No argument here, but knowing them still seems useful to humans. So in relation to humans, those terms and ideas are 100% needed. You're taking moral nihilism and jumping straight to general nihilism without any steps.
> Arguments for determinism always have these "answers" to morality, but the only convincing one is moral nihilism.
Error theory is a form of moral nihilism - what are you exactly disagreeing with here?
------------------------------------------------------
The bigger question is where you go from that moral nihilism. There is nothing that says just because our formal definitions of morality are false that the entire world doesn't matter. I still care for my happiness and life. So do many others. We need both this idea and these further terms and ideas in order to be able to answer the questions we were originally attempting to answer with objective morality because those problems did not magically go away.
> Error theory is a form of moral nihilism - what are you exactly disagreeing with here?
More the relativistic morality and psychological morality.
> There is nothing that says just because our formal definitions of morality are false that the entire world doesn't matter. I still care for my happiness and life.
Moral nihilism doesn't mean that they're false - it means moral truths don't exist, there is no right and wrong. You were predetermined to care for your happiness - but your happiness is already determined. There is nothing you can do to increase or decrease it, it will be what it will be based on the initial conditions.
It seems, in general, that you need to cling to ethics as a way to convince your belief in determinism - to cover up for its deficiencies, you have to find a way to convince people that ethics still matter, despite continual argument that it doesn't.
I agree 100%. However, you are mismatching objective moral truth with subjective moral truth. I am saying that once you realize the lack of objective moral truth/existence, all that is left is the subjective. Human nature then essentially requires it to become a collective subjective. Subjective preferences of all being essentially become the practical "morality". That's what I am referring to here, not the objective morality that does not and cannot logically exist.
Morality is derived not from the physical world but from our own moral psychology. If we change humans in any way, we change morality. And thus morality is also different for every human. Traits like our social nature, empathy, and equal lack of inherent meaning then morph the problem into a collective/intertwined singular subjective morality based on the world state itself.
> - but your happiness is already determined. There is nothing you can do to increase or decrease it, it will be what it will be based on the initial conditions.
This is where you conflate determinism / free will with agency / choice, which are not the same thing. We do not have the ability to see our future choices and path, so we still have to "function" through it, even if it's a set path. And the questions we have to answer along the way are the reason we looked into morality in the first place, and are no less important or worth of time and effort.
> It seems, in general, that you need to cling to ethics as a way to convince your belief in determinism - to cover up for its deficiencies, you have to find a way to convince people that ethics still matter, despite continual argument that it doesn't.
You've got the wrong direction of how philosophy works - I started with determinism at the base, I'm simply asking what it leads to. You're only disagreeing with what comes after moral nihilism, but you've made no actual argument other than "no it's not that way". I'd truly love to understand more what your critique of my steps after is.
Caring about happiness and life, to the point they have value is objective
Do you have any other way to distinguish between moral and general nihilism? -- surely such a thing would need to be objective
But you make a good point in that if there is no objective morality, there may still be some other way to make a value statement. But how could such a thing give value to moral nihilism, and still maintain the nihilism??
To be honest, I don't understand these HN comments any better than the original article -- but I do greatly appreciate them for their importance
The latter comes from the realization that some things (ie actions based only on gaining money/power/fame, knowingly taking advantage of people, needlessly killing, laziness, cheating for gain, not helping the poor, not forgiving people).
This arises from nihilism because some believe that it can't be possible that nothing matters when these values are "beyond our earthly realm" in that it often requires seeing things on a more spiritual level, and thinking beyond immediate gratification.
It is then that one may see nihilistic people as those feeding their temptations as these are often the easiest things to do (running vs. sitting and getting fat).
So while one can think nothing matters, some may then see that indeed some actions "retard" not just ourselves but all, and others are a net benefit for society.
Though believing that such actions are actually a net benefit may be considered "faith" because I can't know for sure.
Just my thoughts.
Yeah, to accept nihilism seems very destructive. Ultimately, to me, like you; it seems to equate to accepting zero value for others and ourselves
Yet life burns to exist. We are desperate to live and to have meaning. It is no proof, but every fiber of our being cries out for a value beyond zero
> Though believing that such actions are actually a net benefit may be considered "faith" because I can't know for sure.
Nice. Personally, and from personal experience, I would base "faith" on concrete facts, and this provides a safe foundation for logic, etc -- I think you can know for sure
Thanks for sharing
This comes down to philosophical definitions. We are both using the word "objective" differently here. In the philosophical world, this is what moral objectivism means:
> The view that what is right or wrong doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. That is, the view that the 'moral facts' are like 'physical' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are. [1]
What you appear to be using objective as here as to mean "it's the physical state of the world, no matter who sees it". And that's true, but it doesn't have inherent moral usefulness as a statement, we have to show that it means something, which is where my argument from determinism leads.
> But you make a good point in that if there is no objective morality, there may still be some other way to make a value statement. But how could such a thing give value to moral nihilism, and still maintain the nihilism??
The "how" comes from a phrase I've used in other posts, but essentially, moral psychology and psychology generally.
