Let's talk about ethics. Anyone here know a good philosopher

>>901666
Kefka approves of nihilism. He's also intelligent and he has a wicked sense of humor.

>>901666
Ray Brassier, but he's more 'nihilist' on the existential side of things

Why is nihilism the only tenable stance?

File: kefka_palazzo_by_jaayno-d2yqirw.jpg (155KB, 758x1053px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 758x1053px

>>901676

>>901677
>Why is nihilism the only tenable stance?
Because god is dead.

Soren Kierkegaard

>>901753
Lack of absolute God-ordained values doesn't mean that no values exist.

>>901765
If there is no objective morality, then morality is merely an expression of subjective feelings. But that means we are not obliged to give any value to it.

>>901765

If they are not divinely ordained they hold no metaphysical basis.

>>901776
>>901786
You're not obliged to, but you make a choice. Morality is just a hierarchical system of values, and even if they are subjective and not metaphysical they're part of being human. I reiterate, lack of objective values =/= lack of values. In fact, to have values isn't a choice to being alive, because even the decision to have not values is placing the value over the absence of values. Of course there isn't much left in terms of "do this because it's right!" because you're left to your own moral paradigm which may or may not agree with someone else's or with society at large. But that doesn't mean it's nonexistent.

>>901805
>you make a choice
Free will doesn't exist.

>>901776
>If there is no objective morality, then morality is merely an expression of subjective feelings.

If this is true you cannot say nihilism is the only valid option. That's just subjective feelings.

You subjectivily feel no value so that's what you see.

Your argument has been completely refuted.

>>901826
>he doesn't know the difference between ethics and meta-ethics

>>901813
Doesn't need to be free, it can be an deterministic choice. I know choice seems like a nonsense word without free will, but let's not discuss semantics because those are just the limitations of language. By choice we may say "without prior knowledge of what was going on inside of the organism's mind (deterministic or not) we saw two possible paths" like we may say a raft floating on its own down a river's bifurcation has two possible paths to go down to even though if taken purely deterministically the water currents will move it down one and only one which will have been the only 'choice' anyways. But again, it's just semantic limitations.

>>901834
Doesn't change the fact that ethics have no value. If these choices are made ad hoc and without objective underlying guidelines, then ethics are non-existent.

>>901666
glad you didn't need assistance in masturbating to philosophy, sometimes it gets a bit dry

>>901776
that's only true if you define religion/belief as the only possible objective source of morality. I'd contend that the basis of systems of morality is instinctual behavior and that subjective moral systems are ones created apart from this basis. you see patterns that exist in even modern religions where biological social structure is enforced in some fashion.

>>901846
Statistical trends are not objective morality. Feelings remain something subjective.

>>901832
Once you hold this axiom
>"All value judgements are subjective"

You cannot hold this axiom
>"subjective judgements are meaningless. This is objective"

The realm of total subjectivity of value judgements means nihilism is only a subjective, it will vary from person to person. If you want to declare all value judgements subjective you can than not declare any meta-judgements about the values to be objective.

Meta judgements are made with the exact same "subjective feelings" as other judgements.

OP directly contradicts his own premise.

>>901843
>Doesn't change the fact that ethics have no value

How. Why is that something like deep passions, which are a core part of the human experience have no value?

You have arbitrary set up a rule that says passions cannot have value. There is no logical reason to say ethics must be universial or that they must not involve core parts of the human experience. On the contrary trying to distance ethics from somethign core to the human experience is going to end in failure. It's essentially trying to run away from yourself.

>If these choices are made ad hoc and without objective underlying guidelines, then ethics are non-existent.
This is a non-sequitur. First off, many choices aren't made ad hoc just because they don't have an objective underlying outline. I may be really angry and feel like beating you to a pulp with a bat, but I don't make an ad hoc irrational choice and control myself because I either feel like you're not worth going to prison for or because I don't think I should be able to give another man permanent brain damage. I have then made an ethical choice based on underlying guidelines. Not objective, so?

>>901855
I'm not claiming that statistics prove it, I'm claiming that it is possible to trace ancient religions back to instinctive behavior.

feelings are based in psychological and sociological conditions (which stem from psychological conditions and instinct). both of these are based on objective conditions.

