First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Is it wrong? Is murder, rape, marital infidelity, etc., wrong?
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/20/10
The question is apparent. Is there such a thing as wrong? I personally am quite convinced that there is no such thing, but there is no reason why we should not have a bit of intellectual grappling. I base my contention on the fact that there is nothing to suggest that anything would be wrong. It is not really possible to make truly authoritative 'ought' or 'ought not' statements.
571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 1/20/10
Wrong exists, even if only as an abstract concept with no concrete examples. However, I do believe that wrong exists in reality. My personal standard is "treat others as you would like to be treated". That includes murder, rape, lying, etc. Marital infidelity is wrong because you promised to be faithful to whomever you're with when you married them, and committing infidelity breaks that promise. On the other hand, if both spouses have a mutual prior agreement that extramarital sex is permissible, then there's nothing wrong with it.

The reason I have adopted this moral standard is that, all religion and theistic beliefs aside, living by this standard helps to ensure that society will run smoothly. It's not difficult to remember, and it works in most every scenario. It is not necessarily perfect, but it works.

Also, food for thought - I came across an interesting quote while reading The Kite Runner. Amir's father tells him that there is only one sin: stealing. He then proceeds to explain that when you lie, you steal someone's right to the truth, and when you kill someone, you steal their right to live, their parents' right to their child, their children's right to a parent, etc. It is admittedly an interesting concept.
791 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Philippines
Offline
Posted 1/20/10
OK you dont need to look any further. The answer is within yourself. Even pscho-killers have this kind of feeling called pain.

Say, you said something that hurt someone close to you. Dont you feel a pain in your chest?! That feeling is called "guilt". Guilt is part of your superego. Superego can be referred to as "conscience". You don't really need to be a genius on every law, to determine what's right and wrong. Well , that explanation is for the simple right-and-wrong situation.

Next, situation: someone's right is another man's wrong. sometimes it really hurts that you have to decide something wrong that is also right. We humans have been given the intellect to rationally decide on things. But there are times when we decide on things that should be done, yet we still feel guilt. Why did we feel guilt? Because it was wrong, or it was a little wrong for someone else.

Not everyone on this earth, is as friendly as you think. People kill people even though they understand the same language.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 1/20/10 , edited 1/20/10
They're wrong because of morality based on empathy. You wouldn't like to be killed/raped/cheated on, so you shouldn't do it to someone else. Treat other people the way you want to be treated. Very simple.
Posted 1/21/10 , edited 1/21/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:

The question is apparent. Is there such a thing as wrong? I personally am quite convinced that there is no such thing, but there is no reason why we should not have a bit of intellectual grappling. I base my contention on the fact that there is nothing to suggest that anything would be wrong. It is not really possible to make truly authoritative 'ought' or 'ought not' statements.
Hm, so what you're hypothesizing is a complete moral breakdown, by eliminating the concept of wrong within the human society.

Therefore can we just assume that everyone will simply do whatever that they want, without any precaution and consideration of their actions? I mean just because that no action is wrong, there's simply no reason for me not doing anything imaginable.

So the premises is that I know for a fact that my next door neighbor is an young Asian female with a small built, who lives by herself and with no frequent visitors. I know that by checking her mails, while the walls of my apartment have next to no sound proofing. I can break into her apartment unit via direct front-door assault, and quickly subdue her all due to my considerable strength and size advantages. And depends on my personal preference, I can either rape her and then kill her, or I can do so in reverse order, because I know humans will contract their muscles whenever they're suffocating while fighting for breath. And after the deed is done, I'll continue with the rest of my plan by going on a date with my Caucasian girlfriend, because I'm rather attached to the idea of having her around me while she's still alive.

To be honest, I'm glad that without anyone else tells me about the concept of wrong doings, I know for myself that I do not value murder, rape, and marital infidelity. Because I will not forgive myself for me neglecting my feminine side.
16 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 1/21/10
Right and Wrong is Depended on Which human society. One may side its right and the other opposite. For example, If you rebel from what society believe is right, ether A) Define you insane. B)Cast you away .Truth be told, just follow and respect the laws are given for where ever you are.

Most (or All?) morals from an individual are influence by a culture or religion. Therefore, Right and Wrong is Society.

