People are things to be used

[ceruleanhansen]

I know this is elementary and I'm sorry for this kind of intellectual laziness, but I feel impatient about this and it might be important. Why would I ever do anything that doesn't increase my own power? It is baffling to me, but something in me doesn't want to be "evil" anymore (and still, a much larger part is infatuated with evil). Evil as you fine people would call it, that is. The Goddess Morality hasn't blessed me with the sensibilities that seem to lead to moralism (empathy, compassion, other adorable and sweet adjectives) and to be frank they seem more like poison than truth.

I don't believe true things because that is universally preferable. I believe them because my ancestors who did so survived better that those who didn't. Rationality is the only obstacle standing before instinct and my rationality has done nothing to convince me that I do not benefit from believing true things. Why would I let ethics, compassion, or any other collective delusion stop me from obtaining as much power for myself as I possibly can?

Power is the burden of the great, morality is the lullaby of the weak.

[Guest NateC]

Trinity: "Because you have been down there Neo, you know that road, you know exactly where it ends."

 

The Goddess Morality hasn't blessed me with the sensibilities that seem to lead to moralism (empathy, compassion, other adorable and sweet adjectives) and to be frank they seem more like poison than truth.

 

Are you saying that you do not experience empathy nor compassion?

[Guest darkskyabove]

There is a simple reason to "know", not "believe", that might does NOT make right. "If you choose to act like it's your planet, then it will be MY planet." There is always a bigger bully on the block. Personally, I am a pacifist. A principle that is, increasingly, difficult to hold. Don't get it twisted, though. If you threaten me, or mine, I will, without compunction, "rip your throat out with my teeth." Do you still wish to profess "power"?

"The only thing needed for evil to prosper, is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke.

My ancestors were Vikings. The ONLY reason they didn't conquer the world was that they viewed other societies as decadent. (And would, therefore, pollute their integrity, based upon a warrior ethic.)

Do I still subscibe to ancient concepts of "morality"? No, because I live in the real world. Try walking the streets of San Francisco at 2:00 AM and see if your idea of "obtaining as much power for myself" still holds.

The "delusion" is in thinking that evil is a long-term investment. "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword."

The "long-term investment" is to treat people with dignity and respect. This will pay off far greater than treating them with disdain.

And never forget: All the evil you could conceive could easily be conceived by your potential victim.

 

[STer]

 

I know this is elementary and I'm sorry for this kind of intellectual laziness, but I feel impatient about this and it might be important. Why would I ever do anything that doesn't increase my own power? It is baffling to me, but something in me doesn't want to be "evil" anymore (and still, a much larger part is infatuated with evil). Evil as you fine people would call it, that is. The Goddess Morality hasn't blessed me with the sensibilities that seem to lead to moralism (empathy, compassion, other adorable and sweet adjectives) and to be frank they seem more like poison than truth.

I don't believe true things because that is universally preferable. I believe them because my ancestors who did so survived better that those who didn't. Rationality is the only obstacle standing before instinct and my rationality has done nothing to convince me that I do not benefit from believing true things. Why would I let ethics, compassion, or any other collective delusion stop me from obtaining as much power for myself as I possibly can?

Power is the burden of the great, morality is the lullaby of the weak.

 

Game theory might lend some insight. If you look at the prisoner's dilemma, which deals with when one should cooperate vs. retaliate to attain the optimal outcome, the best strategy is usually "tit for tat." This strategy involves a mixture of cooperation and retaliation. Neither all one nor all the other is a wise strategy at all times.

So you are right to sense that just blindly cooperating with everyone allows you to be exploited. You are also right to sense that just exploiting everyone all the time will soon backfire. A complex and wise mixture of cooperating and retaliating so as to stand up for and protect yourself is often best.

[ceruleanhansen]

 

Trinity: "Because you have been down there Neo, you know that road, you know exactly where it ends."

 

The Goddess Morality hasn't blessed me with the sensibilities that seem to lead to moralism (empathy, compassion, other adorable and sweet adjectives) and to be frank they seem more like poison than truth.

 

Are you saying that you do not experience empathy nor compassion?

 

 

If other people are very excited, it can make me excited. I suppose sympathy is a better word. I feel it in a very weak, basic way, but I do not believe I feel it in the way others do. For example, things like murder, assault, rape, and so on, are only unappealing because of the danger to myself. If there was little risk and something to gain, I have no problem with any of them whatsoever. In fact it would be quite appealing because I would have something to gain and I would learn things that not many others know about how people react when they are confronted with their impending death, which might give me useful insight into manipulating people in the future.