>>901857
Nihilism is not a value judgement but a meta-statement about value judgements, and as such it can be objective. Abstract thinking isn't your strong suit, eh?

>>901874
I didn't say shit about passions. What does this have to do with ethics?

>>901892
How is a meta-"statement" (a meta-value judgment, because it discusses the worth of value judgments) objective?

>>901881
That's an ad hoc decision as well. You didn't plan it months in advance, but you made the decision in that very moment. And what you call "underlying guidelines" are not what caused you to make the decision, but rather retrospective attempts to rationalize your decision.

>>901890
Different people have different feelings about different topics. Take any arbitrary /pol/ topic. There is no objective answer that could be derived from biology.

>>901916
Because it is a logical statement and not a value judgement.

>>901919
>You didn't plan it months in advance, but you made the decision in that very moment.
And in what scenario does someone plan their reactions month in advance? Who argues for this?

>And what you call "underlying guidelines" are not what caused you to make the decision, but rather retrospective attempts to rationalize your decision.
Citation needed. There are plenty of actions that take place as a result of moral judgments prior to the choice being made.

>>901935
"subjective value judgments don't have value" isn't a 'logical' statement.

>>901927
no objective answer being present doesn't exclude the possibility of an objective answer being possible. we don't understand the mind enough to determine how thoughts are materialized, but I don't think that the stance "all thoughts are subjective" should be status quo without proof (which is impossible).

File: flow.png (10KB, 1218x638px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 1218x638px

>>901904
>>901892

Here.This should clear it up

>>901916
It's just a linguistic error. See pic

>>901943
>Who argues for this?
You seem to do. You are saying you have "moral guidelines" which allow you to infer in advance how to react in each situation.

>There are plenty of actions that take place as a result of moral judgments prior to the choice being made.
In a flight-or-fight situation you don't contemplate philosophical texts. You make the choices based on intuition.

>isn't a 'logical' statement.
What makes you say this?

>>901944
When an opinion as well as its opposite appear in different people, an objective answer is logically impossible.

>>901957

>You seem to do. You are saying you have "moral guidelines" which allow you to infer in advance how to react in each situation.
Infer isn't the right word, but it helps you to choose how you react in each situation

>In a flight-or-fight situation you don't contemplate philosophical texts. You make the choices based on intuition.
Not every choice you make is fight or flight. And even in fight or flight situations you do make moral judgments. When you get in a fight with someone you hate do you beat them until they die?

>What makes you say this?
See >>901951

>>901951
Nope. See >>901935

>>901951
objective truth and objective derivation are two different things though. I agree that the feelings aren't objective in intent, but they are objective in how they were formulated.

someone can be incorrect, but their line of reasoning had to be achieved in an objective way. I suppose from this we could be arguing for two separate things (objective morality and morality based in objectively created thoughts), but both of them go against nihilism. instinctive morality is a better system than simple rejection of morality as a whole because any type of instinctive morality is based on how humans behave while nihilism is based on a simple rejection of morality.

>>901676
Well memed

>>901971
>but it helps you to choose how you react in each situation
But it's not objective. It's just your subjective preferences.

>When you get in a fight with someone you hate do you beat them until they die?
This is not a question of "moral judgement". It's an ad hoc decision I make in the situation.

>>902001
>But it's not objective. It's just your subjective preferences.
Never said it was objective. Why is it less valuable that it's based on subjective preferences, there not being an objective "wrong" to beating someone to death doesn't mean I can't find it wrong

>This is not a question of "moral judgement". It's an ad hoc decision I make in the situation.
Ad-hoc in the sense that you're using it doesn't exclude it being a moral judgment

>>901666
I think Nietzsche talks about nihilism alot. I don't really know though my friend blabbers on about it all the fucking time.

>>901976
morality is a human invention.

Just like music is a human invention.

We do not say that there is no basis for music theory. So we do not need to say there is no basis for moral theory.

Morals, just like music is partially based on the objective reality. We can observe that certain volumes, pitches, tones, etc. produce certain sensations in us. This is objective. Which sensations are desirable is the subjective part and the two combine to form a theory for how to construct music.

The same is true for ethics. All actions produce an objective effect and it is the human interpretation to decide which effects are desirable, in doing so we can create an objective basis to obtain the desired effects.


