Thoughts on Moral Nihilism

[Insatium]

Great video! Lots of good points you've made here.

[MrMetallicMentality]

On this "moral" issue...Morals are a product of the environment, nothing more. We believe and learn through what we are taught and trust to be reality. Morals are a bi-product of conviction, usually set by religion. Take, for example, Greek Pedophiles. It was not morally corrupt to sleep with a child, it was more beneficial in their eyes, because it's what they were taught. I'm quite sure the majority would now disagree...because their re-wired subconscious and environment tells them to.

[XOmniverse]

@MrMetallicMentality Would whether it was actually good for a greek to have sex with a child be dependent on his opinion? Surely, if I am of the mindset that walking in front of trucks would be good for me, my desire for it to be good for me wouldn't prevent the truck from turning me into a pancake.

[MrMetallicMentality]

@XOmniverse You mix body and mind..That doesn't work, they are separate entities. The mind protects the body, not the other way around. The relationships in Ancient Greece were consensual and very normal. The only way it could cause harm is obviously physically, which they didn't seem to mind. And mentally. The problem is that like I said, it only became an issue of harm when it was thought to be harmful. When it wasn't, there was no issue of harm.....psychologically....no mind, no matter.

[XOmniverse]

@MrMetallicMentality I never argued one way or the other about pederasty. I simply stated that its actual goodness or badness isn't contingent on someone's beliefs about the goodness or badness of it.

I'd need an explanation for how the mind is separate from the body.

[MrMetallicMentality]

@XOmniverse The subconscious sends out a command that it has been hard-wired with and the body reacts. Any infant can grow to believe anything, you could have him thinking that anal penetration and the rape of an innocent woman is a form of flattery and he would believe it. His opinion and subconscious commands would only change if another factor came into play. Guilt, which is only felt for doing "wrong"...."wrong" which is taught. An infant knows no better because they're not programmed yet.

[XOmniverse]

@MrMetallicMentality People are not born blank slates. In fact, I recommend the book The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker if you're interested in the science that contradicts the notion of the blank slate.

[MrMetallicMentality]

@XOmniverse The problem is that it's untrue. We all know how primitives act. Without remorse, without guilt, without care They are only driven by primitive desires because that's all they have, they were never taught anything else.

[XOmniverse]

@MrMetallicMentality If they are blank slates, where did they originally acquire those primitive desires?

[MrMetallicMentality]

@XOmniverse Animalistic tendencies developed by the hostile environment, hunger, thirst, being tired and quite frankly, being horny. Eat, drink, sleep and mate. These functions are feelings...not thoughts. These feelings exist without an outlet.

[MrMetallicMentality]

Reality is based only upon one's personal perception in his given environment. There are universal laws, however, emotions and happiness are not laws. They are a commonly shared mindset. between individuals that agree to their significance. It's not that happiness doesn't exist or that it is inconsequential. It's that: happiness doesn't change any law or fact of the universe and then becomes subjective and therefore, doesn't matter. 1+1 = 2. Not, 1+happy 1 = half-happy 2. Nonsensical problem.

[XOmniverse]

@MrMetallicMentality It seems like your argument is that things that can't be easily be quantified are irrelevant or unimportant. What is the logic that leads to that conclusion?

[MrMetallicMentality]

@XOmniverse I'm not attempting to argue, simply state my mind on the matter.The only way something gains importance in one's mind is if that person allows it to be important. There is a man taking a shit somewhere right now, does anyone else truly care about this man's bowel movements? No. However, I could, if I truly allowed it to gain importance to me for some emotional reason. Regardless, nothing is important unless you make it so. The subconscious is key and can be trained to just not care.

[XOmniverse]

@MrMetallicMentality By virtue of the fact that you are conversing with me right now, you have some value you are driven to achieve via this conversation. Any being that truly, fundamentally didn't care about anything would just not act until it inevitably died.

[MrMetallicMentality]

@XOmniverse I laid claim to no such ideas. I care, or I wouldn't be here. I'm a Stoic, not a Nihilist. However, I don't have to be here, caring. I could just as simply choose not to. That's the point, I don't "have to" care about anything. As dull and lifeless as that may seem, it's truth. My own personal views had nothing to do with me commenting on these matters. I simply feel that you had not taken psychology into consideration, to the degree that it is truly involved.