[ceruleanhansen]

 

 

I know this is elementary and I'm sorry for this kind of intellectual laziness, but I feel impatient about this and it might be important. Why would I ever do anything that doesn't increase my own power? It is baffling to me, but something in me doesn't want to be "evil" anymore (and still, a much larger part is infatuated with evil). Evil as you fine people would call it, that is. The Goddess Morality hasn't blessed me with the sensibilities that seem to lead to moralism (empathy, compassion, other adorable and sweet adjectives) and to be frank they seem more like poison than truth.

I don't believe true things because that is universally preferable. I believe them because my ancestors who did so survived better that those who didn't. Rationality is the only obstacle standing before instinct and my rationality has done nothing to convince me that I do not benefit from believing true things. Why would I let ethics, compassion, or any other collective delusion stop me from obtaining as much power for myself as I possibly can?

Power is the burden of the great, morality is the lullaby of the weak.

 

Game theory might lend some insight. If you look at the prisoner's dilemma, which deals with when one should cooperate vs. retaliate to attain the optimal outcome, the best strategy is usually "tit for tat." This strategy involves a mixture of cooperation and retaliation. Neither all one nor all the other is a wise strategy at all times.

So you are right to sense that just blindly cooperating with everyone allows you to be exploited. You are also right to sense that just exploiting everyone all the time will soon backfire. A complex and wise mixture of cooperating and retaliating so as to stand up for and protect yourself is often best.

 

There are often situations where you are unlikely to get caught, or where the exploited cannot fight back. The state, for example. I do not think using the state to benefit myself at the expense of others is likely to backfire.

[ceruleanhansen]

 

There is a simple reason to "know", not "believe", that might does NOT make right. "If you choose to act like it's your planet, then it will be MY planet." There is always a bigger bully on the block. Personally, I am a pacifist. A principle that is, increasingly, difficult to hold. Don't get it twisted, though. If you threaten me, or mine, I will, without compunction, "rip your throat out with my teeth." Do you still wish to profess "power"?

 

The good sociopaths make you think they are on your side. It is interesting that you only conceive of power in terms of threats. The people who are using you do not want to threaten you. They want you to think they are sacrificing everything for you. Acting like it's my planet means going above and beyond to care for you, tend to your needs, make you love me, so that when I need you I can use you for what I want. Your conception of how manipulators work is very naive. The people who make grandiose threats are the ones you have to worry about the least.

 

"The only thing needed for evil to prosper, is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke.

 

Evil prospers when good men are convinced that evil is good. Edmund Burke knew that perhaps better than any.

 

My ancestors were Vikings. The ONLY reason they didn't conquer the world was that they viewed other societies as decadent. (And would, therefore, pollute their integrity, based upon a warrior ethic.)

 

I have no idea how this relates to anything we are talking about.

 

Do I still subscibe to ancient concepts of "morality"? No, because I live in the real world. Try walking the streets of San Francisco at 2:00 AM and see if your idea of "obtaining as much power for myself" still holds.

 

This is a painfully stupid example. I am from the Bay Area and have walked in many parts of it in the late night, stop being such a drama queen. Now let me explain to you why this argument is the opposite of what I said: Wouldn't I benefit myself more by NOT going on a presumably dangerouo street? Wouldn't that ensure greater power for me? How are you this incapable of rationality?

 

The "delusion" is in thinking that evil is a long-term investment. "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword."

 

No, your delusion is in mistaking pretty quotes for arguments. Something being in the Bible does not make it true.

 

The "long-term investment" is to treat people with dignity and respect. This will pay off far greater than treating them with disdain.

 

Yep.

 

And never forget: All the evil you could conceive could easily be conceived by your potential victim.

 

The trick is to make them love you (or think they love you). It gets bizarrely easy after a while. If the people you use hate you, you are doing the whole "manipulation" thing wrong.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Done, and done!

[NotDarkYet]

To the OP.

Is there a contradiction at the heart of the argument?

 

By contradiction I mean...using the language "one ought to do X", to disprove the concept that "one ought to do X".

 

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd be interested in hearing what you think.

