nihilism

[popeye1945]

ImmanualLots of things "come out of the very nature" of the humanity you so admire: war, rape, pedophelia, murder, slander, genocide, racism, slavery... For since you believe that there's nothing but "the human" or "nature" behind morality, then there's also nothing else behind such grotesque actions. You might as easily argue that "biology" is the basic of immorality.
But people who advance such ideas never want to talk about that side. They want us to think that only good things come "from biology," or "from nature," or "from humanity," or whatever anthropomorphized deity they use to replace God.

Still, they've left nowhere else for evil to come from.

Tell me what morality is if it is not social construction

The "social construction" idea is just as bad as the "biology" idea. If morality is just a "social construction," then it's not even any longer something made up by a particular person, in his/her own interests, at the least. Then, it's just "constructed" by the brainless interactions of other people. And it's still not capable of making anybody bound to heed it, except by using pure power and violence to compel. It has no rational case at all.

you realize I am using anthropomorphic language here

Yes, everybody who claims there's no God does that, even while pretending it refers to nothing in particular. It's like they can't even keep faith with themselves.

Nature has endowed organisms to be very concerned about their own survival,

"Nature" has no opinion about whether they succeed or not. Lots of species go extinct, and "Nature," your anthropomorphization, never lifts a finger.

Biology is the only rational foundation for said morality...

You can't even explain how "biology" compels a single moral precept. Because it actually doesn't. So there's nothing "rational" about such a belief -- it's pure, blind optimism, devoid of any reasonable explanation at all.

And now that you mention it, I DO hear the sound of dry leaves scooting across the pavement...but they're not my leaves.
[/quote]

Your a believer, I don't waste my time on believers.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanual

Your a believer, I don't waste my time on believers.

Okay, let me list your errors there.

One is "you're," another is called comma splice, the third is called "ad hominem fallacy," and the fourth is just good ol' fashioned bigotry. I should add that if spelling "Immanuel" is a problem, people can just go with "IC." I rarely see five mental errors in just over one line, but that's pretty impressive.

You should note, though, that no part of my argument asks you to be a "believer" in anything. It deals entirely with the irrationality of the "nature" or "biology" or "socially constructed" answers. So refusing to engage me doesn't solve your problem: the problem is with your own proposals, not mine.

[popeye1945]

About as expected!

[uwot]

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

So refusing to engage me doesn't solve your problem: the problem is with your own proposals, not mine.

[iambiguous]

Treating religious belief as a cafeteria where you pick and choose the beliefs and the behaviors that are most suitable to you seems far, far removed from a reasonable assessment of the sort of thing a God, the God would advocate Himself.

Good point.

If God exists (we'll make that just for argument's sake), then He surely has some opinion about what are appropriate beliefs, and what are not; unless, like the deistic "Absentee Landlord" god, He has no particular interest in what goes on here at all.

If this "for argument's sake" existing God is omniscient then He doesn't have opinions, right? There would seem to be nothing that He doesn't know about 1] what constitutes a Sin and 2] what the appropriate judgment must be.

Why do you suppose the overwhelming preponderance of moral objectivists settle on a God, the God, their God as the "transcending font" of choice?

On other hand, bringing this God of theirs into discussions that revolve around these factors...

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of this God
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages dozens of Gods -- paths to immortality and salvation -- were/are championed, but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in God
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God

....is something I have always had difficulties in bringing about.

3] in particular:

Yes, in a No God world, nihilists can as individuals come up with their own renditions of the "right way to live". And that might revolve around almost anything. But, from my frame of mind, that doesn't make my own arguments go away. What each individual nihilist does "come up with" will be no less rooted existentially in dasein.

It's perhaps worse than that, actually.

What any particular person "comes up with" will be devoid of obligation and implications, both for the "comer up" and for anyone else. It will, in short, not be a morality at all, but rather merely a contingent personal preference. It will have no moral status, since there is no moral external standard from which to judge it.

Indeed, it is the moral objectivist who comes up with one or another ecclesiastic foundation from which he or she goes about selecting behaviors deemed obligatory. Producing actual consequences bursting at the seams with implications. Crusades, inquisitions, jihads, fatwas and the like.

The moral nihilist, on the other hand, might take an "existential leap" to one another political prejudice. Or champion "moderation, negotiation and compromise" as the "best of all possible worlds". Though, sure, he or she may instead go down the paths taken by sociopaths. They do what they want. Concerned primarily with not getting caught and punished by those who won't tolerate that frame of mind. Then it revolves around power.

Thus...

Or, perhaps, the most ominous of moral nihilists. Those who for all practical purposes become sociopaths. Nihilism at its most profoundly problematic. At its most dangerous. Bump into one of them and you can be toast. And there is no "reasoning" with them, is there?

The thing that keeps this possibility from being obvious to everyone is that pratically nobody, including the most theoretically-convinced moral nihilist can bring himself to do it. Usually, the person in question lapses back into some form of inconsistency -- some received code or socially-provided code of decency he can follow instead of working on nihilistic implications.

Again, this is rooted subjectively in dasein...rooted in particular historical and cultural and interpersonal contexts. The point [mine] isn't how many or how few become sociopaths but that someone [for whatever reason] does become one. In a No God world, there does not appear to be a secular/philosophical argument able to demonstrate that being a sociopath is necessarily wrong/immoral.

So, if you stumble into one, it then does come -- must come -- down to power. Will the sociopath prevail, or will you?

It's interesting, though, that a person who claims to be moral and yet does evil, like a humanitarian who embezzles from charitable funds, or like a pedophile priest, is scorned for his moral inconsistency, his betrayal of principle -- and rightly so, of course. There is, however, no comparable penalties for anyone who claims to be a Nihilist and yet behaves in a conventionally moral way. It's almost like people recognize that it's a good thing when a Nihilist doesn't live out his creed...