[XOmniverse]

@MrMetallicMentality How can you ever prove that you didn't have to care? Imagine the following conversation:

"I can fly by kicking my feet!"

"Oh yeah? Show me!"

"I could, but I just don't want to."

What you're presenting is similar. I think it's pretty clear that all action is motivated, and that it is impossible to not be motivated, and that is why everyone acts.

[MrMetallicMentality]

@XOmniverse Motivation only exists when you feel as if you should be motivated. Look at the old man who's lost interest in life, sitting in a chair, not speaking for weeks. He has given up, he no longer cares about life, love, happiness..doesn't even have will enough to end his own life. Not because he's unhappy, but because he's tired. This repeating cycle happens daily, it shows that you don't have to be motivated, it is a matter of mindset and the lack of intention. 

[XOmniverse]

@MrMetallicMentality Allow me to quote Schopenhauer. "Man is free to do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."

[MrMetallicMentality]

@XOmniverse Ah, alas. Everything the body does and the mind thinks, every emotion you feel, has been hard-wired into you and connected to an outside source. Religion, ethics, morals, violence, sexuality. Are all based subconsciously. And until your subconscious is fully developed, you will soak up all knowledge like a sponge and it will be your reality from then on, that's how the mind works. Who you are is because of your environment and the people in it.

[XOmniverse]

@MrMetallicMentality Did my environment give me two legs and two arms?

[MrMetallicMentality]

@XOmniverse Technically, your mother's womb did. Which was, at one point, your environment. However, this was never about physical issues. Your physicality has nothing to do with your mentality, short of how you use your limbs and extremities. 

[XOmniverse]

@MrMetallicMentality Evidence seems to point to the brain being the cause of emergent mental phenomena. How do you interpret or account for this evidence?

[MrMetallicMentality]

@XOmniverse Honestly, it's bullshit. There is no hard evidence. It's speculations and theories. Tell an infant to think, instead of act. It cannot, because it's mind does not yet understand thought. Only primitive drive.

[resonantdave]

My definition of morality is a system seeking to codify "good" and "evil", in either a sacred or secular sense. It is more specific than simply codifying behavior in general.

[Antiks72]

It's Leon Trotsky

[vaguelyhumanoid]

@Antiks72 Ironically, he's a free-market advocate.

[Kaulen777]

I don't value being happy...

[ToxicOdiousOne]

Happiness? No sanity is more like it. We need to exist in an environment that we can understand and that is not threatening to us. That's sanity. We strive to know not to be pleasured. Too much pleasure is insanity. Everything in mideration.

[ToxicOdiousOne]

There is no "morality". The police are just state oppression of state imposed morality. Police enforce Christianity? Why? Limits of behavior are counterproductive. If you ban it you make it forbidden. If it's forbidden it has more economic value. It's all about money.

[Britchie90]

You said everyone values happiness and it seems like you are implying that valuing happiness is objective. I think what you are describing is collective relativism. Just because everyone values happiness does not mean that happiness is an objective value. I'm still new to meta-ethics. I have only watched a few videos on it. Please explain what you mean by "valuing happiness is universal" and what that implies other than everyone agrees on it.

[XOmniverse]

@Britchie90 Check out my Rational Ethics series. I go more into it there.

[XOmniverse]

@PostITnoteGUY I did a series on ethics that I would recommend if you're curious how I defend moral realism.

[kidkash77]

About "happiness" being universal..

If we weren't here to perceive "happiness"and define it, would "happiness" still exist?

[XOmniverse]

@kidkash77 I'm not sure I understand your question. If happiness is a trait humans possess, then if there were no humans, then there would be no happiness.

[resonantdave]

@XOmniverse Are you saying animals can't be happy?

[redcommander27]

@XOmniverse

James Rachels argues that while morality doesn't exist in the cosmos, there are rational principles that exist for people. So from his point of view, morality comes from sentient entititeis, and without them there would be no purpose.

