Nihilism

[Light of Truth]

I've been reading a little bit on Nihilism and I was wanting to get a better understanding of it from asking questions directed at actual Nihilists.

Why are you a Nihilist? How do you feel about subjective morality? How do you cope with others when their subjective morality is destructive, i.e., Hitler's Nazi Germany.

I have yet to conclude on my views on Nihilism, so I am hoping by hearing some views of actual Nihilists I can determine what I believe.

Isn't Existential Nihilism and Moral Nihilism separate? or do they have to go together? Is Existential Nihilism the belief that after we die there is nothing?

Thanks.

EDIT: Also, what is your definition of Nihilism?

[Ubermensch]

If you're interested in learning about Nihilism, go here.

[lrh9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

Existential nihilism and moral nihilism aren't the same thing, but they probably go hand in hand as it were.

I'm a nihilist because I think that objective purpose and morality don't exist. It's that simple.

Subjective morality is merely the expression of personal desires.

How do we cope with destructive people? In different ways. Note that moral realists can't avoid this problem either.

Claiming there is an objective morality has always had questionable efficacy of saving anyone from "evil" or ensuring "right prevails".

At least as often as someone who is "immoral" is defeated, someone who is "moral" is victimized. "Morality" seems rather useless when you think about it.

[theVOID]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

Existential nihilism and moral nihilism aren't the same thing, but they probably go hand in hand as it were.

I'm a nihilist because I think that objective purpose and morality don't exist. It's that simple.

Subjective morality is merely the expression of personal desires.

It's great to see some people rejecting the unfortunate combination of words that is "subjective morality" I totally agree that if you're not a realist then Nihilism is the only legitimate position.

How do we cope with destructive people? Simple. If their behavior conflicts with our values we oppose them. Note that moral realists can't avoid this problem either.

You can change their malleable desires using praise and condemnation before they get to the stage where they desire something that is against the interests of society - That should always be the first step, you can try and convince them that their desires are not good and condemn them for it and if that doesn't work threaten to thwart their most of their other desires by imprisoning them or threaten all of their desires by offering death

Claiming there is an objective morality has always had questionable efficacy of saving anyone from "evil" or ensuring "right prevails".

It's not a claim I have a proof for moral realism you'd like to see it.

The only realistic advantage from a position of moral realism is that it makes it far clearer which values (in my case desires) are actually good and bad for the population, helping people achieve a state of affairs in which more desires are promoted and less are thwarted.

I don't expect knowing that there is an objective evaluation of moral value to change anyone's behaviour unless it has the effect of changing their desires, though I doubt it would. Praise and condemnation, punishment and reward and threats are the only things that really change the desires someone has.

The moral practice is the biggest advantage in a system of moral realism that is true, but can be one of the most devastating things in a system that is false (Like religion).

At least as often as someone who is "immoral" is defeated, someone who is "moral" is victimized. "Morality" seems rather useless when you think about it.

All that suggests is that we don't have an internal moral drive, and I agree that any moral realism that supposes we have a moral compass or are receiving moral instruction is completely ineffective as a matter of principle. Can we still determine what desires are ones that tend to promote more and stronger desires than they thwart? Absolutely - And for every time we realise a mistake in our intuitions we have improved the situation - Not an instantaneous fix, but a new way of evaluating consequences.

Are desires the only object of evaluation regarding value? That's debatable, but I think my case for this is extremely strong.

[lrh9]

I remain a moral nihilist.

You can change their malleable desires using praise and condemnation before they get to the stage where they desire something that is against the interests of society - That should always be the first step, you can try and convince them that their desires are not good and condemn them for it and if that doesn't work threaten to thwart their most of their other desires by imprisoning them or threaten all of their desires by offering death

What's your point in relation to what I said? This - as it is now - only suggests to me that you are trying to have the last word.

I doubt you can prove moral realism.

[theVOID]

Uh, I was stating that there are other methods for dealing with conflict between values other than confrontation, is that not true? Also It's not a "last word" as I wasn't anticipating the end of the topic.

Here's the proof:

1. All values exist as a relationship between desires and states of affairs and/or objects.
2. Desires are the only objects of evaluation that exist regarding value.
3. That which is good for an individual is that which fulfils the most/strongest desires from their competing sets of desires.
4. Morality is a subset of value dealing with shared values (good for us).
5. The values in question when it comes to making moral evaluation are all other desires (competing values)
6. Therefore, that which is morally good (good for us) is a desire that tends to fulfil the most and/or strongest desires from competing sets of desires.

