nihilism

[Iwannaplato]

I asked my friend this question recently and got the following imaginative response: “Well, one would need an external being capable of empathizing with every single human being”. I then responded with: “Ok let’s suppose this external being came down to earth and proclaimed that morality is rape: “Thou shalt rape”. Would you then believe that it would be moral to rape?” He then responded: “Well, in that case I wouldn’t rape myself, but I would believe that it was moral”.

First of all, given the human condition as it is “in reality”, what is crucial here is that for the preponderance of us, simply believing something is true about things like rape is what makes it true. I merely suggest instead however that value judgments here are derived from dasein historically, culturally and in regards to our individual experiences.

On the other hand, with God and religion, it gets trickier. Here “leaps of faith” prevail. You believe what you do about rape because you believe that what God believes about rape is what all mere mortals are – in a Kantian sense? – morally obligated to embody.

Then many are taught that, "though we fail to grasp so much about the world we live in, our loving, just and merciful God, despite how mysterious His “ways” might appear to us, is there to provide us with the immortality and the salvation that we need to render oblivion and Hell the place where “one of them” go.

Those are all interesting lines, but they don't respond to or interact with what Jon Sochaux was getting at. Many people, perhaps you included, will say that sans God it seems we don't have easy access or perhaps any access to an objective morality. What he's pointing out is that
avec God we still have that problem.

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Jon Sochaux

Many of us have this intuition that morality ought to be something ultimate, and given that human beings can disagree, a moral “command” can never be ultimate.

Right. On the other hand, how many of these folks...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy
...might beg to differ?

Then the part where the discussions get around to "intuition". But: What on earth is that exactly? For some it seems to be the equivalent of the soul. This "thing" embedded deep down inside them -- the Real Me? -- that "somehow" just comes to grasp what is rational and what is irrational, what is moral and what is immoral.

Whereas from my own frame of mind it is no less the embodiment of dasein. That's why in regard to any number of moral conflagrations, you will find those at both ends of the political/ideological spectrum claiming to "just know" that they are right.

Thus, since ultimate moral commands are impossible, (because there is no God etc.) then morality does not really exist.

Come on, morality has always existed in human communities. Though it might have been called other things. After all, how can a cummunity sustain itself unless there are rules of behavior? It's just that, as Marx reminded us, these rules are embedded in the historical evolution of political economy. And, once the human species advanced to the point where "surplus labor" allowed for the existence of philosophers, "morality" as encompassed here -- viewforum.php?f=8&sid=cb561b9e69f24b2b31d6ae0ef9d8dc8d -- was born.

What I have showed thus far is that an external being, be it a God or a certain “moral-being”, is not worth wanting, since we would do whatever we deem moral despite their commands.

Actually, it would seem to shift in both directions. If you want moral commandments, immortality and salvation, how can a God, the God, my God not be worth wanting? And, lets face it, millions upon millions of mere mortals do what they do precisely because, one way or another, their morality is entirely in sync with one or another God or religious path.

[iambiguous]

I asked my friend this question recently and got the following imaginative response: “Well, one would need an external being capable of empathizing with every single human being”. I then responded with: “Ok let’s suppose this external being came down to earth and proclaimed that morality is rape: “Thou shalt rape”. Would you then believe that it would be moral to rape?” He then responded: “Well, in that case I wouldn’t rape myself, but I would believe that it was moral”.

First of all, given the human condition as it is “in reality”, what is crucial here is that for the preponderance of us, simply believing something is true about things like rape is what makes it true. I merely suggest instead however that value judgments here are derived from dasein historically, culturally and in regards to our individual experiences.

On the other hand, with God and religion, it gets trickier. Here “leaps of faith” prevail. You believe what you do about rape because you believe that what God believes about rape is what all mere mortals are – in a Kantian sense? – morally obligated to embody.

Then many are taught that, "though we fail to grasp so much about the world we live in, our loving, just and merciful God, despite how mysterious His 'ways' might appear to us, is there to provide us with the immortality and the salvation that we need to render oblivion and Hell the place where 'one of them' go."

Those are all interesting lines, but they don't respond to or interact with what Jon Sochaux was getting at. Many people, perhaps you included, will say that sans God it seems we don't have easy access or perhaps any access to an objective morality. What he's pointing out is that avec God we still have that problem.

That may or may not be an insightful reaction to my lines regarding my own reaction to his lines. On the other hand, your reaction to my lines may or may not be any more or any less insightful.

But that's my point.

There are points about some things that are insightful because -- click -- they do in fact reflect what is objectively true for all of us. Here, for example, the inherent biological connection between human sexuality and rape. Which can then result in pregnancy which may then result in an abortion.

However, my own "rooted existentially in dasein" "here and now" "personal opinion" is that in a No God world, these facts are understood from conflicting points of view. From conflicting moral perspectives.