[dakshinamurti]

Universality does not equate to objectivity. Just because everyone has a certain idea (example god concept) or a universal taste (like chocolate ice cream) does not make god objective, or chocolate ice cream objectively good.

[XOmniverse]

What would make something objectively good then?

[dakshinamurti]

I have no idea what such a thing would look like (for an object of moral evaluation, like a behavior/action, or a principle) to have the property of moral goodness. That's kind of Mackie's point, in his argument from queerness. Any objectivity assigned to behaviors in moral realm, would always be inside of relativism. Something like, X is good, meaning, such as to fulfill Evaluation grid Y. KInd of like an aesthetic value-judgement. According to my evaluation grid for what good music is, I

[dakshinamurti]

can then say that band /artist X plays good music. I may say that the band must consist of all virtuoso musicians, as defined by average proficiency bla blah, and all sorts of criteria. A paiting for example, may be subjected to a strict analysis, in terms such as content, form, historical background symbols, technique, choice of color, composition, all sorts of stuff, but ultimately the evaluation grid itself is just that. The only way to bypass the is/ought gap in ethics and aesthetics is

[dakshinamurti]

to handle it in strict relativistic terms. There are hypothetical imperatives only. But the kind of imperatives we are used to thinking about when talking morality, as in something being morally wrong per se, irrespective of grid of evaluation, which is always subjective because it consists of a set of values, which require valuers, do not exist.

[Gnomefro]

I agree with most of what you said, although I tend to view it from human nature.

Humanity clearly is a subset of possible bodies/behaviors, and most of us are extraordinarily similar in our thinking about what's good and bad for us. This means that there will be a lot of those 99% successful theories of oughts - grounded in the objective fact of human nature.

Such oughts will only be useful for organizing humans of course, I'm sure many plants, animals and the 1% would object.

[Gnomefro]

It's worth noting that this is true for every conceivable idea of morality. They always apply to a group of similar beings and presuppose that they all have certain traits in common (rationality,feelings,bodies) that allow them to agree on things.

Morality can be true in the sense of being grounded in arguments that are undeniable by such a group of replicators. Like "Pain is bad".

It would be objective in the sense that given replicator type X, pain is objectively considered bad.

[china416]

lol, "where was I going with this?..."

[Rose0883]

No, liking chocolate ice cream is not subjective.... everyone who dislikes it is evil, that much is obvious.....

;)

[Sepero1]

"I want to be a fireman...seems completely subjective, but because it's grounded in the stuff up top it's not really completely subjective".

So because the subjective stuff up top(happiness) happens to be universal, then it ceases to be subjective...

So if 100% of ppl thought the Mona Lisa was beautiful, then would that somehow stop it from being a subjective valuation?

I would say not.

[dakshinamurti]

Hey sepero, I just wrote a comment before reading yours, that's kinda what you meant.

[XOmniverse]

Sepero: Wanting happiness stems from human nature itself. Thinking the Mona Lisa is beautiful is not.

My argument is not that universal = objective. Universality is often a strong indicator of objectivity though you have to dig and analyze to identify if/why it is objective.

[Sepero1]

Ok then, I think we agree: universal =/= objective

Desire for positive emotions (happiness or self-interest), is universal to all animals.

In the context of objective/subjective: determination of what actually brings positive/negative value, comes from the subjective.

[NihilismNothing]

Anything you say, not matter what it is, is your own interpretational subjective personal preference at the end of it all. You can't escape that. Objectivity is a subject's delusion that observing can be done without him

[peart]

Including this comment? It is also subjective and you're not going to escape it? Begs the question why you're commenting in the first place. One would think since your comment (the one you made just now) is subjective it has no inherit meaning objectively. And since it has to objective meaning inherently there is no point in making it. So either you're an intellectual hypocrite or you don't understand philosophy.

[NihilismNothing]

Intellectually you are ignorant. As we find with most deluded moralistic obejectivists who actually think they have a value in this unexplainably vast universe. To you, I "ought" not to make the statement but that fact I have made the statement is my own personal preference. Of course theres no objective point in making it I am merely stating it from my personal opinion.