 

 

[Rick Horton]

 

I know this is elementary and I'm sorry for this kind of intellectual laziness, but I feel impatient about this and it might be important. Why would I ever do anything that doesn't increase my own power? It is baffling to me, but something in me doesn't want to be "evil" anymore (and still, a much larger part is infatuated with evil). Evil as you fine people would call it, that is. The Goddess Morality hasn't blessed me with the sensibilities that seem to lead to moralism (empathy, compassion, other adorable and sweet adjectives) and to be frank they seem more like poison than truth.

I don't believe true things because that is universally preferable. I believe them because my ancestors who did so survived better that those who didn't. Rationality is the only obstacle standing before instinct and my rationality has done nothing to convince me that I do not benefit from believing true things. Why would I let ethics, compassion, or any other collective delusion stop me from obtaining as much power for myself as I possibly can?

Power is the burden of the great, morality is the lullaby of the weak.

 

Since this sentiment exists in humanity, there will always be a State.

[Guest darkskyabove]

OP may have missed the whole point of my response. Evil only preys on the weak. The risk is, as soon as the predation is recognized, by the "good & strong", evil's antics are at an end. Does anyone doubt this? It amounts to a verifiable hypothesis. Test your "theory". Show me some game I ain't seen...

Problem is: "I'm as ghetto as I need to be." Add to that: fully versed in fallacious reasoning. (Anyone with questions about "game" can post them and I will answer the best I can. Having grown up in East Oakland, and spending years in The City, I'm somewhat qualified. The City being a cesspool of manipulation and skullduggery.)

This is the "whole" problem with trying to justify bullying and scamming. Some of us ain't with it. And there's not a damn thing a bully can do or say to get me on-board. And he can't whup me!

If one has the the problem: Why should I refrain from evil? Well, I say: be careful. Some of us are not willing to put up with it.

If one truly believes that amorality will serve their ends: go ahead. Freedom of choice includes the freedom to make bad choices.

 

[Mister Mister]

   Have you experienced someone else exercising power over you?  When you see someone being harmed by another, pictures or video footage of the atrocities of war and genocide and mass starvation, how do you feel?

  UPB is an interesting idea, I tend to go more with the idea of self-ownership.  Only I can think or speak or move my body, no one else can do these things for me, except with force.  Therefore no one else can legitimately exercise ownership over my body.

  Of course there may be the moral nihilists who engage in aggressive behavior, what Stef calls "honest evil", and the only thing we can do about them is reduce their incentives, protect ourself against them.  By far the more dangerous is the manipulative person who makes moral arguments, i.e. "do what I say or you are immoral" but will not allow that moral argument to be validated by reason, or makes arbitrary exceptions to those rules which is inherently illogical.

[Guest NateC]

ceruleanhansen, how were you raised?  Were you a thing to be used as a child?

[STer]

 

OP may have missed the whole point of my response. Evil only preys on the weak. The risk is, as soon as the predation is recognized, by the "good & strong", evil's antics are at an end. Does anyone doubt this? It amounts to a verifiable hypothesis. Test your "theory". Show me some game I ain't seen...

Problem is: "I'm as ghetto as I need to be." Add to that: fully versed in fallacious reasoning. (Anyone with questions about "game" can post them and I will answer the best I can. Having grown up in East Oakland, and spending years in The City, I'm somewhat qualified. The City being a cesspool of manipulation and skullduggery.)

This is the "whole" problem with trying to justify bullying and scamming. Some of us ain't with it. And there's not a damn thing a bully can do or say to get me on-board. And he can't whup me!

If one has the the problem: Why should I refrain from evil? Well, I say: be careful. Some of us are not willing to put up with it.

If one truly believes that amorality will serve their ends: go ahead. Freedom of choice includes the freedom to make bad choices.

 

 

If you have all these skills to deal with such situations, I don't have specific questions but rather I'd like to see you just share whatever you can. Sounds like you could write up a nice survival guide or at least top tips.

[ceruleanhansen]

 

To the OP.

Is there a contradiction at the heart of the argument?

 

By contradiction I mean...using the language "one ought to do X", to disprove the concept that "one ought to do X".

 

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd be interested in hearing what you think.

 

Nihilism is profoundly contradictory. I say that no descriptive claims can be made without other descriptive premises, which need their own descriptive premises, and so on, in infinite regression. Therefore truth is impossible. However the claim that "truth is impossible" is itself an assertion of truth. The impossibility of logic is an argument that itself relies on logic. This disproves the nihilist assertion, but it does not solve the inherently paradoxical nature of truth.