Yes, sans God, there may be an objective -- imperative -- philosophical or scientific assessment of rape as a moral issue. If so, link me to it.

Again, I want to believe that right and wrong are in fact the real deal in regard to all human social, political and economic interactions. I want to believe that a virtuous life here entails immortality and salvation there.

As for behaviors like rape all "I" can do is to note again:

[Rape] comes closest to upending my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind. People tap me on the shoulder and ask "can you seriously believe that [rape] is not inherently, necessarily immoral?"

And, sure, the part of me that would never, could never imagine my own participation in things of this sort has a hard time accepting that, yes, in a No God world they are still behaviors able to be rationalized by others as either moral or, for the sociopaths, justified given their belief that everything revolves around their own "me, myself and I" self-gratification.

As for acting out what we believe, my emphasis here is always on how existentially we come to acquire particular beliefs about human sexuality and act on them precisely because that is what we have come to believe about them. For any number of men and women what they are taught to believe as children can in and of itself become the equivalent of God's Will.

Indeed, what if the deontologists in a No God had been able to concoct the most rational and ethical moral philosophy in regard to human sexuality. Would we not [by now] have encountered any number of folks noting, "my family and my community and my culture taught me things about sex it turns out were completely wrong!"

So, sure, for those here who believe that what they do believe about human sexuality reflects the objective truth, let them note a behavior -- masturbation, homosexuality, transgenders, orgies, rape, S/M, oral, anal -- and let us know what in fact is okay and what is not okay...deontologically.

[Iwannaplato]

That may or may not be an insightful reaction to my lines regarding my own reaction to his lines. On the other hand, your reaction to my lines may or may not be any more or any less insightful.

Yes, and what one can do is then refer back to the text in question and explain why one had the interpretation one had.

But that's my point.

There are points about some things that are insightful because -- click -- they do in fact reflect what is objectively true for all of us. Here, for example, the inherent biological connection between human sexuality and rape. Which can then result in pregnancy which may then result in an abortion.

However, my own "rooted existentially in dasein" "here and now" "personal opinion" is that in a No God world, these facts are understood from conflicting points of view. From conflicting moral perspectives.

Yes, sans God, there may be an objective -- imperative -- philosophical or scientific assessment of rape as a moral issue. If so, link me to it.

But, again, neither he nor I are saying that sans God there is a way to do this. As I said, he is saying that avec God we still have the same problem.

Here's the quote I quoted from him in your earlier post:

I asked my friend this question recently and got the following imaginative response: “Well, one would need an external being capable of empathizing with every single human being”. I then responded with: “Ok let’s suppose this external being came down to earth and proclaimed that morality is rape: “Thou shalt rape”. Would you then believe that it would be moral to rape?” He then responded: “Well, in that case I wouldn’t rape myself, but I would believe that it was moral”.

Notice that he is talking about an avec God situation'.

He is not talking about a sans God situation where he has shown there is a way to arrive at objective moral truths. He is describing an avec God situation, and trying to get the other person to realize that there is still, as you would put it, a situation with conflicting goods. Either we align with this deity or we don't.

Yes, some religious people, will then just think OK, God said it, so it's good. But his argument is that 1) in actual fact many will still have a dilemma given they are in moral conflict with such a deity. They still won't want to rape. 2) it can't be simply that God's morality aligns with our moralities or we wouldn't need a deity. It's not really resolving anything.

So, again, he is not saying, at least in what you've quoted, that sans God we have objective moral goods we can demonstrate to everyone. He is saying that avec God we have the same problems.

You can look through what he wrote that you quoted
viewtopic.php?p=724625#p724625
and see if your model fits better or if my model of what he is saying fits better.

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Jon Sochaux

An ultimate moral command is a moral command which cannot be questioned. If it could be questioned, and thus explained, it would not be ultimate.

On the contrary, some suggest, a moral command exists for most simply because they believe it is a moral command. From the Bible or from the Party or from the Committee or from the People. They leave all that "questioning about what is ultimate" stuff to the ecclesiastics.

For instance, if I say “You must not hurt puppies”, then if you ask: “Why” and I respond: “Because hurting puppies causes suffering”, then the first assertion is hypothetical, as in: “If hurting puppies causes suffering, then you must not hurt puppies”. In other words, the moral suggestion is based on the idea of none suffering which could be based on another idea etc.

Perhaps. But how are we not always faced with anchoring the idea in the often far, far more complex reality of actual human interactions? And then in a No God world the fact that even if philosophers could establish that hurting puppies is wrong deontologically, you still have to get caught doing it. After all, one of the reasons we invent Gods is to create Divine Justice. With most Gods, there is no question of being caught. And thus no doubt at all about being punished.

The idea that this line of moral reasoning has to stop at some point, is the intuition behind the ultimate command.