[peart]

I see but personal opinion is objective (how would you know it is your opinion otherwise if you didn't feel it was objective) Makes one wonder doesn't it

[NihilismNothing]

It doesn't make me wonder at all. I'm just fed up with this delusion and this illusion of objectiveness. "If you didn't feel it was objective" Say I say : I like Arcade Fire they are a good band. Thats not an objective statement that does not apply to everybody does it. Your ridiculous idiotic way of objectify everything makes you very ignorant. .

[peart]

Of course it doesn't apply to everybody. But you did say "I" you said and I'll quote you "I like Arcade Fire" everything you said linguistically points to an objective statement that can be seen in objective reality. I bet you have their CDs? You're not making a very good case for subjectivism by making so many objective statements. Your beliefs, your likes, your dislikes you sound pretty objective to me.

[NihilismNothing]

I checked your channel, you really are a poor excuse for an atheist.

[NihilismNothing]

And an embarassment to atheists everywhere

[hasatum]

I am neither a relativist nor a nihilist, but I must object. People are rarely preoccupied with happiness and they do not value it in itself. They can value another person, an addictive substance, beauty, or any number of other things that cause them to feel intensely sad. These things may in some sense also bring them happiness and this may cause their valuing, but it is not the object of their valuing. This is a major flaw in all hedonistic ethical theories.

[OLTEK1]

"Where was I going with this".....shorten your videos and get to the point.

[Rose0883]

That's a condescending asshole remark.

Don't be a jerk and stop commenting unless you have something valuable to say.

[IndividualAutonomy]

LOL!

[Tuppington]

"there's no way to argue that they should like chocolate ice cream."

say chocolate ice cream is the only foodstuff produced using non-child labor. if you don't want to commit indirect aggression based on your principles of behavior (such as the non-aggression principle)t, then you should like chocolate ice cream.

[FatGermanBastard]

@Xomniverse:

1. Mafia rules, tax laws and even an old dude telling an 8 year old boy how to suck his dick is a codification of behaviour and thus morality by your definition. Obviously morality is more than just a codification of behaviour.

2. Have you ever considered the idea that the word "ought" could be a homonym ? The "ought" in your morality is not the "ought" that moral nihilists refer to.

[FatGermanBastard]

@Xomniverse (Part 2):

3. All that moral nihilism claims is that there are no UNCONDITIONAL oughts. One can believe in descriptive morality and still be a moral nihilist since moral nihilism does not address morality in the descriptive sense and makes no statement about it. YOU are a moral nihilist yourself because you deny intrinsicism.

[FatGermanBastard]

@Xomniverse (Part 3):

For example if you define morality as a set of rules to achieve happiness the condition of morality is the desire for happiness. The fact that we all have it naturally does not change anything about the fact that our desire for happiness is the condition for morality. What moral nihilists claim is that an ought can not exist independently from a condition. I.e. that there are no oughts independently from our desire of happiness and other rational considerations.

[blackacidlizzard]

Whether morality is subjective or non-existent depends upon the definition.

As does the claim that everyone desires "happiness."

[Luke12000]

I really agree with what you're saying here.

[fede2]

nietzsche, contrary to popular belief, was not a moral nihilist. he, at the very least, tried to avoid this.

[schizoapriori]

More of a Moral nihilist rather than a moral nihilist. He was for a morality that was 'beyond good and evil' and in keeping in mind the context in which he used terms like 'morality' 'nihlism' etc...

to remain a moral nihilist, or nihilist in general is what Nietzsche wanted to avoid.

[ThephilosopherFFF]

@schizoapriori Yes,Nietzsche thought nihilism would lead to regression of soceity.

[drew335533]

Hmmmmm this is very true. I am a bit of a moral subjectivist, and consider happiness to be the fundamental concept of morality and also the fundamental instinct.  People will try to take many different ways to make themselves happy, and most of these are subjective values or experinces they have had. On a philosophical level, I think morality is objective, however to the average person (most of the world) I think morality is subjective and just childhood values.

[AFrightfulDream]

I though morality was not about what one ought to do to most successfully attain one's ends, but about restraints in the pursuit of those ends. Moral nihilism would be "the ends justify the means." So if Agathocles of Syracuse felt himself happy in rising from potter's son to supreme power in his city, though it was through the banishment & murder of some 10,000 fellow citizens, what doctrine of "morality is what leads to happiness" objects?