Think of it this way: Nothing has inherent moral meaning. Really technically meaning generally, things just are. So does anything have more value than anything else, inherently? Not really. It's an interestingly odd base of equality in fact. So we all still exist and have desires and wants and needs, but none are any more worthy than others. We also have the notable traits of empathy and social desire. There's much more nuance and detail there, but essentially, if I or you as a single individual want to satisfy my desires, my makeup as a creature that cares about others dictates that I balance all of our desires together into what we would generally refer to as "ethics", even if no such objective truth exists. Indeed, if you change what a human is, you change morality itself.
[1] http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/RelativismObjectivism...
> [objectivity] doesn't have inherent moral usefulness
Agreed. But I take it as a required pre-cursor, and that was implicit, so you are right to check definitions. I go something like
Nihilism: an absence. A zero
Objective: a difference beyond zero. A value
So "physical state", and "facts not depending on what anyone thinks" both have value -- they are objective realities. Yes some people say physical state and facts are meaningless and so nihilistically ascribe them zero value. But you have not done that
I think you are saying the universe definitively exists -- it has value. Morality does not exist (in that it has no predefined value, it is a zero). And from there, you take emergent properties of life, the mind, and psychology, to create a new morality -- one which does have value, but as defined in an emergent property of humanity
> even if no such objective truth exists
Now I understand you (I think). You are after a different objectivity
By my personal definition, your second morality must be objective -- you've given it a value, and said it is different to the previous morality -- a fact
As far as I understand things, to have any meaning, there must be objectivity -- otherwise everything is an effective zero, and there is no valid way to say any one thing is better than another. For instance to say something is good rather than bad
So what you have done... Please correct me... is say there is no morality, but there is humanity, psychology, physics, desires, etc. You are saying these are objective facts people agree on, and from there you will build an objective morality that people can also agree on
If so, three comments:
1) Emergent properties and psychology are fascinating, you can build an objectively interesting morality on these. I appreciate your work and your clarity so far. Sorry, your link didn't open for me
2) How would this morality differ from the current morality -- or, to what extent is the current morality not based on emergent properties of psychology and human behavior?
3) Ah, you are cutting God out of the loop. I don't think this objectively (pun) succeeds...
But would love to hear more and any corrections
At this point we're talking definitions, yes. IMO this is a subjective morality because it is only valid when you value what humans value - it comes from our perspective. Without looking at it through our perspective and values, it has no meaning. Repeat for every individual human and combine to get that more or less "objective/existant" rule set.
> You are saying these are objective facts people agree on
Yes, but stronger. Agreement is not needed. I don't personally find use diving into metaphysical brain in vat scenarios, so I choose to philosophically work under that we can observe the universe, and either it's real or its fake and still matters, for similar reasons of "we still exist and feel" invoked before.
> you will build an objective morality that people can also agree on
Theoretically, but good luck getting that agreement, lol. As to "objective" see above. I think the distinction of "shared subjective" is important here.
> How would this morality differ from the current morality -- or, to what extent is the current morality not based on emergent properties of psychology and human behavior?
It really depends on what morality you ascribe to. This view for example is highly supportive of consequentialism in my experience, while pretty clearly kills deontology where it stands. Generally I think the end results in full won't be all that different, though I will say, politically in the US, lack of responsibility via determinism makes strong arguments for things like socialist and egalitarian policies. Of course, psychological factors can offset those, which is why things like full equality a la communism get so much pushback. I think Rawls and the veil of ignorance become pretty useful ideas as a starting point to figure out the details. [1] Our imperfect knowledge will always make this stuff an estimation at best in practicality though.
> Ah, you are cutting God out of the loop. I don't think this objectively (pun) succeeds...
I've heard enough god arguments that I effectively cut that out of the equation, yes. Similar logic to brain in vat - either its false and we move on, or its true and we can't do anything about it anyways. At the end of the day, there is no god proof that I have seen that justifies a meta-ethical underpinning having to do with god or DCT [2] or the like. Basically, evidence strongly points one direction, and we will never have proof one way or the other, so we do our best, make a choice, and move on.
[1] https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/veil-of-ignoranc... [2] https://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/
Ha, yes :)
> As to "objective" see above. I think the distinction of "shared subjective" is important here
So my objective is the "facts irrespective of opinion", but your objective is a subjectivity summed together from many points of view
I suggest my 'objectivity' agrees with what you quoted from the dictionary, but your objectivity (more importantly :o) agrees with the zeitgeist -- in that easily the majority of comments here take your view
-- a rejection of objectivity
I agree this universe is not objective, and I agree shared subjectives exist. So how to make that jump? -- from no fixed point from which to measure true/false -- to a world we can at least have a shared fixed point from which to measure
From an external stand point X varies around zero (or there is no zero). From an internal stand point, everyone can measure from X
So externally we can make no meaningful statement, but internally we can generate a whole microcosm. So shared subjectivity is the internal view?
So is the external an effective zero from a meaning standpoint. Then internal+0 = internal. What meaningfully separates the internal from the external?