Note: Insanity can be define as someone who dose not know right from wrong.(Got to love it)
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/21/10

madlibbs wrote:

Wrong exists, even if only as an abstract concept with no concrete examples. However, I do believe that wrong exists in reality. My personal standard is "treat others as you would like to be treated". That includes murder, rape, lying, etc. Marital infidelity is wrong because you promised to be faithful to whomever you're with when you married them, and committing infidelity breaks that promise. On the other hand, if both spouses have a mutual prior agreement that extramarital sex is permissible, then there's nothing wrong with it.

The reason I have adopted this moral standard is that, all religion and theistic beliefs aside, living by this standard helps to ensure that society will run smoothly. It's not difficult to remember, and it works in most every scenario. It is not necessarily perfect, but it works.

Also, food for thought - I came across an interesting quote while reading The Kite Runner. Amir's father tells him that there is only one sin: stealing. He then proceeds to explain that when you lie, you steal someone's right to the truth, and when you kill someone, you steal their right to live, their parents' right to their child, their children's right to a parent, etc. It is admittedly an interesting concept.


I'm willing to admit that wrong may exist as an abstract concept, although I am not entirely comfortable with the idea, though I cannot offer any evidence to the contrary, so I will leave it at that. As for wrong existing in the natural world, I have to disagree. My personal standard accords with yours entirely, however, I do not believe that the existence of a or really any personal standard would have any bearing on reality viewed from an objective perspective. In other words, whether you consciously build a sort of a 'code' for yourself has no bearing on the world. The smooth running of society too, is not a moral consideration -in itself- either. It is not loaded with 'ought' and 'ought not' statements.

I think Kite Runner example reflects the truth in a somewhat blurry way, but still quite well. If your actions would not cause loss to other persons, meaning they would not deprive them of things they desire, those persons would be unlikely to object to your carrying out the act you have been considering. It is because your actions are likely to cause deprivation that people object.


blacksun0918 wrote:

OK you dont need to look any further. The answer is within yourself. Even pscho-killers have this kind of feeling called pain.

Say, you said something that hurt someone close to you. Dont you feel a pain in your chest?! That feeling is called "guilt". Guilt is part of your superego. Superego can be referred to as "conscience". You don't really need to be a genius on every law, to determine what's right and wrong. Well , that explanation is for the simple right-and-wrong situation.

Next, situation: someone's right is another man's wrong. sometimes it really hurts that you have to decide something wrong that is also right. We humans have been given the intellect to rationally decide on things. But there are times when we decide on things that should be done, yet we still feel guilt. Why did we feel guilt? Because it was wrong, or it was a little wrong for someone else.

Not everyone on this earth, is as friendly as you think. People kill people even though they understand the same language.


A conception of right and wrong on a subjective foundation is pretty feeble. What if I don't feel guilt? What if I believe I am right? What if I am incapable of feeling guilt? Would that justify my actions? A subjective standard is not going to work, partly because it cannot help ascertain right and wrong with any accuracy and also because this would lead to disagreements, of which there is an abundance anyway.

In your next situation I can only envisage conflicting interests, and thus the issue is uncomplicated in my view.

There is no need for that condescending pat on my shoulder. I am very well aware that the world is not a kind place.


Yei wrote:

They're wrong because of morality based on empathy. You wouldn't like to be killed/raped/cheated on, so you shouldn't do it to someone else. Treat other people the way you want to be treated. Very simple.


Very simple it may appear to be, and you have indeed provided -very concisely- a system for making decisions, I do not see, however, how could it render acts or omissions objectively right or wrong.


DomFortress wrote:


DerfelCadarn wrote:

The question is apparent. Is there such a thing as wrong? I personally am quite convinced that there is no such thing, but there is no reason why we should not have a bit of intellectual grappling. I base my contention on the fact that there is nothing to suggest that anything would be wrong. It is not really possible to make truly authoritative 'ought' or 'ought not' statements.
Hm, so what you're hypothesizing is a complete moral breakdown, by eliminating the concept of wrong within the human society.

Therefore can we just assume that everyone will simply do whatever that they want, without any precaution and consideration of their actions? I mean just because that no action is wrong, there's simply no reason for me not doing anything imaginable.