[thorsmitersaw]

Seems the question to ask is if it is truly in ones better self interest to murder 10,000 men or not.

[UcanbeGOD]

Appeal to consensus.

[thewolverineanalyzer]

Maybe their exist moral objective rules that can be applied universaly, but when it comes to individuals then it becomes subjective.

[Cailwyn]

I haven't encountered many people, if any, who reject morality on the basis of its usefulness. Instead, Moral Nihilists reject the concept of morality because there is no concrete in reality from which a "moral truth" can be derived.

And it certainly isn't fair to say that people are rejecting morality on the basis that there is no "unified theory" of morality. People like Ayn Rand or Stefan Molyneux are the ones placing this requirement, not those that reject moral truth statements.

[Cailwyn]

I don't think that moral claims are necessarily true or false, but rather, floating abstractions. Morality presupposes morality.

So, technically, you could describe my ideas as moral noncognitivism, since I'm more sceptical of the existence of moral truths.

[only2percent]

This was the first of Your criticisms, I viewed.

Did You gradually brought Your viewers to accepting Your Dress Code (codifying behavior)?

Cause to me that was a little drastic.

I tried to hear what You said, but the visual jammed my listening comprehension.

[Chrisnoscrub047]

If you want to use a list of principles for predicting behavior then that is fine. If you want to take your list, make everyone look at it and then say "Act according to these principles (which I derived from examining your behavior)!": then...yea, not so much.

[Mastikator]

The question isn't if it's useful. It's if it's true.

And secondly, I doubt that there's any value (yes even happiness) that every last human has had. Even if it did, though, that wouldn't mean it's truly universal, just happens to be that way because we have it in our genes to have that value.

But we also have it in our genes to think that sugar is sweet, does that mean that sugar IS sweet? No, that's just a subjective perception.

[thorsmitersaw]

And how is it that something being a result of our physical make up makes this any less true? If it is apart of human existence via genetics to generally value life over death then how are recommendations of behavior derived or based upon what is more or less constructive towards that value... whatever its source... false?

[Mastikator]

Just because it's true that I think sugar is sweet, doesn't make it true that sugar is sweet.

You can not make preferences, which are subjective, to become objective.

[thorsmitersaw]

that was not what I was saying at all...

[Mastikator]

Then I don't know what you were saying. Could you re-phrase it?

[Robinsonero]

I would say that happiness is a subjective value, it happens to be a value that everyone shares but i couldn't say it has any objective value. This has more to do with my conception of value than happiness itself. Anywho, What separates non deontological morality from pragmatism? I apologize if there's something i'm missing. I think the only way you could have objective morality is to believe in a god. since god is in some sense the universe and god values certain things then there would then

[Robinsonero]

be objective value.

So what's the difference between non deontological morality and pragmatism? and if there's no difference, why associate your pragmatic viewpoints with a group ideas that have been only been used to tyrannize people and justify authoritarian butcheries, and eventually lead to religion and the state?

[Robinsonero]

Perhaps I would have been able to swallow egosim if I were merely an ego.

[tpsisokayiguess]

Have you ever thought of, instead of people who call themselves nihilists redefining morality to the point where it can't exist or make any sense, they could just redefine nihilism as to, yeah maybe, be the very same thing as moral relativism; but I mean come on... The way you define your terms, all nihilists must be fucktarded. Nihilism is such a beautiful word... do not destroy it. plz.

[eagleeye1975]

Sounds like you're describing them setting up a "straw man".

[tpsisokayiguess]

How in the fuck can happiness and chocolate ice cream be so far apart? Your ideas must be wrong. ;D

[stratvic]

What makes us happy and why?

The value of happiness can be further reduced to evolved preferences based on survival options and choices.

Why do we like fatty, salty, sweet foods?

Why do we enjoy approval from others?

[doucher337]

I don't see how happiness is a component of morality. Happiness and survival are the result of evolved neurological structures, as I'm sure you would agree, and have nothing to do with any abstractions or concepts. People do objectively strive toward happiness, and something may objectively cause happiness in a particular person insofar as that object or whatever causes neurons to interact such that the correlated *subjective* perception of happiness results.

