Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unfan
I wouldn't know because I actually have goals, however, that doesn't mean that someone without goals can't have morality.
|
Morality is a means to an end. The end is the goal. Every true morality in history is based on morality being a means to an end from Christian morals to the morals of altruism. The goal may not be a selfish one, but there is a goal whether it be transcending the human in us or personal happiness.
Quote:
|
What is good for society based on known information. Typically of the social variety.\
|
Why are these your ethics or rather "the ethics?"
Quote:
|
What if someone derives happiness from defeatism? What if viewing others as more important than yourself gives you a sense of humbleness which makes you happy?
|
You have to look at what happiness actually is. No one can derive happiness from something that destroys the self-esteem. Happiness isn't an abstract feeling that we cannot explain at all. Happiness is the human response to what is good. What makes one happy is good for the human psychologically and such. There is a mechanism in our brain that determines what is painful and what feels good. Why is it there? To protect us. Something that destroys us can not give us happiness.
Quote:
|
But what is good to identify with? This seems like nothing more than opinion, and saying that everyone has the ability to identify with thatever they want and it doesn't matter is bordering on a nihilistic thought process. On the other hand saying there is an objectively good thing to identify with is outright opressive. This statement alone makes it sound like you're saying it is objectively bad to feel connected to religion or religious figures while saying it is subjectively acceptable. Which is it?
|
I don't quite understand which idea you are attacking when you say, "What is good to identify with?" I will take a shot. The good is what is rational. What leads you to the goal of human happiness.
And that is nihilism? An idea which opens up the realm for human potential is the most anti-nihilist thought on the planet. Nihilism is an anti-hope idea and an idea that is based in hope can not be considered nihilism.
I am saying that one will never reach true happiness if he follows religion because that happiness will never be
his. So it is objectively evil to follow religion.
THIS. You seem to be so anti-nihilism yet this is exactly what nihilism is. You're saying that objectivity revolves around subjectivity derived from self awareness, and that since nothing is more important than self that self is the best thing to edify. You, your opinions, and your goals are the basis of your world view, and anything that is against those things is obviously bad. For the nihilist it is about their subjective experience of a subjective world where they then formulate subjective opinions of what is happening. The only difference is that you have a large enough ego to call it objective.
Quote:
|
The only difference is that you have a large enough ego to call it objective.
|
I do have the ego to call it objective. That is what makes in anti-nihilistic. I don't view existence without hope. I view it with hope because I create my existence. In the midst of a meaningless world I have become a god and given it meaning, but not just subjective. I have given it an objective meaning. No one can live and be happy without believing that what they perceive is objective reality.
I don't believe that what I do are the only things that are rational. What is rational can differ depending on the circumstances behind the situation. While I may criticize myself for taking up job A in this country where job A is popular, I would not say it is immoral to take up job A where job A is not popular.
Quote:
What evidence is there of being an objective morality? If morality is derived from reason and reason changes from person to person than morality has to be subjective. Oh wait, you have proof? Let's check this out.
But different people get happiness from different things. If someone gets happiness from immorality this would prove you completely wrong.
|
When I said that people will derive different moralities, I meant it in the way where something can be moral in one place, but not in another. Of course, it depends on what is rational at the time.
There is an objective morality because there is an objective reality. If there is a best way to live in this reality, then there must be a morality that guides one to live that way. I do believe that one can make the most out of his existence and at the same time cast it away as if it were trash. This means that there is a morality. There has to be something to guide me to this best way of living.
Quote:
|
But I think I do view this the opposite way that you do. I view reality as important because it affects everyone. Not just me. If we were capable of existing in our own seperate realities outside of each other than I would probably have an entirely different world view.
|
No, I view it the same way as you. Reality affects everyone. However, the way it affects everyone is not the same. Starving kids in a third world country affect me, but on such a small level that, unless it were to affect me more, I shouldn't care. My happiness does not depend on the enjoyment of others. You brain doesn't give you pleasure when someone across the world, whom you have never met or even knew existed, has stayed alive one more day.
Quote:
see. That's an interesting way to argue. Here, allow me to refute utilizing your tried and true method:
No it isn't. No it isn't. No it isn't. No it isn't.
|
Well, I figured that if you wanted to get in on this argument about morality and ethics then it wouldn't be to hard. If I were to argue regularly then I would have to repeat myself, which I don't feel like doing. If you want to know why I think those are good then you have the last couple posts between me and The Unfan for you to read.
I mean, your way of argument was no better. You assumed that everyone would think those a bad things. I was just trying to point that out.