Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That's cuz he Kant spell.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That's cuz he Kant spell.
Originally posted by Mindset
I don't really have much to add, I just wanted to know people's opinion on this video.
maybe it is just me, but I've never been very influenced by this type of argument. Its like that "can't know, stop looking" that irks me with extreme agnosticism or post-modernism.
As soon as the "ought" of moral behaviour is determine with regard to objective outcome of events, rather than absolute universal principles, I think the videos point becomes moot. In fact, I find it odd that so many people think as soon as there aren't absolute moral principles in the universe, we as humans are incapable of knowing how we "ought" to treat eachother. Why would morals ever have to be absolute in the first place?
EDIT: like, does his argument really just boil down to a lot of different ways of saying "that just is, it isn't a value"?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Of course, I disagree. Your post feels like more of a theistic apologetic than a contradiction to the end result of moral nihilism.He is also speaking to a specific form of atheist. Is that really your main complaint?
To your example of "suffering" and happiness. Those are are subjective values you have named. There is no reason to believe there is any utility beyond our natural evolutionary progression towards such values. You propose that there is some value there: there really isn't. You place the value of the sentient being as your directive: there is no reason to do so. It is arbitrary for you to do so. Basically, your argument is the same as some Christians argument for why the bible is true:
"Why do you believe that bible is the word of God?"
"Because it says it is."
Similarly:
"Why do you value happiness over suffering?"
"Because evolution made us that way."
The nihilist takes a step back and realizes that both are circular in reasoning. There is a level of understanding beyond both stances: each judgement is pretty much tautological/circular in reasoning. The next step is realizing than and just admitting there there is no point in value something over the other. There is nothing objective about those values. Enter Kant: deontology and the appeal to Objective (capital "O"😉.
Did not Kant tackle this argument of Hume's already? We are hardly covering new ground. I believe Kant referred to it as "Humean doubt".
The hell. Who mentioned evolution? I'm talking about people. If I say "I prefer happiness to suffering," that is an objective truth. Albeit, it's only objective for me, but that statement is at least close to universal, and I've never seen its exception. To say that it isn't a perfect system of measurement doesn't invalidate it entirely. There are objective truths to the universe, even if they are imperfectly filtered through our perceptions. We may never have a perfect objective system of anything, much less morality which does have an element of subjectivity to it, but it doesn't mean a provisional system should be chucked entirely in favor of nihilism.
There's another argument I'd bring up. All of our valuations are, to an extent, subjective. I don't refute him entirely there. They're subjective because they are personal, not dictated by a god or outside influence. However, he's saying that ALL values are subjective and arbitrary, having no more intrinsic value than another, which I'd refute on the grounds that humans can and do know that which they prefer. But by his same logic, his own choice of nihilism is just as subjective and arbitrary...no more or less valid than any other arbitrary values placed on anything.
It's like me saying I prefer grape soda to orange, and basing my soda purchasing decisions off of it, and being told I'm wrong. I prefer happiness to suffering (insert your own obvious states of being for those, if you wish). I have yet to meet someone who doesn't value the same. I base moral decisions off of that principle. Yet I'm wrong? At best, I'm no more right or wrong than the video narrator. At worst, he's taking an idea too far.
...
There's one more thing I'd say. Here's exactly what he's doing:
"There is no god"
"Therefore, morality doesn't exist"
Please tell me you see the logical disconnect. He's found a way to connect the two in his mind. But he's also saying that the latter MUST follow the former. That is a much bolder claim, and one that has little or nothing to link them so fully. He's become rigidly dogmatic in a universe he admits as entirely subjective. It's internally inconsistent, not to mention the other ways he fails to fully prove one from the other. It remind of the cosmological argument for God. "There are finely tuned values of physics in the universe that allowed for life. Therefore, God exists." The leap between the two is monumental, and does not necessarily follow from the other.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
YouTube video
A nihilist responds with a "Buzzkillington" youtube video. haha, hilarious!
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I can't remember a time when 'bastard' was a curse word. They said it on Everybody Loves Raymond, so it must be fine.
I see your point. BRB, I'm going to go post that Peach, Ushgarak, Digi, Storm, Paola, and Lil B are bastards. I won't get in trouble, either.
Thanks, Lord Lucien, it feels like I've just saved 15% on car insurance!
Apparently the studies involving societal mistrust have been renewed, with atheists atop the list once again (as they usually are).
Shockingly, this iteration places atheists as more mistrusted than rapists and pedophiles.
The text that cites these numbers is "Nonbeliever Nation: The Rise of Secular Americans" by David Niose, the President of the American Humanist Association and VP of the Secular Coalition of America.
As I've discussed numerous times, when it comes to mistrust and hatred, there are two primary variables: severity and prevalence. While the severity toward certain groups (African Americans, Muslims following 9/11, etc.) is stronger, the prevalence (the % within a given population) of mistrust is lower for these groups than of atheists. That's a common complaint about such studies, so it's important to note what data is being gathered.