So the premises is that I know for a fact that my next door neighbor is an young Asian female with a small built, who lives by herself and with no frequent visitors. I know that by checking her mails, while the walls of my apartment have next to no sound proofing. I can break into her apartment unit via direct front-door assault, and quickly subdue her all due to my considerable strength and size advantages. And depends on my personal preference, I can either rape her and then kill her, or I can do so in reverse order, because I know humans will contract their muscles whenever they're suffocating while fighting for breath. And after the deed is done, I'll continue with the rest of my plan by going on a date with my Caucasian girlfriend, because I'm rather attached to the idea of having her around me while she's still alive.

To be honest, I'm glad that without anyone else tells me about the concept of wrong doings, I know for myself that I do not value murder, rape, and marital infidelity. Because I will not forgive myself for me neglecting my feminine side.


What I am contending is that there is no reason to eliminate the concept of wrong, as it does not exist in the natural world anyway.

Yes, the question that never dies. Why don't nihilists kill themselves, there is no reason to live, right? Right?

Well, no, not right. If X does not disapprove of murder on moral grounds, that does not mean he approves of it on moral grounds. Equally, a world of chaos and anarchy is not the direct result of a lack of morality. Even if you do not believe murder, rape, marital infidelity or anything else to be wrong or right, there are still authoritative worldly powers. Your peers, the police, your own biological setup which dictates you to perform certain actions and to refrain from performing others.

I don't value crime either, however small. In fact, I really hate it because I desire to exist in a utopian, enlightened society or rather world, without all the irrelevant rubbish such as morality. A world that is rather based on science and identifies interest not as morality, but as interest. A bunch of nihilists working towards grand aims. I don't however, place this strong desire on an objective moral footing. It is simply a desire, and it is not a right or wrong state of affairs and if it does not come about, that is neither right or wrong.


XinZin wrote:

Right and Wrong is Depended on Which human society. One may side its right and the other opposite. For example, If you rebel from what society believe is right, ether A) Define you insane. B)Cast you away .Truth be told, just follow and respect the laws are given for where ever you are.

Most (or All?) morals from an individual are influence by a culture or religion. Therefore, Right and Wrong is Society.

Note: Insanity can be define as someone who dose not know right from wrong.(Got to love it)


That is merely an observation as to societal norms. You are muddling definitions by confusing objective morality with other forms of norms.

As for the insane part. I cannot tell right from wrong, because I don't believe in those notions. That would effectively make me insane, yet I have not been diagnosed as insane and in my daily life I do not deviate from the behaviour of the average person to any considerable extent.
Posted 1/21/10 , edited 1/21/10
I don't think it is..and I think things like morality and guilt exist because we are TOLD growing up that it is "wrong." I believe that's why people can do certain things that are "wrong" without always knowing they're "wrong." They may not have been taught it was "wrong" and so, they feel no guilt.

I believe in doing whatever you want..if you don't want to go to jail, just don't do that stuff. -_-"

And though it's so easy for me to talk about, if someone murdered someone in my family or a friend of mine, I'd be devastated. I've already been plagued.
4294 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 1/21/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:

The question is apparent. Is there such a thing as wrong? I personally am quite convinced that there is no such thing, but there is no reason why we should not have a bit of intellectual grappling. I base my contention on the fact that there is nothing to suggest that anything would be wrong. It is not really possible to make truly authoritative 'ought' or 'ought not' statements.


justice, wrong, right, ect. r subjective ,intangiable, hard to understand,impossible to define,and subject to change. Does that make them nonexistent? perhaps. but it really doesnt matter. They r just words. What matters is what you do, the decisions you make in life. they define who and what you are-whatever they may be.

Some people do turn to authoritative people/religion to help ease the burden of what "ought" to be done, nothing is wrong with that, and it may be the only way to go about it. true "free thinkers" are conformist and they just dont know it. peace over war
4294 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 1/21/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:


madlibbs wrote:

Wrong exists, even if only as an abstract concept with no concrete examples. However, I do believe that wrong exists in reality. My personal standard is "treat others as you would like to be treated". That includes murder, rape, lying, etc. Marital infidelity is wrong because you promised to be faithful to whomever you're with when you married them, and committing infidelity breaks that promise. On the other hand, if both spouses have a mutual prior agreement that extramarital sex is permissible, then there's nothing wrong with it.

The reason I have adopted this moral standard is that, all religion and theistic beliefs aside, living by this standard helps to ensure that society will run smoothly. It's not difficult to remember, and it works in most every scenario. It is not necessarily perfect, but it works.