[ceruleanhansen]

 

 

I know this is elementary and I'm sorry for this kind of intellectual laziness, but I feel impatient about this and it might be important. Why would I ever do anything that doesn't increase my own power? It is baffling to me, but something in me doesn't want to be "evil" anymore (and still, a much larger part is infatuated with evil). Evil as you fine people would call it, that is. The Goddess Morality hasn't blessed me with the sensibilities that seem to lead to moralism (empathy, compassion, other adorable and sweet adjectives) and to be frank they seem more like poison than truth.

I don't believe true things because that is universally preferable. I believe them because my ancestors who did so survived better that those who didn't. Rationality is the only obstacle standing before instinct and my rationality has done nothing to convince me that I do not benefit from believing true things. Why would I let ethics, compassion, or any other collective delusion stop me from obtaining as much power for myself as I possibly can?

Power is the burden of the great, morality is the lullaby of the weak.

 

Since this sentiment exists in humanity, there will always be a State.

 

I disagree. In my experience most statists are actually moralists who have been convinced that the state is a moral good. I would argue that the morality used to justify statism is little more than a thin veil over the will to power (whereas the morality of objectivism is a social anesthetic to make inferiors less of a burden on superiors).

[STer]

 

 

 

I know this is elementary and I'm sorry for this kind of intellectual laziness, but I feel impatient about this and it might be important. Why would I ever do anything that doesn't increase my own power? It is baffling to me, but something in me doesn't want to be "evil" anymore (and still, a much larger part is infatuated with evil). Evil as you fine people would call it, that is. The Goddess Morality hasn't blessed me with the sensibilities that seem to lead to moralism (empathy, compassion, other adorable and sweet adjectives) and to be frank they seem more like poison than truth.

I don't believe true things because that is universally preferable. I believe them because my ancestors who did so survived better that those who didn't. Rationality is the only obstacle standing before instinct and my rationality has done nothing to convince me that I do not benefit from believing true things. Why would I let ethics, compassion, or any other collective delusion stop me from obtaining as much power for myself as I possibly can?

Power is the burden of the great, morality is the lullaby of the weak.

 

Since this sentiment exists in humanity, there will always be a State.

 

I disagree. In my experience most statists are actually moralists who have been convinced that the state is a moral good. I would argue that the morality used to justify statism is little more than a thin veil over the will to power (whereas the morality of objectivism is a social anesthetic to make inferiors less of a burden on superiors).

 

"Inferiors" and "superiors" in what way though? The free market tends to favor those who are superior at making money. What about those who are superior at other important things, such as nurturing or offering emotional support to family, which are often unpaid positions? Just as an example. The point is that "inferior" and "superior" are pretty broad judgments of an entire human being, especially when they may only refer to one's ability to create a lucrative product or service in a market economy.

Also, why can't we aim for a balance in which there can be some room for competitive people to seek some advantage if they work for it and play by the rules while also offering some baseline of safety from complete exploitation?

[ceruleanhansen]

 

 

 

 

I know this is elementary and I'm sorry for this kind of intellectual laziness, but I feel impatient about this and it might be important. Why would I ever do anything that doesn't increase my own power? It is baffling to me, but something in me doesn't want to be "evil" anymore (and still, a much larger part is infatuated with evil). Evil as you fine people would call it, that is. The Goddess Morality hasn't blessed me with the sensibilities that seem to lead to moralism (empathy, compassion, other adorable and sweet adjectives) and to be frank they seem more like poison than truth.

I don't believe true things because that is universally preferable. I believe them because my ancestors who did so survived better that those who didn't. Rationality is the only obstacle standing before instinct and my rationality has done nothing to convince me that I do not benefit from believing true things. Why would I let ethics, compassion, or any other collective delusion stop me from obtaining as much power for myself as I possibly can?

Power is the burden of the great, morality is the lullaby of the weak.

 

Since this sentiment exists in humanity, there will always be a State.

 

I disagree. In my experience most statists are actually moralists who have been convinced that the state is a moral good. I would argue that the morality used to justify statism is little more than a thin veil over the will to power (whereas the morality of objectivism is a social anesthetic to make inferiors less of a burden on superiors).

 

"Inferiors" and "superiors" in what way though? The free market tends to favor those who are superior at making money. What about those who are superior at other important things, such as nurturing or offering emotional support to family, which are often unpaid positions? Just as an example. The point is that "inferior" and "superior" are pretty broad judgments of an entire human being, especially when they may only refer to one's ability to create a lucrative product or service in a market economy.

