Moral nihilism is the only possible ethical position

Moral facts do not exist, and any moral claim has to fundamentally base itself on some arbitrarily defined value that also does not exist. You can recursively question any moral claim with "why is that important" until reaching the "because it just is" point - resulting in moral nihilism. Even an outside, given morality like a God doesn't solve this issue because one would still need to find a reason to accept a divine morality - one that cannot exist.
Change my view.

Attached: 2b0a41d3a7f7fa9ff974d898c1c0b6e7.jpg (800x1066, 286.04K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Okay, relative morality takes all your propositions into account while still leaving a fixed moral compass.
Consensus and agency is one such. I may not want to be flogged, dipped in hot sauce, and 'vored, but if someone else does, it's what works for them. Doing so to them and not doing so to me is a relative and situational, but consistent, moral philosophy.
Pretty much blows your assertions out of the water by including them, finds different conclusion.

Why does an ethical position matter if you're not gonna act on it?

let's use this as a test case
why is consensus/agency important or valuable?

it's a philosophical discussion.

…because it's literally what defines what's going to piss the other party off!

Because I want it.

and why is this valuable?

You're pretty much right.
The only detail I would take issue with is that your statement can be read as implying that words such as 'morality' refer to coherent, existing, legitimate concepts, which they do not. Having said that, I don't claim that you meant to imply such things.


Because I want it.

why is your 'want' valuable?

Because I want it.

'the study of right and wrong' seems like a coherent enough concept, though it does presuppose the existence of such things as 'right' and 'wrong', so I see your point.

and what brings you to that conclusion, friend?

I think you've collapsed into "me wanting things makes that want valuable because it just is", so moral nihilism

Attached: 5c5972e8d01b349f4d9f1185a901e9f3.jpg (690x810, 89.87K)

You seem to be insisting that all morality is actually moral nihilism in disguise.

that's more or less what the topic of the thread says.

Sure, but don't go revealing how much of a snake you are.

The golden rule; do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is a good "moral" to follow.

Attached: Qu-Max Stirner 03.png (1017x709, 75.92K)

What would you say to a Jordan Postmodernson-esque claim that some moral principle is good and valuable by definition? Since lobster man does this redefining all the time, someone like him might take such liberties with moral principles.

good question. I'd prob ask him to define 'good', and I predict he'd go down the intuitionism path, and then insist that the intuition is some kind of innate, shared human knowledge in all normal, well-adjusted people.

No you're right. Morals are just the collections of cultural norms of what is good and bad, based on what you learned from your environment and drift.

(btw the same goes for ethics which i why I despised going to ethics class) also because taught ethics that I would not agree with

morality is just "dont kill me/other human because natural instincts, survival and fancy communication"

I've seen this term used a whole lot by marxists, liberals, libertarians and leftists in general, always critically. But what does it mean other then "does not sit in a total system/circular logical loop"?

A useless demand, definition is not meaning.

in this case it denotes something exactly the opposite. whatever individual value thus defined is equal and interchangeable to any other value defined in the same way, thus it is arbitrary.

so you'd argue for some kind of 'meaning beyond definition'? what about Wittgenstein, wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen?

Read Spinoza instead of embarrassing yourself.

well user, you have an excellent opportunity to put a brash, self-important faux-intellectual in their place. why not take it and argue with the gravity of the great Spinoza behind you?

Spinoza made very good points and more importantly, made mathematical demonstrations to prove everything he said. Spinoza doesn't believe there's good nor evil things in themselves. Things are good for me as long as they increase my power and allow me to survive, things are bad for me as long as they decrease my power or impede my survival.
Human beings are determined and although we are aware of our desire, we are only very rarely conscious of the causes that make us desire things. The only human freedom that can be achieved is through acknowledgement of psychological determinism, re-examination of one's life and desires and pursuing knowledge.
Altruism is not antithetic to individualism, leftists are not morally better than CEOs etc. It's just down to where you were born.
Really, Spinoza was a precursor to Nietzsche and his conception of morals blows Stirner out of the water.
As long as you don't understand the points he made, you'll struggle with philosophy. Even Hegel keeps saying one needs to be spinozist to even get a chance to grasp actual philosophy.

and now you'd have to demonstrate why 'increasing your power' and 'survival' are valuable

I'm not following you here.
That would be something almost too obvious to argue for, if meaning is definition, then this must also be true for the words used in the definition, which can only be circular at best. Words do not refer to other words, first there is meaning, then there is definition to convey said meaning.
*Wovon man nicht sprechen kann,
Wittgenstein later came back on that statement, realizing that a logical language of true and false is itself an illogical delusion.