Is the external meaningfully non zero. Then internal+external > internal. Good. But then we have external meaning. I think you are also saying shared_subjective > external. So internal > external
I realize you solve this. You say the universe contains something, but not meaning. From electricity, behold, I create light -- a shared subjectivity
If I join you -- I agree, the external world makes no moral sense. I step inside and look from your perspective -- a shared subjectivity. So now I see and make statements about morality based on X -- so to agree with you means to take the perspective that I have objectivity?
I think your answer is yes -- I want you to base your life on X
> I think Rawls and the veil of ignorance become pretty useful ideas as a starting point to figure out the details
So this X is a point from which you can measure decisions and the details of morality? What is the quantitative difference between that and the gods of DCT (thanks for the links) -- haven't you recreated god by a different name?
I suppose you might say: Yes, but my God is from electricity. Theirs is from the unknown
I think we can prove such a statement as partly right, and partly wrong
----
I think:
Either nothing is knowable as true or false, and we move on
Or, we know something is true, and then we have a foundation to build on
Maybe this is shared subjective. But we are not able to fully prove it. For instance mathematical proof is based on axioms. Axioms are unproven assumptions. So even the most basic things are unproven in anything beyond the subjective. We are like finite beings trying to reach outside the realm of finite observations. How can we we make categorical statements when we will never be able to fully check them?
Famously: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
But I would like to suggest a way, and the only way I can imagine
We need evidence that
1) Makes categorical statements
2) Makes them within our observation
3) Gives proof not derivable from observation
4) Does that as a unified package
Some kind of object from beyond our finite realm, stepping in, acting in a finite way (so we can understand it), and also acting in a non-finite way (otherwise ignore it); and doing this as a unified package, so we can connect the two together (finite and non-finite, inside and outside observation)
Notes:
Proof would have to be things we consider impossible -- outside of anything we have observed, and not baseable on anything we have observed
Categorical statements should be things we don't agree with, otherwise (If we already agree with them, then they're probably not based on evidence we don't already have)
I suppose we'd also need reason to trust. Aliens can step onto our television screens and make categorical statements, but they also tend to have the goal of blowing us up and lying -- also they tend to make much lower than categorical claims -- "I can tell you the answers of infinity", or "this is a universal truth" is too wild even for aliens
Such claims are necessarily stupendous, and we'd maybe want equivalently stupendous proof before getting off our backsides
---
So can I say...?
Nothing is knowably true or false, or, evidence exists
Which is tantamount to saying:
Nothing exists, or, evidence exists
I think for a nihilist, I would also add
If nothing exists, then at the very least, evidence also equivalently exists
-- Which I think is as far as anything can be proved
If this is as far as anything can be proved, then is this not effective proof that such evidence exists??
In a deterministic universe, I probably _cannot_ say: "Every action and statement you make is a decision between two options. You are saying one is better, one is worse. You are deciding truth and falsity. Ergo you agree such things exist"
But I probably _can_ say: "At the point all your decisions are not between a better and worse option, then truth and falsity are not relevant, and you at the least, do not disagree with anything I'm saying"
Please do correct me!!! It is now your turn to question my inconsistencies :)
Final point (if you are still with me, and not laughing your head off). I agree: Laughing is a good response
An objective truth -- a truth no matter what perspective necessarily makes a statement beyond observation: Infinity beside the finite is always the ratio 1:0. How can the effective 0 make any statement about the effective 1?
It cannot
The effective 1 is always going to be completely outside the expectations and sensibilities of the 0
I think your electricity giving a shared subjective has been placed in the 1
Someone sent me a link just now -- two subjective realities meeting for a shared experience. Sorry not philosophy in the dry sense. But still asking a good existential question, and disagreeing
Personally I think evidence is a necessity. A summation of all, or enough POVs, we must hope contains this evidence, or an indication of
I give you, a music video(!) https://youtu.be/lynwOb2ZiIo
Try like 1:10min -- 5min. Philosophy more properly starts at about 8:30
Nothing published yet but I have many smaller academic writings that are building the pieces of this, and currently have a master outline that basically looks like this:
(1) Hard Determinism
(2) Ethics/Morality under (1)
(3) Social/Political Organization under (2)
(4) Personal/Useful/Practical/Life Philosophy under (1)/(2)/(3)
I started (1) when I was 18 and have many different forms at this point. Recently I have spent a good deal of time on (2) in the past couple years. (3) I have worked on independent of these ideas and am still linking up once I sure up and reflect on (2) more. (4) I'd argue is basically a WIP experiment of my own life since I was 17/18 and will be the last to be completed, probably not for a good deal of time.
Basically if this is a checklist representative of how developed/ready these ideas are, (1) is done, (2) is 75% of the way there and my main focus currently, (3) is up next, and 4 requires all the others and of course much lived experience.
As to when/how I want to publish, right now my plan is to have three forms for each - an accessible article (think 10-30 minute read), a short accessible book form that elaborates, and the formal philosophy for the academic/formal community to pick apart. Right now I essentially am working on the articles and planning to expand out. I'm not sure if I want to publish the articles without the books though, so it could be a long time.
However, given that philosophy benefits from discussion and debate, I think there seems to be a good case for publishing the articles. I might try to stand up my website/blog I've been putting off forever once I finish two and start making progress on three. I'd really love to have all four articles published at the same time as a set though, so I might have to figure out a compromise there.