Also, why can't we aim for a balance in which there can be some room for competitive people to seek some advantage if they work for it and play by the rules while also offering some baseline of safety from complete exploitation?

 

Honstly, that was an unfair criticism I made. You guys here deserve better than that kind of insult, so I apologize. To answer your last question, why not do as much as possible to remove the potential of others to exploit me while maximizing my own ability to exploit? As a collective agreement what you said is reasonable, but why wouldn't I break the rules of that system anytime I could get away with it, or try to put myself in a position of authority within the system so I can manipulate it to increase my own power?

[ceruleanhansen]

 

OP may have missed the whole point of my response. Evil only preys on the weak. The risk is, as soon as the predation is recognized, by the "good & strong", evil's antics are at an end. Does anyone doubt this? It amounts to a verifiable hypothesis. Test your "theory". Show me some game I ain't seen...

 

Even mediocre predation is extremely difficult to recognize and usually impossible to prove. I have a large circle of friends and many people to whom I am dear. All of those relationships are lies. I have gained much from that and I have no problem with it. As far as your truism about evil preying on the weak, what evidence do you have to that end? To me evil is a fairy tale used to enforce social cohesion. Your assertion is as meaningless as saying "Santa Claus never gives presents to the naughty". I assure you that those who are sufficiently clever in their naughtiness can have bountiful holidays.

 

Problem is: "I'm as ghetto as I need to be." Add to that: fully versed in fallacious reasoning. (Anyone with questions about "game" can post them and I will answer the best I can. Having grown up in East Oakland, and spending years in The City, I'm somewhat qualified. The City being a cesspool of manipulation and skullduggery.)

 

I was never involved in that sort of culture, so it's something I can't really say much about. In business, education, and relationships, manipulation and fallacious reasononing have served me very well. Whether an argument is true or not is unimportant to me. Truth is valuable only when it is required to serve an end (that is to say, if a fallacy will work better, I use the fallacy).

 

This is the "whole" problem with trying to justify bullying and scamming. Some of us ain't with it. And there's not a damn thing a bully can do or say to get me on-board. And he can't whup me!

 

Congratulations, you are intelligent and rational, the great enemy of the manipulator. When I encounter people who are rational I appeal to their rationality. If their rationality is superior to mine, I cannot break them through some emotional trick, and I cannot coerce them, then I am fucked. Being rational and strong is A Good Thing ™ and I commend you.

 

[Rick Horton]

 

 

 

 

 

I know this is elementary and I'm sorry for this kind of intellectual laziness, but I feel impatient about this and it might be important. Why would I ever do anything that doesn't increase my own power? It is baffling to me, but something in me doesn't want to be "evil" anymore (and still, a much larger part is infatuated with evil). Evil as you fine people would call it, that is. The Goddess Morality hasn't blessed me with the sensibilities that seem to lead to moralism (empathy, compassion, other adorable and sweet adjectives) and to be frank they seem more like poison than truth.

I don't believe true things because that is universally preferable. I believe them because my ancestors who did so survived better that those who didn't. Rationality is the only obstacle standing before instinct and my rationality has done nothing to convince me that I do not benefit from believing true things. Why would I let ethics, compassion, or any other collective delusion stop me from obtaining as much power for myself as I possibly can?

Power is the burden of the great, morality is the lullaby of the weak.

 

Since this sentiment exists in humanity, there will always be a State.

 

I disagree. In my experience most statists are actually moralists who have been convinced that the state is a moral good. I would argue that the morality used to justify statism is little more than a thin veil over the will to power (whereas the morality of objectivism is a social anesthetic to make inferiors less of a burden on superiors).

 

"Inferiors" and "superiors" in what way though? The free market tends to favor those who are superior at making money. What about those who are superior at other important things, such as nurturing or offering emotional support to family, which are often unpaid positions? Just as an example. The point is that "inferior" and "superior" are pretty broad judgments of an entire human being, especially when they may only refer to one's ability to create a lucrative product or service in a market economy.

Also, why can't we aim for a balance in which there can be some room for competitive people to seek some advantage if they work for it and play by the rules while also offering some baseline of safety from complete exploitation?

 

Honstly, that was an unfair criticism I made. You guys here deserve better than that kind of insult, so I apologize. To answer your last question, why not do as much as possible to remove the potential of others to exploit me while maximizing my own ability to exploit? As a collective agreement what you said is reasonable, but why wouldn't I break the rules of that system anytime I could get away with it, or try to put myself in a position of authority within the system so I can manipulate it to increase my own power?