You make him sound like a 17th century Stefan Molyneux.

any 'fundamental, foundational value' picked could be exchanged for any other value. the selection of any particular value is arbitrary. it is derived only from itself.
so how do we ever discuss anything, such as the nature or definition of 'good'? and if it is an useless demand to ask of someone, how come it is perhaps the foundational question of ethics itself? the utilitarians certainly manage to answer that question.

Quite the opposite, a guarantee outside of logical discourse, that is nondeductible, is precisely what allows it to not be interchangeable. When this is lacking, you get (ideological) schizophrenia.
Words not referring to other words is precisely what allows us to discuss anything at all. For what is a language that refers only to itself? Wherein A can only ever mean A and B can only ever mean B?

I'm saying that is impossible. if you disagree give us an example.
sure, but how are we to discuss the question of 'good', if not by forming a definition of 'good'?

Attached: entropy winning son.jpg (1001x496, 131.18K)

Because all things that exist efforce themselves to exist and increase their power of existing. An increase in such is felt as a joy and a decrease of it is felt as a sadness.
See conatus :

and why is this valuable?

I agree OP

I agree that there is no such thing as objective value, but I don't know why a person accepting this would go on to say that morality has to be based on it. Morality is based off the fact that conscious beings have an ingrained value system (happiness/sadness etc.). Since society exists to facilitate conscious beings (not god or the universe or any of that fluff), it should be built around their perceived value.

Attached: __kijin_seija_touhou_drawn_by_techi_techi35499__947f1fdf578f7e96b5f25ea72ae2823a.jpg (2250x3200, 325.96K)

Why is it valuable what? It's the case of everything, even plants and animals. It's about whether it's true, not about morally valuable thungs.

I'm more of a non-cognitivist myself. No moral claim is a proposition, in the analytic sense.

That's an extremely strict assertion. You could have at least said you think it makes the most sense or something.
Ok, nihilism is in direct opposition to empiricism. It's a matter of material fact that meaning exists in the universe. True, it's not an inherent property (neither are cars), but as soon as you have life or some other decision making entity, meaning arises. Meaning is just something ascribed to the universe via the process of perception or even mere reaction (such as a photoreceptor on a microorganism triggering a flagellum to twitch and propel the organism). Meaning is in the most basic technical sense the distinguishing of signal and noise, to wit the separation of the universe into that which interests the subject and that which does not. This is the most basic action of subjectivity. Preferences and valuation emerged from subjectivity naturally because subjectivity appeared in life, which was acted upon by evolution, and ascribing preferential meaning is hugely advantageous in that context.

The existence of preferences is a fact. It's not difficult to construct a moral framework based on the preferences of, for example, humans. You can do this in general, in specific, or both depending on what your conception of ethics is. Though "morality is a spook" ethical egoism is basically just doing this and making a semantic distinction between morality and ethics (which going by the thread subject you are not doing). The key is that morality is usually conceived of as received knowledge from a higher power like God, but there's no reason to say that we as thinking beings can't come up with morality or that we're not sufficiently "higher" than inanimate matter. By virtue of our ability to construct a moral framework, we are certainly better equipped than the mere laws of physics to achieve preferential outcomes within the universe.

You can also question the premise that a preference must be justified. True, not all preferences are preferable to others (some people get sexual pleasure from murder), but that's a question of weighing things against each other rather than a question of the existence of the weights in the first place. Whether or not a preference is justified or justified relative to another preference doesn't change the fact that it exists. Indeed if you defend your preference to live you must admit preference exists.

Yeah, that's why it's better to just take it into your own hands. Recognize that although there's not inherent meaning in matter, the empirically verifiable existence of subjectivity produces it, so there it is. It's up to you to give a shit. It's up to you to act according to your own preferences and parse out the meaning you see in the universe. It's up to you to exercise your conception of morality/ethics. Whether you recognize the preferences of others, whether you recognize their distinct moral frameworks, is up to you as well. I think ignoring it is rather like blindness, though.

Non-cognitivism is sometimes correct in a purely abstract sense, but it fails to put the claims into the real material context of the claim and examine why the individual makes the claim and what it means in a practical sense within the physical universe. Pretty much always you have veiled meanings. If you just write those off then yeah a lot of claims are going to be incoherent. You have to put the claim in the context of the claimant's moral framework and work through it to what claim is actually being made.

