(March 30, 2013 at 12:15 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Why should anyone take your understanding of ethics to be authoritative?

Because they are a bit more refined than the ones carved in stone a couple of millennium ago by a Bronze Age goat herder that thought slavery, rape and stoning your children to death was ethical?

(March 30, 2013 at 12:15 pm)jstrodel Wrote: What is the ground of ethics if not human nature? Why should anyone take your understanding of ethics to be authoritative?

Human nature is so varied that it'd find its ethics contradictory. It would also be so broad as to sap any moral meaning from the word.

Why should they need to take my understanding of ethics anywhere?

So you are accepting that your beliefs are nihlistic, that they do not advance any ethical views at all that are authoritative in any sense of the word?

No, nihilistic beliefs would state that any moral values are worthless.

That is what she said. Her beliefs are as good as any, therefore they are worthless.

1. My beliefs are as good as any.
2. If my beliefs are as good as any, they are as good as none.
3. My beliefs are as good as none (MP 1,2)
4. If my beliefs are as good as none, they are nihilistic
5. My beliefs are nihilistic (MP 3,4)

Where does this break down?

Where exactly did she say her beliefs were as good as any? What I remember her saying is that using humanity as a starting point for ethics is doomed to failure, which isn't the same thing.

Quote:Human nature is so varied that it'd find its ethics contradictory. It would also be so broad as to sap any moral meaning from the word.

Why should they need to take my understanding of ethics anywhere?

Why should they need to take my ethics anywhere - implies that the ethics are good enough to stay her opinions, making them as good as any.

(March 30, 2013 at 10:52 pm)jstrodel Wrote: So you are accepting that your beliefs are nihlistic, that they do not advance any ethical views at all that are authoritative in any sense of the word?

Everything exists without meaning inherent. It has no shape, no color, no taste... it is nothing. Meaning is given by observing, inferring, and attributing what is perceived... subjective. One's meaning is not that of another's... even an ideologically identical set of meanings will differ at least in location, and in whom holds them.

I have my ethical views. Sometimes they include killing, stealing, and general brutality... is that not an authoritative expression of my ethics? My values are real, and the values of others are real also... all things are real, regardless of what that reality consists of.

---

(March 30, 2013 at 11:14 pm)jstrodel Wrote: That is what she said. Her beliefs are as good as any, therefore they are worthless.

That last bit is your own value judgment. I certainly do not consider the beliefs of myself (or of others) to be worthless.

At the very least... they might be worth some base merriment from derision.

Quote:1. My beliefs are as good as any.
2. If my beliefs are as good as any, they are as good as none.
3. My beliefs are as good as none (MP 1,2)
4. If my beliefs are as good as none, they are nihilistic
5. My beliefs are nihilistic (MP 3,4)

Where does this break down?

You're doing it again. Didn't we already tell you to not leave your straw men alive?

---

(March 30, 2013 at 11:10 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: No, nihilistic beliefs would state that any moral values are worthless.

Not necessarily... it would be to state that there is no inherent moral values.

Ignorant beliefs, on the other hand

---

(March 30, 2013 at 11:32 pm)jstrodel Wrote:

Quote:Human nature is so varied that it'd find its ethics contradictory. It would also be so broad as to sap any moral meaning from the word.

Why should they need to take my understanding of ethics anywhere?

Why should they need to take my ethics anywhere - implies that the ethics are good enough to stay her opinions, making them as good as any.

Context, and try again.