Also, food for thought - I came across an interesting quote while reading The Kite Runner. Amir's father tells him that there is only one sin: stealing. He then proceeds to explain that when you lie, you steal someone's right to the truth, and when you kill someone, you steal their right to live, their parents' right to their child, their children's right to a parent, etc. It is admittedly an interesting concept.


I'm willing to admit that wrong may exist as an abstract concept, although I am not entirely comfortable with the idea, though I cannot offer any evidence to the contrary, so I will leave it at that. As for wrong existing in the natural world, I have to disagree. My personal standard accords with yours entirely, however, I do not believe that the existence of a or really any personal standard would have any bearing on reality viewed from an objective perspective. In other words, whether you consciously build a sort of a 'code' for yourself has no bearing on the world. The smooth running of society too, is not a moral consideration -in itself- either. It is not loaded with 'ought' and 'ought not' statements.

I think Kite Runner example reflects the truth in a somewhat blurry way, but still quite well. If your actions would not cause loss to other persons, meaning they would not deprive them of things they desire, those persons would be unlikely to object to your carrying out the act you have been considering. It is because your actions are likely to cause deprivation that people object.


blacksun0918 wrote:

OK you dont need to look any further. The answer is within yourself. Even pscho-killers have this kind of feeling called pain.

Say, you said something that hurt someone close to you. Dont you feel a pain in your chest?! That feeling is called "guilt". Guilt is part of your superego. Superego can be referred to as "conscience". You don't really need to be a genius on every law, to determine what's right and wrong. Well , that explanation is for the simple right-and-wrong situation.

Next, situation: someone's right is another man's wrong. sometimes it really hurts that you have to decide something wrong that is also right. We humans have been given the intellect to rationally decide on things. But there are times when we decide on things that should be done, yet we still feel guilt. Why did we feel guilt? Because it was wrong, or it was a little wrong for someone else.

Not everyone on this earth, is as friendly as you think. People kill people even though they understand the same language.


A conception of right and wrong on a subjective foundation is pretty feeble. What if I don't feel guilt? What if I believe I am right? What if I am incapable of feeling guilt? Would that justify my actions? A subjective standard is not going to work, partly because it cannot help ascertain right and wrong with any accuracy and also because this would lead to disagreements, of which there is an abundance anyway.

In your next situation I can only envisage conflicting interests, and thus the issue is uncomplicated in my view.

There is no need for that condescending pat on my shoulder. I am very well aware that the world is not a kind place.


Yei wrote:

They're wrong because of morality based on empathy. You wouldn't like to be killed/raped/cheated on, so you shouldn't do it to someone else. Treat other people the way you want to be treated. Very simple.


Very simple it may appear to be, and you have indeed provided -very concisely- a system for making decisions, I do not see, however, how could it render acts or omissions objectively right or wrong.


DomFortress wrote:


DerfelCadarn wrote:

The question is apparent. Is there such a thing as wrong? I personally am quite convinced that there is no such thing, but there is no reason why we should not have a bit of intellectual grappling. I base my contention on the fact that there is nothing to suggest that anything would be wrong. It is not really possible to make truly authoritative 'ought' or 'ought not' statements.
Hm, so what you're hypothesizing is a complete moral breakdown, by eliminating the concept of wrong within the human society.

Therefore can we just assume that everyone will simply do whatever that they want, without any precaution and consideration of their actions? I mean just because that no action is wrong, there's simply no reason for me not doing anything imaginable.

So the premises is that I know for a fact that my next door neighbor is an young Asian female with a small built, who lives by herself and with no frequent visitors. I know that by checking her mails, while the walls of my apartment have next to no sound proofing. I can break into her apartment unit via direct front-door assault, and quickly subdue her all due to my considerable strength and size advantages. And depends on my personal preference, I can either rape her and then kill her, or I can do so in reverse order, because I know humans will contract their muscles whenever they're suffocating while fighting for breath. And after the deed is done, I'll continue with the rest of my plan by going on a date with my Caucasian girlfriend, because I'm rather attached to the idea of having her around me while she's still alive.

To be honest, I'm glad that without anyone else tells me about the concept of wrong doings, I know for myself that I do not value murder, rape, and marital infidelity. Because I will not forgive myself for me neglecting my feminine side.


