Nihilism

[Hegesias]

Seems I've misjudged you for being open to ideas. Have a great one.

Shucks and here i was thinking you might be open to new ideas! What a coincidence. And you have a great one too my friend. Not sure my girlfriend and I are ready to commit to not having any children...but, I respect your um...way of life dude. All the best. Over and out.

[Dalek Prime]

I've had more time to think about it than you, Jimmy. And spent less time thinking about what statement my watch is making.

[Hegesias]

I've had more time to think about it than you, Jimmy. And spent less time thinking about what statement my watch is making.

The point was I was making no statement. And maybe it's just not the right time in my life for this rapid, Internet antenatalism conversion. Given that I'm about to get married and I hardly even know you.

[Dalek Prime]

Well, as long as you know your fiance better than you know me, that's all that matters. Congratulations, btw. Perhaps, for now, you should concentrate more on your upcoming nuptials, and less on a philosophy forum where you might just find ideas incompatible with your worldview.

[Wyman]

According to Zapffe, we lie to ourselves all the time just to hang on, Wyman. All of us. And, for my mind, accepting the absurd is throwing in the towel. Zapffe never threw in the towel on his life. He led it to the fullest, but ensured that he would not drag anyone else into it by having children.

To put it in Camus' terms, we are stuck with the rock and the mountain (like Sisyphus). But we do not have to stick junior with it. (That was my reply to a Buddhist monk who wrote an article on the myth.)

The logical conclusion from the premise that life is worthless would seem to be either suicide or refusal to reproduce. Just as the logical conclusion of altruism would be to nurse to health lepers in Calcutta (or the equivalent). The logical conclusion of faith may well be becoming a hermit or 'holy fool' or 'monk.'

My question is, given the unpleasant conclusions of these life 'philosophies,' and the fact that hardly anyone bothers with actually acting consistently, should we question whether or not logic has any application to ethics at all? Why does consistency really matter? Doesn't it just lead to Hamlet-like indecision or else rash and harmful actions?

[Dalek Prime]

I wouldn't go so far as to say life is worthless, especially to to the invested ie. already living. That's why neither Zapffe, Camus, nor I, advocate suicide. But it is meaningless, and bringing others into a meaningless existence, who have no investment in it, and will never miss it, is problematic.

As for whether logic has any bearing on ethics, I can only point to David Benatar, the biggest proponent of philanthropic antinatalism, who argues for his ethics quite logically.

The problem really, is neither ethics nor logic, but the unwillingness of people to see and follow sound arguments to logical conclusions, overcoming their deeply ingrained prior prejudices, natalism being the vastly predominant, accepted view. That in itself is a lot to overcome. And, in truth, I don't hold much expectation of people doing so.

Btw, you don't have to believe life is meaningless in order to agree with antinatalist views. There are arguments from a theistic standpoint that are equally valid. Eg. Threat of eternal damnation for the existent.

[Dalek Prime]

Double post.

[Wyman]

The problem really, is neither ethics nor logic, but the unwillingness of people to see and follow sound arguments to logical conclusions,

But that's what I was asking - why is it a problem? Why should people follow arguments to their logical conclusions in the area of how to act, what to believe, how to treat others?

[Dalek Prime]

The problem really, is neither ethics nor logic, but the unwillingness of people to see and follow sound arguments to logical conclusions,

But that's what I was asking - why is it a problem? Why should people follow arguments to their logical conclusions in the area of how to act, what to believe, how to treat others?

That's a valid question, Wyman. I can answer for why we should treat others well; self-interest. We may then have reasonable expectations of being treated well in return. Thus, we won't always have to be vigilant over who is going to, for example, rape, murder, or rob us, or break a contract, interpersonal or social. The "Golden Rule" is not only valid; it's profitable. Good action from this will follow, to keep to it, in general.

As to what to believe, I can't answer for that off the top of my head, in all honesty. We are products of our upbringing and culture. It takes much effort to seek that which is not generally accepted, but may nevertheless be true. Which is why I say I don't hold much hope in seeing this happen.

So, do you really believe a lack of ethics is unproblematic? Or that it should be based on unsupported grounds? I guess what I'm trying to ask is, are ethics and morality, in your view, unsupportable because they exist in a world lacking meaning? If you do, chaos and nihilism are your only outcomes. Is that what you are advocating? Because I'm not, and neither is antinatalism.

(If I'm reading you wrong, or not answering to your satisfaction, please do correct me, and give me sharper focus, in order that I may answer in better fashion.)

[Wyman]

The problem really, is neither ethics nor logic, but the unwillingness of people to see and follow sound arguments to logical conclusions,

But that's what I was asking - why is it a problem? Why should people follow arguments to their logical conclusions in the area of how to act, what to believe, how to treat others?

That's a valid question, Wyman. I can answer for why we should treat others well; self-interest. We may then have reasonable expectations of being treated well in return. Thus, we won't always have to be vigilant over who is going to, for example, rape, murder, or rob us, or break a contract, interpersonal or social. The "Golden Rule" is not only valid; it's profitable. Good action from this will follow, to keep to it, in general.

As to what to believe, I can't answer for that off the top of my head, in all honesty. We are products of our upbringing and culture. It takes much effort to seek that which is not generally accepted, but may nevertheless be true. Which is why I say I don't hold much hope in seeing this happen.

So, do you really believe a lack of ethics is unproblematic? Or that it should be based on unsupported grounds? I guess what I'm trying to ask is, are ethics and morality, in your view, unsupportable because they exist in a world lacking meaning? If you do, chaos and nihilism are your only outcomes. Is that what you are advocating? Because I'm not, and neither is antinatalism.

I don't know that my beliefs here are well thought out, but I'll try. The vast majority of people in the world are not logical - they think 'with emotions.' Lawyers who present emotional arguments to a jury will always beat lawyers who present a logical argument, for instance. Think of how few people are mathematicians, engineers, scientists, etc. - people who need to have some aptitude for logical thinking. Not only are they few, but they are also, I would submit, no more 'ethical' or 'good' or 'moral' than other people. Often, for instance, they're pompous assholes.

A second avenue I would explore here is what I referred to earlier - logic often gets us from a seemingly fruitful, benign maxim to results we would not have wanted otherwise but for 'following them to their logical conclusions.' For instance - 'government ought to maximize the collective happiness and security of its members.' That seems benign. But what if a scenario arises where a hundred people would be greatly benefited by the death of one other person? Logic tells us that this is acceptable, but most would object to such a result.

A third avenue would be the fact that a person skilled in arguments, rhetoric and logic can always make a conclusion appear to follow logically from a set of accepted premises. Ethics and morality exist in the realm of ordinary language. Many believe that ordinary language is too vague to support strictly logical arguments - and if logical arguments are not 'strict' then what good are they? - i.e. unless they're air-tight (strict), then different conclusions will always be capable of being drawn from the same premises.

Perhaps a version of faith-based beliefs is what is called for. I don't necessarily believe this, but see it as plausible. Instead of faith in a Christian God and the edicts of the Bible, perhaps another form of faith could work. This is the way most people fumble through life anyway - they do what 'feels' right and have faith in their instincts.

[Dalek Prime]

(I'll answer later today, if I may. Bit busy at the moment, and evening gives me more chance to read and reply at leisure. Ttys.)

[Dalek Prime]

Speaking of faith-based beliefs, the UN enshrined the "Golden Rule" as a top maxim. As long as they are thoughtfully applied as this has been, I see no inherent problems with this approach. But I do see a problem where the suffering of one person benefits the many, and anyone who knows me will tell you that I am against total positive utilitarianism, and the maximization of happiness. Rather, I am for the minimization of suffering, and do not support the blighting of the individual, preference utilitarianism being another top priority to me.

As to your other points, yes, I get it. Not many live by ethics. But should we abandon them because others do. We work imperfectly with checks and balances in regulating professions. But we do work towards it. But I am not an apologist for the world, and do believe the life-system as it stands, with all it's inequalities and imperfections, makes for a greater argument for not bringing children into this existence, aside from meaninglessness. 

[Obvious Leo]

I don't quite see the connection between the absence of a belief in the supernatural and a personal existence which is therefore meaningless. Every choice we make in life stamps an indelible mark on the future, which must surely mean we are truly free beings who have the power to define the meaning of our own existence for ourselves in the way we determine our own little chunk of the future. I put this simple idea to a very close friend many years ago on the occasion when he had attempted to take his own life at a time of deep personal tragedy. It came across as a rather tired old cliche but we shouldn't forget that the reason why cliches become cliches is because they're true. We don't need a reason to kill ourselves. We need a reason NOT to.

[Dalek Prime]

Cliches aren't always true. They've just been accepted through mindless repetition as true.

As for meaning, yeah, feel free to make up any meaning you like, Leo. Doesn't make it any more authentic than anyone else's. Certainly don't expect me to accept it. It's just another opinion.

[Obvious Leo]

As for meaning, yeah, feel free to make up any meaning you like, Leo. Doesn't make it any more authentic than anyone else's. Certainly don't expect me to accept it. It's just another opinion.

Absolutely and 100% agreed. I'm not about to let any other p**** define the meaning of my own existence for me and I'm more than willing to return the privilege. It's your life so you sort it out, or not, as the case may be.