Nathan Metric

Ah, so serving your ego just means pursing what you make as your goal. Well, my goal is to be a slave to logic. Hey, if you are going to be a slave to something you might as well be a slave to something virtious. Why you would want to get your hands dirty is beyond me.

I believe I made a mistake in a couple of my last responses. On the question of to live logically or to not live logically there was something crucial I missed. Here's how the conversation should of went. Moralist: Logic is virtuous Nihilist: Why? Moralist: Why are you asking "why?". Only people who expect people to act logically would ask "why?". Nihilist: I am expecting you to act logically. Moralist: Why? Nihilist: Because it would serve my illogical goals. Moralist: So logic only has virtue if it benefits you? Nihilist: Correct. I want logical things to serve my illogical goals. Moralist: Oh really? You really think I would be helping you by adopting this nihilistic philosophy of yours? Let's say I start living my life on a purely egotistical basis like you. Let's say I starting jacking your stuff in the middle of the night Tell me, how in the hell would you benefit from that? Nihilist: You're assuming that is the genuinely egotistical thing to do. Moralist: What is the egotistical thing for me to do if not accomplishing what I consider to be my goals? Nihilist: I don't think most egotists will act that way and I don't think you would do that. Moralist: AHA, so your belief that my nihilistic egotism will serve your goals assumes that I am at the very least going to act in a manner that is conventionally considered to be moral. So really you want conventional egotism for me and nihilistic egotism for yourself. Well, if you want me to act in a conventional manner than why even bother trying to argue me into nihilism? You are contradicting yourself (in your attempt to serve your goals). So here is the ultimatum Max. Either a)You can agree that logic is virtuous and live in the manner that logic demands of you or b)You can be a more consistent nihilist and cease all this refuting since you are not actually serving your selfish goals by going around spreading nihilism. Nihilism is useless unless everyone else acts morally.

That would only be a problem for you my friend. Not me. I'm living virtuously. How do you know my mind won't be around? Where did you think consciousness comes from in the first place? My consciousness will return to wherever it came from. I have something to hope for in death. For you, the best thing you can hope for is that there is nothing after the grave and that your actions truly are as meaningless as you want them to be.

No, your virtue is something that exists in reality whether you die or not. Even if you die, the virtuous things you did in life would still have virtue. Death is inevitable and uncertain so you best prepare yourself.

The Law of Identity is a tautology. Despite the fact it is a tautology it is still true and it still has meaning. It means things are what they are and not what they are not. "Thou shall act morally" is also tautology. Obviously it doesn't define what "morally" is. There is however a point to the axiom. The point is whatever is virtuous you ought to pursue it. In order for objective morality to exist you have to prove that a)That there is a single prime virtue. b)That one ought to pursue that virtue. Proving that "thou shall act morally" is a axiom is part of what is necessary albeit it is not sufficient to prove objective morality. So what? Why does that matter? What is the moral significance of you wanting to change my mind? See when I want to change your mind it is based on some sense of moral duty. The truth is the prime virtue so therefore I am pursuing virtue by trying to get you to agree with me. You're desire to change my mind is based on no moral principle whatsoever. It's an arbitrary preference and I know it's an arbitrary preference because a nihilist by definition is a person with arbitrary preferences. But you are an egoist. Why are you an egoist? Naturalistic fallacy. Saying that your preference for the truth is justified because of your life experience is trying to get an ought from an is. I'm afraid you do not understand the implications of nihilism. If morality is nonsense than all preferences are arbitrary.

Nope. You have completely misunderstood what I'm saying. All the pleasure. all the wealth, all your strength, and all your memories of friends and family you lose in death. Virtue is the only thing death doesn't take away from you. So you might as well act virtuously rather than pursuing things you are going to lose anyway.

Why do you prefer to adhere to the truth? Why are you a hedonist? Yes, I care about you disagreeing with me, but that is because you ought to agree with me. Not because I merely want you to agree with me. You want me to agree with you for a completely arbitrary reason. So what if "thou ought be moral" is a tautology. So what? The Law of Identity ("A is A") is a tautology. Does that make it wrong. No it doesn't. I also did define what virtue is. I said that "Truth is virtious" is an axiomatic proposition. Now if you can actually give us a good reason why you prefer the truth and why you are a hedonist then maybe you can upset us. but I highly doubt you will be able to do that because a nihilist by definition is someone with a bunch of arbitrary preferences and you can't invoke arbitrary preferences to refute objective preferences.

