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 1/22/10 , edited 1/22/10

farmbird wrote:

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.


You will find that nihilism in popular use either refers to a state of apathy when used in a pejorative way or moral nihilism (ethical nihilism in in the dictionary definition). Example 2. is political nihilism. Freydis, the author of Counter Order has written quite a lot on political nihilism and he also published a book. While I agree with him on the problems with society and whatnot, I do not necessarily advocate his approach to all issues.

Lets take definition 1. b. as this is type of nihilism I advocate and is most commonly subject of debate.

You can imagine all philosophies, ideologies and religious belief systems as mechanism for making decisions. Christianity, communism, utilitarianism, they are all sets of instructions. Christianity tells you you must act in accordance with the ten commandments, communism that you must create equality in many regards, utilitarianism that you must provie the greatest numbers with the greatest good. So, according to which of these sets of rules you subscribe to, your daily decisions may change, or really all decisions may change. There is one thing, however, that these sets of rules are similar at, they all make claims for being true. They claim that their instructions are based on some source of foundation from which comes the authority of the instructions. Examples are: Do X because God told us to. Don't do Y because Gaia would disapprove. Don't kill because it is unjust and this can be deduced from the nature of human beings. All sorts of justifications are used. Moral nihilism denies the claims for truth, and makes no claims for legitimacy. Nihilism is not an ideology, it is not a philosophy and it is not a religion, rather a lack of these. It is an absence of sets of rules, an absence of instructions. So, nihilism does not claim that the ten commandments need to be followed, that equality is a necessary aim or that the greatest good for the greatest numbers must be secured. It simply contains nothing and thus can provie the nihilist with no directions. A corollary of this is that a nihilist is not blinded by irrelevant considerations and fabrications and whatnot. Nihilists presume nothing and believe in nothing. A distinction, however, has to be made between belief and knowledge. When you satisfy the justified true belief criterion which is generally thought to be required to be able to form knowledge, then you have knowledge of something. If you cannot, but yet you believe something, that is a plain belief.

So, let us suppose there is a chair in the room. You enter, you see the chair, you believe it is there and since you have evidence, you are justified in believing that it is in fact located in the room. You have knowledge of the chair in the room.

If you have been in the room ten years ago and there was a chair there and based on that you claim that there is a chair in the room, you will lack at least one component of JTB, namely, your belief, whether true or not, will not be justified, as you have no evidence and thus no reason to believe that the chair is in the room

So, nihilism rejects belief. God, for example, is one such belief, morality is another.

What you have identified as a limitation on language is correct and it is awesome that you feel that way. The same thing has recently been brought to my attention, although I have always felt constrained by language subconsciously. Basically, the currently existing languages are insufficient for conveying abstract and especially complex ideas. Language has developed with use and was not made in order to facilitate the exchange of complicated ideas, rather to perform the transfer or information routinely exchanged. Many problematic issues philosophy is facing could be resovled by creating an artificial language adequate for the purpose or radically changing any or all of the existing languages.

I used happily simply as emphasis, to get the intended meaning ensuring there is no confusion, just disregard 'happily' and read the sentence without.

Anyhow, if there is anything you don't understand, just tell me, nihilism and morality is one of my favourite topics if not the favourite ahahaha.
791 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Philippines
Offline
Posted 1/22/10
Sadly looking at your posts on this forum, it really feels so (what is that word close to "disappontment" but yields to sadness, instead).

I mean, why would people turn out to discussing which is right and wrong, in a manner like it's a very complicated issue. I already know the answer that's why im kinda confused right now. RIght now im trapped on the topic starter's point and other poster's point.

Well, i see the forum starter's thought on starting this topic. In simple words, "Sometimes someone's right is another man's wrong. So how would we know which is right and wrong?"


Maybe mankind really is fated to make himself extinct by his own hands... who knows...
8484 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 1/25/10
It more or less connected to morality and how much if any you have.
Posted 1/25/10

kerrigan88 wrote:

It more or less connected to morality and how much if any you have.
Well I don't rely on the collective morality based on right or wrong, when I only follow my own principle(or moral stance) based on what I value:
That's my result in green on the "Moral Foundations Questionnaire". And as you can see I don't value in-group/loyalty and authority/respect as much as the average liberals and conservatives, while I'm only in-between when it comes to harm/care, fairness/reciprocity(including issues of rights), and purity/sanctity.

Understand that moral standards such as in-group/loyalty and authority/respect aren't natural, meaning they only exist in human literature and cultural references. It's only natural for me to devalue those based on principles. And speaking of principles based solely on values, this is how much they would cost me to violate my own principle:
Now isn't that interesting? I mean on the "Moral Foundations Sacredness Scale", it won't cost me that much to violate my principle on authority/respect.