Out in the world we live and interact in however this sort of thing can play out in countless different ways. This or that particular individual claiming to be either a moral objectivist or a moral nihilist. Behaving true to form or hypocritically. But philosophers seem no less at a loss in evaluating either what they choose to do in reactions to the consequences.

An omniscient and omnipotent God seems fundamentally imperative here.

[Immanuel Can]

Treating religious belief as a cafeteria where you pick and choose the beliefs and the behaviors that are most suitable to you seems far, far removed from a reasonable assessment of the sort of thing a God, the God would advocate Himself.

Good point.

If God exists (we'll make that just for argument's sake), then He surely has some opinion about what are appropriate beliefs, and what are not; unless, like the deistic "Absentee Landlord" god, He has no particular interest in what goes on here at all.

If this "for argument's sake" existing God is omniscient then He doesn't have opinions, right?

It depends on what you mean by "opinions," I would suggest. Because just as there are rational and irrational arguments, there are mere opinions and opinions which express values or preferences. God would have none of the former, of course; but if God has a personal idenity, they he would have the latter.

Why do you suppose the overwhelming preponderance of moral objectivists settle on a God, the God, their God as the "transcending font" of choice?

My view? Because it's inevitable.

On other hand, bringing this God of theirs into discussions that revolve around these factors...

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of this God
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages dozens of Gods -- paths to immortality and salvation -- were/are championed, but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in God
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God

....is something I have always had difficulties in bringing about.

These are all good questions, but none of which are at all surprising to Theists. There's been a very great deal of systematic debate and discussion on these topics...some of it, even here.

...it is the moral objectivist who comes up with one or another ecclesiastic foundation from which he or she goes about selecting behaviors deemed obligatory. Producing actual consequences bursting at the seams with implications. Crusades, inquisitions, jihads, fatwas and the like.

That's one kind of consequence. The other sort is compassion, charity, diligence, human rights, honesty, integrity, poor relief, educational initiatives, health care, aid programs, adoption agencies, pacifism, truth-telling, monogamy, prospertity, and so on.

The actual determinant of which you get depends not on moral objectivism itself, but on the precise nature of the objectivist belief in question, and its interaction with human agents.

In a No God world, there does not appear to be a secular/philosophical argument able to demonstrate that being a sociopath is necessarily wrong/immoral.

None I know of. But I would be willing on hearing one, if one could be fashioned.

So, if you stumble into one, it then does come -- must come -- down to power. Will the sociopath prevail, or will you?

Barring the intervention of chance, I suspect it would be the sociopath. He/she has much more latitude to act than the secular moralist will have.

An omniscient and omnipotent God seems fundamentally imperative here.

But it would have to be a particular kind of God. If a god were, say, omniscient and omnipotent but also malevolent or indifferent, it's hard to see how this would help the situation. Morality would still be either irrelevant or a nasty trap of some kind.

So the God in question would also have to be good, and have good intentions toward His Creation. He would have to be just, loving, and willing to act, as well...an uninvolved "god" would not imply any particular morality, would it?

[iambiguous]

If God exists (we'll make that just for argument's sake), then He surely has some opinion about what are appropriate beliefs, and what are not; unless, like the deistic "Absentee Landlord" god, He has no particular interest in what goes on here at all.

If this "for argument's sake" existing God is omniscient then He doesn't have opinions, right?

It depends on what you mean by "opinions," I would suggest. Because just as there are rational and irrational arguments, there are mere opinions and opinions which express values or preferences. God would have none of the former, of course; but if God has a personal idenity, they he would have the latter.

Again, lets focus in on Mary's abortion. If it can be demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that Mary did in fact have an abortion, it would not be just an opinion among mere mortals. Only [in my view] an opinion that it is moral or immoral to have one. On the other hand, suppose it could not be wholly determined by mere mortals if Mary did in fact have an abortion. And having an abortion was a capital crime. Even here then we would need an omnsicient God. Those opposed to abortion as immoral who believed in this omniscient God could fall back on Him to confront Mary on Judgment Day.

Opinions that express values and preferences? Why yours and your God's? Why not the values and preferences of one of many, many other renditions of God? Even that would be no less a "personal opinion". An opinion that I then root in dasein.

Why do you suppose the overwhelming preponderance of moral objectivists settle on a God, the God, their God as the "transcending font" of choice?

My view? Because it's inevitable.

And how is that not just a personal opinion? It's clearly not just an opinion that of all the transcending fonts out there to choose from [in a free will world] a God, the God is the choice of literally hundreds and hundreds of millions around the world. But it seems equally clear [to me] that a belief in God itself remains just a personal opinion. Rooted in particular historical and cultural and individual/interpersonal contexts.

On other hand, bringing this God of theirs into discussions that revolve around these factors...

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of this God
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages dozens of Gods -- paths to immortality and salvation -- were/are championed, but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in God
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God

....is something I have always had difficulties in bringing about.

These are all good questions, but none of which are at all surprising to Theists. There's been a very great deal of systematic debate and discussion on these topics...some of it, even here.

Yes, but I suspect none of them have fully resolved the conflicting assessments. And, of course, that is applicable not only to theists debating atheists, but theists debating other theists. And then there are the debates between the theists and those on the No God religious paths. Or between them and the pantheists.

Opinions flying left and right. But nothing in the way of definitive conclusions. Philosophical, theological or otherwise.

...it is the moral objectivist who comes up with one or another ecclesiastic foundation from which he or she goes about selecting behaviors deemed obligatory. Producing actual consequences bursting at the seams with implications. Crusades, inquisitions, jihads, fatwas and the like.

