6 ms·

> Ethics are already predetermined, though. No argument here, but knowing them still seems useful to humans. So in relation to humans, those terms and ideas ar

> Ethics are already predetermined, though. No argument here, but knowing them still seems useful to humans. So in relation to humans, those terms and ideas are 100% needed. You're taking moral nihilism and jumping straight to general nihilism without any steps. > Arguments for determinism always have these "answers" to morality, but the only convincing one is moral nihilism. Error theory is a form of moral nihilism - what are you exactly disagreeing with here? ------------------------------------------------------ The bigger question is where you go from that moral nihilism. There is nothing that says just because our formal definitions of morality are false that the entire world doesn't matter. I still care for my happiness and life. So do many others. We need both this idea and these further terms and ideas in order to be able to answer the questions we were originally attempting to answer with objective morality because those problems did not magically go away.

tsegratis 6y ago
Thanks for your clear distinctions. But still I don't understand Caring about happiness and life, to the point they have value is objective Do you have any other way to distinguish between moral and general nihilism? -- surely such a thing would need to be objective But you make a good point in that if there is no objective morality, there may still be some other way to make a value statement. But how could such a thing give value to moral nihilism, and still maintain the nihilism?? To be honest, I don't understand these HN comments any better than the original article -- but I do greatly appreciate them for their importance
- dkn775 6y ago
  For me I think that value arises in a nihilistic world when regardless of what individuals actually do, over time we move further into chaotic outcomes, or that things gradually get more harmonious (less conflict and negative externalities). The latter comes from the realization that some things (ie actions based only on gaining money/power/fame, knowingly taking advantage of people, needlessly killing, laziness, cheating for gain, not helping the poor, not forgiving people). This arises from nihilism because some believe that it can't be possible that nothing matters when these values are "beyond our earthly realm" in that it often requires seeing things on a more spiritual level, and thinking beyond immediate gratification. It is then that one may see nihilistic people as those feeding their temptations as these are often the easiest things to do (running vs. sitting and getting fat). So while one can think nothing matters, some may then see that indeed some actions "retard" not just ourselves but all, and others are a net benefit for society. Though believing that such actions are actually a net benefit may be considered "faith" because I can't know for sure. Just my thoughts.
  - tsegratis 6y ago
    Thanks @dkn775 Yeah, to accept nihilism seems very destructive. Ultimately, to me, like you; it seems to equate to accepting zero value for others and ourselves Yet life burns to exist. We are desperate to live and to have meaning. It is no proof, but every fiber of our being cries out for a value beyond zero > Though believing that such actions are actually a net benefit may be considered "faith" because I can't know for sure. Nice. Personally, and from personal experience, I would base "faith" on concrete facts, and this provides a safe foundation for logic, etc -- I think you can know for sure Thanks for sharing
- adjkant 6y ago
  > Caring about happiness and life, to the point they have value is objective This comes down to philosophical definitions. We are both using the word "objective" differently here. In the philosophical world, this is what moral objectivism means: > The view that what is right or wrong doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. That is, the view that the 'moral facts' are like 'physical' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are. [1] What you appear to be using objective as here as to mean "it's the physical state of the world, no matter who sees it". And that's true, but it doesn't have inherent moral usefulness as a statement, we have to show that it means something, which is where my argument from determinism leads. > But you make a good point in that if there is no objective morality, there may still be some other way to make a value statement. But how could such a thing give value to moral