That is assuming there only is one life. Life is just a bunch of fleeting pleasures. Only Death is Real.

It makes no sense to try to convince anyone to abandon objective morality unless you believe they ought to abandon it. If you believe it is the truth that objective morality is nonsense you're presupposing that one ought to adhere to the truth. Anything else is just arbitrary. Nobody cares what you want. We are not going to change our minds just because you want us to. If you actually did consistently care about logic and science then you would act morally because "thou shall act morally" is an axiomatic proposition for the same reason the Law of Identity is an axiom. Let's say you were to ask "why should I act morally"?. Either you want a morally virtuous answer or you want a truthful answer for an arbitrary reason (you can't justify your preference for the truth less you cease to be a nihilist) That would be one example of an objective moral rule that exists irrespective of subjective desires. Another example of an objective moral rule that is axiomatic is the "Truth is virtuous". Again, if you were to try to criticize this either you make your argument on the basis that the truth is virtuous (performative contradiction) or you argue for the sake of pursuing some other goal for an arbitrary reason. And we know with absolute certainty those goals are arbitrary because the nature of nihilism is to possess a bunch of arbitrary goals.

WHAT??? So let me you get straight. You want to be persuaded and what persuades you in one instance has nothing to do with what is persuasive in another instance? Why? Why would a pure egotist want to be persuaded at all? Persuasion is in the materialistic sense reality forcing data upon your senses which in turn are converted into electrical signals which then cause chemical reactions in your brain so as to change your behavior. So really letting yourself be persuaded is being a slave to persuasion. Only an inconsistently egotistical person would allow themselves to be persuaded at all since persuasion is slavery. And let's tackle this whole issue of being a "slave to an idea" thing. It doesn't matter whether you're an egotist or a non-egotist. You're still a slave to something. Either you're a slave to something outside yourself (with me I am a slave to virtue) or you're a slave to your own ego. Either way you are still a slave. Max Stirner was a self-contradictory person. He wants to not be slave to an idea when clearly he is a slave to his own ego which is an idea. You already said that you find logic in science persuasive so let me offer an ultimatum. Either you can be a slave to your ego for an arbitrary reason or you can be a slave to virtue for a logical reason. Either way you are a slave to something so it all comes down to logic or illogic. Do you want to live logically or do you want to live illogically? If you want to live logically then you have to agree that you ought to act morally since acting morally is what is logic demands of you. If you want to live illogically even despite the fact that you already find logic in science attractive then there is no hope for you. If you are not even consistent in regard to your own preferences then I am afraid there is no possible way anyone can convince you and nobody can help. You're like a customer shopping at a store not being able to decide what they want in the store. You pick up one thing, starting walking to the register, decide then that you don't want the thing you were looking for, drop it, and then repeat the cycle over again. You're the equivalent of Sisyphus trying to role a stone up a hill for eternity. The only difference being is why you are condemned to this fate. You are condmened to this fate by your own volition rather than because the Gods have made it so.

The meaning of life is this: do what you should do rather than what you want to do and what you should do is live as though the truth matters. Why avoid performative contradictions? That is an even more insane question than why be moral. if you demand good logic from your opponents and then are okay when bad logic is employed to defend your own position you're just a hypocrite and nobody should take you seriously. That is the worst kind of sophistry. There only "shoulds" in life are conditional ones by the logic of nihilism. Saying that the conversation should end at "it feels good" only makes sense in relation to your arbitrary preferences. In relation to counter-preferences it has no meaning whatsoever. Perhaps, there was a reason why Molyneux avoided addressing "why be moral" in his book. Perhaps it is ultimately a waste of time to try to explain to a complete sociopath why they should be moral.

Example 1: What is a "convincing answer" other than a good and/or truthful answer? Look if you are going to expect us to logically defend our position on morality then you better have a logical reason for your position. There are only two options: a) You expect a logical answer because that which is logical is virtuous or b) you expect a logical answer for an arbitrary reason. If you want anything else you must want an illogical answer and if you want an illogical answer then you have no business whatsoever criticizing us for having apparently illogical reasons for believing in objective morality. That would be utter hypocrisy. Example: 2: You have proven to be a sophist so I expect the worst from you. Example 3: Why!!!!!!!!!!? Why should the conversations stop at it feels good? Make up your damn mind. If you're going to be a nihilist at least be consistent with your nihilism. A true nihilist (if there actually was such a thing) would believe there is no moral significance in pursing pleasure. In a nihilist universe there is no such thing as "should".