That's one kind of consequence. The other sort is compassion, charity, diligence, human rights, honesty, integrity, poor relief, educational initiatives, health care, aid programs, adoption agencies, pacifism, truth-telling, monogamy, prospertity, and so on.

Yes, it can always go in many constructive or destructive directions. Depending on the context out in a particular world understood in a particular way. What the moral nihilist focuses in on is how, with respect to each of them, there are those -- the moral objectivists -- who insist that only their own assessment counts.

Compassion for the unborn fetus or the woman desperate not to be pregnant. Same with , "human rights, honesty, integrity". Pick a moral conflagration of note and those on both ends of the spectrum are able to make reasonable arguments that encompass them from their point of view.

With or without God. But with God comes Judgment Day. And here you are judged in order to determine the fate of your "soul" for all the rest of eternity. Again, isn't that why a God, the God, my God is the transcending font of choice.

The actual determinant of which you get depends not on moral objectivism itself, but on the precise nature of the objectivist belief in question, and its interaction with human agents.

Okay, if there are moral objectivists among us, let's explore your own beliefs in regard to a particular context.

So, if you stumble into one, it then does come -- must come -- down to power. Will the sociopath prevail, or will you?

Barring the intervention of chance, I suspect it would be the sociopath. He/she has much more latitude to act than the secular moralist will have.

True. On the other hand...

"Tony : You won't hurt me.
John McClane : Oh, yeah? Why not?
Tony : Because you're a policeman. There are rules for policemen.
John McClane [hurting him] : Yeah. That's what my captain keeps telling me."

The implications of living in a world where, at least in regards to the means, the "good guys" too prevail "by any means necessary". The "to torture or not to torture" question.

An omniscient and omnipotent God seems fundamentally imperative here.

But it would have to be a particular kind of God. If a god were, say, omniscient and omnipotent but also malevolent or indifferent, it's hard to see how this would help the situation. Morality would still be either irrelevant or a nasty trap of some kind.

So the God in question would also have to be good, and have good intentions toward His Creation. He would have to be just, loving, and willing to act, as well...an uninvolved "god" would not imply any particular morality, would it?

True enough. Now all we have to do in regard to the moral conflagrations that have cleaved humanity for centuries now is to settle on which God [ours or theirs] best fits that description.

[Immanuel Can]

...lets focus in on Mary's abortion.

I can't imagine why. I see no relevance. It looks a very clear case. Women who kill their children are bad. You know it, I know it, and even they know it. That's why everybody spends so much time trying to prove it's "okay." They know it's not.

Why do you suppose the overwhelming preponderance of moral objectivists settle on a God, the God, their God as the "transcending font" of choice?

My view? Because it's inevitable.

And how is that not just a personal opinion?

No, it's not an opinion, actually. It's analytically true.

Try not merely to mention, but actually to justify or ground any morality without reference to God. ("That's your mission, should you decide to accept it: good luck, Jim. This message will self destruct in five seconds.")

It's a challenge I've long put to the Atheists, and they've never been able to suggest anything even remotely defensible. They tend to lapse into dumb arguments like, "Well, morality is a social phenomenon, so...(warning: leap of illogic here)...therefore it's justified." Or they say something like, "Well, I make moral assessments...(same leap)...therefore, my assessments are justified." Or worse, "Survival value and moral value are the same" (warning: absurdly obvious factual untruth entailed), or "That which causes pleasure is good, and that which causes pain is bad" (warning: then need to get out of the house more; momma's basement is limiting them).

But if you have something more interesting than any of that sort of codswallop, then I'd be interested in hearing it.

These are all good questions, but none of which are at all surprising to Theists. There's been a very great deal of systematic debate and discussion on these topics...some of it, even here.

Yes, but I suspect none of them have fully resolved the conflicting assessments.

Well, you're incorrect. But to know that, you'd actually have to give those questions the serious kind of investigation they warrant.

There are two kinds of "conflicting assessment." There are some that result from both sides having a different aspect of truth. But there are also those in which one side is simply in error. Either way, the conflict can persist; but the existence of "conflicting assessments" tells us precisely zero about the warrant for the "assessments" in question.

What the moral nihilist focuses in on is how, with respect to each of them, there are those -- the moral objectivists -- who insist that only their own assessment counts.

Moral nihilists don't actually "focus" on anything, because there are no criteria they accept. They can't analyze anything in the moral realm. Nietzsche claimed they had gone "beyond good and evil."

Compassion for the unborn fetus or the woman desperate not to be pregnant.

That's easy. The child.

The woman had a choice. The baby is a victim of her promiscuity and then of her amorality and then of her savagery. And that's the case in all but 1% of the abortion cases, statistically.

With or without God. But with God comes Judgment Day. And here you are judged in order to determine the fate of your "soul" for all the rest of eternity. Again, isn't that why a God, the God, my God is the transcending font of choice.

Well, before God judges, men judge themselves. They make their choices as to whether they wish to know God, or to live as if He doesn't even exist. And in the end, we all get exactly what we asked for.

An omniscient and omnipotent God seems fundamentally imperative here.

But it would have to be a particular kind of God. If a god were, say, omniscient and omnipotent but also malevolent or indifferent, it's hard to see how this would help the situation. Morality would still be either irrelevant or a nasty trap of some kind.

So the God in question would also have to be good, and have good intentions toward His Creation. He would have to be just, loving, and willing to act, as well...an uninvolved "god" would not imply any particular morality, would it?

True enough. Now all we have to do in regard to the moral conflagrations that have cleaved humanity for centuries now is to settle on which God [ours or theirs] best fits that description.

I agree. We must decide which God exists, and what His actual nature is.