 

Either way you cut it, there will be people who increase their own power because they excel at it. There will be people who exploit other people, because they excel at it. There will be people who control and rule because they find leverage. Historically it's always been the case. And because of that, they are the State, whether people want to call it that or "not". A rose by any other name. There have always been rulers, and there has never not been those who rule, so believing somehow there will be a society without rulers is religious because it hasn't existed in any life form. The strong, or smart, or most deceptive, or most adaptive always rule. They always become the rulers. So no matter what a person, or people wish, doesn't really matter. The best we can do is to try and do what we can to make our own lives happy. Trying to change humanity into something undoable is fantasy. That doesn't interest me. 

[Arius]

I think the more important question is: why do people respond to this sort of non-argument?

Suppose the OP has correctly identified his opinion:  The OP is only communicating as a means of increasing power.  Reason will fail. Empathy will fail.  Meaningful, peaceful discourse is impossible.

Suppose the OP has incorrectly identified his opinion:  The OP is ill-informed about his own motivations and lacks the self-knowledge for philosophy.  Meaningful, peaceful discourse is impossible.

 

Go dominate somewhere else!

[Rick Horton]

 

I think the more important question is: why do people respond to this sort of non-argument?

Suppose the OP has correctly identified his opinion:  The OP is only communicating as a means of increasing power.  Reason will fail. Empathy will fail.  Meaningful, peaceful discourse is impossible.

Suppose the OP has incorrectly identified his opinion:  The OP is ill-informed about his own motivations and lacks the self-knowledge for philosophy.  Meaningful, peaceful discourse is impossible.

 

Go dominate somewhere else!

 

Opinions aren't fact. Opinions affect behavior. Different opinions lead to different behaviors. His behavior is not random, nor is it imaginary in the world. Therefore his opinion is a reflection of a certain amount of every population. Meaningful discourse is always possible, but when somebody doesn't want to listen to another side, it will break down of course. You can have meaningful conversations with people that have different morals than you. You can have peace with people with different morals with you. You can't have peace with people who wont listen to you. There are always those people who say you aren't worth listening to, and those people are the ones who secretly rule in that way over others.  

[ceruleanhansen]

 

I think the more important question is: why do people respond to this sort of non-argument?

Suppose the OP has correctly identified his opinion:  The OP is only communicating as a means of increasing power.  Reason will fail. Empathy will fail.  Meaningful, peaceful discourse is impossible.

Suppose the OP has incorrectly identified his opinion:  The OP is ill-informed about his own motivations and lacks the self-knowledge for philosophy.  Meaningful, peaceful discourse is impossible.

 

Go dominate somewhere else!

 

I want self knowledge. I do not have it, therefore, according to you, I am incapable of philosophy. While this statement is silly as I am perfectly capable of pondering epistemology, morality, logic, and so on, I assume you mean I am incapable of being ethical? Actually, I really don't know what you mean by that. Anyway, I would very much like self knowledge.

[ceruleanhansen]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know this is elementary and I'm sorry for this kind of intellectual laziness, but I feel impatient about this and it might be important. Why would I ever do anything that doesn't increase my own power? It is baffling to me, but something in me doesn't want to be "evil" anymore (and still, a much larger part is infatuated with evil). Evil as you fine people would call it, that is. The Goddess Morality hasn't blessed me with the sensibilities that seem to lead to moralism (empathy, compassion, other adorable and sweet adjectives) and to be frank they seem more like poison than truth.

I don't believe true things because that is universally preferable. I believe them because my ancestors who did so survived better that those who didn't. Rationality is the only obstacle standing before instinct and my rationality has done nothing to convince me that I do not benefit from believing true things. Why would I let ethics, compassion, or any other collective delusion stop me from obtaining as much power for myself as I possibly can?

Power is the burden of the great, morality is the lullaby of the weak.

 

Since this sentiment exists in humanity, there will always be a State.

 

I disagree. In my experience most statists are actually moralists who have been convinced that the state is a moral good. I would argue that the morality used to justify statism is little more than a thin veil over the will to power (whereas the morality of objectivism is a social anesthetic to make inferiors less of a burden on superiors).