"Why be moral" is a completely insane question. Either you want a good answer (which is a performative contradiction) or you want a truthful answer for an arbitrary reason (bad logic). Truth is better than happiness because "Truth is the prime virtue" is an axiomatic proposition and "Happiness is the prime virtue" is not axiomatic. "Truth is the prime virtue" is axiomatic for the same reason the Law of Identity is an axiom. Proof for the Law of Identity Realist: A is A Nihilist: No it is not! Realist: Ah, so you're agreeing with me! (The realist is treating the nihilist's argument to be something other than what it intends to be for those too stupid to understand the dilemma) Now here is the proof that "Truth is the prime virtue" is axiomatic. Scenario 1. Nihilists does a performative contradiction. Moralist: The truth is the prime virtue Nihilist: Why? Moralist: Do you want a truthful answer or a false answer. Nihilist: A truthful answer. Moralist: Why? Nihilist; Because the truth is the prime virtue (Nihilist contradicts them self) Scenario 2: Nihilist uses arbitrary logic to question the assertion. Moralist: The truth matters. Nihilist: Why? Moralist: Do you want a truthful answer or a false answer? Nihilist: A truthful answer. Moralist: Why? Nihilist: Because I prefer the truth. Moralist: Why do you prefer the truth. Nihilist: Because it has to do with my pursuit of happiness. Moralist: Why pursue happiness? Nihilist: Because it feels good. Moralist: Why pursue that which feels good? Nihilist: Because I wouldn't want to live otherwise. Moralist: Why live? Nihilist: Pff...I DON'T KNOW! Of course, the nihilist might say "so what? why does it matter that the nihilist's very choice to exist is arbitrary?" It matters because he is acting hypocritically. There is also no moral equivalence either. The moralist understands perfectly why they exist and why they act the way they do. A nihilist chooses to live for an arbitrary reason and lives in a particular lifestyle for an arbitrary reason.

I have two thoughts on this. 1)The Hume fallacy is an actual type of fallacy. A form of argumentation that can be used to prove anything cannot possibly be a valid argument form. It doesn't matter though. You can still derive an objective morality even despite the fact that you can't get an ought from an is. 2)You bypass (not break) the Hume fallacy by deriving oughts from other oughts rather than from claims about reality. Example: Thou should pursue virtue (Axiomatic Ought) Truth is virtuous (Axiomatic Ought) Therefore, you ought to pursue the truth (Derivative Ought) Hume said nothing about being able to derives oughts from other oughts. He just said you couldn't derives oughts from mere facts about reality. No because it doesn't actually explain why you should be moral. That's okay though. There are plenty of people me included who actually have answered this question. The reason you should act morally is because questioning why you should act morally is completely insane!!!! Either you want a good answer (which is a performative contradiction) or you are expecting a truthful answer for an arbitrary reason. There is no way to even ask such a question without either contradicting yourself or employing arbitrary logic.

1) If there is no objective ought to be correct then why are you trying to correct us? Either your trying to correct us because being correct is moral or you are trying to correct us for a completely arbitrary reason and I tend to think you fit in the latter. Yo want to go around "correcting" people but you don't actually have a good reason to. You act without thinking. People like you are slaves to things they don't understand. Who knows what devil you are serving. 2)Yes you did. You just said that atheism and amoralism is how to best fight religion. That is the exact opposite of the truth. Atheism and amoralism does nothing to shake people's love of God rather it makes them love God even more. 3)Why? Please explain why happiness is better than the truth and please do so without invoking arbitrary preferences. 4)Ah I see. You want us to conclude this not because the truth has any moral significance but because you want us to change our beliefs for some reason. Max, why exactly should we change our beliefs just because you want us to? I respond to the truth because the truth matters. Because the truth is the prime virtue. You want us to adhere to the truth because that would make you happy for some reason. You want to pursue happiness. Okay WHY pursue happiness? Because happiness brings you pleasure? Okay WHY pursue pleasure? Because you wouldn't want to live otherwise? Okay, WHY live at all? Your entire life makes no sense. Your very existence is an arbitrary choice.