However, since He has not left us in the dark on that, we must also be willing at least to entertain the evidence. If we insist, before all inquiry, that no such data can exist, we will get no more light on the question. But that, too, will show our choice...and our judgment.

[iambiguous]

nihilism 5

...lets focus in on Mary's abortion.

I can't imagine why. I see no relevance. It looks a very clear case. Women who kill their children are bad. You know it, I know it, and even they know it. That's why everybody spends so much time trying to prove it's "okay." They know it's not.

Of course: only your own "political prejudices" must prevail here. If others don't share them then they are necessarily wrong. And, oh, by the way, they are not just political prejudices rooted subjectively in dasein because your own moral philosophy is "somehow" connected to your own rendition of Kant's deontological philosophy connected in turn to your own rendition of God?

Want to know how, in regard to abortion, you are morally -- imperatively, categorically -- obligated to behave? Well, just as you would. You know, if, assuming you are a male, there was ever the possibility of you becoming pregnant. Being raped, for example. Being raped by your own father or brother.

And if women who choose abortion are "bad", what must their punishment be? Should' abortion be a capital crime? Should they be tried [along with the doctor performing the abortion] for murder? And, if so, and they are convicted, should the state be permitted to execute them? Or is capital punishment a "bad" behavior?

And suppose a woman you love dearly has an abortion. Are you morally obligated to turn her into the authorities?

Why do you suppose the overwhelming preponderance of moral objectivists settle on a God, the God, their God as the "transcending font" of choice?

My view? Because it's inevitable.

And how is that not just a personal opinion?

No, it's not an opinion, actually. It's analytically true.

Try not merely to mention, but actually to justify or ground any morality without reference to God. ("That's your mission, should you decide to accept it: good luck, Jim. This message will self destruct in five seconds.")

But others do ground it in other things. Those like Ayn Rand reject God and ground morality in Reason. Or the No God religionists and the pantheists and whatever it is they ground it in "out there" in the Universe.

It's a challenge I've long put to the Atheists, and they've never been able to suggest anything even remotely defensible. They tend to lapse into dumb arguments like, "Well, morality is a social phenomenon, so...(warning: leap of illogic here)...therefore it's justified." Or they say something like, "Well, I make moral assessments...(same leap)...therefore, my assessments are justified." Or worse, "Survival value and moral value are the same" (warning: absurdly obvious factual untruth entailed), or "That which causes pleasure is good, and that which causes pain is bad" (warning: then need to get out of the house more; momma's basement is limiting them).

Actually, I too have come to the conclusion that a God, the God is imperative for a morality that connects our behaviors on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side. But I would never call others "dumb" because they think about it differently.

But if you have something more interesting than any of that sort of codswallop, then I'd be interested in hearing it.

Again, to me, this tells us more about why you believe what you believe here than what it is that you actually believe. it's what I call the "psychology of objectivism". Encompassed in the OP here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

These are all good questions, but none of which are at all surprising to Theists. There's been a very great deal of systematic debate and discussion on these topics...some of it, even here.

Yes, but I suspect none of them have fully resolved the conflicting assessments.

Well, you're incorrect. But to know that, you'd actually have to give those questions the serious kind of investigation they warrant.

Okay, here again are the factors:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of this God
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages dozens of Gods -- paths to immortality and salvation -- were/are championed, but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in God
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God

Let's attempt "the serious kind of investigation they warrant" in regard to your own understanding of a God, the God.

There are two kinds of "conflicting assessment." There are some that result from both sides having a different aspect of truth. But there are also those in which one side is simply in error. Either way, the conflict can persist; but the existence of "conflicting assessments" tells us precisely zero about the warrant for the "assessments" in question.

Again, this, to me, is "general description intellectual contraption". In regard to your own understanding of God pertaining to a particular assessment of a particular set of circumstances embedded existentially out in a particular world -- the one we live in -- how might a discussion of abortion fit in here?

What the moral nihilist focuses in on is how, with respect to each of them, there are those -- the moral objectivists -- who insist that only their own assessment counts.

Moral nihilists don't actually "focus" on anything, because there are no criteria they accept. They can't analyze anything in the moral realm. Nietzsche claimed they had gone "beyond good and evil."

First, let's note the full exchange here:

That's one kind of consequence. The other sort is compassion, charity, diligence, human rights, honesty, integrity, poor relief, educational initiatives, health care, aid programs, adoption agencies, pacifism, truth-telling, monogamy, prospertity, and so on.

Yes, it can always go in many constructive or destructive directions. Depending on the context out in a particular world understood in a particular way. What the moral nihilist focuses in on is how, with respect to each of them, there are those -- the moral objectivists -- who insist that only their own assessment counts.

Compassion for the unborn fetus or the woman desperate not to be pregnant. Same with , "human rights, honesty, integrity". Pick a moral conflagration of note and those on both ends of the spectrum are able to make reasonable arguments that encompass them from their point of view.

With or without God. But with God comes Judgment Day. And here you are judged in order to determine the fate of your "soul" for all the rest of eternity. Again, isn't that why a God, the God, my God is the transcending font of choice.

And while particular moral nihilists are indeed confronted with the presumed reality of being "beyond good and evil" in confronting conflicting goods, if they choose to interact with others, being "fractured and fragmented" is not likely to impress those who are not. "For all practical purposes" then many will take an "existential leap of faith" to a particular political prejudice. As I do in supporting a woman's right to choose. But I'm under no illusion that those who oppose abortion aren't entitled to do the same. Or that in fact there may well be a God or a Humanist argument able to establish an objective morality in regard to issues like abortion. I merely maintain that I myself don't believe "here and now" that there is.

