Why be moral? (answered)

[Max Hartford]

Sigh. Oversimplification. Let's recap all my arguments.

 

1)My position (be moral) is the logical justified position. You've admitted this. That alone should be enough to convince you but you're so spiritually bankrupt and evil that you question why we should be logical in the first place.

 

2)"What is good for you" is subjective so anytime you say it is not good for you to submit to logic you're just speaking gibberish. There is nothing about subjective self-interest that is apriori opposed to being logical. Either way you live you are living "by your own design".

 

3)A life of fleeting pleasures is negated by death so in actually an illogical hedonist lifestyle is not actually any happier than a moral lifestyle. That was the point you missed. On the gradient of happiness both lifestyles end up being at zero in the end. The difference is the latter lifestyle is a moral lifestyle awhile the other one is not.

 

4)Even if we go all the way with assuming your self-interest is something objective and unalterable you have to be complete fool to not see the benefit of having moral courage. Moral courage is not about "sacrifice". It's about having the willpower to actually stick up for yourself and your preferences. Your preferences have no meaning to anyone else without morality. So preaching nihilism makes no sense even from an egotistical standpoint.

 

5)There is no way to have any kind of intimacy with your children. You cannot justify your behavior by "well I just want to!". You need morality. You need logic to reason with children otherwise you have to resort to verbal abuse, physical abuse or just outright neglect them because you have to treat all selfish desires equally.

 

 

If that doesn't convince you then I'm done. You cannot reason with someone who doesn't even value logic in the first place. 

 

 

1. 'Spiritually bankrupt' and 'evil' are just smear words with no precise meaning. I could equally call you 'spiritually bankrupt' for being a moralist: but there's no point, since it doesn't mean anything.

 

2. How is saying that you prefer to do one thing over another, even though the other is somehow 'supported by logic', speaking gibberish? Seems pretty comprehensible to me, and probably to most people here as well. No, of course self-interest is not apriori opposed to logic and I never said it was: logic is a tool that is often useful in the pursuit of self-interest. The reason I say that the egoist way is more 'living by your own design' than the moralist way is because the moralist submits themselves to the entirety of a behavioral framework that has been developed without their unique individuality in mind.

 

3. No, it's not the point I 'missed', it's the point that I vehemently disagree with. Yes, the egoist and the moralist will be equally happy when they're dead, because happiness as a concept loses all meaning once death occurs. But it is the part in between birth and death, life, that matters, because that is all there is (unless you can present some groundbreaking proof of the existence of an afterlife). If you reject 'fleeting pleasures', than you reject everything that makes life worth living, which seems to me like a really dumb move.    

 

4. Huh? You think that only moralists have the willpower to stand up for themselves and their preferences? But history is replete with examples of people rocking the earth itself in pursuit of their own selfish interests: Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Joseph Stalin, to name only a few of the most prominent examples. It didn't matter to these men that their preferences 'had no meaning' to other people: they had meaning to them, and that's all that mattered.

 

5. As long as your children can grasp the idea of a mutually beneficial relationship with you, then there's no problem. Sometimes you give ground to them, sometimes they give ground to you, but all with the goal of maintaining a smooth relationship that ends up benefiting you both. This is how business relationships work: why can't it be how parent-child relationships work?

 

So no, you have not convinced me. And don't delude yourself by thinking that everything you said is all very logical: I just choose to ignore it. Actually, you make a lot of naked assertions, not backed by logic of any kind, as I have tried to show above.    

[Nathan Metric]

1)Well no actually you can't. People who pursue virtue are virtuous. People who do not pursue virtue are not virtuous.

 

2)Why is individuality a value? Reality is logical and reality transcends the individual. Logic transcends the individual.

 

3)If happiness loses all meaning in death than why pursue it as your prime goal in life? Wouldn't it make more sense to pursue something (like virtue) that will have meaning in the long run than something you know is going to lose meaning eventually? If the meaning of happiness subjective than the meaning of happiness dies with the subject. If the meaning of something is objective than it will have meaning even if the subject dies.

