3 ms·

I'm curious how you reconcile the explicit rejection of morality in Nihilism with your personal morality. I feel these are in conflict. --- Longer take: Defi

I'm curious how you reconcile the explicit rejection of morality in Nihilism with your personal morality. I feel these are in conflict. --- Longer take: Defining what is morally right requires value judgement, and Nihilism rejects morality. What Is (facts) can't tell us what we ought to do. [1] To build a moral framework on what one ought to do, you must necessarily ascribe meaning and value judgement otherwise it can't claim to be moral and it would merely be actions you perform devoid of meaning. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

injeolmi_love 3y ago
There isn’t a fundamental difference between ought/is. Both moral judgements and facts are based on reasoned beliefs. Why do you think meaning is required for making a value judgement? I can very easily claim that killing humans is wrong without relying on any metaphysics, just like I can claim the sky is blue. Both are beliefs based on reasons; meaning can be discarded.
- kuchenbecker 3y ago
  That meaning can be discarded doesn't imply it ought to be discarded. --- Morals/meaning have a shaky absolute foundation, in that deep down nothing probably matters and the universe is indifferent. However I'm a person, born in modern society; everything has relative meaning even if the epistemological foundations are shaky. I see Nihilism similar the mathematicians trying to prove foundational math [1], and similarly doubting it's actually fundamental. Yet here we are using math to amazing things! Math doesn't need to be true for it to be useful. I find useful things valuable. Meaning, in particular shared meaning, is similarly valuable and worth pursuing even if they can't be proven. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory

injeolmi_love 3y ago

There isn’t a fundamental difference between ought/is. Both moral judgements and facts are based on reasoned beliefs. Why do you think meaning is required for making a value judgement? I can very easily claim that killing humans is wrong without relying on any metaphysics, just like I can claim the sky is blue. Both are beliefs based on reasons; meaning can be discarded.

kuchenbecker 3y ago
That meaning can be discarded doesn't imply it ought to be discarded. --- Morals/meaning have a shaky absolute foundation, in that deep down nothing probably matters and the universe is indifferent. However I'm a person, born in modern society; everything has relative meaning even if the epistemological foundations are shaky. I see Nihilism similar the mathematicians trying to prove foundational math [1], and similarly doubting it's actually fundamental. Yet here we are using math to amazing things! Math doesn't need to be true for it to be useful. I find useful things valuable. Meaning, in particular shared meaning, is similarly valuable and worth pursuing even if they can't be proven. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory