Sometimes when i have done something because i "should" to do it (specially because of social pressure), i feel stupid and i think "why have i done that". Do you think that after doing something you didnt want to is inevitable to feel ashamed or that feeling is just another condemnation (in this case for not doing what you really want) I think this point is important because, if shaming is inevitable in that case, it makes you much more carefull before doing something
But seriously, your theory of morality is not different from nihilism, except you use "should" in practical, preference and deontological contexts. It's much easier to simply say, "it's practical to do X to achieve goal Y", "I have preference X". This would divorce your theory of morality from any deontology.
@Mastikator Maybe ... but I like to use what is most commonly understood as the English language and that means I use should, ought, morality, and ethics in a different way than the youtube nihilist who tend to use different than common definitions and act like words have some sort of objective meaning.
@aaron0883 It's not that words have objective meaning, it's just that some words have many meanings and some only few. Nihilist semantics is less confusing, since you don't have to explain what you mean by "practical" and "prefer". You will have to explain what precisely you mean by "should", its meaning is in some contexts ambiguous.
@Mastikator Practical has all of the same problems as should or morality ... practical to what goal? I use the word prefer also.
A huge problem with nihilistic language is that most people will paint you into a nasty corner. If you tell someone you don't believe in morality they will believe you have no standards and are okay with a baby getting anally raped. However, I actually don't care much. I say that people use the best language for the situation.
I found myself internally yelling at myself yesterday-then my other voice in head yelled back. What I've been wanting to know is how to shut up the internal shaming voice. I feel it's been holding me back in more ways than one.
@Andrew300082 In real life I believe in shaming shamers, and I also believe in doing it to the shaming voices in your head. Internally call them retarded and combat them head on, and never submit to them
@aaron0883 Interesting. Everyone I've heard up until this comment has said "have compassion for that voice" or "try to ignore it" (something along those lines). I think I'm going to take your advice with this from now on, as I see only good happening from it.
what about Most T o t a l Happiness Everyone as a goal for The Progression of Life & Civilziation on a general scale; shoudl we not try to maximize overall happiness for Everyone?????
@XOmniverse in the worldview i have, which is Telological, there is no should, per se, for events, especially charge events, would be directed towards Results. Most Happiness for a Few at the expense of others, in my beleif, is simply the initial stage for The Progression of Life & Civilization...and we will be redirected towards MT Happiness...and mostly i think this because it will fill out the spectrum of types...which is what i see nature doing, crudelly speaking : )
Because there is no objective morality, the logical outcome is self-ownership. In order to initiate force upon me, you must claim to have the right to own me. But rights do not exist.
I've always been dumbfounded at how a nihilist would look at this in the reverse; that the rapist need not claim the right to rape, but that the victim must claim the right to not be raped.
@JacobSpinney I guess it depends on how you view rights. In your analogy I get the impression you're equating a right with the posession of superior power. I'm thinking that the ownership of a live someone is the goal, unless you just want to eat them, or trade their meat. But if that posession exercises the power of suicide, the "claimant" is powerless to take that posession. You say rights do not exist, but power does? Well doen't that leave the one who can deny the claim with prevalence?
@glenbratke It could ... but saying an interior 'should' doesn't really cause problems except with people who are anal and/or have improperly analyzed the english language
Sometimes when i have done something because i "should" to do it (specially because of social pressure), i feel stupid and i think "why have i done that". Do you think that after doing something you didnt want to is inevitable to feel ashamed or that feeling is just another condemnation (in this case for not doing what you really want) I think this point is important because, if shaming is inevitable in that case, it makes you much more carefull before doing something
jruizdemena 1 year ago
I keep thinking you're saying "doodie"
GirlyVoice 1 year ago
@aaron0883 You are one of the most intelligent American I have ever seen. ;)
Anonomys246 1 year ago
@Anonomys246 well thanks
aaron0883 1 year ago
Interesting POV.
neotoy 1 year ago
But seriously, your theory of morality is not different from nihilism, except you use "should" in practical, preference and deontological contexts. It's much easier to simply say, "it's practical to do X to achieve goal Y", "I have preference X". This would divorce your theory of morality from any deontology.
Mastikator 1 year ago
@Mastikator Maybe ... but I like to use what is most commonly understood as the English language and that means I use should, ought, morality, and ethics in a different way than the youtube nihilist who tend to use different than common definitions and act like words have some sort of objective meaning.
aaron0883 1 year ago
@aaron0883 It's not that words have objective meaning, it's just that some words have many meanings and some only few. Nihilist semantics is less confusing, since you don't have to explain what you mean by "practical" and "prefer". You will have to explain what precisely you mean by "should", its meaning is in some contexts ambiguous.
Mastikator 1 year ago
@Mastikator Practical has all of the same problems as should or morality ... practical to what goal? I use the word prefer also.
A huge problem with nihilistic language is that most people will paint you into a nasty corner. If you tell someone you don't believe in morality they will believe you have no standards and are okay with a baby getting anally raped. However, I actually don't care much. I say that people use the best language for the situation.
aaron0883 1 year ago
Haha, you said duty.
Mastikator 1 year ago
I found myself internally yelling at myself yesterday-then my other voice in head yelled back. What I've been wanting to know is how to shut up the internal shaming voice. I feel it's been holding me back in more ways than one.
Andrew300082 1 year ago
@Andrew300082 In real life I believe in shaming shamers, and I also believe in doing it to the shaming voices in your head. Internally call them retarded and combat them head on, and never submit to them
aaron0883 1 year ago
@aaron0883 Interesting. Everyone I've heard up until this comment has said "have compassion for that voice" or "try to ignore it" (something along those lines). I think I'm going to take your advice with this from now on, as I see only good happening from it.
Andrew300082 1 year ago
what about Most T o t a l Happiness Everyone as a goal for The Progression of Life & Civilziation on a general scale; shoudl we not try to maximize overall happiness for Everyone?????
CammieSpectrum 1 year ago
@CammieSpectrum I'll ask the obvious question because I'm curious what your answer will be.
Why should we try to maximize overall happiness for everyone?
XOmniverse 1 year ago
@XOmniverse in the worldview i have, which is Telological, there is no should, per se, for events, especially charge events, would be directed towards Results. Most Happiness for a Few at the expense of others, in my beleif, is simply the initial stage for The Progression of Life & Civilization...and we will be redirected towards MT Happiness...and mostly i think this because it will fill out the spectrum of types...which is what i see nature doing, crudelly speaking : )
CammieSpectrum 1 year ago
@CammieSpectrum You said "shoudl we not try to maximize overall happiness for Everyone?????" That is a should statement.
XOmniverse 1 year ago
This reminds me of my (current) view on morality.
Because there is no objective morality, the logical outcome is self-ownership. In order to initiate force upon me, you must claim to have the right to own me. But rights do not exist.
I've always been dumbfounded at how a nihilist would look at this in the reverse; that the rapist need not claim the right to rape, but that the victim must claim the right to not be raped.
JacobSpinney 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney I guess it depends on how you view rights. In your analogy I get the impression you're equating a right with the posession of superior power. I'm thinking that the ownership of a live someone is the goal, unless you just want to eat them, or trade their meat. But if that posession exercises the power of suicide, the "claimant" is powerless to take that posession. You say rights do not exist, but power does? Well doen't that leave the one who can deny the claim with prevalence?
RichardRoy2 1 year ago
If you say: 'I think you could' .. Would it solve a few scenarios?
glenbratke 1 year ago
@glenbratke It could ... but saying an interior 'should' doesn't really cause problems except with people who are anal and/or have improperly analyzed the english language
aaron0883 1 year ago