 

Death is inevitable, uncertain, and absolute. Do you contest this? If not then I see no reason you should sacrifice being logical and moral for being happy. And even if I reject fleeting pleasures there is still reason to live: so that way one can pursue virtue in this world. There are reasons to live for reasons other than pursuing happiness.

 

4)They had power. I never said you couldn't enforce your preferences if you had power. What I said was that if you don't have power and don't have moral courage then your preferences have no meaning. The weak cannot afford to be nihilists.

 

5)Children are not going to do what you want them to just because you want them to. I'm an adult. You are trying to correct me right now. You think I am going to change my behavior just because you want me to? No, what I am going to do is change my behavior in relation to logic. In relation to universals. You're not going to have any kind of mutually beneficial relationship without reference to universals. I want my child to do homework. My child does not want to do homework. I want my child to eat healthy. My child does not want to eat healthy. I want my child to do some chores. My child does not want to do the chores. How am I suppose to appeal to my child's self-interest without using verbal abuse, physical abuse, or some kind of threat of coercion? It's not possible dude.  This is where child abuse comes from. Even if parents care for their kids they will abuse them if they have no grasp on ethical universals and how to argue for them. You cannot have a valid parent-child relationship under nihilism.

[neeeel]

 

My argument would be

 

1)Thou shall pursue virtue.

2)Truth is the prime virtue.

3)Therefore, you should pursue the truth.

4)A Adults accumulate both wisdom and bigotries over time.

4)B) Humans are mortal

5)A Children with given proper care and respect are good at exposing the intellectual bigotries of adults via a series of "why?" questions.

5)B) Children prolong the species.

6)Therefore, propagating children is virtuous.

7)Therefore, marriage is the virtuous.

 

There. Nothing circular.

 

 

"Meaning is subjective".....and that means......what exactly?

 

you have to justify premise 1, for a start.

 

 

2)Why is individuality a value? Reality is logical and reality transcends the individual. Logic transcends the individual.

 

 

 

What? This makes no sense, either as a statement meant to communicate something, or as a logical statement. 

[Nathan Metric]

Why? Are you saying it is virtuous for me to justify my premises?

[neeeel]

Why? Are you saying it is virtuous for me to justify my premises?

 

no

 

I am saying that your whole argument rests on statement 1. why should I accept statement 1?

[Nathan Metric]

If it's not virtuous for me to justify my positions then why are you expecting me to justify them?

[neeeel]

If it's not virtuous for me to justify my positions then why are you expecting me to justify them?

 

why is it virtuous to justify positions? I am not equating virtuosity with justifying of opinions, but I may be misunderstanding.

 

It seems like you are defining virtuousness in a strange/circular way

[Nathan Metric]

There is nothing circular about my argument. Go re-read what I actually said.

 

Premise 1) Thou shall pursue virtue.

Premise 2) Truth is the Prime Virtue.

 

The only thing you can say about my argument that is circular is premise 1. Premise 1 is obviously a tautology, but its a tautology in the same manner the Law of Identity (A is A) is a tautology. Are you going to deny the Law of identity now?

[neeeel]

There is nothing circular about my argument. Go re-read what I actually said.

 

Premise 1) Thou shall pursue virtue.

Premise 2) Truth is the Prime Virtue.

 

The only thing you can say about my that is circular is premise 1. Premise 1 is obviously a tautology, but its a tautology in the same manner the Law of Identity (A is A) is a tautology. Are you going to deny the Law of identity now?

 

Right, which was why I was asking you to justify premise 1

 

And I wasnt saying that your argument was circular, I was saying that your definition of virtuousness was circular

 

 

Edit: premise one isnt a tautology. I suppose you mean it is virtuous to pursue virtue? In which case, it still doesnt support your later premises

[Nathan Metric]

So what if its circular? Premise 2 is not deduced from Premise 1. It's arrived at by a certain understanding of epistemology.

 

For instance, why is the Law of Identity valid? The reason it is valid is because it is axiomatic. It's axiomatic because

a)It's a significantly basic proposition (coherent and concise)

b)there is no way to mount a logical argument against it.

 

Example

Realist: A is A

Nihilist: No it's not!

Realist: Ah so you're agreeing with me! (the realist is not treating the nihilist's objection (A) as an objection (A).