Compassion for the unborn fetus or the woman desperate not to be pregnant.

That's easy. The child.

Typical moral objectivism. To me, anyway. And if others note arguments that focus more on the political rights of a woman who does not want to be pregnant...she was raped, she was the victim of incest, she was the victim of a faulty contraceptive device, her physical health is on the line if forced to conceive, her mental health is on the line if forced to conceive....

Tough. The unborn ever and always take precedent here. Just ask the Pope.

And the fact that men themselves never have to endure the agony of an unwanted pregnancy? Thank God?

The woman had a choice. The baby is a victim of her promiscuity and then of her amorality and then of her savagery. And that's the case in all but 1% of the abortion cases, statistically.

Indeed, and once we mere mortals finally grasp ontologically and teleologically the very nature of the human condition embedded in existence itself, you will be vindicated. You really do know what the only possible rational and virtuous thinking on abortion is.

With or without God. But with God comes Judgment Day. And here you are judged in order to determine the fate of your "soul" for all the rest of eternity. Again, isn't that why a God, the God, my God is the transcending font of choice.

Well, before God judges, men judge themselves. They make their choices as to whether they wish to know God, or to live as if He doesn't even exist. And in the end, we all get exactly what we asked for.

Okay, but the judgments of mere mortals are rooted existentially/subjectively in dasein. Rather than in...omniscience? And these judgments evolve over time historically and culturally.

And, as though the choices individuals make in regard to a God, the God, my God are not in turn profoundly and problematically rooted in dasein...out in a particular world understood in a particular way.

An omniscient and omnipotent God seems fundamentally imperative here.

But it would have to be a particular kind of God. If a god were, say, omniscient and omnipotent but also malevolent or indifferent, it's hard to see how this would help the situation. Morality would still be either irrelevant or a nasty trap of some kind.

So the God in question would also have to be good, and have good intentions toward His Creation. He would have to be just, loving, and willing to act, as well...an uninvolved "god" would not imply any particular morality, would it?

True enough. Now all we have to do in regard to the moral conflagrations that have cleaved humanity for centuries now is to settle on which God [ours or theirs] best fits that description.

I agree. We must decide which God exists, and what His actual nature is.

No, in my view, what we have to do, is to close the gap between what we have been brainwashed to believe or have come to believe given the lives we lived about God and what we are actually able to demonstrate is true such that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think exactly what we do.

Given that, down through the ages, there have been hundreds and hundreds of "spiritual paths" to God proposed. Not to mention all of the No God paths.

To wit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

[Immanuel Can]

nihilism 5

...lets focus in on Mary's abortion.

I can't imagine why. I see no relevance. It looks a very clear case. Women who kill their children are bad. You know it, I know it, and even they know it. That's why everybody spends so much time trying to prove it's "okay." They know it's not.

Of course: only your own "political prejudices" must prevail here. If others don't share them then they are necessarily wrong.

Not at all.

But in the case of abortion, their own shame and their own manifest attempts to justify the murders show that they, themselves, believe they're doing wrong, even if I say nothing.

No, it's not an opinion, actually. It's analytically true.

Try not merely to mention, but actually to justify or ground any morality without reference to God. ("That's your mission, should you decide to accept it: good luck, Jim. This message will self destruct in five seconds.")

But others do ground it in other things. Those like Ayn Rand reject God and ground morality in Reason. Or the No God religionists and the pantheists and whatever it is they ground it in "out there" in the Universe.[/quote]
Neither is a coherent grounding. "Reason" is a process, not a set of particualr conclusions. The deliverances one gets from reason always depend on the premises associated with the reasoning. And as for something being "out there in the universe," I'd love to know what thing it is, "out there" that one can appeal to, if not some kind of "god."

I would never call others "dumb" because they think about it differently.

The adjective, you will note, I applied to their arguments, not to them.

But it is true that, on this particular point at least, even those who ordinarily exhibit rigorous devotion to clear and grounded reasoning stop doing it. And I suppose you could call that a form of stupidity...although I think it's more a case of fear.

These are all good questions, but none of which are at all surprising to Theists. There's been a very great deal of systematic debate and discussion on these topics...some of it, even here.

Yes, but I suspect none of them have fully resolved the conflicting assessments.

Well, you're incorrect. But to know that, you'd actually have to give those questions the serious kind of investigation they warrant.

Okay, here again are the factors:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of this God
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages dozens of Gods -- paths to immortality and salvation -- were/are championed, but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in God
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God

Let's attempt "the serious kind of investigation they warrant" in regard to your own understanding of a God, the God.

We can; but it would require a new thread. This one is focused on "nihilism," and I want to honour the people who come here for that by not side-tracking the discussion into an additional treatment of the reasons for God.

So if you want to discuss these, why not make them the first post of a new thread?

...how might a discussion of abortion fit in here?

What's to discuss? Everybody knows it's evil. Some people just want to invest a whole lot of time to try to pacify their consciences and cover up what they know, as much as I do, is evil?

What the moral nihilist focuses in on is how, with respect to each of them, there are those -- the moral objectivists -- who insist that only their own assessment counts.

Moral nihilists don't actually "focus" on anything, because there are no criteria they accept. They can't analyze anything in the moral realm. Nietzsche claimed they had gone "beyond good and evil."

First, let's note the full exchange here

Why? It doesn't impact what I've said, or what Nietzsche said.

...while particular moral nihilists are indeed confronted with the presumed reality of being "beyond good and evil" in confronting conflicting goods...

There are no "goods," according to Nietzsche et al. There's only the fact of power. Whoever has the power dictates what happens; and what happens is neither "good" nor "bad." It's just a product of power.

...in fact there may well be a God or a Humanist argument able to establish an objective morality in regard to issues...