What I am contending is that there is no reason to eliminate the concept of wrong, as it does not exist in the natural world anyway.

Yes, the question that never dies. Why don't nihilists kill themselves, there is no reason to live, right? Right?

Well, no, not right. If X does not disapprove of murder on moral grounds, that does not mean he approves of it on moral grounds. Equally, a world of chaos and anarchy is not the direct result of a lack of morality. Even if you do not believe murder, rape, marital infidelity or anything else to be wrong or right, there are still authoritative worldly powers. Your peers, the police, your own biological setup which dictates you to perform certain actions and to refrain from performing others.

I don't value crime either, however small. In fact, I really hate it because I desire to exist in a utopian, enlightened society or rather world, without all the irrelevant rubbish such as morality. A world that is rather based on science and identifies interest not as morality, but as interest. A bunch of nihilists working towards grand aims. I don't however, place this strong desire on an objective moral footing. It is simply a desire, and it is not a right or wrong state of affairs and if it does not come about, that is neither right or wrong.


XinZin wrote:

Right and Wrong is Depended on Which human society. One may side its right and the other opposite. For example, If you rebel from what society believe is right, ether A) Define you insane. B)Cast you away .Truth be told, just follow and respect the laws are given for where ever you are.

Most (or All?) morals from an individual are influence by a culture or religion. Therefore, Right and Wrong is Society.

Note: Insanity can be define as someone who dose not know right from wrong.(Got to love it)


That is merely an observation as to societal norms. You are muddling definitions by confusing objective morality with other forms of norms.

As for the insane part. I cannot tell right from wrong, because I don't believe in those notions. That would effectively make me insane, yet I have not been diagnosed as insane and in my daily life I do not deviate from the behaviour of the average person to any considerable extent.


In fact, I really hate it because I desire to exist in a utopian, enlightened society or rather world, without all the irrelevant rubbish such as morality. A world that is rather based on science and identifies interest not as morality, but as interest. A bunch of nihilists working towards grand aims. I don't however, place this strong desire on an objective moral footing. It is simply a desire, and it is not a right or wrong state of affairs and if it does not come about, that is neither right or wrong.

i know this is off topic, but i believe discussing this will actually give insight to how this whole idea of right and wrong came about.
The "utopia" your describing is the exact same thing we have today, and have always had.The only difference is that you want everyone to work toward a similiar goal, and redefine moral as interest.

Back in the day we simply redefined our interest as morals, and spilt off into different societies with different interest/morals. Right/wrong r just interest for the society as a whole.They have to be thier or else the society cant function.So in that sense, u r as moral as ne one else, u just redefine morals as interest.

But my original thought of nihilists were of ones who desired nothing... i mean, what would be the point of a utopia?peace over war
55941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
58 / F / Midwest, rural Am...
Offline
Posted 1/21/10
The reason for developing limitations in the form of agreed upon rules, laws, moral standards, etc. is for the preservation of human co-existence. Without parameters, we would dissolve into attitudes of nihilism & states of anarchy. I doubt any of us would willingly agree to the conditions they would bring to our co-existence, unless of course, you tend toward masochism. Hey, if it's your thing...... but, I guess I'd want some laws to keep you out of my neighborhood ( oh, come on, take this w/ a grain of salt ! )
571 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 1/21/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:


madlibbs wrote:

Wrong exists, even if only as an abstract concept with no concrete examples. However, I do believe that wrong exists in reality. My personal standard is "treat others as you would like to be treated". That includes murder, rape, lying, etc. Marital infidelity is wrong because you promised to be faithful to whomever you're with when you married them, and committing infidelity breaks that promise. On the other hand, if both spouses have a mutual prior agreement that extramarital sex is permissible, then there's nothing wrong with it.

The reason I have adopted this moral standard is that, all religion and theistic beliefs aside, living by this standard helps to ensure that society will run smoothly. It's not difficult to remember, and it works in most every scenario. It is not necessarily perfect, but it works.

Also, food for thought - I came across an interesting quote while reading The Kite Runner. Amir's father tells him that there is only one sin: stealing. He then proceeds to explain that when you lie, you steal someone's right to the truth, and when you kill someone, you steal their right to live, their parents' right to their child, their children's right to a parent, etc. It is admittedly an interesting concept.