 

Premise 1 and Premise 2 are axioms for similar reasons. There is no way to mount a logical argument against them without either contradicting yourself or invoking an arbitrary preference.

[neeeel]

A post of mine has disappeared? I am confused

[Nathan Metric]

Premise one is a tautology. "Thou shall pursue virtue" translates to "What you should pursue is what you should pursue". That's just a tautology in and of itself, but it has a point because simply saying "X is a virtue" has no meaning unless you should pursue virtue. I'm not merely highlighting a preference. I am making a moral argument for marriage and a moral argument has to be in relation to what you should do.

 

Premise 1 has nothing to do with the validity of premise 2 but it is related to the validity of premise 3 and onwards. Let's say X is a virtue. You cannot go on an say "You should pursue X" unless one ought to pursue virtue in the first place.

[neeeel]

"What you should pursue is what you should pursue". 

 

is very different from

 

1)Thou shall pursue virtue.

 

 

 

It seems like you arent reading what I am writing, or perhaps you missed it when my post disappeared, because, to state it again, I am not saying that your logical argument is circular, but that your definition of virtuousness is strange/circular

 

you have given me no reason to accept your premise (1)

Saying "An elephant is an elephant" tells you nothing about elephants, and what you should or shouldnt do with them, 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

 

3. But the fact is, the only reason that you've hitherto offered for being moral is because doing so is logical

 

It's because it's correct. 

 I just choose to ignore it. 

 

[Max Hartford]

1)Well no actually you can't. People who pursue virtue are virtuous. People who do not pursue virtue are not virtuous.

 

2)Why is individuality a value? Reality is logical and reality transcends the individual. Logic transcends the individual.

 

3)If happiness loses all meaning in death than why pursue it as your prime goal in life? Wouldn't it make more sense to pursue something (like virtue) that will have meaning in the long run than something you know is going to lose meaning eventually? If the meaning of happiness subjective than the meaning of happiness dies with the subject. If the meaning of something is objective than it will have meaning even if the subject dies.

 

Death is inevitable, uncertain, and absolute. Do you contest this? If not then I see no reason you should sacrifice being logical and moral for being happy. And even if I reject fleeting pleasures there is still reason to live: so that way one can pursue virtue in this world. There are reasons to live for reasons other than pursuing happiness.

 

4)They had power. I never said you couldn't enforce your preferences if you had power. What I said was that if you don't have power and don't have moral courage then your preferences have no meaning. The weak cannot afford to be nihilists.

 

5)Children are not going to do what you want them to just because you want them to. I'm an adult. You are trying to correct me right now. You think I am going to change my behavior just because you want me to? No, what I am going to do is change my behavior in relation to logic. In relation to universals. You're not going to have any kind of mutually beneficial relationship without reference to universals. I want my child to do homework. My child does not want to do homework. I want my child to eat healthy. My child does not want to eat healthy. I want my child to do some chores. My child does not want to do the chores. How am I suppose to appeal to my child's self-interest without using verbal abuse, physical abuse, or some kind of threat of coercion? It's not possible dude.  This is where child abuse comes from. Even if parents care for their kids they will abuse them if they have no grasp on ethical universals and how to argue for them. You cannot have a valid parent-child relationship under nihilism.

 

1. And if you had said that I was not virtuous, than I would have heartily agreed with you, and also not cared

 

2. Why is individuality a value? What a bizarre question. We are individuals: why wouldn't we want to value ourselves?

 

3. What you call virtue doesn't have meaning in the long run! Nothing does! If we're dead, nothing has meaning anymore. Death is the end of everything: the end of your mind. With no mind, there is no meaning. For someone so enamored with logic, I would have thought that you would have accepted this simple truth.

 

4. Well you didn't actually mention power at all previously, but alright. And yes, preaching morality is more beneficial for those with little power, as Nietzsche argued. But what we should keep in mind is that the power or weakness we're talking about doesn't necessarily have to be individual. A lot of physically weak individuals can band together in an alliance and become a powerful force in their own right, which is what Max Stirner talks about in relation to the Union of Egoists. So lots of people who prefer not to live in a society where murder is rampant can band together, establish a police force of some kind, and use this power to stop and punish murderers. 

