Why or why not.
I guess it usually falls in the same category as math, it's an axiomatic deductive system, therefore not objective.
You set criteria X and evaluate real world situations based on it
You set criteria X and evaluate real world situations based on it
What’s your solution to Nihilism?
L
what is objective morality
A set boundary between right and wrong that goes beyond humanity.
L
well what are right or wrong then ,is something right if I call it right?
Yes but it’s for higher iq individuals like us
Wdym? Niihilism is a belief/way of seeing things, not a problem to be solved.
As I said before, I can't prove if either Nihilism is wrong or right, though if what you mean is ''Are there any alternatives to Nihilism?'', then the answer is of course
Last edited:
Im low iq
Don’t know tbh
Not believing in objective morality can lead someone to believing that nothing truly matters since there isn’t a right or wrong way of behaving. This can lead to some very harmful outcomes not only for the nihilist but for others aswell, which can threaten a species’ survival. Are you okay with this? If not, whats your solution?
Last edited:
Slippery slope, one realising that there is no objective morality does not imply nihilism and nihilism doesn't imply harmful behaviour.
You are approaching dostoevsky views on nihilism and yes, everything can be allowed, especially without a being that objectively defines what is wrong or right. Does it mean this is likely to happen, especially when it causes much less benefit to society overall? No, people won't necessarily start hurting each other simply because it isn't objectively wrong, they already feel empathy and have their own moral convictions, which don't need to be objective. Culture and the State already serve as a mean for most people to not fall on nihilism
I never denied this.
It can easily lead to it.
Are you admitting that humans require a moral framework in order to prosper?
This is because of conditioning.
The authority of culture and the state is unfounded.
Then the chain of events is not true, it's a slippery slope.
Are niihilists any more violent than non niihilists? Does niihilism turns one individual more violent? I never saw any evidence backing it
Yes, though it doesn't need to be objective (also, as long as there is an axiom most people aree with). Also, I'm including ethical egoism as such.
You really think empathy is a result of socialization/something learned?
Indeed, but as long as it's beneficial to them, why would they dismantle them? You can see that non religious countries aren't more violent than religious ones, the huge majority of people don't have a reason to keep breaking the law and disturbing the order (as long as they have their meets need)
Society deems what's right or wrong. Society is a man made construct, so what can be consider right and wrong is also made up by man. Animals don't do what they think is right or wrong, they do what they feel they have to do. Humans can't do what they want to do because they fear what society will do, so they do what they think is right, what they think society will reward them for.
Nihilism can occur from denying objective morality. It isn’t impossible
I personally believe that real Nihilists are dead.
Yes
Maybe they don’t want to be ruled or controlled by someone or something who’s authority is unfounded.
Then the majority of people have no problem with might is right, as that’s the only way that state can legitimize its authority.
Are you implying that humans have an innate sense of right and wrong?
By Society do you mean the state?
Last edited:
Ok, so if one doesn't [UWSL]necessarily [/UWSL]imply the other, why is it a problem at all? Why should the first be prevented (denying objective morality)? That's what your main point is.
Not might is right, but ''It benefits me, I don't want the social order to be disturbished and I see no need in harming others''. The State just serves as a mean to coerce others to avoid certain behaviours and since most people understand how harmful they are, they keep those laws there
Last edited:
Morality isn't something you can find in nature, it isn't something that can exist without humans to think about it unlike mathematics for example, which is an abstraction of real world structures.
There's no outside entity dictating rules. It's all inside our heads, which are determined by our culture and upbringing.
You can appel to a god, but gods are cultural things too.
There's no outside entity dictating rules. It's all inside our heads, which are determined by our culture and upbringing.
You can appel to a god, but gods are cultural things too.
I admittedly put myself into a corner by saying that real nihilists are dead, but it’s a possibility that nihilism can emerge from not having an objective moral framework. I simply wanted your solution to it
you previously admitted that humans need to follow a moral framework if they want to prosper. You don’t think Nihilism is a barrier to that?
How does the State enforce laws? Through force.
The State just serves as a mean to coerce others to avoid certain behaviours
- Do you believe this to be the fundamental role of the state?
What do you believe determines a culture?
Last edited:
But how being a possibility is enough to justify what you said before? That denying objectivity morality is a real problem, if one doesn't imply the other, much less Niihilism will grow if and only if objectivity morality is denied, therefore objectivity reality doesn't need to be accepted in order to stop Niihilism.
I said they need to follow a moral framework, not that it needs to be objectively true or that a non objective moral system will lead to chaos. I don't.
No, I got myself wrong in that one, it's not the fundamental role of the state, but it's one of them
Isn't one of the main aspects the material and environmental (climate, soil, natural phenomena and etc) conditions of a society? At least that's what I believe
Last edited:
B
Mathematics is a human construct. It's how we understand, communicate, and evaluate those real-world structures, their properties, and the interrelations between them. The abstractions of math map very accurately to the real world, which tell us that our abstract language construction to understand the world is accurate. This is why mathematics is the most reliable human tool to ever exist for all time.