I'm willing to admit that wrong may exist as an abstract concept, although I am not entirely comfortable with the idea, though I cannot offer any evidence to the contrary, so I will leave it at that. As for wrong existing in the natural world, I have to disagree. My personal standard accords with yours entirely, however, I do not believe that the existence of a or really any personal standard would have any bearing on reality viewed from an objective perspective. In other words, whether you consciously build a sort of a 'code' for yourself has no bearing on the world. The smooth running of society too, is not a moral consideration -in itself- either. It is not loaded with 'ought' and 'ought not' statements.

I think Kite Runner example reflects the truth in a somewhat blurry way, but still quite well. If your actions would not cause loss to other persons, meaning they would not deprive them of things they desire, those persons would be unlikely to object to your carrying out the act you have been considering. It is because your actions are likely to cause deprivation that people object.


There is only one part of this that I will contest - "ought" and "ought not" statements do, in fact, exist, although perhaps only in a conditional form. For example, if you would like a good grade on a test, you ought to study for the test. The "ought" part of that statement, or any statement like it, is simply something that should be done in order to ensure or assist that the "if" part occurs.
Posted 1/21/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


DerfelCadarn wrote:

The question is apparent. Is there such a thing as wrong? I personally am quite convinced that there is no such thing, but there is no reason why we should not have a bit of intellectual grappling. I base my contention on the fact that there is nothing to suggest that anything would be wrong. It is not really possible to make truly authoritative 'ought' or 'ought not' statements.
Hm, so what you're hypothesizing is a complete moral breakdown, by eliminating the concept of wrong within the human society.

Therefore can we just assume that everyone will simply do whatever that they want, without any precaution and consideration of their actions? I mean just because that no action is wrong, there's simply no reason for me not doing anything imaginable.

So the premises is that I know for a fact that my next door neighbor is an young Asian female with a small built, who lives by herself and with no frequent visitors. I know that by checking her mails, while the walls of my apartment have next to no sound proofing. I can break into her apartment unit via direct front-door assault, and quickly subdue her all due to my considerable strength and size advantages. And depends on my personal preference, I can either rape her and then kill her, or I can do so in reverse order, because I know humans will contract their muscles whenever they're suffocating while fighting for breath. And after the deed is done, I'll continue with the rest of my plan by going on a date with my Caucasian girlfriend, because I'm rather attached to the idea of having her around me while she's still alive.

To be honest, I'm glad that without anyone else tells me about the concept of wrong doings, I know for myself that I do not value murder, rape, and marital infidelity. Because I will not forgive myself for me neglecting my feminine side.


What I am contending is that there is no reason to eliminate the concept of wrong, as it does not exist in the natural world anyway.

Yes, the question that never dies. Why don't nihilists kill themselves, there is no reason to live, right? Right?

Well, no, not right. If X does not disapprove of murder on moral grounds, that does not mean he approves of it on moral grounds. Equally, a world of chaos and anarchy is not the direct result of a lack of morality. Even if you do not believe murder, rape, marital infidelity or anything else to be wrong or right, there are still authoritative worldly powers. Your peers, the police, your own biological setup which dictates you to perform certain actions and to refrain from performing others.

I don't value crime either, however small. In fact, I really hate it because I desire to exist in a utopian, enlightened society or rather world, without all the irrelevant rubbish such as morality. A world that is rather based on science and identifies interest not as morality, but as interest. A bunch of nihilists working towards grand aims. I don't however, place this strong desire on an objective moral footing. It is simply a desire, and it is not a right or wrong state of affairs and if it does not come about, that is neither right or wrong.
Agree, for natural selection based its values on the simple process of survival favors the fittest(the old saying got kinda dull and flat, if you ask me ), and not on the human moral concept of right or wrong.

Therefore, what nature has is its own linear natural order of survival, that's beyond the unnecessarily too complicated dual process of morality based on right or wrong. When nature simply favors those who are fit for survival, over those that are unfit to survive.

And when we translated that into human society, it simply means that nature will favor those individuals who are mentally, intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, and physically fit to survive. And for me to be able to integrate my anima/feminine side into my individual personality, I'm already 4/5 of my way towards total fitness.

Oh BTW, I'm also a physical fitness trainer. So I guess that covers it.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 1/22/10 , edited 1/22/10

But my original thought of nihilists were of ones who desired nothing...


