6 ms·

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 ot

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

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