nihilism, and still maintain the nihilism?? The "how" comes from a phrase I've used in other posts, but essentially, moral psychology and psychology generally. Think of it this way: Nothing has inherent moral meaning. Really technically meaning generally, things just are. So does anything have more value than anything else, inherently? Not really. It's an interestingly odd base of equality in fact. So we all still exist and have desires and wants and needs, but none are any more worthy than others. We also have the notable traits of empathy and social desire. There's much more nuance and detail there, but essentially, if I or you as a single individual want to satisfy my desires, my makeup as a creature that cares about others dictates that I balance all of our desires together into what we would generally refer to as "ethics", even if no such objective truth exists. Indeed, if you change what a human is, you change morality itself. [1] http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism.html http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism...
  - tsegratis 6y ago
    Again, thanks for your clarity > [objectivity] doesn't have inherent moral usefulness Agreed. But I take it as a required pre-cursor, and that was implicit, so you are right to check definitions. I go something like Nihilism: an absence. A zero Objective: a difference beyond zero. A value These are simplifications, but useful to me So "physical state", and "facts not depending on what anyone thinks" both have value -- they are objective realities. Yes some people say physical state and facts are meaningless and so nihilistically ascribe them zero value. But you have not done that I think you are saying the universe definitively exists -- it has value. Morality does not exist (in that it has no predefined value, it is a zero). And from there, you take emergent properties of life, the mind, and psychology, to create a new morality -- one which does have value, but as defined in an emergent property of humanity > even if no such objective truth exists Now I understand you (I think). You are after a different objectivity By my personal definition, your second morality must be objective -- you've given it a value, and said it is different to the previous morality -- a fact As far as I understand things, to have any meaning, there must be objectivity -- otherwise everything is an effective zero, and there is no valid way to say any one thing is better than another. For instance to say something is good rather than bad So what you have done... Please correct me... is say there is no morality, but there is humanity, psychology, physics, desires, etc. You are saying these are objective facts people agree on, and from there you will build an objective morality that people can also agree on If so, three comments: 1) Emergent properties and psychology are fascinating, you can build an objectively interesting morality on these. I appreciate your work and your clarity so far. Sorry, your link didn't open for me 2) How would this morality differ from the current morality -- or, to what extent is the current morality not based on emergent properties of psychology and human behavior? 3) Ah, you are cutting God out of the loop. I don't think this objectively (pun) succeeds... But would love to hear more and any corrections
dkn775 6y ago
Do you have any collection of your thinking online? I also noticed that beyond nihilism is where I began to think about these ideas. The problem for me is the thoughts are so hard to condense. One benefit of this stuff you're talking about (determinism right?) Is I have gotten immense peace in my day to day actions by clearly being able to distinguish things which are good and bad for me to do, and accepting that I will be fine or not based on what I am doing. I can also forgive people easier and see that they were "just trying"
- adjkant 6y ago
  See the end of this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23479194 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23479194 Nothing published yet but I have many smaller academic writings that are building the pieces of this, and currently have a master outline that basically looks like this: (1) Hard Determinism (2) Ethics/Morality under (1) (3) Social/Political Organization under (2) (4) Personal/Useful/Practical/Life Philosophy under (1)/(2)/(3) I started (1) when I was 18 and have many different forms at this point. Recently I have spent a good deal of time on (2) in the past couple years. (3) I have worked on independent of these ideas and am still linking up