 

5. Bribery, aka, positive incentives: it works wonders on children. No abuse required. Also, I would classify indoctrinating children to obey the commands of a universal morality as abuse, just as indoctrinating them to follow religious orders is. 

[Nathan Metric]

is very different from

 

 

 

It seems like you arent reading what I am writing, or perhaps you missed it when my post disappeared, because, to state it again, I am not saying that your logical argument is circular, but that your definition of virtuousness is strange/circular

 

you have given me no reason to accept your premise (1)

Saying "An elephant is an elephant" tells you nothing about elephants, and what you should or shouldnt do with them, 

 

Well you're just wrong dude. There is no difference between "Thou shall pursue virtue" and "What you should pursue is what you should pursue". Virtue by default means what you ought to pursue without any added qualification or definition.

 

Yes, in the premise ONE the definition of virtue is circular. The argument in its totality however the definition of virtue is not circular. I'll will quote myself one more time.

 

1)Thou shall pursue virtue

2)Truth is the prime virtue.

3)Therefore, you should pursue the truth.

ETC

etc

etc

 

So no. There is nothing circular about the argument in its totality. I actually do define what Virtue is. I define the most important virtue as the truth and anything that serves the truth is also a virtue. Now if you keep saying I never defined it whatsoever then you're just ignoring what I'm saying and lying.

 

Yes, Saying "An elephant is an elephant" tells you nothing of what an elephant actually is. It's not intended to. It is meant to invoke the Law of Identity. An Elephant is an Elephant. What you should pursue is what you should pursue. A is A. That is just the Law of identity spoken in different words. Now if you want to deny any of those three phrases then you have to deny the Law of Identity.

 

I also did give you a reason to accept Premise 1. You just avoided addressing the argument. The reason you should accept premise 1 is the same reason why the Law of Identity is true. It's axiomatic. You cannot argu against it without either a)tacitly assuming that one should pursue virtue or b)invoking an arbitrary reason.

 

I asked you why do I need to justify "Thou shall pursue virtue" You still haven't answered why I should justify it. Should I justify it because justifying premises is virtuous or should I justify them for an arbitrary reason?

 

If you want me to justify my premises because justifying my premises virtuous then you are completely contradicting yourself.

If you want me to justify my premises for an arbitrary reason then you have no business criticizing me for holding onto beliefs for an arbitrary reason. That would be utter hypocrisy.

[neeeel]

 

 

Yes, Saying "An elephant is an elephant" tells you nothing of what an elephant actually is. It's not intended to. It is meant to invoke the Law of Identity. An Elephant is an Elephant. What you should pursue is what you should pursue. A is A. That is just the Law of identity spoken in different words. Now if you want to deny any of those three phrases then you have to deny the Law of Identity.

 

 

Right. So stating the law of identity as the first premise in your argument does nothing. Are you saying that replacing "thou shall pursue virtue" can be replaced with A is A , in your argument, and its still the same?

 

 

I asked you why do I need to justify "Thou shall pursue virtue"

 

 

You dont need to. But if you want anyone to accept your logical argument, then you do. 

 

 

So no. There is nothing circular about the argument in its totality

 

 

I never said there was. I said " I am not saying that your logical argument is circular, but that your definition of virtuousness is strange/circular" and this was referring to when you said "If it's not virtuous for me to justify my positions then why are you expecting me to justify them?"

[Nathan Metric]

1. And if you had said that I was not virtuous, than I would have heartily agreed with you, and also not cared

 

2. Why is individuality a value? What a bizarre question. We are individuals: why wouldn't we want to value ourselves?

 

3. What you call virtue doesn't have meaning in the long run! Nothing does! If we're dead, nothing has meaning anymore. Death is the end of everything: the end of your mind. With no mind, there is no meaning. For someone so enamored with logic, I would have thought that you would have accepted this simple truth.

 

4. Well you didn't actually mention power at all previously, but alright. And yes, preaching morality is more beneficial for those with little power, as Nietzsche argued. But what we should keep in mind is that the power or weakness we're talking about doesn't necessarily have to be individual. A lot of physically weak individuals can band together in an alliance and become a powerful force in their own right, which is what Max Stirner talks about in relation to the Union of Egoists. So lots of people who prefer not to live in a society where murder is rampant can band together, establish a police force of some kind, and use this power to stop and punish murderers. 