Musical taste will vary, so will ethics. But humans are not blank slates, we all have certain preferences in common because of shared genetic pool. So it is not total subjectivity nor is it total objectivity.

>>902016
>Why is it less valuable that it's based on subjective preferences
Let's say you have your subjective preferences and I have mine. If they differ, why should I take yours seriously? I am not obliged to give any value to them because they are not objective.

>doesn't exclude it being a moral judgment
Only if by "moral judgement" you mean subjective decisions. But then the "moral" is redundant.

File: 1455250756820.jpg (448KB, 603x1650px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 603x1650px

>>902035
Yeah, Nietzsche made some pretty good arguments about nihilism if you weed out through his literary prose and shit. I'm too spooked to use Nietzsche's name on a thread because it's like it summons all the people who treat him like a religious figure and just live to parrot what he said. I really wish it wasn't this way, and if I may be a Nietzsche spook for a moment and speak on his behalf I don't think he would have liked this level of worship either. Criticism should be where it's due

>>902048
>Let's say you have your subjective preferences and I have mine. If they differ, why should I take yours seriously? I am not obliged to give any value to them because they are not objective.
You don't have to at all. But if I were to argue for you to taking a collectivist morality I'd say there's too many of us to safely survive if we all just watch our own tails. But then that too is based on subjective feelings, if our values are still different then you don't have to abide by my morality. That doesn't make yours or mine inherently worthless.


>Only if by "moral judgement" you mean subjective decisions. But then the "moral" is redundant.
No, it isn't. Morality is a system of values which influences subjective decisions, hence "subjective morality" isn't equivalent to "no morality". If I had no systematic set of beliefs like I do then I would just continue beating that guy I really hate to death.

>>902086
The very idea of "morality" or "ethics" was to establish an objective authority / guidelines. If this goal failed, then morality is worthless.

>>902046
Thanks anon, I like this analogy

>>902094
>The very idea of "morality" or "ethics" was to establish an objective authority / guidelines
No, no caveman was sitting on his ass one day and decided "what if there's an objective good?????????". Morality came about as a system for social coexistence that allows large numbers of people to live with each other. The unsophisticated people who lived by it probably never thought of an objective-subjective dichotomy. The idea of the possibility of morality being absolute most likely came about later

>>902094
Morality serves towards a collective good though. If murdering or stealing from someone wasn't collectively condemned and attacked by society and only by those negatively affected by it the world would be a lot more dangerous and the economy would be negatively affected. the even more intense feelings we get from seeing children harmed and our feeling of obligation towards them keeps us from dying out as a species

>>902113
In philosophy however, "ethics" is about prescribing rules by which people should behave.

>>902139
that's kinda the point. society needs to have general guidelines of acceptable behavior in order to have a society. of course this excludes "victimless crimes"

>>902139
What >>902150 says. Ultimately even the survival of society is subjective, but most ethical systems assume people want this (at least when they allow people choices)

>>902046

Except Music was not a human invention, it was a discovery which was labeled by humans.

Music existed before Humans started producing it. The most rudimentary of young budding audiophiles can tell you that animals have been making music for far longer than we can record history.

Just as we didn't invent the stars, we discovered them and named them, so too is it with musical notes. that's a bad analogy.

>>901805
>lack of objective values =/= lack of values
it means that the act of valuing is prior and superior to the actual values. values are ephemeral and lack objectivity. that's nihilism.

>>901826
>If this is true you cannot say nihilism is the only valid option.
He's not making a value judgement when he says that it is the only valid option. It's valid in the sense that it follows from the premises that we have accepted (no objective values, no source of objective values)

>>902398
Ok substitute sculpture-work or epic-poetry and the message is the same.

>>902471
Nihilism is a rejection of ALL values.

One has to build a case that subjective values are basless.

And as I said here >>902046
we already have seen things can be both valued and subjective. This is because values are a responce to various objective parts of nature.

To repeat the anology, morality is like sculpture-work or epic poetry. It is a human invention but this does not mean it is arbitrary, rather it is carefully selected to achieve a certain end-result.

The idea that you need something "greater than yourself" to decide actions is the very definition of a spook.

Schopenhauer and that gigantic knowledge Hagel.