If you spot any flaws feel free to point them out.

[lrh9]

Uh, I was stating that there are other methods for dealing with conflict between values other than confrontation, is that not true?

I think that's debatable depending on one's semantic and practical understanding of confrontation. I would still like an explanation of how your statements relate to my quote.

Here's the proof:

1. All values exist as a relationship between desires and states of affairs and/or objects.
2. Desires are the only objects of evaluation that exist regarding value.
3. That which is good for an individual is that which fulfils the most/strongest desires from their competing sets of desires.
4. Morality is a subset of value dealing with shared values (good for us).
5. The values in question when it comes to making moral evaluation are all other desires (competing values)
6. Therefore, that which is morally good (good for us) is a desire that tends to fulfil the most and/or strongest desires from competing sets of desires.

If you spot any flaws feel free to point them out.

I don't understand your argument. I'm unconvinced that moral propositions are true or false depending on objective features of the universe. Perhaps you would have better success if you presented an example of a moral proposition, and then proved it true or false using some objective features of the universe.

[theVOID]

Uh, I was stating that there are other methods for dealing with conflict between values other than confrontation, is that not true?

I think that's debatable depending on one's semantic and practical understanding of confrontation. I would still like an explanation of how your statements relate to my quote.

Is praising someone when they do something good confrontation? I wouldn't think it possible to rule that as confrontation.

You said that if we have a destructive person the way to deal with them is confrontation. It's one thing, but not the only thing.

Here's the proof:

1. All values exist as a relationship between desires and states of affairs and/or objects.
2. Desires are the only objects of evaluation that exist regarding value.
3. That which is good for an individual is that which fulfils the most/strongest desires from their competing sets of desires.
4. Morality is a subset of value dealing with shared values (good for us).
5. The values in question when it comes to making moral evaluation are all other desires (competing values)
6. Therefore, that which is morally good (good for us) is a desire that tends to fulfil the most and/or strongest desires from competing sets of desires.

If you spot any flaws feel free to point them out.

I don't understand your argument. I'm unconvinced that moral propositions are true or false depending on objective features of the universe. Perhaps you would have better success if you presented an example of a moral proposition, and then proved it true or false using some objective features of the universe.

Relational measurements are objective - There is a true or false answer. The distance to the sun form the earth is a relational measurement and there is a true or false answer at any given time. I am saying that because all values are relationships between desires and states of affairs and/or objects, and because shared values are relationships between competing sets of desires, we can objectively determine whether a desire is good or bad, and thus determine whether a value is good or bad, relative to it's ability to have the most utility for the most people (which necessarily has the most value if the premise about values being desires is true).

There are two categories of value here.

1. Individual value that deals with the individual's internal competing sets of desires.
2. Shared value that deals with competing sets of desires when they overlap.

If what is good for an individual is fulfilling the most and/or strongest desires from their internal competing sets of desires, then what is good for society is that which fulfils the most and/or strongest desires from their competing sets of desires.

This is necessarily true if the premise "All values exist as a relationship between desires and states of affairs or objects" is true.

Examples:

Suffering is not necessarily morally wrong, if a person enjoys suffering then a desire that tends to cause suffering is good for them and any situation where their desires are the only ones in question a desire to inflict suffering is a good desire for all involved. This desire however is bad for the most people - It tends to thwart more and stronger desires than it fulfils, thus people have a reason for action to condemn the desire to inflict suffering.

Rape is morally wrong because it is not possible to desire to be raped (by definition), thus rape is a desire that if was in a population would thwart more and stronger desires than it promoted. Even someone who desires to rape others necessarily does not desire to be raped.

Euthanasia is amoral as it is a desire to end the life of someone who does not desire to live. A desire not to live is a desire that in the case of the person wishing to die is stronger than all of their conflicting desires, thus it is not morally wrong to end their lives.

[lrh9]

You said that if we have a destructive person the way to deal with them is confrontation.

No I did not.

[theVOID]

Sorry, I misremembered this line:

"How do we cope with destructive people? Simple. If their behavior conflicts with our values we oppose them"

With that sorted:

There are other ways to deal with destructive people than opposing them. Praise and condemnation are two.