There isn't. At least, nobody has ever presented one to me. But I remain open to hearing one, if it's possible.

I just think it's likely not.

Compassion for the unborn fetus or the woman desperate not to be pregnant.

That's easy. The child.

...she was raped, she was the victim of incest, she was the victim of a faulty contraceptive device, her physical health is on the line if forced to conceive,

You're describing only 1% of the cases. And I'll be fair: I will discuss those with you, if you stipulate that 99% of abortions, all the elective ones, are immoral.

And if you won't, then I have good reason to suspect you're only raising the 1% in the hopes of using them to leverage the 99% of cases where no such objection is even attached.

her mental health is on the line if forced to conceive....

Hogwash. You can't be "forced to conceive." It's not the kind of thing that happens accidentally. It takes two to tango, and it doesn't happen because you rode on the same bicycle.

The woman had a choice. The baby is a victim of her promiscuity and then of her amorality and then of her savagery. And that's the case in all but 1% of the abortion cases, statistically.

Indeed...You really do know what the only possible rational and virtuous thinking on abortion is.

I can claim no special wisdom. We all know. Some of us just prefer to do evil.

But let us not get tangled any further in the abortion issue. There have been many other threads on that subject, and I think this one will not benefit from being turned into another. People won't thank us for that, and they'll have a point: for as I pointed out earlier, the subject here is "nihilism."

Let's get back on track, shall we?

With or without God. But with God comes Judgment Day. And here you are judged in order to determine the fate of your "soul" for all the rest of eternity. Again, isn't that why a God, the God, my God is the transcending font of choice.

Well, before God judges, men judge themselves. They make their choices as to whether they wish to know God, or to live as if He doesn't even exist. And in the end, we all get exactly what we asked for.

Okay, but the judgments of mere mortals are rooted existentially/subjectively in dasein. Rather than in...omniscience? And these judgments evolve over time historically and culturally.

What God has given man is freedom...personhood...choice...autonomy...including even the right to decide what and whom he will love, and what relationships he will reject. We all have that.

It's a great blessing, but also a great responsibility. Both always come together.

...in my view, what we have to do, is to close the gap between what we have been brainwashed to believe or have come to believe given the lives we lived about God and what we are actually able to demonstrate is true such that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think exactly what we do.

If anybody finds such a neutral, universal, "rational" way to proceed, and such a "demonstration" of what people are morally "obligated to think" in the moral realm, I suggest the Nobel Prize committee will be calling him shortly; for he will have achieved something that stands to be of more benefit to mankind than a cure for cancer.

However, as yet, there is no such "closing of the gap," and the prize remains unclaimed.

[iambiguous]

...lets focus in on Mary's abortion.

I can't imagine why. I see no relevance. It looks a very clear case. Women who kill their children are bad. You know it, I know it, and even they know it. That's why everybody spends so much time trying to prove it's "okay." They know it's not.

Of course: only your own "political prejudices" must prevail here. If others don't share them then they are necessarily wrong.

Not at all.

But in the case of abortion, their own shame and their own manifest attempts to justify the murders show that they, themselves, believe they're doing wrong, even if I say nothing.

Of course you left this part of my argument out...

And, oh, by the way, they are not just political prejudices rooted subjectively in dasein because your own moral philosophy is "somehow" connected to your own rendition of Kant's deontological philosophy connected in turn to your own rendition of God?

Want to know how, in regard to abortion, you are morally -- imperatively, categorically -- obligated to behave? Well, just as you would. You know, if, assuming you are a male, there was ever the possibility of you becoming pregnant. Being raped, for example. Being raped by your own father or brother.

And if women who choose abortion are "bad", what must their punishment be? Should' abortion be a capital crime? Should they be tried [along with the doctor performing the abortion] for murder? And, if so, and they are convicted, should the state be permitted to execute them? Or is capital punishment a "bad" behavior?

And suppose a woman you love dearly has an abortion. Are you morally obligated to turn her into the authorities?

Thus if the women feel no shame they are necessarily unjustified in not doing so. Why? Because, you assure us, shame is the only obligatory emotion to feel.

No, it's not an opinion, actually. It's analytically true.

Try not merely to mention, but actually to justify or ground any morality without reference to God. ("That's your mission, should you decide to accept it: good luck, Jim. This message will self destruct in five seconds.")

But others do ground it in other things. Those like Ayn Rand reject God and ground morality in Reason. Or the No God religionists and the pantheists and whatever it is they ground it in "out there" in the Universe.

Neither is a coherent grounding. "Reason" is a process, not a set of particualr conclusions. The deliverances one gets from reason always depend on the premises associated with the reasoning. And as for something being "out there in the universe," I'd love to know what thing it is, "out there" that one can appeal to, if not some kind of "god."

Coherent meaning your own set of assumptions. Your own "grounding" in your own subjective rendition of God rooted existentially in dasein. If I do say so myself. But you are no less stymied demonstrating the existence of this God of yours than Rand and the pantheists are in demonstrating their own conclusions. In the end it either comes down to either the authoritarian objectivist mentality or a leap of faith.

Okay, here again are the factors:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of this God
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages dozens of Gods -- paths to immortality and salvation -- were/are championed, but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in God
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God

Let's attempt "the serious kind of investigation they warrant" in regard to your own understanding of a God, the God.

We can; but it would require a new thread. This one is focused on "nihilism," and I want to honour the people who come here for that by not side-tracking the discussion into an additional treatment of the reasons for God.

So if you want to discuss these, why not make them the first post of a new thread?

Okay, I'll do that.

...how might a discussion of abortion fit in here?

What's to discuss? Everybody knows it's evil. Some people just want to invest a whole lot of time to try to pacify their consciences and cover up what they know, as much as I do, is evil?