In the end, what's giving our nations and our laws the loyalty and authority that they should deserve, are in fact the least principles that I personally value. So yeah, you can say I'm a selfish person who only listens to himself, but isn't that being sentient is all about?
402 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Gotham
Offline
Posted 1/25/10
Those are wrong. They don't benefit anybody ever.

If you murder someone then you risk your life in the process because people don't just let you kill them. People may seek revenge against you, you may feel guilty, people won't trust you and won't help, that person you killed can't help you, etc. You are only hurting yourself when you do those things.

There are lots of reasons not to murder
Posted 1/25/10

wrench246 wrote:

Those are wrong. They don't benefit anybody ever.

If you murder someone then you risk your life in the process because people don't just let you kill them. People may seek revenge against you, you may feel guilty, people won't trust you and won't help, that person you killed can't help you, etc. You are only hurting yourself when you do those things.

There are lots of reasons not to murder
And with that logic, it's justifiable for capital punishment. When the greater majority's consent is allowing the murder of the lesser minority's right to live. But isn't that ignoring the first condition that murder is wrong?
402 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Gotham
Offline
Posted 1/30/10

DomFortress wrote:


wrench246 wrote:

Those are wrong. They don't benefit anybody ever.

If you murder someone then you risk your life in the process because people don't just let you kill them. People may seek revenge against you, you may feel guilty, people won't trust you and won't help, that person you killed can't help you, etc. You are only hurting yourself when you do those things.

There are lots of reasons not to murder
And with that logic, it's justifiable for capital punishment. When the greater majority's consent is allowing the murder of the lesser minority's right to live. But isn't that ignoring the first condition that murder is wrong?


I never said anything about capital punishment. My post was about how there is logical support to for one not to commit rape, murder, theft, etc.

The part you emphasized with red font is referring to self defense. If someone were to try to murder you then you would not stand idly by and allow the assailant to do as he/she pleases. You are obviously going to defend yourself even if it means killing the other person. So the assailant is risking his/her life in the attempt to kill you.
Posted 1/31/10
Wrong to some, right to others. There is no right and wrong, just as you have said. There are only consequences.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 1/31/10
'Do not forget you get three strikes.'

"I got a big kick out of that movie the invention of lying."

I have only seen one group of people not think that movie was funny. (and That can not be said about all of them just the craziest of them.)
Posted 1/31/10

wrench246 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


wrench246 wrote:

Those are wrong. They don't benefit anybody ever.

If you murder someone then you risk your life in the process because people don't just let you kill them. People may seek revenge against you, you may feel guilty, people won't trust you and won't help, that person you killed can't help you, etc. You are only hurting yourself when you do those things.

There are lots of reasons not to murder
And with that logic, it's justifiable for capital punishment. When the greater majority's consent is allowing the murder of the lesser minority's right to live. But isn't that ignoring the first condition that murder is wrong?


I never said anything about capital punishment. My post was about how there is logical support to for one not to commit rape, murder, theft, etc.

The part you emphasized with red font is referring to self defense. If someone were to try to murder you then you would not stand idly by and allow the assailant to do as he/she pleases. You are obviously going to defend yourself even if it means killing the other person. So the assailant is risking his/her life in the attempt to kill you.
But what about in the case of nobody but yourself knowing that you're the one that killed your murderer in self-defense? You only put your own life at risk, even though nobody but yourself knew about the murder plotted against you. Can that still count as an attempt at murdering you?

"What is the sound of one hand clapping?" People have the tendency of violating their own moral stance if they know that nobody else would knew about it. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to justify the act of installing security cameras all over the public and private sectors.

And such is the mass effect of reasoning with moral obligations; you have to enforce something that's not naturally existed in humanity with an external system.
402 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Gotham
Offline
Posted 1/31/10

DomFortress wrote:


wrench246 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


wrench246 wrote:

Those are wrong. They don't benefit anybody ever.

If you murder someone then you risk your life in the process because people don't just let you kill them. People may seek revenge against you, you may feel guilty, people won't trust you and won't help, that person you killed can't help you, etc. You are only hurting yourself when you do those things.

There are lots of reasons not to murder
And with that logic, it's justifiable for capital punishment. When the greater majority's consent is allowing the murder of the lesser minority's right to live. But isn't that ignoring the first condition that murder is wrong?


I never said anything about capital punishment. My post was about how there is logical support to for one not to commit rape, murder, theft, etc.