Simple example. If a Christian tells you some action is moral or immoral, then on the surface level it means nothing. If you properly contextualize the claim, you see that they're actually claiming the existence of a specific entity called God (in the same way I might claim the existence of my friend Bob), who has an opinion on the subject and power over the nature of reality and the universe including your existence and non-existence, and that acting in accordance with his opinion will result in a certain outcome for you. This is actually a rather coherent and specific claim that's basically a protection racket where the threats of violence vary in credibility/demonstration from not at all to definite (in a totalitarian theocracy where regardless of claims about God, the church acts out the opinions he's believed to have).

The values defined by postmodernism are null. The only ideas (not even ideas, feelings) that are factual are the feelings of empathy and love toward the people and group (family) you know and love intimately; also known as the primordial, authentic feelings. Nothing is imposed unto you in the primal world-you only feel.

I would challenge the notion that you can do so in general. Whenever concepts, such as particular morals, get shared socially, their meanings are different–often very radically so–from one individual to another. Such differences between individual interpretations of the same concept are often not insignificant. Think of two people who consider theft to be morally wrong–one is a libertard and the other an ancom. To say that any group of people all have the same belief is to make a fundamental mistake, namely that it assumes that they are using the concept in the same way. On the contrary, I would say that it is evident that they hardly ever do.

Furthermore, morality can hardly be better applied specifically, because moral axioms always refer to abstract circumstances. That leaves an individual to frame each of his applicable moral axioms in terms of the situation. Thus, given that the individual is also weighing non-moral potential outcomes, there is no way to effectively differentiate between moral and amoral behavior in a given instance.

Of course, I am drunk and watching handegg, so what do I know?

so utilitarianism? is utopia when everyone is 100% high on heroin all the time? it's a pretty intense happiness I believe. Anyway, you still have to explain why this 'ingrained value system' is valuable.

that's nice, but has absolutely nothing to do with the question being discussed. [pic related]

indeed, but watering it down would be boring
you're trying to define yourself around the key problem, not to engage with it. that things react to things doesn't ascribe any sense of morality or value into anything whatsoever [pic somewhat related again]. - you'll have to define meaning-to-subject itself into that value and are back at the starting point
you can build a moral system (or really, a set of rules of varying strictness and levels of interpretation) out of anything you want, singular or collective human decision, random number generator, whatever. doesn't mean it is morally any more or less valuable than any other such system.
it doesn't, but then you are again working outside morality - moral nihilism.

and why are these 'primal feelings' valuable?

Attached: hume_disapproves.jpg (346x380, 30.31K)

Obviously what one might call 'moral pangs' have material sources. That does not make them moral or immoral. Non-cognitivism simply asserts that moral claims are neither true nor false, because if they were, ethical properties must necessarily exist. However, this would make moral claims different from other claims about the universe in that we have no way to measure an ethical property's effects on the universe.

Read the post you faggot, "value" doesn't exist. I explained this.

No, because immediate pleasure is not the only necessity for happiness.

Read Nietzsche.

well if the word 'value' triggers you then explain why happiness or sadness matters?

I guess OP's teenagey sperging is right but then you'd have to ask what is right.

And every definition given would still be arbitrary and from that we can deduct that OP cannot be right, or in other words OP is wrong.

Nice semantic trickery, Dr. Peterson.

Welcome to the club. Go all of the way

Attached: 713144E3-3915-4BD6-98B1-10295D306FAF.jpeg (491x374, 115.59K)

But the wanting of things is literally what gives them value. Outcomes that are more desirable to more people are by definition more valuable.

No, resulting in subjective morality.

Subjective but real =/= not real

Morals are real.


You actually deny this?

Show me them.

Show you what's inside of people's brains?


Subjective=opinion=nonfactual=not a Truth

Morality is subjective and therefore there’s no morality that actually exists. It’s a construct and a corruption of our natural empathy and pack instinct with some skydaddy mixed in.

Morals are inside people's brains? Are they a physical presence there?

That's where human thoughts lie, isn't it?


The equals sign isn't appropriate. I agree with your deduction but it's exactly that - a deduction. The fact that subjectiveness leads to nonrealness etc. doesn't make the two things the same.