Translation: if you don't believe it is evil then you are necessarily wrong because I do believe it is evil and the mere fact of my believing it makes it so. Precisely the mentality of those like the atheist Any Rand. Only her God became Reason. And the sheer irony of Objectivism is that while she championed the individual over the collective, no actual individuals were permitted to not think exactly like she did in regard to, well, everything, right?

And that is basically how you come off to me here. And while true and false are often easy to distinguish in the either/or world, in the is/ought world and out on the far end of the metaphysical limb, the objective truth becomes far, far more profoundly problematic. But for some philosophers the psychological need to convince themselves that they are right about damn near everything becomes the primary motive instead behind their thinking.

Or, rather, so it seems to me after years of engaging the objectivists on and off line.

Moral nihilists don't actually "focus" on anything, because there are no criteria they accept. They can't analyze anything in the moral realm. Nietzsche claimed they had gone "beyond good and evil."

First, let's note the full exchange here

Why? It doesn't impact what I've said, or what Nietzsche said.

I think it is important to note as my own reaction to thinking such as yours:

What the moral nihilist focuses in on is how, with respect to each of them, there are those -- the moral objectivists -- who insist that only their own assessment counts.

Compassion for the unborn fetus or the woman desperate not to be pregnant. Same with , "human rights, honesty, integrity". Pick a moral conflagration of note and those on both ends of the spectrum are able to make reasonable arguments that encompass them from their point of view.

With or without God. But with God comes Judgment Day. And here you are judged in order to determine the fate of your "soul" for all the rest of eternity. Again, isn't that why a God, the God, my God is the transcending font of choice.

...she was raped, she was the victim of incest, she was the victim of a faulty contraceptive device, her physical health is on the line if forced to conceive,

You're describing only 1% of the cases. And I'll be fair: I will discuss those with you, if you stipulate that 99% of abortions, all the elective ones, are immoral.

And if you won't, then I have good reason to suspect you're only raising the 1% in the hopes of using them to leverage the 99% of cases where no such objection is even attached.

What I stipulate is that every context in which there is an unwanted pregnancy, you are talking about individuals living lives that can be far, far, far removed from your own. What on earth can you possibly know about their own predicament? Instead, you merely assert that all abortions are Evil. Why? Becasue you merely assert that they are. That's your "evidence", your "proof". The "philosophical" reasons you "thought up" in your head, linked to your own "private and personal" God able to confirm your own set of assumptions.

I'm sure from your frame of mind 99% of women who choose abortion are wholly responsible for their pregnancy. They probably use abortion as just another form of birth control, no more problematic than getting a tooth pulled.

her mental health is on the line if forced to conceive....

Hogwash. You can't be "forced to conceive." It's not the kind of thing that happens accidentally. It takes two to tango, and it doesn't happen because you rode on the same bicycle.

Right. You live in a jurisdiction where abortion is against the law. You're not "forced to conceive" but if you choose abortion, you are arrested and thrown in jail.

I can claim no special wisdom. We all know. Some of us just prefer to do evil.

This speaks volumes to me. And I'll bet there isn't a moral conflict around that you are not able to tell us precisely what constitutes Good and Evil. It's all in the Book, right?

...in my view, what we have to do, is to close the gap between what we have been brainwashed to believe or have come to believe given the lives we lived about God and what we are actually able to demonstrate is true such that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think exactly what we do.

If anybody finds such a neutral, universal, "rational" way to proceed, and such a "demonstration" of what people are morally "obligated to think" in the moral realm, I suggest the Nobel Prize committee will be calling him shortly; for he will have achieved something that stands to be of more benefit to mankind than a cure for cancer.

However, as yet, there is no such "closing of the gap," and the prize remains unclaimed.

Yes, that's exactly my point. But here you are insisting that abortion is Evil. Why don't you contact the Nobel Prize folks and convince them that this is so.

Why? Because you have no definitive answers in regard to the arguments raised by those who embrace a woman's right to choose an abortion.

Go here: https://www.google.com/search?q=the+pro ... nt=gws-wiz

Then, one by one, note how these arguments are, what, irrational? epistemologically unsound? in defiance of God?

[Immanuel Can]

Of course you left this part of my argument out...

It wasn't logical or correct. I'm not a Kantian. And it does not have any relevance to the present argument.

It seemed tedious to me to deal with it, and impolite to point that out.

Neither is a coherent grounding. "Reason" is a process, not a set of particualr conclusions. The deliverances one gets from reason always depend on the premises associated with the reasoning. And as for something being "out there in the universe," I'd love to know what thing it is, "out there" that one can appeal to, if not some kind of "god."

Coherent meaning your own set of assumptions.

Something's wrong with the above sentence; can you fix it for me?

you are no less stymied demonstrating the existence of this God of yours

I'm not at all "stymied," and said I wasn't. I just said we should continue the discussion on an appropriate thread, not on this one. That seems totally reasonable to me, and is the only polite thing to do for the sake of those interested in the "nihilism" topic.

So let's be polite and move it, okay? It isn't fair to others if we don't.

...how might a discussion of abortion fit in here?

Again, move it to an appropriate thread. Or better still, go back and find the old threads on this subject, and you'll find I've said it all there.

Right. You live in a jurisdiction where abortion is against the law. You're not "forced to conceive" but if you choose abortion, you are arrested and thrown in jail.

This goes to the abortion thread, please.

I'll say only this much here: one is not "forced to conceive." "Conception," by definition, is what happens at the occasion of intercourse. In all cases of voluntary intercourse, conception is consensual. "Conception" is not the debate.

