On Nihilism

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Playing Devils advocate here (I'd smack the person in question upside the head)

That's one response. It's a horrible argument you're making, and I can't quite see why you're making it. I know you're unlikely to be a serious supporter of eugenic fascism, so I'm keen to find out what your point is.

It works the same way as not killing people. You don't want to destroy your own species right? Why burden the limited resources of the earth with disabled people who are incapable of contributing to the species in any meaningful way? In fact, killing them prevents their defective genes from being passed on and disabling a new generation.

That's just such a narrow view of human potential. Why don't we go and kill Stephen Hawking because he's disabled? Because (for starters) it would be needlessly cruel and would deprive us of his talents.

This is of course only for a person who EVEN CARES about his species. He could very well be a selfish person out for his own survival. How could he know that his contributions will even make a difference in his species? When he could be greedy, and "giving" when it is favorable for him, and live comfortably ENSURING his own survival and happiness?

OK - selfish people do exist. Where are you going with this?

I exist - Just slap yourself and find out if it hurt or not

Not the most sophisticated argument in the world, is it? You're in good company, though - the great Dr. Johnson made a similar argument when someone told him about George Berkeley's doctrine of idealism in the 18th century.

It's perfectly possible that I am a disembodied brain in a vat that is dreaming of being slapped. An unlikely scenario for sure - but how can we rule it out?

The sun will rise tomorrow - We can't say that because we don't know what will happen in the future

I agree.

Murder is evil - the concept and the idea of morality is to prevent harm. Why is it immoral to steal? because it harms others. likewise why is it evil to murder? it harms others hence it is evil.

One reason this one can't be proven is that evil is a concept we have invented, rather than something that exists in the world as anything other than an abstract concept.

Moral judgements are things that we have to work with each other to agree about. When different groups have different ideas about what is the right thing to do, clashes can inevitably occur. It ought to be clear from this that moral judgements are not something we can ever prove - they are just shared concepts or values that help us to get along with each other.

Peace

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Greetings,


That's one response. It's a horrible argument you're making, and I can't quite see why you're making it. I know you're unlikely to be a serious supporter of eugenic fascism, so I'm keen to find out what your point is.




That's just such a narrow view of human potential. Why don't we go and kill Stephen Hawking because he's disabled? Because (for starters) it would be needlessly cruel and would deprive us of his talents.



OK - selfish people do exist. Where are you going with this?



Not the most sophisticated argument in the world, is it? You're in good company, though - the great Dr. Johnson made a similar argument when someone told him about George Berkeley's doctrine of idealism in the 18th century.

It's perfectly possible that I am a disembodied brain in a vat that is dreaming of being slapped. An unlikely scenario for sure - but how can we rule it out?



I agree.



One reason this one can't be proven is that evil is a concept we have invented, rather than something that exists in the world as anything other than an abstract concept.

Moral judgements are things that we have to work with each other to agree about. When different groups have different ideas about what is the right thing to do, clashes can inevitably occur. It ought to be clear from this that moral judgements are not something we can ever prove - they are just shared concepts or values that help us to get along with each other.

Peace

Sorry I didn't mean disabled, I mean like severely mentally retarded people who are incapable at all of contributing.

I said at the top that I was playing devils advocate. I'm pointing out that your reason of not killing people because it would harm your own species is an weak reason. Which is why I understand what you mean when you called your view on it "a habit" since it is utterly dependent on your culture for you.

I find your reasons to be narrow and extremely easy to corrupt.

 

[abdullah_001]

Greetings,

Not the most sophisticated argument in the world, is it? You're in good company, though - the great Dr. Johnson made a similar argument when someone told him about George Berkeley's doctrine of idealism in the 18th century.

It's perfectly possible that I am a disembodied brain in a vat that is dreaming of being slapped. An unlikely scenario for sure - but how can we rule it out?



I agree.



One reason this one can't be proven is that evil is a concept we have invented, rather than something that exists in the world as anything other than an abstract concept.

Moral judgements are things that we have to work with each other to agree about. When different groups have different ideas about what is the right thing to do, clashes can inevitably occur. It ought to be clear from this that moral judgements are not something we can ever prove - they are just shared concepts or values that help us to get along with each other.

Peace

It might be a simple arguement but feel free to prove it wrong.

Are you saying that it is possible you are a brain in a vat? How do you explain your limbs? How do you explain your sight? or any sensations for that matter? It isn't "prefectly possible" like you say, infact, it doesn't make any sense at all.


"One reason this one can't be proven is that evil is a concept we have invented, rather than something that exists in the world as anything other than an abstract concept."

I don't think you read my post. Even if we agree that evil is a human invented concept then we must first define what evil is. I have already told you the concept of good and evil is snyonymous to what benifits and whats harms humankind in general, so by this standard we know that murdering people would be evil because it causes harm to other people.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Sorry I didn't mean disabled, I mean like severely mentally retarded people who are incapable at all of contributing.

I think I understand what you mean now. It's a big ethical issue, with (as ever) no easy answers. I think most people would feel some sort of natural revulsion at killing mentally defective people to eliminate their drain on resources. However, this is the kind of decision that doctors are forced to make every day all over the world.

I said at the top that I was playing devils advocate.

Oh, I know. Like I said, it's clear you're not a eugenic fascist.

I'm pointing out that your reason of not killing people because it would harm your own species is an weak reason. Which is why I understand what you mean when you called your view on it "a habit" since it is utterly dependent on your culture for you.

Perhaps I didn't express myself very clearly earlier on. I'm not really talking about my personal morality, I'm trying to think about how and why morality developed in our species. It's my belief that thousands of years of human morality being used as a survival tactic in all cultures of the world is something that sets a very real framework on our behaviour, to the point where the taboo on killing has become such a powerful part of our collective memory that it is almost (but who can say to what degree?) innate.

I find your reasons to be narrow and extremely easy to corrupt.

I don't think I'm perfect, but what sort of thing do you think you could do to corrupt me?

It might be a simple arguement but feel free to prove it wrong.

The brain in a vat example is intended to make you think again. It is a famous thought experiment, and I would encourage you to read the link once more.

Are you saying that it is possible you are a brain in a vat?

On balance, yes. It's doesn't seem very likely, I freely admit, but can we rule it out for certain? I don't think so.

How do you explain your limbs? How do you explain your sight? or any sensations for that matter?

Any number of ways. Since it's a thought experiment, I can invent any plausible reason at this point.

It isn't "prefectly possible" like you say, infact, it doesn't make any sense at all.

It seems absurd, but is it impossible?

"One reason this one can't be proven is that evil is a concept we have invented, rather than something that exists in the world as anything other than an abstract concept."

I don't think you read my post. Even if we agree that evil is a human invented concept then we must first define what evil is. I have already told you the concept of good and evil is snyonymous to what benifits and whats harms humankind in general, so by this standard we know that murdering people would be evil because it causes harm to other people.

Perhaps I didn't read your post properly, and I do think you have a point here. By defining evil it is possible to construct a valid argument according to that definition. What I really meant was that it is not possible for us to prove that this amounts to a true statement about the world. Valid arguments may or may not be true.

Peace