 

"Inferiors" and "superiors" in what way though? The free market tends to favor those who are superior at making money. What about those who are superior at other important things, such as nurturing or offering emotional support to family, which are often unpaid positions? Just as an example. The point is that "inferior" and "superior" are pretty broad judgments of an entire human being, especially when they may only refer to one's ability to create a lucrative product or service in a market economy.

Also, why can't we aim for a balance in which there can be some room for competitive people to seek some advantage if they work for it and play by the rules while also offering some baseline of safety from complete exploitation?

 

Honstly, that was an unfair criticism I made. You guys here deserve better than that kind of insult, so I apologize. To answer your last question, why not do as much as possible to remove the potential of others to exploit me while maximizing my own ability to exploit? As a collective agreement what you said is reasonable, but why wouldn't I break the rules of that system anytime I could get away with it, or try to put myself in a position of authority within the system so I can manipulate it to increase my own power?

 

Either way you cut it, there will be people who increase their own power because they excel at it. There will be people who exploit other people, because they excel at it. There will be people who control and rule because they find leverage. Historically it's always been the case. And because of that, they are the State, whether people want to call it that or "not". A rose by any other name. There have always been rulers, and there has never not been those who rule, so believing somehow there will be a society without rulers is religious because it hasn't existed in any life form. The strong, or smart, or most deceptive, or most adaptive always rule. They always become the rulers. So no matter what a person, or people wish, doesn't really matter. The best we can do is to try and do what we can to make our own lives happy. Trying to change humanity into something undoable is fantasy. That doesn't interest me. 

 

I completely agree with this, except for the happiness part. Why would I want to be happy? Heroin will make me plenty happy, but I recognize that happiness is merely a biological incentive to accomplish certain tasks. It is those tasks that happiness exists for, so instead of chasing happiness, I chase the tasks it is supposed to help us with.

[Stephen C]

 

Why would I let ethics, compassion, or any other collective delusion stop me from obtaining as much power for myself as I possibly can?

Power is the burden of the great, morality is the lullaby of the weak.

 

Ethics, compassion, and any other collective delusion CANNOT stop you. They can't even slow you down. 

Your own personal values are the only thing that can and will slow you down and even stop you dead in your tracks.

Thanks for posting this, it's very brave of you in my opinion. High fives.  

[batou]

I think nihilism is logically inconsistent.

If all values are meaningless then why pursue power, if it's equally meaningless?

Or is pursing power less meaningless, coming to a contraditcion. If something is less meaningless than something else, all values cannot be meaningless. By pursuing power you are making a value judgement, that pursuing power is more valuable than doing something else. 

I would say that we all seek power, just in different ways. Some pursue it with creative work, others with force and exploitation. 

Who is better, a producer or a politician?

 

I would recommend reading these two books, especially the first one on manipulation and manipulative people, they have helped me recognize a manipulative and explotative relationship and end it.

http://www.amazon.com/Whos-Pulling-Your-Strings-ebook/dp/B000OVLIVK/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1363646851&sr=8-2

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005CN6PJ0/ref=oh_d__o03_details_o03__i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

 

[ceruleanhansen]

 

I think nihilism is logically inconsistent.

If all values are meaningless then why pursue power, if it's equally meaningless?

 

Your first sentence is correct, but not for the reasons you give. You are describing the is-ought problem. Nihilism is logically inconsistent for reasons I explained above. Anyway, to answer your question, the things I pursue have nothing to do with objective values or morality. I have evolved to pursue certain things and have certain desires, so I act on them. There is no inherent meaning or value to any of it.

 

 

I would recommend reading these two books, especially the first one on manipulation and manipulative people, they have helped me recognize a manipulative and explotative relationship and end it.

http://www.amazon.com/Whos-Pulling-Your-Strings-ebook/dp/B000OVLIVK/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1363646851&sr=8-2

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005CN6PJ0/ref=oh_d__o03_details_o03__i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

 

The second book looks very interesting. The first book not so much (it's summary speaks of "depression, low self-esteem, chronic anger, and feelings of helplessness"). Thank you for the recommendation!

[batou]

 

I found the first book to be much comprehensive about how manipulation works and recognizing how you can be manipulated. 

 I say that no descriptive claims can be made without other descriptive premises, which need their own descriptive premises, and so on, in infinite regression. Therefore truth is impossible.

How is this related to nihilism?

 Anyway, to answer your question, the things I pursue have nothing to do with objective values or morality. I have evolved to pursue certain things and have certain desires, so I act on them. There is no inherent meaning or value to any of it.