Yes, nobody is denying this. However are we naturally moral? Or are we naturally empathetic, sympathetic, and caring of people?
Will people naturally conclude that the Ten Commandments(though there’s many more than ten) are right at all times or will naturally respect and discover(invent) human rights?

Could you at least pretend to back your assertion with something?

I cannot do the wavy one.
Also it’s of course not merely this simple, but it’s a good illustration to get my point across.

Isn't that a moral?

I wouldn't know where to begin. I honestly can't figure myself how one could think that no human has ever had a moral.

Obviously there's something people refer to with the word 'moral' or 'right' or 'wrong'. I deny that those things literally exist.

Then what you are denying is the objectivity of people's morals, not their existence. But although they're indeed subjective, the very nature of morals is to have people refer to them as if they were objective. It could be argued that one cannot act based on pure hypothesis.

Somehow we're agreeing on everything but semantics.

No, they are emotions and emotional responses that are engraved into human DNA. They aren’t moral principles, as well as the fact that they aren’t an objective right or wrong. A moral act is done in the name of righteousness, as opposed to the instinctual and emotional variant would do it because they want to do it and that’s because it’s an emotional need to protect and care for one another.

I fail to see an opposition here.

so now it is some kind of collective desirability that is the value? why is collective desirability - or desiring something with a collective desirability - a moral value?

you still have to base your subjective morality on something. you cannot justify that base of morality except with itself which renders it into moral nihilism.

Nihlism is anti-materialist


A morality need not being justified.

au contraire. materialism, when taken to its logical conclusion, leads to nihilism

well in that case you'll have to define what you mean by 'morality' here

A set of unquestioned principles about what is "good" or "bad" meant to guide one's actions.

why does it need to be unquestioned? sounds more like emotivism
and you DO need to base it on some manner of standard, otherwise its not a set of principles.


if you read carefully you notice that the topic discussed is ethical/value nihilism rather than metaphysical nihilism
though materialism also leads to a sort of metaphysical scepticism, through empiricism, the unreachability of the noumenon and nominalism (or nominalism-but-with-extra-steps for all autists queueing to argue with this)

When it doesn't has any value to you why you haven't ended your existence already?

Once again, I come here to remind you mankind is not an isolated special snowflake part of the universe and therefore have no reasons to escape universal determinism. Why even bother caring about what should or should not be done when you can actually understand why did this or that happen and use knowledge to carefully craft your own life path?
Read Spinoza, political theory, social & natural sciences and do real-life stuff with, like, your hands.
Saging for brainlet op.

Nietzche wasn't a nihilist you retard

Did I ever say he was?

You said it yourself:

You faggots talk about value all the time and why every concept fails to inherit it but never bother to define what you mean by this phrase. You prefer reverting to argue like a little child which constantly asks "And then?" with a malicious smile to bother its supervisor until eventually someone gets bored of this charade.

I think so. Shit's called mirror neurons.

Ill chosen expression of mine. Wanted to state that it depents a good way on material fact. The name you choose to condense it into a catchy term doesn't matter. Moral works fine for me.

Dipshits who end their claims with "Change my view." will never change their views.

Change my view.

What did he mean by this?

You're wrong.

Change my view.

why would I?

nothing I wrote contradicts with determinism, and ethical questions have strong implications for political theory.

'x is valuable because it just is' is equivalent to moral nihilism though.

what phrase, 'value'? In ethics value is the measure by which something is good or bad. I posit that there is no intrinsic value to base all other values on and thus moral nihilism is the only possible option.
that's exactly what I'm doing, and I'll keep doing it until I get a satisfactory argument to escape from the cycle from one of the many many moral realists, most of whom don't actually think about their position at all.

that phrase is just to entice people to post contradictory views. anyway if someone posts a good argument against mine I'll have to change my view.

Attached: c38e5d92373b53f807e71ed045288858.jpg (2000x2797, 2.01M)

Why is a master-signifier for "value" a necessity?

how do you evaluate 'good' otherwise?

No, it's subjectivism. Nihilism would be: "nothing is valuable".

It's obviously not the only possible option, since most people aren't moral nihilists. What you mean is not "possible", but "desirable".

even a subjectivist morality needs a value system behind it, unless you want to go the emotivism route
for existential nihilism kind of, but value nihilism states that there is no such thing as value in the first place.

no, possible, though maybe with the qualifier: "only possible logical noncontradictory position". the existence of flat-earthers doesn't make the earth flat.