whether that be a relativist or a nihilist... I don't think this comes down to him being 'too stubborn' but more about him being uneducated in regards to morality (no offense, C_N). If he truly wants to know his moral stance, he needs to read more about relativism and others... Hopefully he'll realize what a crock of sh!t moral relativism is and then move on.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 5:48:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 5:24:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:33:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:29:53 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:


Join the Nihilists, Cerebral.

Just to clarify, do nihilists negate morality in theory, and in practice. If I recognise that morality does not exist yet still choose to operate under it is that still nihilism?

If you negate in theory, you have to negate in practice. You may still operate in accordance with some moral principle or another, though only for practical reasons.

No that would be 'not negating in practice' you would be practicisng a morality.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 5:51:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 5:48:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/24/2010 5:24:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:33:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:29:53 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:


Join the Nihilists, Cerebral.

Just to clarify, do nihilists negate morality in theory, and in practice. If I recognise that morality does not exist yet still choose to operate under it is that still nihilism?

If you negate in theory, you have to negate in practice. You may still operate in accordance with some moral principle or another, though only for practical reasons.

No that would be 'not negating in practice' you would be practicisng a morality.

There's a difference in acting in accordance with morality and acting from a sense of moral conviction. Negating in practice means that you act as though there isn't a legitimate moral code. Practical action is excluded from that.

Example: I don't commit murder since I think it would be difficult to get away with it, and I wouldn't want to go to jail. I don't think it's wrong to do it, though.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 5:54:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 5:21:18 PM, Puck wrote:
At 10/24/2010 5:10:02 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Of course as both moral actions and 'immoral' actions provoke guilt it's all a bit silly.

To call it moral presupposes already the standard or system of which you are claiming it is so. :P

Yes that was a statement born of silliness.
But for instance lets say my friend is married and has a kid. I catch his wife cheating on him. I have two options (well I have more but lets just assume I only have two).

Option 1: Do nothing. It's not problem, nothing to do with me. If I tell him they may divorce... think of the kid.

Option 2: He is my friend, if I don't tell me I am doing him wrong. I am aiding her cheating, I would want him to tell me.

Both options are equally likely to provoke guilt.

Is the question,
What option should I pick?

An intellectually valid one, or a practically valid one? Or just utterly invalid as they are no 'shoulds' only 'wants'.

Knowing that morality is subjective, knowing that my guilt is not a valid guide to wrong and right where does that leave me?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 5:58:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 5:36:06 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/24/2010 5:26:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:34:12 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:29:53 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:28:43 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I don't understand ethics at all.

Join the Nihilists, Cerebral.

That's probably a good idea.

Perhaps it is contagious. :)

I'm not about to become a nihilist, if that's how you interpreted what I said. I'm just pointing out that C_N thinks he's a relativist, but he's really more of a non-cognitivist (ie. a nihilist). He's just too damn stubborn to realize it.

This is not a subject I am stubborn on, this is a subject that this site could help me learn more about. Hence the thread. If previously asked I would have said that I was a relativists because I seem to tick the boxes for that, I am not certain I tick the boxes for nihilism but the basic premise of it I agree with.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 6:00:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 5:39:50 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 10/24/2010 5:36:06 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/24/2010 5:26:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:34:12 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:29:53 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:28:43 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I don't understand ethics at all.

Join the Nihilists, Cerebral.

That's probably a good idea.

Perhaps it is contagious. :)

I'm not about to become a nihilist, if that's how you interpreted what I said. I'm just pointing out that C_N thinks he's a relativist, but he's really more of a non-cognitivist (ie. a nihilist). He's just too damn stubborn to realize it.

C_N obviously has no idea what he is, whether that be a relativist or a nihilist... I don't think this comes down to him being 'too stubborn' but more about him being uneducated in regards to morality (no offense, C_N).

None taken, that is the case.

If he truly wants to know his moral stance, he needs to read more about relativism and others... Hopefully he'll realize what a crock of sh!t moral relativism is and then move on.

Given time and effort I'll know what I mean, I was just hoping to use this as a springboard of sorts.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2010 6:01:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/24/2010 5:51:03 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/24/2010 5:48:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/24/2010 5:24:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:33:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/24/2010 4:29:53 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:


Join the Nihilists, Cerebral.

Just to clarify, do nihilists negate morality in theory, and in practice. If I recognise that morality does not exist yet still choose to operate under it is that still nihilism?

If you negate in theory, you have to negate in practice. You may still operate in accordance with some moral principle or another, though only for practical reasons.

No that would be 'not negating in practice' you would be practicisng a morality.

There's a difference in acting in accordance with morality and acting from a sense of moral conviction. Negating in practice means that you act as though there isn't a legitimate moral code. Practical action is excluded from that.

Example: I don't commit murder since I think it would be difficult to get away with it, and I wouldn't want to go to jail. I don't think it's wrong to do it, though.

I understand.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.