The Hume naturalistic fallacy is an actual type of fallacy. The problem is what the nihilists/relativists try to deduce from this fact. Yes, it is a fallacy to derive an ought from an is, but concluding from this that objective morality is nonsense is an absurdity. The Is You can't get an ought from an Is The Ought Therefore, you ought not believe in this thing called "objective morality" THAT in an of itself is a naturalistic fallacy. Hi Mr Hartfod. I see you are still trying to correct people as though they ought to be correct.

If Rand said that rationality is the highest virtue then she is not an egoist. She would be merely a conditional egoist. Not a true egoist.

1)If you reject all morality then why are you trying to correct us as though we OUGHT to be correct? If morality is nonsense then why are you expecting someone to have supporting arguments for their beliefs as though they OUGHT to have supporting arguments? If you reject all morality you shouldn't get pissed at people telling you to do something even if they have bad reasons for telling you to do something. Do you see how completely contradictory that is? You don't care about morality yet you seem to care a great deal about having good reasons for believing in something. That is a complete contradiction. 2)You do not fight religion with nihilism. Religious people love their God first before they have rational reasons for believing in their God. You cannot convince people to hate God with nihilism. All nihilism is going to do is strengthen people's belief in the necessity of religious faith. And Stirner would be okay in them doing so since it is only self-interest that matters. Not the truth. 3)That Stirner quote proves that a true egoist is not a rational being. A rational being is someone who consistently lives as though the truth matters. "Rational egoism" is a contradiction. 4)Saying that questions "don't always have to be about some universal/objective truth" is presupposing the moral significance of the truth. That is a contradiction. I would answer this a bit differently. You should act morally because "You should act morally" is an axiomatic proposition in the same way the Law of identity is an axiom. The nihilist can do one of three things 1)Expect a good answer...which would be self-contradictory 2)Expect a bad answer...which would be pointless since all you have to do is give them a bad answer and you have assuaged their concern. 3)Expect a truthful answer for a completely arbitrary reason (a nihilist by definition possesses arbitrary preferences)

You should act morally because "Thou shall pursue virtue" is an axiomatic proposition. Here is the proof. Example 1 Moralist: Pursue goodness Nihilist: Why? Moralist: Do you want a good answer or a bad answer? Nihilist: A good answer Moralist: If you want a GOOD answer then why are you asking why be good? That's a contradiction. Example 2 Moralist: Pursue goodness Nihilist: Why? Moralist: Do you want a good answer or a bad answer? Nihilist: A bad answer Moralist: Okay, you should pursue goodness because goodness is good. There. There is your bad answer. Example 3 Moralist: Pursue goodness Nihilist: Why? Moralist: Do you want a good answer or a bad answer? Nihilist: Neither I want a truthful answer. Moralist: Why? Nihilist: Because I prefer the truth. Moralist: Why? Nihilist: Because the truth will aid my pursuit of happiness somehow. Moralist: Why pursue happiness? Nihilist: Because I like it. Moralist: Why pursue that which you like? Nihilist: Because it feels good. Moralist: Why pursue that which feels good? Nihilist: Because that's how I want to live my life? Moralist: Why? Nihilist" Because I wouldn't want to live otherwise. Moralist: Why live? Nihilist: Because survival is an instinct. Moralist: Surviving is not an instinct otherwise nobody would choose to commit suicide. That which can be negated by choice can't be an instinct. So why live? Nihilist: Pff....I don't know!

That's wrong. I explained why Stefan's argument was incomplete. I did not simply assert that it was incomplete and called it a day. Well, I agree. I agree that property rights should be related to causation, but you're just making the exact same mistake Stefan made. You're not explaining WHY it should be related to causation. Ownership can mean two things a)Being responsible for something and b)Having authority over something. By itself, it is naturalistic fallacy to say that because a person is responsible for X he therefore should have authority over X. That is the issue I was trying to address. To justify property rights without performing a naturalistic fallacy. To complete Stefan's original argument. Let's say a farmer has authority over a farm. The fact that we treat him as the owner of his farm is to help complement or communicate the fact that he is the causal agent of the farm. That was what I meant by "reinforce". Socialism on the other hand confuses people as to the causal relations in the economy. The laws of causality teach that particular effects have particular causes. Socialism saids that everything (ie everyone) is responsible and therefore must be given authority over everything which implies a denial of the laws of causality. Okay, an economy that maximally serves consumer demand is maximally efficient. I agree that everyone should be subject to the same rules. Universal moral rules serve the moral goals I outlined. Now as for everything else, do you disagree that science is limited by economy? That science in order for it to be vibrant requires civilization. The more advanced the civilization the more free the pursuit of science is. Do you disagree that science is part of the pursuit of truth? Do you disagree that truth is virtuous? Do you disagree that one ought to pursue virtue?

