Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I mean that objectively speaking, if someone offers an opinion with no content to it except emotion, there is nothing there that would be relevant to anyone else. If you want to subjectively care about it, you're free to do so, but I don't see anything compelling you to.
Though I suppose if enough people subjectively disapproved of something and were able to maneuver themselves into a position of power to enforce their irrational opinions upon others, that would be relevant to other people. So yeah, I guess you're right in that subjective disapproval matters at least in a situation where everything is a power game. Might makes right morality.
One's own mind and moral compass, can be quite compelling, to each individual. Whether it is compelling to another person's mind, is irrelevant.
It's very relevant, unless you want to go live on top of a mountain somewhere. When the alt-right starts pushing their political agenda, I'm sure that your solipsistic approach to morality will be of great comfort to you.
No need for mountains and no need for everyone to agree on everything. We arent robots.
Dear fascists: why can't we all learn to get along and live and let live?
Oh, right. Because you're fascists.
Dear people who want to hang homosexuals: don't worry! Your opinion counts too!
Universal suffrage? Optional.
Democracy? Well, if we still had democratic values, we wouldn't have Trump.
Thank you, relativism.
That people the world over are as reasonable and egalitarian, as you seem to credit them.That people are not robots? Or, everyone doesnt agree on everything?
I agree, I just wish I knew how to cure the conservative Christians of their conservatism.
Yeah, I don't know. And then the accusations of theft start. As much as I enjoy quoting Romans 13 at conservatives, it never seems to work. Talk about picking and choosing your Pauline theology.
No, I understand it well enough. Your hand-in-the-fire example is just like when I talked about getting diabetes from eating too much ice cream.Perhaps the problem is that you do not understand moral realism. The point is that moral concepts are rationally based and refer to things outside of our personal preferences--a moral realist does not need to believe that there are objective moral truths floating around in the aether somewhere (though some do in fact believe this). To use my favorite analogy again, you can argue that shoving your hand into a fire is not an inherently bad thing to do, but nobody in their right mind is going to hold that there is no difference between burning yourself and not burning yourself aside from subjective personal preference.
Except in order to be a nihilist I would have to believe there's no reason for anything. I don't, so I'm not a nihilist. It really is as simple as that. At best you could accuse me of being irrational and state why. But all this constant "you're a nihilist" talk really sounds like projection. I don't make that call often, but you've said before that you lean that way, and you see it everywhere even when it isn't there.Atheists have been trying to reconceptualize morality in a way that can be defended on a naturalistic ontology for centuries now. A lot of what they have come up with does seem to work, at least up to a certain point. I would agree that if atheism is true, psychological health is not good in and of itself, though--this is the void that I keep saying exists at the heart of atheism. Nothing is valuable in and of itself. Under other ontologies that do not draw the line between subjectivity and objectivity in quite the same manner, this void is not present. Atheism chops up reality in a very specific way and ends up assuming a void that it cannot prove actually exists. You can say that the burden of proof is on the other side, but if your default position is nihilism, you cannot complain when people point out that this is in fact what atheism amounts to.
To this:Yeah, this is pure moral nihilism again.
That isn't nihilism at all. There's no such thing as an "ideal picture of morality" with nihilism since all morality is illusion. That would really be moral relativism: stating that things are moral based on their circumstances.It might be the ideal picture of morality, if there was magic that could make it happen.
Except in order to be a nihilist I would have to believe there's no reason for anything. I don't, so I'm not a nihilist. It really is as simple as that.
But all this constant "you're a nihilist" talk really sounds like projection. I don't make that call often, but you've said before that you lean that way, and you see it everywhere even when it isn't there.
Democracy? Well, if we still had democratic values, we wouldn't have Trump.
I'd suspect she would probably want to make a distinction between 'process' and 'values', but that's just my understanding.Trump is the result of democratic values.
I didn't say it was the definition, I said I would need to believe it. You know, part of the ontology of nihilism, not defining it. When I asked:That's not the definition of moral nihilism. Moral nihilism is simply the claim that there are no moral facts or true propositions--nothing is morally good, bad, wrong, or right. There are no moral truths.
You replied:I'm still trying to get you to explain what makes it all nihilistic. Maybe I am a moral nihilist. It doesn't sound so bad. I thought it meant I had to say nothing matters. But if moral nihilists can engage in rational moral decision making because it's a useful fiction, then clearly morals matter, because they're useful they must have some value. And if they're useful to some end, then that means that end matters and has value too, whatever it is. Not sure what's fictitious still, that might be a sticking point, but as long as everything still matters, I probably don't have a problem with it. Or maybe nihilists just want their cake and eat it too.
I don't think I come to the same conclusions that nihilists do even if we agree on some premises, based on what you tell me about nihilism anyways. Which is why you could try to argue that I'm irrational, but you can't insist that I'm a nihilist.How do they actually matter? They may subjectively have some arbitrary importance to you, and there's no reason to refrain from subjective valuation (because there's no reason for anything), but is the universe going to care if we blow ourselves up tomorrow? Presumably not.
I don't see what this has to do with the quoted portion of my post.Nah, I'm just stuck in 19th century atheism, thinking that the collapse of all values is something lurking in the future. You guys are way ahead of me and already dancing in the rubble. Let's all hope they're wrong about the 21st century being a new age of fascism, because I don't expect flimsy subjectivism to stand much of a chance against it.
You appear to be stretching my statements, which appears to be a pattern in this thread.
I would welcome you to state specifically how you arrived at the conclusion you did.
Just for the record, so was Hitler. So was the Rwanda Genocide. Democracy merely preferences what the majority want; or what a sizeable portion want that can then jockey themselves into power, as Hitler did. It is no safeguard against evil. Cultural factors that support virtue must be in league with it, for a democracy of devils would still be hell.Trump is the result of democratic values.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?