However, abortion is the execution of one's children in utero or at birth, following (in the 99% cases) a consensual act we know are probable to issue in conception. That act is optional. "Choice" for the woman, is already had, at that point.

When is the child's "choice"?

I'll bet there isn't a moral conflict around that you are not able to tell us precisely what constitutes Good and Evil. It's all in the Book, right?

No, but you may believe as you wish, if it gives you comfort.

What the Law gives us is the basic principles: the applications we must discover in the tangle of particular cases. But the moral principles that inform our moral reflection are not, themselves, in doubt. It's like "Thou shalt not commit murder." You and I have discussed whether or not butchering your baby at birth is murder. I say the principle applies; you say it does not. But one of us is going to be absolutely right, and the other absolutely wrong.

That much, we both know...or should.

[iambiguous]

THE STONE
Navigating Past Nihilism
BY SEAN D. KELLY at the NYT
Kelly is chair of the department of philosophy at Harvard University

The 20th century saw an onslaught of literary depictions of the nihilistic state. The story had both positive and negative sides. On the positive end, when it is no longer clear in a culture what its most basic commitments are, when the structure of a worthwhile and well-lived life is no longer agreed upon and taken for granted, then a new sense of freedom may open up.

Then, of course, how far you take it. If the "well-lived" life basically revolves around your own narrow self-interest, and you are making it work for you, then nihilism is as good a philosophy as any in a No God world. But how far will you go if others get in between you and this well-lived life? Each of those who accept moral nihilism as a reasonable "way of life" will take it in a different direction. Some will stop at nothing to get what they want, others will be more inclined toward their own "personal code". Think, for example, someone like Dexter. A serial killer with principles.

In the end though, in any community, the tug of war between "I" and "we" will necessitate "rules of behavior" that shift back and forth between rewards and punishments. For the moral nihilists, however, freedom to choose is greatly expanded. Your behaviors are not "locked into" one or another God or ideology or deontology. But this enhanced freedom can create the loss of "comfort and consolation" that comes with believing that the behaviors you choose are "the right ones".

And then the part where you begin to examine more closely what it actually is that motivates you to choose what you do. That vertiginous sense that I often feel in being "fractured and fragmented".

Ways of living life that had earlier been marginalized or demonized may now achieve recognition or even be held up and celebrated. Social mobility ─ for African Americans, gays, women, workers, people with disabilities or others who had been held down by the traditional culture ─ may finally become a possibility. The exploration and articulation of these new possibilities for living a life was found in such great 20th-century figures as Martin Luther King, Jr., Simone de Beauvoir, Studs Terkel, and many others.

Of course, all of this becomes entangled in politics. In what Marx called "political economy". You may come to a frame of mind in regard to your behaviors that revolve around your own subjective sense of "well-being", the "well-lived" life. But without the actual option to act that out...what then?

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=195600

[iambiguous]

Of course you left this part of my argument out...

It wasn't logical or correct. I'm not a Kantian. And it does not have any relevance to the present argument.

It seemed tedious to me to deal with it, and impolite to point that out.

Well, in that case, I will allow others to decide for themselves the extent to which this...

And, oh, by the way, they are not just political prejudices rooted subjectively in dasein because your own moral philosophy is "somehow" connected to your own rendition of Kant's deontological philosophy connected in turn to your own rendition of God?

Want to know how, in regard to abortion, you are morally -- imperatively, categorically -- obligated to behave? Well, just as you would. You know, if, assuming you are a male, there was ever the possibility of you becoming pregnant. Being raped, for example. Being raped by your own father or brother.

And if women who choose abortion are "bad", what must their punishment be? Should' abortion be a capital crime? Should they be tried [along with the doctor performing the abortion] for murder? And, if so, and they are convicted, should the state be permitted to execute them? Or is capital punishment a "bad" behavior?

And suppose a woman you love dearly has an abortion. Are you morally obligated to turn her into the authorities?

...is logical or correct or relevant or tedious. You do strike me as arguing as a Kantian might in terms of the crucial relationship between rational thought and morality. And linked ultimately to a "transcending font". Which most call God. Though sure I might well be wrong here.

In the interim, you and I can, as is often the case in regard to many discussions like this here, agree to disagree.

Neither is a coherent grounding. "Reason" is a process, not a set of particualr conclusions. The deliverances one gets from reason always depend on the premises associated with the reasoning. And as for something being "out there in the universe," I'd love to know what thing it is, "out there" that one can appeal to, if not some kind of "god."

Coherent meaning your own set of assumptions.

Something's wrong with the above sentence; can you fix it for me?

Why don't we choose a particular context in which a moral nihilist and a moral objectivist might disagree regarding "good" or "bad" behavior. We can explore it through examining our own respective assumptions regarding "coherent grounding", "reasoning as a process" pertaining to "premises and conclusions".

You pick it. Well, presuming of course that your own premises and conclusions regarding free will itself pertain here. Or, if mine do, you'll pick only what you must.

[Immanuel Can]

You do strike me as arguing as a Kantian ... Though sure I might well be wrong here.

You are. It's big of you to realize that possibility.

At the same time, the description of Kantianism you fashion in the middle is also nothing to do with Kantianism, so that's wrong too. Kant was a sort of rationalist with a for-granted teleology; if he was a Theist at all, he shelved that for the purposes of his arguments.

Why don't we choose a particular context in which a moral nihilist and a moral objectivist might disagree regarding "good" or "bad" behavior.

For at least one very good reason: the topic of the moment is nihilism, and nihilists don't believe in either. What can a nihilist have to say about "good" and "bad"? Nihilism is, by definition, completely amoral. According to its own terms, it has no moral perspectives, and no moral information in it.

Of course, I think it does: but a nihilist would have to disagree. So maybe that's your starting point.