Which is where you are mistaken. If you are cooking an egg, and I don't tell you to either eat it well-cooked or runny, that is exactly what the information given is: nothing. If I don't say to you anything, I mean nothing, I tell nothing and you cannot acquire any information from a source that lacks information altogether. Same with nihilism. Nihilists don't make ambitious claims regarding purpose and morality. They nevertheless have desires, only they don't picture them as some sort of sweet syrup or ambrosia, surrounded by mystery and whatnot. It is ultimately just behaviourism, instinctive desires.


farmbird wrote:

The reason for developing limitations in the form of agreed upon rules, laws, moral standards, etc. is for the preservation of human co-existence. Without parameters, we would dissolve into attitudes of nihilism & states of anarchy. I doubt any of us would willingly agree to the conditions they would bring to our co-existence, unless of course, you tend toward masochism. Hey, if it's your thing...... but, I guess I'd want some laws to keep you out of my neighborhood ( oh, come on, take this w/ a grain of salt ! )


Morality is not a component of law and other forms of rules. Law can happily exist without any form of moral values.


madlibbs wrote:


DerfelCadarn wrote:



There is only one part of this that I will contest - "ought" and "ought not" statements do, in fact, exist, although perhaps only in a conditional form. For example, if you would like a good grade on a test, you ought to study for the test. The "ought" part of that statement, or any statement like it, is simply something that should be done in order to ensure or assist that the "if" part occurs.


I would argue that they do not, truly exist. While you may use them in speech, they do not denote true imperative statements. When you say 'If you want to eat a well-cooked egg, you ought to cook the egg well., an important element of it is the 'if', so it is not truly a command in the sense that your are not obligated to cook the egg well, rather, it is an example of the awkward nature of language that you mean something entirely different from what you say when you give your words their ordinary definition. So, as I was saying, the 'egg pseudo-command, becomes a descriptive statement rather than prescriptive, in the sense that it is not commanding you to cook the egg well, but rather using an awkward form to describe the process which creates well-cooked eggs. If I wanted to express the same thing accurtely, I would probably say 'If it is your desire to create a well-cooked egg, the results of cooking an egg well will accord with your desire.'
55941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
58 / F / Midwest, rural Am...
Offline
Posted 1/22/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:

But my original thought of nihilists were of ones who desired nothing...

Which is where you are mistaken. If you are cooking an egg, and I don't tell you to either eat it well-cooked or runny, that is exactly what the information given is: nothing. If I don't say to you anything, I mean nothing, I tell nothing and you cannot acquire any information from a source that lacks information altogether. Same with nihilism. Nihilists don't make ambitious claims regarding purpose and morality. They nevertheless have desires, only they don't picture them as some sort of sweet syrup or ambrosia, surrounded by mystery and whatnot. It is ultimately just behaviourism, instinctive desires.

farmbird wrote:
The reason for developing limitations in the form of agreed upon rules, laws, moral standards, etc. is for the preservation of human co-existence. Without parameters, we would dissolve into attitudes of nihilism & states of anarchy. I doubt any of us would willingly agree to the conditions they would bring to our co-existence, unless of course, you tend toward masochism. Hey, if it's your thing...... but, I guess I'd want some laws to keep you out of my neighborhood ( oh, come on, take this w/ a grain of salt ! )

Morality is not a component of law and other forms of rules. Law can happily exist without any form of moral values.


My old Webster's dict. defines nihilism thus: 1. Philos. a a doctrine which denies any objective or real ground of truth. b The doctrine which denies any objective ground of moral principles; called also ethical nihilism. 2. a The doctrine that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake, independent of any constructive program; .....
I would like to know how your nihilistic example connects to this definition-- & please understand I'm the lost one, I'm not finding fault with your example. Just a request for help.................

Also, did you intend to use " happily " in your - law w/o moral values statement - in jest, ie sarcasm?
In an effort to define or grasp the essences of what it means to be right or wrong, or to come to any agreement of an ultimate truth, we are limited by all the differing perspectives & experiences which we cannot always share in common.

In my personal limitations, I sometimes get lost in the words I use to communicate these philosophical subjects.
"How can I see the f-----g tree you're looking at with this whole damn forest in my way? ! ? !"
Even amidst the confusion, I appreciate the dialog & discovery such inquiries as this one provides. I invite friendly enlightenment & if necessary, healthy criticism.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.