 

5. Bribery, aka, positive incentives: it works wonders on children. No abuse required. Also, I would classify indoctrinating children to obey the commands of a universal morality as abuse, just as indoctrinating them to follow religious orders is. 

 

1)So then you're admitting your evil. Well at least you're being honest.

 

2)I value being an individual, but I don't value it for no reason. The reason I value being an individual is because authenticity is a virtue. Authenticity is a virtue because honesty is a virtue. Honesty is a virtue because the TRUTH is a virtue and there is no higher virtue than the truth.

 

Now why exactly do you value being an individual?

 

3)What meaning are you talking about exactly? Objective or subjective meaning? Saying that virtue has no subjective meaning (to me) in the long run is trivial. I don't care about subjective meaning. I care about objective meaning and my actions have meaning (objectively) even when I am dead.

 

And no, you can't actually know whether death is the end of everything. The phenomenological experience of death is uncertain and why consciousness exists at all is a mystery.

 

4)But is life is not a simple struggle between the "weak" and the "strong". Both groups are infinitely dividable into smaller groups each with their own interests. Look, if life was merely a struggle between two groups politics would be pretty damn simple wouldn't it? Except it's not that simple.

And why would you as an individual want that kind of universe anyway? Why would you want a universe where the masses are 100% egotistical and are okay forcing their whims on everyone including individuals like you? What if the egotistical masses don't value individuality anymore. What if they want to create an Idiocracy? Why the hell would you want that?

 

5Bribing kids to do good behavior is about as intimate a relationship as paying a hooker to have sex with you.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Well you're just wrong dude. 

 

He's already said wrong or right are meaningless and he'll do what he wants. 

[neeeel]

He's already said wrong or right are meaningless and he'll do what he wants. 

 

Where did I say that?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Where did I say that?

 

I'm referring to Max Hartford. 

[B0b]

We should conform to those principles that are correct. To be moral is to conform to correct moral principles. Therefore we should be moral because it's correct.

Do you have a valid rebuttal? 

We should conform to principles that are correct if we want to be correct.

 

But what if someone does not want to be correct? It is is choice, right?

 

Then, his choice not to be moral is legitimated by his choice not to be correct.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

We should conform to principles that are correct if we want to be correct.

 

But what if someone does not want to be correct? It is is choice, right?

 

Yes. That's why it's called evil. 

 

 

 

Then, his choice not to be moral is legitimated by his choice not to be correct.

 

Don't know what that means.

[B0b]

Yes. That's why it's called evil. 

 

Don't know what that means.

Evil people exist, and in great number. This is why anarchy will never exist.

 

What it meant is that if someone does not want to be "correct", by being immoral, he is logical with himself.

[Nathan Metric]

Right. So stating the law of identity as the first premise in your argument does nothing. Are you saying that replacing "thou shall pursue virtue" can be replaced with A is A , in your argument, and its still the same?

 

 

 

You dont need to. But if you want anyone to accept your logical argument, then you do. 

 

 

 

I never said there was. I said " I am not saying that your logical argument is circular, but that your definition of virtuousness is strange/circular" and this was referring to when you said "If it's not virtuous for me to justify my positions then why are you expecting me to justify them?"

 

1) Yes. Denying that Virtue is Virtue or what you should pursue is what you should pursue is denying the Law of Identity.

 

2)if I don't need to then why in the hell are you expecting me to do so?

 

Either justifying my premises is a virtue or its not.

If justifying premises is a virtue then you are presupposing that I ought to pursue virtue and you have no business criticizing the axiom "Thou shall pursue virtue"

If justifying my premises is not virtuous then you must be expecting me to justify them for an arbitrary reason. If you are going to act the way you do for an arbitrary reason you have no business criticizing me for appearing to believe things for arbitrary reasons. That would be utter hypocrisy.

 

So either way you lose. All debates presuppose a standard of a virtue and a duty to adhere to that standard. There is no way around this.