once I sure up and reflect on (2) more. (4) I'd argue is basically a WIP experiment of my own life since I was 17/18 and will be the last to be completed, probably not for a good deal of time. Basically if this is a checklist representative of how developed/ready these ideas are, (1) is done, (2) is 75% of the way there and my main focus currently, (3) is up next, and 4 requires all the others and of course much lived experience. As to when/how I want to publish, right now my plan is to have three forms for each - an accessible article (think 10-30 minute read), a short accessible book form that elaborates, and the formal philosophy for the academic/formal community to pick apart. Right now I essentially am working on the articles and planning to expand out. I'm not sure if I want to publish the articles without the books though, so it could be a long time. However, given that philosophy benefits from discussion and debate, I think there seems to be a good case for publishing the articles. I might try to stand up my website/blog I've been putting off forever once I finish two and start making progress on three. I'd really love to have all four articles published at the same time as a set though, so I might have to figure out a compromise there.
ntsplnkv2 6y ago
Those ideas are not needed, they don't exist. Morality is just a chemical reaction in your brain, which differs from human to human - if the ideas are useful, that implies they can be changed by agency of choice, which in a predetermined world, doesn't exist. > Error theory is a form of moral nihilism - what are you exactly disagreeing with here? More the relativistic morality and psychological morality. > There is nothing that says just because our formal definitions of morality are false that the entire world doesn't matter. I still care for my happiness and life. Moral nihilism doesn't mean that they're false - it means moral truths don't exist, there is no right and wrong. You were predetermined to care for your happiness - but your happiness is already determined. There is nothing you can do to increase or decrease it, it will be what it will be based on the initial conditions. It seems, in general, that you need to cling to ethics as a way to convince your belief in determinism - to cover up for its deficiencies, you have to find a way to convince people that ethics still matter, despite continual argument that it doesn't.
- adjkant 6y ago
  > Moral nihilism doesn't mean that they're false - it means moral truths don't exist, there is no right and wrong. You were predetermined to care for your happiness I agree 100%. However, you are mismatching objective moral truth with subjective moral truth. I am saying that once you realize the lack of objective moral truth/existence, all that is left is the subjective. Human nature then essentially requires it to become a collective subjective. Subjective preferences of all being essentially become the practical "morality". That's what I am referring to here, not the objective morality that does not and cannot logically exist. Morality is derived not from the physical world but from our own moral psychology. If we change humans in any way, we change morality. And thus morality is also different for every human. Traits like our social nature, empathy, and equal lack of inherent meaning then morph the problem into a collective/intertwined singular subjective morality based on the world state itself. > - but your happiness is already determined. There is nothing you can do to increase or decrease it, it will be what it will be based on the initial conditions. This is where you conflate determinism / free will with agency / choice, which are not the same thing. We do not have the ability to see our future choices and path, so we still have to "function" through it, even if it's a set path. And the questions we have to answer along the way are the reason we looked into morality in the first place, and are no less important or worth of time and effort. > It seems, in general, that you need to cling to ethics as a way to convince your belief in determinism - to cover up for its deficiencies, you have to find a way to convince people that ethics still matter, despite continual argument that it doesn't. You've got the wrong direction of how philosophy works - I started with determinism at the base, I'm simply asking what it leads to. You're only disagreeing with what comes after moral nihilism, but you've made no actual argument other than "no it's not that way". I'd truly love to understand more what your critique of my steps after is.