I also don't pursue things for moral reasons, but I do refrain from doing harm, because I feel guilt after. 

You may have evolved to pursue certain things, but those things are still values (subjective ones). Nihilism devalues everything, a nihilistic life form would just stand still, not knowing if it were to live or to die.

I may be straw manning nihilism here, what I was trying to say is that if everything is valueless, it doesn't follow that we should pursue power, or the will to power.

This is what I understood nihilism to be saying. 

Also I think it's dangerous to be a subjectivist, either for values or morality. I think some kind of objective values always emerge from forming a civilization, kind of an utilitarian necessity.

 

 

 

 

[ceruleanhansen]

 

How is this related to nihilism?

Nihilists claim that truth is impossible. This is, itself, an assertion of truth. Thus, nihilism is paradoxical.

 

I also don't pursue things for moral reasons, but I do refrain from doing harm, because I feel guilt after. 

 

Then your actions have no more to do with morality than eating strawberry icecream instead of vanilla icecream because you feel better if you eat strawberry icecream. By this logic if you felt better after killing children, you would do that. Completely unrelated to morality. Unless you are reletavist, in which case you actually believe it is morally right to do what you feel is right. I think that is circular logic.

 

You may have evolved to pursue certain things, but those things are still values (subjective ones). Nihilism devalues everything, a nihilistic life form would just stand still, not knowing if it were to live or to die.

 

Nihilism is an argument against the possibility of objective truth, morality, or value. No one doubts that subjective truths and values exist. For example, if you hold it to be true that 2+2=5, that would be a subjective truth. Nihilism does not disagree that people have beliefs; obviously they do.

 

I was trying to say is that if everything is valueless, it doesn't follow that we should pursue power, or the will to power.

 

According to nihilism, there is no reason to pursue anything, including power. I personally pursue power, but not because it is the objectively "right" thing to do.

 

[batou]

Well, I am a moral relativist/subjectivist, because that is what I think most accurately describes the world around me - morality is just something that came about with evolution and is different in different individuals.

I think there are, however, very good (utilitarian) reasons for proposing objective morality.

[ceruleanhansen]

 

Well, I am a moral relativist/subjectivist, because that is what I think most accurately describes the world around me - morality is just something that came about with evolution and is different in different individuals.

 

You are committing the naturalistic fallacy. Why does the fact that we have evolved to have moral intuitions mean that we should follow them? I understand that as a practical matter we will generally follow them. But as a relativist, you are saying we should follow them. Why?

 

I think there are, however, very good (utilitarian) reasons for proposing objective morality.

 

That is called "rule utilitarianism".

[batou]

I'm not saying that we should, at least not from a rational argument, I don't think the is/ought problem is solvable.

It is just my preference, I'd rather live than die, I'd rather enjoy life and see others enjoy life than suffer. If only I enjoy life, while others suffer, it makes me feel guilt and my enjoyment of life is lessened.

Perhaps what I'm arguing for is just a system that would give me more power, being a man is being quite disposable.

Also:

"rule utilitarianism"

So far it seems that the best utilitarianists are those, that go against utilitarianism and argue for individual freedom, rights, etc... it's quite paradoxical, but it's just a calculation problem (which might be unsolvable).

[ceruleanhansen]

 

I'm not saying that we should, at least not from a rational argument, I don't think the is/ought problem is solvable.

It is just my preference, I'd rather live than die, I'd rather enjoy life and see others enjoy life than suffer. If only I enjoy life, while others suffer, it makes me feel guilt and my enjoyment of life is lessened.

Perhaps what I'm arguing for is just a system that would give me more power, being a man is being quite disposable.

 

That is moral nihilism, and I agree with it entirely. It's the epistemological, existential, and ontological forms of nihilism that I find problematic (though I find them less problematic than, say, objectivism).

 

 

 

[Rick Horton]

 

 

I'm not saying that we should, at least not from a rational argument, I don't think the is/ought problem is solvable.

It is just my preference, I'd rather live than die, I'd rather enjoy life and see others enjoy life than suffer. If only I enjoy life, while others suffer, it makes me feel guilt and my enjoyment of life is lessened.

Perhaps what I'm arguing for is just a system that would give me more power, being a man is being quite disposable.

 

That is moral nihilism, and I agree with it entirely. It's the epistemological, existential, and ontological forms of nihilism that I find problematic (though I find them less problematic than, say, objectivism).

 

 

 

 

Good thread.