 

3)My definition of virtue is not circular. Explained this a million times. If you're just going to ignore what I said then I'm done. 

[Nathan Metric]

Evil people exist, and in great number. This is why anarchy will never exist.

 

What it meant is that if someone does not want to be "correct", by being immoral, he is logical with himself.

 

 

There is no such thing as an honest evil. To act truly evil you have to lack self-knowledge. Clearly anyone who claims to want to act incorrectly MUST lack knowledge of their motivations.

 

Proof

Nihilist: Well I want to be incorrect.

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist: Because....I want to?

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist: Because it serves my self-interest.

Moralist: What is your self-interest exactly?

Nihilist: (Lists a bunch of preferences)

Moralist: Okay you claimed you wanted to find love. Why is finding love your self-interest?

Nihilist: Because love is pleasurable.

Moralist: Why pursue pleasure?

Nihilist: Because pleasure feels good.

Moralist: Why pursue things that feel good?

Nihilist: Because that's the point of life.

Moralist: Why live?

Nihilist: Because life is good?

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist: pff. I DON'T KNOW!

 

Alternative Proof

Nihilist: I want to be incorrect.

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist: Because that is my self-interest.

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist: The same reason by breathing fresh air is in my self-interest.

Moralist: Why is breathing fresh air part of your self-interest?

Nihilist: Because i want to live.

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist: Because life allows for the pursuit of pleasure.

Moralist: Why pursue pleasure?

Nihilist: Because it feels good.

Moralist: Why pursue things that feel good?

Nihilist: Because that is my self-interest.

Moralist: Why is that in your self-interest?

Nihilist (Struggling to come up with an answer) Pff. I don't know.

 

Alternative Proof

Nihilist: Why do you want to be correct?

Moralist: Because being correct is better than being incorrect.

Nihilist: Why?

Moralist: Why are you asking "why?"

Nihilist: Because you ought to have a good reason for believing being correct is better than being incorrect.

Moralist: Why should I have a good reason for anything?

Nihilist: Because I would be convinced to live the way you do if you had a good reason for believing what you believe.

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist: Because that's what I would find convincing.

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist: Pff, I don't know. Oh wait, I meant to say you ought to have an incorrect reason for believing being correct is better than being incorrect.

Moralist: Why should I? I would be acting inconsistently if I had an incorrect reason for valuing being correct.

Nihilist: Right. You would. You should be illogical

Moralist: Wait so...you want me to be logical now?

Nihilist: No, I want you to be illogical.

Moralist: Okay, you so you want me to be logical.

Nihilist: No no....ILLogical!

Moralist: Logical?

Nihilist: ILLOGICAL!

Moralist: Okay so I ought to be logical. So then what are we disagreeing about then?

Nihilist: (head assplodes)

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Evil people exist, and in great number. This is why anarchy will never exist.

 

That's called a non-sequitur. If so many evil people exist then you can't have government because evil people will flock to it. So if evil people exist then you need anarchy so as to protect yourself from the evil people and not have a coercive government that forces you into economic and social relationships with them. 

What it meant is that if someone does not want to be "correct", by being immoral, he is logical with himself.

 

 

 

What it meant is that if someone does not want to be "correct", by being immoral, he is logical with himself.

 

That's even more nonsensical. "Logical with himself" doesn't mean anything. In fact I tried to find a single usage of that phrase and couldn't find one anywhere. Can you provide an example? 

There is no such thing as an honest evil. To act truly evil you have to lack self-knowledge. Clearly anyone who claims to want to act incorrectly MUST lack knowledge of their motivations.

 

Proof

Nihilist: Well I want to be incorrect.

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist: Because....I want to?

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist: Because it serves my self-interest.

Moralist: What is your self-interest exactly?

Nihilist: (Lists a bunch of preferences)

Moralist: Okay you claimed you wanted to find love. Why is finding love your self-interest?

Nihilist: Because love is pleasurable.

Moralist: Why pursue pleasure?

Nihilist: Because pleasure feels good.

Moralist: Why pursue things that feel good?

Nihilist: Because that's the point of life.

Moralist: Why live?

Nihilist: Because life is good?