tsegratis 6y ago

Thanks for your clear distinctions. But still I don't understand Caring about happiness and life, to the point they have value is objective Do you have any other way to distinguish between moral and general nihilism? -- surely such a thing would need to be objective But you make a good point in that if there is no objective morality, there may still be some other way to make a value statement. But how could such a thing give value to moral nihilism, and still maintain the nihilism?? To be honest, I don't understand these HN comments any better than the original article -- but I do greatly appreciate them for their importance

dkn775 6y ago
For me I think that value arises in a nihilistic world when regardless of what individuals actually do, over time we move further into chaotic outcomes, or that things gradually get more harmonious (less conflict and negative externalities). The latter comes from the realization that some things (ie actions based only on gaining money/power/fame, knowingly taking advantage of people, needlessly killing, laziness, cheating for gain, not helping the poor, not forgiving people). This arises from nihilism because some believe that it can't be possible that nothing matters when these values are "beyond our earthly realm" in that it often requires seeing things on a more spiritual level, and thinking beyond immediate gratification. It is then that one may see nihilistic people as those feeding their temptations as these are often the easiest things to do (running vs. sitting and getting fat). So while one can think nothing matters, some may then see that indeed some actions "retard" not just ourselves but all, and others are a net benefit for society. Though believing that such actions are actually a net benefit may be considered "faith" because I can't know for sure. Just my thoughts.
- tsegratis 6y ago
  Thanks @dkn775 Yeah, to accept nihilism seems very destructive. Ultimately, to me, like you; it seems to equate to accepting zero value for others and ourselves Yet life burns to exist. We are desperate to live and to have meaning. It is no proof, but every fiber of our being cries out for a value beyond zero > Though believing that such actions are actually a net benefit may be considered "faith" because I can't know for sure. Nice. Personally, and from personal experience, I would base "faith" on concrete facts, and this provides a safe foundation for logic, etc -- I think you can know for sure Thanks for sharing
adjkant 6y ago
> Caring about happiness and life, to the point they have value is objective This comes down to philosophical definitions. We are both using the word "objective" differently here. In the philosophical world, this is what moral objectivism means: > The view that what is right or wrong doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. That is, the view that the 'moral facts' are like 'physical' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are. [1] What you appear to be using objective as here as to mean "it's the physical state of the world, no matter who sees it". And that's true, but it doesn't have inherent moral usefulness as a statement, we have to show that it means something, which is where my argument from determinism leads. > But you make a good point in that if there is no objective morality, there may still be some other way to make a value statement. But how could such a thing give value to moral nihilism, and still maintain the nihilism?? The "how" comes from a phrase I've used in other posts, but essentially, moral psychology and psychology generally. Think of it this way: Nothing has inherent moral meaning. Really technically meaning generally, things just are. So does anything have more value than anything else, inherently? Not really. It's an interestingly odd base of equality in fact. So we all still exist and have desires and wants and needs, but none are any more worthy than others. We also have the notable traits of empathy and social desire. There's much more nuance and detail there, but essentially, if I or you as a single individual want to satisfy my desires, my makeup as a creature that cares about others dictates that I balance all of our desires together into what we would generally refer to as "ethics", even if no such objective truth exists. Indeed, if you change what a human is, you change morality itself. [1] http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism.html http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism...
- tsegratis 6y ago
  Again, thanks for your clarity > [objectivity] doesn't have inherent moral usefulness Agreed. But I take it as a required pre-cursor, and that was implicit, so you are right to check definitions. I go something like Nihilism: an absence. A zero Objective: a difference beyond zero. A value These are simplifications, but useful to me So "physical state", and "facts not depending on what anyone thinks" both have value -- they are objective realities. Yes some people say physical state and facts are meaningless and so nihilistically ascribe them zero value. But you have not done that I think you are saying the universe definitively exists -- it has value. Morality does not exist (in that it has no predefined value, it is a zero). And from there, you take emergent properties of life, the mind, and psychology, to create a new morality -- one which does have value, but as defined in an emergent property of humanity > even if no such objective truth exists Now I understand you (I think). You are after a different objectivity By my personal definition, your second morality must be objective -- you've given it a value, and said it is different to the previous morality -- a fact As far as I understand things, to have any meaning, there must be objectivity -- otherwise everything is an effective zero, and there is no valid way to say any one thing is better than another. For instance to say something is good rather than bad So what you have done... Please correct me... is say there is no morality, but there is humanity, psychology, physics, desires, etc. You are saying these are objective facts people agree on, and from there you will build an objective morality that people can also agree on If so, three comments: 1) Emergent properties and psychology are fascinating, you can build an objectively interesting morality on these. I appreciate your work and your clarity so far. Sorry, your link didn't open for me 2) How would this morality differ from the current morality -- or, to what extent is the current morality not based on emergent properties of psychology and human behavior? 3) Ah, you are cutting God out of the loop. I don't think this objectively (pun) succeeds... But would love to hear more and any corrections

dkn775 6y ago

Do you have any collection of your thinking online? I also noticed that beyond nihilism is where I began to think about these ideas. The problem for me is the thoughts are so hard to condense. One benefit of this stuff you're talking about (determinism right?) Is I have gotten immense peace in my day to day actions by clearly being able to distinguish things which are good and bad for me to do, and accepting that I will be fine or not based on what I am doing. I can also forgive people easier and see that they were "just trying"