The part you emphasized with red font is referring to self defense. If someone were to try to murder you then you would not stand idly by and allow the assailant to do as he/she pleases. You are obviously going to defend yourself even if it means killing the other person. So the assailant is risking his/her life in the attempt to kill you.
But what about in the case of nobody but yourself knowing that you're the one that killed your murderer in self-defense? You only put your own life at risk, even though nobody but yourself knew about the murder plotted against you. Can that still count as an attempt at murdering you?

"What is the sound of one hand clapping?" People have the tendency of violating their own moral stance if they know that nobody else would knew about it. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to justify the act of installing security cameras all over the public and private sectors.

And such is the mass effect of reasoning with moral obligations; you have to enforce something that's not naturally existed in humanity with an external system.


Attempt at murder's existence is not dependent on the knowledge of third parties. How can I put my life at risk when I am the victim?

I agree people are willing to do immoral things if they thought they could get away with it. But even if there is no law enforcement the individual committing immoral things are still hurting themselves. If you kill somebody when nobody knows about the murder then you are still hurting yourself. There is one less person available in the world that can help you, there is one less person paying taxes, one less person contributing to the economy, or you may feel guilty later.
546 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / NY
Offline
Posted 1/31/10

wrench246 wrote:

I agree people are willing to do immoral things if they thought they could get away with it. But even if there is no law enforcement the individual committing immoral things are still hurting themselves. If you kill somebody when nobody knows about the murder then you are still hurting yourself. There is one less person available in the world that can help you, there is one less person paying taxes, one less person contributing to the economy, or you may feel guilty later.


Unless you can prove that emotion exists outside the mind, which it does not, you cannot claim with accuracy how anyone would feel. You can only assume which is a far cry from truth.
402 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Gotham
Offline
Posted 1/31/10

Maybin wrote:


wrench246 wrote:

I agree people are willing to do immoral things if they thought they could get away with it. But even if there is no law enforcement the individual committing immoral things are still hurting themselves. If you kill somebody when nobody knows about the murder then you are still hurting yourself. There is one less person available in the world that can help you, there is one less person paying taxes, one less person contributing to the economy, or you may feel guilty later.


Unless you can prove that emotion exists outside the mind, which it does not, you cannot claim with accuracy how anyone would feel. You can only assume which is a far cry from truth.


When I say 'hurt' I mean make a less favorable situation not cause emotional problems. When you kill someone the population decreases. A lower population is disadvantageous because There is one less person available in the world that can help you, there is one less person paying taxes, one less person contributing to the economy, or you may feel guilty, etc. I know not everybody feels guilty after committing murder so I said 'MAY feel guilty'.
546 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / NY
Offline
Posted 2/1/10

wrench246 wrote:

When I say 'hurt' I mean make a less favorable situation not cause emotional problems. When you kill someone the population decreases. A lower population is disadvantageous because There is one less person available in the world that can help you, there is one less person paying taxes, one less person contributing to the economy, or you may feel guilty, etc. I know not everybody feels guilty after committing murder so I said 'MAY feel guilty'.


How does one person help me? Does he give me money?
Service my house? Pay my bills?

One person would not be missed in a vastly OVERpopulated earth. Yes, people make up governments which then contribute back to the people, however, unless you argued that many of people (around hundreds or thousands) were to be killed then I would understand but if it's only one person, he won't be missed economically or socially unless he is one of high popularity or wealth.

We non-important regular no-bodies will be missed by nobody but our families. Not publicly, not economically. There will be no less money in my pocket moreover anymore I have to pay to the government because the mailman got offed by crazy Joe for not delivering the mail on time, unless there is a mass trend. That one person will easily be replaced.
402 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Gotham
Offline
Posted 2/1/10

Maybin wrote:


wrench246 wrote:

When I say 'hurt' I mean make a less favorable situation not cause emotional problems. When you kill someone the population decreases. A lower population is disadvantageous because There is one less person available in the world that can help you, there is one less person paying taxes, one less person contributing to the economy, or you may feel guilty, etc. I know not everybody feels guilty after committing murder so I said 'MAY feel guilty'.


How does one person help me? Does he give me money?
Service my house? Pay my bills?

One person would not be missed in a vastly OVERpopulated earth. Yes, people make up governments which then contribute back to the people, however, unless you argued that many of people (around hundreds or thousands) were to be killed then I would understand but if it's only one person, he won't be missed economically or socially unless he is one of high popularity or wealth.

We non-important regular no-bodies will be missed by nobody but our families. Not publicly, not economically. There will be no less money in my pocket moreover anymore I have to pay to the government because the mailman got offed by crazy Joe for not delivering the mail on time, unless there is a mass trend. That one person will easily be replaced.


Individuals' absences may be negligible but I don't see how you would benefit from killing anybody.

There is no way to determine how many are killed before it makes a significant impact on society so we should not allow any murders ever.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.