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist: pff. I DON'T KNOW!

 

Alternative Proof

Nihilist: I want to be incorrect.

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist: Because that is my self-interest.

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist: The same reason by breathing fresh air is in my self-interest.

Moralist: Why is breathing fresh air part of your self-interest?

Nihilist: Because i want to live.

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist: Because life allows for the pursuit of pleasure.

Moralist: Why pursue pleasure?

Nihilist: Because it feels good.

Moralist: Why pursue things that feel good?

Nihilist: Because that is my self-interest.

Moralist: Why is that in your self-interest?

Nihilist (Struggling to come up with an answer) Pff. I don't know.

 

Alternative Proof

Nihilist: Why do you want to be correct?

Moralist: Because being correct is better than being incorrect.

Nihilist: Why?

Moralist: Why are you asking "why?"

Nihilist: Because you ought to have a good reason for believing being correct is better than being incorrect.

Moralist: Why should I have a good reason for anything?

Nihilist: Because I would be convinced to live the way you do if you had a good reason for believing what you believe.

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist: Because that's what I would find convincing.

Moralist: Why?

Nihilist: Pff, I don't know. Oh wait, I meant to say you ought to have an incorrect reason for believing being correct is better than being incorrect.

Moralist: Why should I? I would be acting inconsistently if I had an incorrect reason for valuing being correct.

Nihilist: Right. You would. You should be illogical

Moralist: Wait so...you want me to be logical now?

Nihilist: No, I want you to be illogical.

Moralist: Okay, you so you want me to be logical.

Nihilist: No no....ILLogical!

Moralist: Logical?

Nihilist: ILLOGICAL!

Moralist: Okay so I ought to be logical. So then what are we disagreeing about then?

Nihilist: (head assplodes)

 

Every such nihilist is trying to create rules for people and an exemption to those rules for themselves. 

[B0b]

That's called a non-sequitur. If so many evil people exist then you can't have government because evil people will flock to it. So if evil people exist then you need anarchy so as to protect yourself from the evil people and not have a coercive government that forces you into economic and social relationships with them. 

 

That's even more nonsensical. "Logical with himself" doesn't mean anything. In fact I tried to find a single usage of that phrase and couldn't find one anywhere. Can you provide an example? 

Yes, anarchy would be the best way to protect oneself from evil people. But evil people will fight hard to keep the state in place. How do you get rid of the state with these evil people?

 

"Logical with himself" was a humorous way of putting it. Sorry is my humor is nonsensical. I meant that men can choose not to be moral and feel very well about it. You can try to prove that non being moral is incorrect or whatever, but what difference does it make to the person who does not care about it and chooses to be immoral? 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Yes, anarchy would be the best way to protect oneself from evil people. But evil people will fight hard to keep the state in place. How do you get rid of the state with these evil people?

 

"Logical with himself" was a humorous way of putting it. Sorry is my humor is nonsensical. I meant that men can choose not to be moral and feel very well about it. You can try to prove that non being moral is incorrect or whatever, but what difference does it make to the person who does not care about it and chooses to be immoral? 

 

You're moving goal-posts on the anarchy question. It's got nothing to do with the main topic anyway.

 

What difference does it make to me or anyone if someone does not care about being correct? Why is this question relevant? 

 

Unless you make sense in your next comment I'll not respond to you again. 

[B0b]

Apologies for having hijacked the conversation.

 

The question matters to me because I believe that if not enough people are moral, there will never be any libertarian societies. But I will shut up this time since this is no the right thread.

[Max Hartford]

I meant that men can choose not to be moral and feel very well about it. You can try to prove that non being moral is incorrect or whatever, but what difference does it make to the person who does not care about it and chooses to be immoral? 

 

This is the $1 million question, and one that no moralist has ever answered in a convincing fashion.

 

 

 

 

What difference does it make to me or anyone if someone does not care about being correct? Why is this question relevant? 

 

 

Because you're supposedly trying to provide us with a convincing reason for why we should be moral! If you don't care about that, then why are you still posting in this thread?!