[doucher337]

While you most likely were not arguing for that, my point here is that concepts such as justice (which ethics seems to stem from) are so muddled and subjective that deriving anything remotely universal or objective is impossible. It may be just and moral one one area to stone people for, say, pre-marital sex or the consumption of drugs, but clearly this is nearly as far from objectivity or universality as one can possibly get.

[doucher337]

The moral nihilist or relativist argument as I understand it is not to emphasize that morality and justice are totally useful, but rather that they cannot be treated as either objective and concrete or as possessing some property of ubiquity. Since morality and justice can potentially differ in every person alive in some nuance, we see that claiming that "x is morally wrong" is the same as "I don't like x". In that sense, it is without purpose in an argument that "x" should not be done.

[doucher337]

Wow, that all seems long-winded and massive. Sorry for writing an essay.

[legittoquit]

This video is so fraught with the most ridiculous mistakes, it has inspired me to make my own videos. Just you wait. And thank you, I guess.

[XOmniverse]

Hopefully your videos have more substance than your comment.

[legittoquit]

It is not an argument. It is a warning.

:D

[XOmniverse]

I think I can survive a counterargument :P

[brainpolice2]

Part of this is fall-out from Stefbot. Stefbot himself presents a false choice between UPB (deontology) and ethical nihilism. When his followers end up rejecting UPB, they often flee straight into ethical nihilism because of this. Because they're coming from his framework, and reaching the opposite conclusion given the binary that is assumed. This has been my observation about at least part of the trend towards moral nihilism among some market anarchists.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

I do not see how UPB is at all like deontology. In UPB, you should act a certain way because those certain things are preferable, not because they are good.

I often find that people claim UPB as deontology, and I assumed that's whatXomniverse was going to be talking about in this video, but he surprised me with a more general definition of morality, one that does not necessarily conflict with UPB.

[brainpolice2]

UPB doesn't give a reason for why anything in particular is preferable. It simply picks certain moral principles and universalizes them as deontological rules, by tautologically ruling out the alternatives as inconsistent with the principles that were picked in the first place, and treating the principles as if they were metaphysical facts that are undeniable without self-refutation.

[Robinsonero]

Well put. Accepting UPB requires you to already believe in UPB.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

So does denying it.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

"UPB doesn't give a reason for why anything in particular is preferable."

It doesn't have to. Morality involves choice. You can choose to follow it or not. You can choose to be consistent or not. UPB just validates whether your conclusions are consistent with your preferences.

A lot of people seem to want to ignore what Stef stresses the most: The content of the proposition includes the proposition. Meaning, the content of the proposition includes your willingness to present it.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

That's one thing that always bugs me when I come up against people on UPB. People who disagree are always implying what morality should be by stating what UPB is not.

Like XO said, morality is just codified principles for how a person should act. The question is how we can use this type of language in a way that is non-contradictory and consistent. That's what UPB does. It picks out the bad (invalid) and leaves the good (valid-preferable). Why should morality have to be anything more than that?

[brainpolice2]

UPB logically leads to moral nihilism. The post-UPB nihilists are just being more consistent than Stefbot.

[chris3443]

I love the 21st century..having international and in-depth discussions about morality and philosophy in our underwear :) 5 stars

[XOmniverse]

Totally.

[MaikUniversum]

i believe morality can be universal.

[jagmarz]

The definition of morality is a constant problem in such debates.

For example, I was engaged in a debate with a theist to whom morality was meaningless without god. Therefore any attempts on my part to illustrate morality without god caused confusion, and ultimately, he accused me of waffling on the definitions of terms, etc.

[XOmniverse]

I think as long as you define clearly what you mean, and use the definition you provided consistently, everything is fine.

The problem (which I cited in the video) is the waffling on what morality means.

[jagmarz]

Well, I guess I walked into that one, because at the time, I assumed some good-faith definitions of terms. Honestly, if the concept of morality is meaningless without god, then one can't use the existence of morality to prove that god exists, so there's no point in the discussion.

Ferreting out the differences between consequences and requirements is tricky, and I suspect a source of lots of endless philosophical debates and confusion...