The distinction is blurry and it depends on who you ask. There are primers available online at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Wikipedia, est. 20-30 minute reads each with summaries and a table of contents at the top.
~Max
You know, I occasionally feel the desire to get snippy about this - it’s not like the 2 is silent. But then I remember that I’ve called Half Man Half Wit HMHW, and thus I really have no leg to stand on. So yeah.
They they have devised a moral system that is comprised of the statement “Obey that guy.” That’s the moral. The instructions, though, aren’t morals; they’re not even constant. One minute you’re told you shall not kill, the next you’re told it’s inquisition time.
It’s still a system of morals. There is no rule saying morals have to be constant or absolutist, and if there is, that’s just your opinion. Besides, there are plenty of apologetics for any apparent contradiction, and some of them will even say things like “Max, if you can convince me that there is a contradiction, I will renounce my faith”.
~Max
A system of morals has to be constant, or it isn’t an ethos.
And words mean exactly what I say they mean. Humpty had the right of it.
As if a system of morals must build an ethos? Morals must be logically consistent, by which I mean there can be no conflicting morals at any one time; for the purpose of morals is to guide decisions, and conflicting instructions make for a poor guide. A system of morals need not be constant or consistent over time. It is perfectly acceptable for an act to be moral one day and immoral the next, or in some situations but not others, so long as it is never both moral and immoral at the same time in the same situation.
~Max
Different situations are different acts - presuming your morals shalt not be defined as absolutes.
And seriously, I think this is getting pretty far afield. We aren’t even talking about nihilistic morality at all now, are we?
Religious-based morality: It is bad to lie, cheat, or steal because doing these things causes harm to one’s spirit/soul or relationship with the high power(s). So that’s why I am going to avoid doing these things.
Conventional secular morality: It is bad to lie, cheat, or steal because doing these things causes harm to one’s community. So that’s why I am going to avoid doing these things.
Nihilistic morality: It is a waste of time to tell people what not to do because it’s all bullshit in the end anyway. So that’s why I am going to avoid doing this.
I don’t think the typical nihilist believes everything is bullshit in equal measure. Like, I’m gonna guess that the typical nihilist doesn’t think drinking a glass of water in response to thirst is just as pointless as reciting the books of the Bible backwards while standing on one’s head. So a rudimentary nihilistic code of conduct might be “If you’ve got to do something, do things that minimize or prevent immediate suffering. Life is easier without suffering. But don’t worry about all the other shit people tell you to do or not do cuz everything is bullshit in the end.”
There are people who are proudly apolitical. They avoid taking sides in political discussions. They befriend everyone regardless of political persuasion and negatively judge those who discriminate along political lines, no matter what those lines are. They are convinced that voting doesn’t do a damn thing and neither does protesting in the street over injustices. I would argue these so-called apolitical people are actually governed by a political framework of some type since not taking sides is functional endorsement of the status quo. “I’m not going to worry my beautiful mind over climate change/racism/poverty/abortion/gun violence because whatever will happen will happen!” is just as bit a political statement as “Everyone should care about climate change/racism/poverty/abortion/gun violence because we can effect positive change if we all care!”
Someone who claims to have no moral system, but who conducts themselves no differently than anyone else, is fooling themselves. Their moral system may lack a fancy ideological namebrand, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t operating under a program that aides them in decision-making and value judgments. “I’m not going judge that guy for doing bad things because I don’t believe that anything can be objectively judged as bad” is every bit a moral statement as “That bad guy does bad things like the Baddy McBaddington he is and I’m going to keep judging him until he changes!”
That’d be me. I strongly reject the notion that there are immanent or absolute moral “goods” or codes (even so called “universal taboos” are anything but - incest and cannibalism are usually put forward as items that every man or civilization groks to be Bad ; but I can give you plenty of examples of human civilizations that feature either). I don’t think anything we do has any meaning beyond the subjective ; and there’s nobody to judge in the end either. It’s all stories we tell each other or tell ourselves to try and hide away from the vast, empty, meaningless void of existential despair. Good and Evil are just social, cultural constructs.
But that doesn’t mean I give myself free reign to be an asshole. In fact it’s very important to me to be understanding and honest to a fault, if only out of pride at being better than other folk in some categories which I arbitrarily weigh high. And it feels nice to be nice most of the time, so that’s a bonus.
And at the same time, well, I also have to live with the fact that life’s just a ride, nothing ultimately matters and nobody knows the rules and the points are made-up. Some days it’s hard, some days it isn’t. Patton Oswalt’s late wife’s motto applies : “Life’s chaos, it’s cruel ; be kind.”
Morals-wise, I seen worse codes demanded from atop higher horses.
Atheism is not repudiation of all religion. Even antitheism is not repudiation of all religion.
The problem with nihilistic morality is that you haven’t.
There are no better or worse moral codes from that point of view. High horse, low horse, no horse - there is no more reason to be kind than there is to be cruel. And “I just feel like that” is also completely arbitrary and has no meaning.
If nihilism is true, then all moral codes are meaningless, including nihilistic ones. And all moral statements, without exception, have the same moral weight as a sneeze or an itch.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s sort of a catch-22, but this is already the case… if you decide it is. Or it isn’t, if you decide it isn’t. Morality is a human-created concept. I believe in right and wrong, but these are human-created concepts, and I choose to believe in them and act within them because I think the world is better if we behave within these human-created constraints (but only my version of right and wrong, of course ;)).
Lots of folks believe these are not human-created concepts, but rather come from a higher power or powers, but that’s also just another decision these humans are making. Moral codes have the exact weight placed on them by humans. Same goes with meaning – the meaning we find in life is up to us, even if we decide that meaning comes from elsewhere.
All of this wrong. Moral codes have meaning to the people who hold them. Otherwise, they would hold different moral codes.
For instance, “there is no more reason to be kind than there is to be cruel” is ridiculous. Being kind usually won’t get you punched in the face. Being cruel may make people want to punch you in the face. Being kind will cause others to treat you kindly. Being kind makes me feel better than being cruel makes me feel. Being cruel will cause others to shun you. There’s a bunch of reasons right there, with plenty of meaning.
Morality is simply an individual’s code of conduct that they can justify through some reasoning process or ideology. A nihilist operates by a code–one that they can justify with reasons. Thus, they have a morality system.
Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
The different moral codes are no more meaningful than the original ones.
Those reasons have exactly the same weight and meaning as “God wants us to be kind to each other”. They are based on unproven and unproveable axioms. Thus, according to nihilism, they are equal.
Regards,
Shodan
If you’re a true nihilist, having people punch you in the face is not intrinsically less desirable than having them treat you kindly. In fact, something being desirable, if it can be construed in the first place, is not …
never mind, my head hurts. Theoretical perspectives that assert the lack of meaning or value always make my head hurt.
Wrong. They are based on easily tested and provable axioms. I enjoy getting punched in the face a lot less than I enjoy not being punched in the face: axiom tested and proved.
So, punching a nihilist in the face immediately after they self identify as nihilists is morally identical to simply ignoring everything about them? (From their ethical perspective, of course, your own moral values might say otherwise but a true nihilist would find nothing objectionable about either.)
Would committed nihilists find efforts to exterminate their own number ethically undesirable?
It’s all about the level of commitment, I suppose.
Tell that to Eichmann or Jeckeln or any of the other human filth who felt *nothing *for their victims.
You haven’t established a reason for valuing your enjoyment over your lack thereof, though.
“Enjoy” is the reason; there is no need for absurd reduction.