[castus]

Though I agree with Nathan Metric mostly, I believe there is an exclusion, or something just not covered here - as to why even be moral if it is only restrained to a materialistic sense of logic / enlightenment? That is, to reason for anything must be beneficial (going by your view), but then for whom? If you reduce this to an individual basis (which makes sense) your left with a self centered view of morality that logically should only exercise morals that sustain ones self (not solely for the benefit of others). You could make the indirect point that you always somehow benefit from some selfless act, but that's something that can be taken into absurdity - particularly if left with a materialistic world view, where your ultimate profit of selflessness won't be felt... because you're dead - so why?

 

The opposite materialistic approach - to the selfish view - would be 'all for the collective'. To express the problem here, I'd like to illustrate things with a reference to the 'liberty' minded fictitious race such as the Borg from star treck. If failing in that knowledge, ants would be a replacement example . Of course I'm being sarcastic, these are not at all something any sane person would want. Put in another way, authentic individual value must be had first before any value can really be placed for a group of people, since groups of people.... are comprised of individuals. If authenticity is absent from individual value in some form, the society will pay for it.

 

Where I'm getting at with pointing this all out: the reason to be moral stems from the idea of a design (the logical conclusion), which alludes to a supreme being. This being must have a certain form that we can logically recognize (reason with), and equally understand that we cannot fully recognize him logically (else we would be equal in totality - which the physical universe cannot handle). From this, contains some of the first fundamentals to be realized along the road as to 'why be moral', which from my understanding, is really inseparable for the moralist, eventually in reasoning (or risk contradiction).

 

Faith is the ultimate allusion for any moralist; it's unavoidable. So the idea of an ultimate reward after death is the cornerstone to the why; the materialist doesn't have this.

 

Being moral for posterity is a shallow reward; the dead don't smile. Sort of a nihilistic response I suppose, lol.

[Max Hartford]

 

 

Faith is the ultimate allusion for any moralist; it's unavoidable. So the idea of an ultimate reward after death is the cornerstone to the why; the materialist doesn't have this.

 

Being moral for posterity is a shallow reward; the dead don't smile. Sort of a nihilistic response I suppose, lol.

 

Quite right: moralism is a hangover from religion, which is why people who claim to be both atheistic and moralistic don't make much sense.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

This is the $1 million question, and one that no moralist has ever answered in a convincing fashion.

 

I've already answered it. It's because it's correct. What does "convincing" mean? Please define the objective meaning of "convinced". How do we measure the degree or quality of convinced-ness?

 

 

 

Because you're supposedly trying to provide us with a convincing reason for why we should be moral! If you don't care about that, then why are you still posting in this thread?!

 

Because it's correct. You've already accepted that being correct is sufficient answer. If not then what standard are you using to evaluate arguments and propositions? 

 

 

 

Quite right: moralism is a hangover from religion, which is why people who claim to be both atheistic and moralistic don't make much sense.

 

Oh yes, quite right old chap. Jolly good. 

Maybe instead of making little digs at "moralists" here why don't you explain what exactly would be wrong with religion or why making sense is somehow preferable. 

[Max Hartford]

I've already answered it. It's because it's correct. What does "convincing" mean? Please define the objective meaning of "convinced". How do we measure the degree or quality of convinced-ness?

 

 

Because it's correct. You've already accepted that being correct is sufficient answer. If not then what standard are you using to evaluate arguments and propositions? 

 

 

Oh yes, quite right old chap. Jolly good. 

Maybe instead of making little digs at "moralists" here why don't you explain what exactly would be wrong with religion or why making sense is somehow preferable. 

 

Convincing: capable of causing someone to change their behavior or beliefs. This could well be different for different people, so there always be a certain degree of subjectivity involved. There's no degrees: either you cause someone to change or you do not. It's a binary.

 

I have not accepted that being correct is sufficient answer to this question. The standard is: do these arguments or propositions make me want to change my behavior or beliefs? Yours most definitely do not.

 

What's wrong with religion? It asks that you make personal sacrifices in order to secure a spot in an afterlife that is not believable. If the afterlife doesn't exist (which it probably doesn't), than the sacrifices are in vain. Making sense is not preferable for its own sake: it's just preferable if you want to convince an intelligent person of something.