Similarly, morality is also a human construct. It's how we understand, communicate, and evaluate the actions of conscious and rational, free-acting agents, as they behave independently in relation to themselves, in relation to themselves and their environments (or spaces), or in relation to at least one other conscious and rational, free-acting agent and/or the spaces that all or at least one agent occupies. Unfortunately, our abstractions of morality - encased as ethical systems, both secular and religious - do not accurately map to the the exponential complexities of those actions, including, but not limited to, all possible permutations of all possible actions in all possible spaces (including probability spaces) between all possible agents. This is before taking into account all possible reasons and rationale, all possible emotional states, all possible intents for which an action is taken and its moral value evaluated, and all possible outcomes for all possible permutations of actions and intents.
The complexity of such a system is so stupendously immense, so cosmically grand, that no possible theoretical computing machine can model an accurate system, let alone give you the outputs. It is impossible to accurately and fully comprehend for a human mind, let alone build an accurate system to map values to their respective actions. Imagine..... Hm. Imagine some very large, but finite, Knuth up-arrow chain of exponentials, but at each exponential step there is some kind of factorial function, like the gamma function. That should give you some idea of the truly awesome complexity of moral problems and just how impossibly difficult it is to derive "objective" morals (and also why intelligent machines will never be able to make "correct" moral decisions; sorry AI engineers, it's over for you, just give up now, boyos).
The average laypersons - and, I'd argue, thinkers even - do not understand (or appreciate) just exactly how difficult of a problem this is, and so they just casually dismiss it as something that doesn't exist. And, tbh, I completely do not blame them for doing so, even if they're wrong on that. I don't think that objective morality is problem that has any kind of human solution, but that does not inherently negate the existence of any such solution out there (there could be an alien solution, or a divine solution). I had immediately given up on it after understanding the problem and realizing how many universe cycles of lifetimes I would need to try and figure this shit out. To be blunt, I would need to be a god to even think about trying. This is one of those situations where it's best to let religion deal with it and take the entire thing on faith.
Last edited:
W
are you a philosopher or something? IQ as high as the stars
This answer doesn’t satisfy me brocel. I don’t want to have to trust religion, I want a clear answer. If this isn’t possible, then I will fall into nihilism, which can be very destructive.
Last edited:
B
There answer is that it does exist, but it's too difficult - impossibly so - to be modelled from first principles and fully captured in a formal system that the average person can follow, for reasons I've explained. The next best thing is religion, which makes the claim of objective morality (issued by God). Since the problem is so complex, the only thing you can do is to take the idea on faith.
Which religion, as they have opposing stances on right and wrong.
B
I don't know, brocel. That's for you to decide. Look into every religion and see which one best deals with this problem for you, if you're genuinely concerned with descending into nihilism.
I think Christianity is best, but I just can't bring myself to believe it. Nonetheless, I believe jesus' teachings should spread and taught everywhere. I believe it is best for reducing suffering, which we can all agree is a bad thing and thus should be avoided/prevented whenever possible. It's getting other people to incorporate it into their lives which will be difficult. As you said earlier in another thread, humans are selfish. I believe this will be our species' demise.
There is no objective morality because there is no objective reality. And there is no objective reality because bias seeps into everything, even unconscious bias created by things like genes
High iq mogs me
B
Whatever you decide, make sure you give it an honest effort to investigate and think through things on your own. I don't personally bother with theological ethical systems, because of the immeasurable metaphysical creator-creation gap and the subsequent loss of understanding (or "data", if you will), but I can appreciate that there is often high wisdom in many of the ethical precepts. Much of the moral prohibitions on certain acts have a wisdom that go far beyond the individual and their selfish desires, and just a few moments of serious thought can reveal that.
Take the act of adultery, for example, that is ordained as an immoral and forbidden act in practically every religion. Why do you suppose that's the case? The obvious harms are the emotional and familial harms. People can get heartbroken, and families can break apart. But why is that a problem? Well, we can explore the psychological harm and stresses to the wronged party (the one who got cheated on), and how that could affect their physical health, as well as affect other aspects of their life (their social and professional lives, and the chain effect on the people around them). And what of the children? This could severely impact their growth and development. Why is that a problem? Who cares if they hate their mom or dad? Everyone else should care. Those kids will then grow up and enter society as rational actors who will engage and interact with you and I. It could easily affect how they treat their own spouses and children. Any harm and psychological baggage (resentment) from that singular act of betrayal that one parent committed could have cascading effects decades down the road that would potentially affect all of us to some degree. Even the most minute of perturbations will have far reaching effects down the road (classic dynamical system).
Try explaining all of that - what social scientists have only recently begun to explore in the last few decades - to a sheep herder, who's just trying to make sure wolves and wild dogs don't eat his sheep, that this is the reason why God says he shouldn't bang his friend's wife (or wives). And all of that is just for the one simple act of being mindful of where you stick your dick and where it doesn't belong.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