adjkant 6y ago
See the end of this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23479194 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23479194 Nothing published yet but I have many smaller academic writings that are building the pieces of this, and currently have a master outline that basically looks like this: (1) Hard Determinism (2) Ethics/Morality under (1) (3) Social/Political Organization under (2) (4) Personal/Useful/Practical/Life Philosophy under (1)/(2)/(3) I started (1) when I was 18 and have many different forms at this point. Recently I have spent a good deal of time on (2) in the past couple years. (3) I have worked on independent of these ideas and am still linking up once I sure up and reflect on (2) more. (4) I'd argue is basically a WIP experiment of my own life since I was 17/18 and will be the last to be completed, probably not for a good deal of time. Basically if this is a checklist representative of how developed/ready these ideas are, (1) is done, (2) is 75% of the way there and my main focus currently, (3) is up next, and 4 requires all the others and of course much lived experience. As to when/how I want to publish, right now my plan is to have three forms for each - an accessible article (think 10-30 minute read), a short accessible book form that elaborates, and the formal philosophy for the academic/formal community to pick apart. Right now I essentially am working on the articles and planning to expand out. I'm not sure if I want to publish the articles without the books though, so it could be a long time. However, given that philosophy benefits from discussion and debate, I think there seems to be a good case for publishing the articles. I might try to stand up my website/blog I've been putting off forever once I finish two and start making progress on three. I'd really love to have all four articles published at the same time as a set though, so I might have to figure out a compromise there.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago

Those ideas are not needed, they don't exist. Morality is just a chemical reaction in your brain, which differs from human to human - if the ideas are useful, that implies they can be changed by agency of choice, which in a predetermined world, doesn't exist. > Error theory is a form of moral nihilism - what are you exactly disagreeing with here? More the relativistic morality and psychological morality. > There is nothing that says just because our formal definitions of morality are false that the entire world doesn't matter. I still care for my happiness and life. Moral nihilism doesn't mean that they're false - it means moral truths don't exist, there is no right and wrong. You were predetermined to care for your happiness - but your happiness is already determined. There is nothing you can do to increase or decrease it, it will be what it will be based on the initial conditions. It seems, in general, that you need to cling to ethics as a way to convince your belief in determinism - to cover up for its deficiencies, you have to find a way to convince people that ethics still matter, despite continual argument that it doesn't.

adjkant 6y ago
> Moral nihilism doesn't mean that they're false - it means moral truths don't exist, there is no right and wrong. You were predetermined to care for your happiness I agree 100%. However, you are mismatching objective moral truth with subjective moral truth. I am saying that once you realize the lack of objective moral truth/existence, all that is left is the subjective. Human nature then essentially requires it to become a collective subjective. Subjective preferences of all being essentially become the practical "morality". That's what I am referring to here, not the objective morality that does not and cannot logically exist. Morality is derived not from the physical world but from our own moral psychology. If we change humans in any way, we change morality. And thus morality is also different for every human. Traits like our social nature, empathy, and equal lack of inherent meaning then morph the problem into a collective/intertwined singular subjective morality based on the world state itself. > - but your happiness is already determined. There is nothing you can do to increase or decrease it, it will be what it will be based on the initial conditions. This is where you conflate determinism / free will with agency / choice, which are not the same thing. We do not have the ability to see our future choices and path, so we still have to "function" through it, even if it's a set path. And the questions we have to answer along the way are the reason we looked into morality in the first place, and are no less important or worth of time and effort. > It seems, in general, that you need to cling to ethics as a way to convince your belief in determinism - to cover up for its deficiencies, you have to find a way to convince people that ethics still matter, despite continual argument that it doesn't. You've got the wrong direction of how philosophy works - I started with determinism at the base, I'm simply asking what it leads to. You're only disagreeing with what comes after moral nihilism, but you've made no actual argument other than "no it's not that way". I'd truly love to understand more what your critique of my steps after is.