Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[genkaus]

Philosophically, I've attempted to explain Aquinas' statement.

Repeating the statement is not attempted explanation.

To me it was plainly obvious without the need for explanation. I would think that's the nature of philosophical propositions. They're made and are presented for critique.

You would be wrong. Making philosophical propositions without proper justification is a bad way to practice philosophy. It is the same thing as having a theory with no evidence backing it up and then asking others to disprove it.

You are free to go check up on the source, which is widely available online in many formats, and then come back here and raise your points of contention of you so wish. I don't own those claims, I merely repeat them. What I'm getting here is admonishment for not making someone else's claims understandable to those who start from a position of objection, of having a biased starting point which would naturally prevent themselves from understanding it anyway. The source is there, and with three objections to every point dealt with. Rather than bleat on repeatedly here, just go and work it out for yourself just like everyone else has to. I can't think for you.

The old "just-repeating-what-he-said" excuse.

Hey guys, did you hear, all Christians are perverts.
Proof, why no, I don't have any proof. I'm simply repeating the claim that Quran makes. The source is all there, you can go find it online and read whatever justification it gives. Its not my job to justify this proposition that I'm repeating, its up to you to critique it.

[fr0d0]

I didn't just repeat them gen. I put them in my own words, and then did that afresh a few times just to try to help you guys understand it. You're still trying to misrepresent my original statement. Let me try one more time.

Reality one: unfair
Reality two: fair

Person living reality one: his decisions/ moral values are based upon the scope of reality as he knows and experiences it. If he knows a murderer will never get punished, justice to him could only come from equal suffering dealt to the perpetrator.

Person in reality two, has no concern about exacting revenge, because he knows justice to be enacted. He feels no need to punish over and above what might be fair to compensate for any lack of justice.

Therefore moral standards from the two perfective are different. The moral standard of the person in reality one is inferior to the standard of the person in reality two. Because person one acts given injustice.

Morality restricted by injustice is a limited morality.
Morality unrestricted is not limited.
Therefore morality based upon a fair reality is superior to morality based upon an unfair reality.

[Whateverist]

Somehow this sort of thing always comes off sounding like someone telling me I can't or don't have something I actually do have because I don't agree with them.

[genkaus]

I didn't just repeat them gen. I put them in my own words, and then did that afresh a few times just to try to help you guys understand it. You're still trying to misrepresent my original statement. Let me try one more time.

Reality one: unfair
Reality two: fair

Person living reality one: his decisions/ moral values are based upon the scope of reality as he knows and experiences it. If he knows a murderer will never get punished, justice to him could only come from equal suffering dealt to the perpetrator.

Person in reality two, has no concern about exacting revenge, because he knows justice to be enacted. He feels no need to punish over and above what might be fair to compensate for any lack of justice.

Therefore moral standards from the two perfective are different. The moral standard of the person in reality one is inferior to the standard of the person in reality two. Because person one acts given injustice.

When you put it like this, I can clearly see that the moral standard of person in reality one is superior to the standard of person in reality two. The person in reality one is proactive in establishing justice and prevents further injustice as far as possible. Whereas the person in reality two might as well sit on his ass all the time because he thinks justice will be served automatically. The person in reality one would punish the murderer as soon as possible after the murder - thus preventing the murderer from killing anyone else. The person in reality two would just let the murderer go on a killing spree because he thinks that the murderer will get his just rewards in the afterlife.

And then there are the victims - the person assuming reality one would think that since there is no automatic justice, the victims don't deserve their terrible fate of being killed or tortured or raped or robbed. So, he'd make ensure - as far as possible - that those horrible things don't befall the innocent. The person in reality two would assume that since justice is always served, the person who was killed or tortured or raped or robbed deserved it.

What I'm seeing here is that person 1 is definitely more moral than person 2.

Morality restricted by injustice is a limited morality.
Morality unrestricted is not limited.
Therefore morality based upon a fair reality is superior to morality based upon an unfair reality.

Person one's morality is not limited by injustice - it overcomes it and is made all the more better for it.
Person two's morality, on the other hand, is limited by fantasies.
Which is why morality based on a fair reality is much, much inferior to the morality based on assumption of no fairness in reality.

[fr0d0]

Well that's ass about face, and I'll give you points for creative black is white reasoning. Fancy spending some brain cycles considering the argument for and balancing the two?

[genkaus]

Well that's ass about face, and I'll give you points for creative black is white reasoning. Fancy spending some brain cycles considering the argument for and balancing the two?

To be honest, that was been my reasoning even when I was a theist. As a theist, I used to think that god planted all the ridiculous moral rules in religion to see who rises above the crap and shows himself to be truly moral. As a deist, I thought that god made a reality without any inherent justice because he wanted to see who among humans actually came up and implemented the principle as a test of character. As an atheist, I got rid of the "god made" part, but the rest of the principle still stands. My views here are the result of spending plenty of brain cycles on it.

[The Grand Nudger]

You reckon we ought to shitcan our criminal justice systems Frodo? Send the cops home, empty out the prisons, fire the judges - no more lawyers. That sort of thing?

[bennyboy]

Therefore morality based upon a fair reality is superior to morality based upon an unfair reality.

Hmmm. . . how many realities do we get to choose from? I prefer the reality in which I have exclusive sexual access to all female beach volleyball players.

[fr0d0]

To many brain cycles gen. You went and got it confused. I particularly liked your theistic perspective. With lovers like you who needs enemies right?
Occurs to me that your moral latitude would be unknown to you, but objectively limited. You seem to agree that moral experience can vary, and then a narrower scope makes for superior judgement. Quite counter intuitive.

[genkaus]

To many brain cycles gen. You went and got it confused. I particularly liked your theistic perspective. With lovers like you who needs enemies right?
Occurs to me that your moral latitude would be unknown to you, but objectively limited. You seem to agree that moral experience can vary, and then a narrower scope makes for superior judgement. Quite counter intuitive.

Occurs to me that you still haven't addressed my actual argument. My moral views are limited to the objective reality. Broadening the perspective by inclusion of fantasies does not make for superior judgment - the same way broadening science by including pseudoscience does not make for a better science. The same way broadening your palate by eating crap doesn't make for a better diet.