Although I believe Stefan was going in the right direction with this form of argumentation the argument itself is incomplete. The presupposition of the argument is that property rights is about showing causal relations, but it doesn't explain WHY property should be about reinforcing causal relations. To be more precise, Stefan arguments shows that everyone owns themselves in the sense that they are responsible for themselves, but his argument doesn't explain why one should have the right to control that which he is responsible for. So really, the fallacy isn't a tu quoqu one. It's a naturalistic fallacy. An easy way to complete this argument is to invoke Mises's economic calculation problem. A proper economy has to perform economic calculation. A socialist economy cannot perform economic calculation because ownership of property has nothing to do with causal relations. An economy needs to perform economic calculation so that way it functions at maximal efficiency. An economy needs to be maximally efficient so that way we can have the most scientific pursuits. Maximal scientific advancement is part of the pursuit of truth. Truth is virtuous and thou shall pursue virtue. There. Self-ownership defended. Private property defended. No naturalistic fallacy used.

I respect you Mantis for being willing to publish such a provocative theory. I noticed you used the word "Atheiskult". For those who don't know that was a phrase invented by Ryan Faulk. A YT anarchist from 4-5 years ago who uses that word to apply to certain majority group of atheists. One's that a)Believe there was no God b)Believed in logical-positivism. That science is the only source of knowledge. c)Tended to have mainstream politically correct beliefs d)Have no good answer to classic philosophical questions including morality. I don't think that label applies to anyone here other than the disbelief in God part. As for does atheism logically lead to a belief in the meaningless of life? No. The only way you could even conclude that life is meaningless is if moral nihilism is true because almost all moral theories logically entail that life has meaning.

Let's quote his book. These seven categories are: It is good (universally preferable and enforceable through violence, such as “don’t murder”). It is aesthetically positive (universally preferable but not enforceable through violence, such as “politeness” and “being on time”). It is personally positive (neither universally preferable nor enforceable, such a predilection for eating ice cream). It is neutral, or has no ethical or aesthetic content, such as running for a bus. It is personally negative (predilection for not eating ice cream). It is aesthetically negative (“rudeness” and “being late”) It is evil (universally proscribed) (“rape”). Categories 1, 2, 6, and 7 have moral significance. So my interpretation of UPB was correct. The initiation of force is not the only immorality. It is merely the only form of immorality that is enforcable with violence.

Completely disagree with the premise of this thread. 1)Atheism and evolution have nothing to do with each other. Atheism is the rejection of theism. Evolution is the rejection of the supernatural (specifically in relation to the origin of species) You can be an atheist and still believe in the supernatural. 2)If "good" is something universal and something that can be derived by reason then God has no moral right to exist even if he did exist.. His existence would actually be evil since power tends to corrupt. If "good" is merely whatever God wishes to to be then we don't really have "morality" do we? What we actually have our slave regulations imposed by a divine tyranny. Bottomline: religious people do not actually believe in morality. Their covert moral assumption is that MIGHT IS RIGHT. God's commandments are "good" because he is mighty and terrifying! So the idea that religion can give us objective morality is nonsense. It's a complete misunderstanding of what morality is in the first place. Morality by definition is universal. That which is universal cannot be "given" or "determined" at the whim of any entity no matter how powerful it is. Now as to where would an atheist get his/her ethics from? Well, I think we can get our morals from the Truth Axiom. "Truth is better than falsehood" is an axiomatic proposition (UPB Page 35). All other morals would be derived from the logical implications of the truth axiom. Including the NAP.

Two ways of saying the same thing. We don't need our economic truths to be overly abstract. I think "if you trade for a pen it must be because you value that pen more then what you are willing to give away" is clear enough for people to understand the underlying economic principle. Whether the pen itself is the ultimate goal is not necessary to understand the point being made.