Again, for all practical purposes, given this particular context, what on Earth does that convey? The idea that hurting puppies is wrong is one thing, a demonstrable proof that it is inherently/necessarily wrong [in a No God world] to hurt them...?

Tell that to the sociopaths.

[Iwannaplato]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Jon Sochaux

An ultimate moral command is a moral command which cannot be questioned. If it could be questioned, and thus explained, it would not be ultimate.

On the contrary, some suggest, a moral command exists for most simply because they believe it is a moral command. From the Bible or from the Party or from the Committee or from the People. They leave all that "questioning about what is ultimate" stuff to the ecclesiastics.

For instance, if I say “You must not hurt puppies”, then if you ask: “Why” and I respond: “Because hurting puppies causes suffering”, then the first assertion is hypothetical, as in: “If hurting puppies causes suffering, then you must not hurt puppies”. In other words, the moral suggestion is based on the idea of none suffering which could be based on another idea etc.

Perhaps. But how are we not always faced with anchoring the idea in the often far, far more complex reality of actual human interactions? And then in a No God world the fact that even if philosophers could establish that hurting puppies is wrong deontologically, you still have to get caught doing it. After all, one of the reasons we invent Gods is to create Divine Justice. With most Gods, there is no question of being caught. And thus no doubt at all about being punished.

The idea that this line of moral reasoning has to stop at some point, is the intuition behind the ultimate command.

Again, for all practical purposes, given this particular context, what on Earth does that convey? The idea that hurting puppies is wrong is one thing, a demonstrable proof that it is inherently/necessarily wrong [in a No God world] to hurt them...?

Tell that to the sociopaths.

I think you are, again, misunderstanding his point. But let me then ask you. It seems like you see a difference between the situation sans God and the situation where we have a God. He is specifically saying you still have the same issue. So, why do you think the problem of knowing what is moral disappears if there is a God?

If you can justify that position, I can then apply his reasoning for why the situation is not suddenly free from conflict or really any different.

There are a number of possibilities here:
with God can have an objective morality but without God we can't (likewise with God we can reconcile conflicts over moral goods, but not without)
Or
We can resolves both those issues with either avec eller sans God
Or
We can resolve both those issues with either.
Or
We resolve them without God, but not with God

To me he is arguing that there is no difference, in the end, between the sans and avec God scenarios, and it seems he thinks there is a confusions about morality itself in those who think the existence of a diety resolves conflicting goods and settles all the issue.

(as an aside, that last possibility might seem the least likely, but I do think a case could be made that at least some deities nearly eliminate the possibility of morality. A deity that will torture for eternity you don't follow the rules is not enhancing morality, unless morality is purely behavior. But purely behavior is not morality, it's, well, bahvior. OH, what a good person he was; he jumped out of the way of that bus. Or, some guy wants to rape, misses it, hates women, but doesn't rape to avoid hell. To me that's not morality either. I mean, that's a good outcome, don't get me wrong, at least from my preferences. However practical, obedience to power doesn't sound like anything other than practical behavior. I'm don't think that's what morality is, though that's my take of course. It just seems parsimonious to call it a practical response to power. We wouldn't look at it, in general, as moral behavior when its done in relation to menacing despots on earth, so why in relation to heaven.

Of course there is a wide range of dieties, and we can look at how a few different kinds of deities might allow for morality or not, or, possibly allow for the ultimate elmination of conflicting goods, or not.

[puto]

The nihilism is happening right now. This whole message board is nihilism at work. It does bring up good questions that need to be answered. As Nietzsche wrote, "Nihilism is no cause but merely the result of decadence" (Haussmann, "The Will to Power," Everlasting Flames Publishing, Kindle Edition.) "Nihilism stands at the door" (Haussmann.) There is no faith in man, in accordance with Nietzsche (Haussmann.)

[promethean75]

"This whole message board is nihilism at work. Nihilism stands at the door"

Prom75 and his crew logging on to PN...

https://youtu.be/_ah49wXbUh4

[Iwannaplato]

So for the nihilists here:
If we look at Nietsche's schema with Passive vs. Active nihilists, which category fits you best, the passive or the active:

Recognizing a Contemporary Passive Nihilist

Apathy and Lack of Motivation: A passive nihilist might frequently express that "nothing really matters" and show little interest in pursuing goals, ambitions, or personal growth. They may avoid taking initiative in their personal or professional life, feeling that all efforts are ultimately meaningless.

Escapism and Distraction: They may spend excessive time on passive forms of entertainment, like binge-watching TV shows, playing video games for long hours without purpose, or scrolling endlessly through social media. These activities provide temporary escape from their lack of purpose but do not lead to fulfillment.

Cynicism and Detachment: This person might exhibit a consistently cynical attitude, dismissing other people's goals, dreams, or beliefs as naive or pointless. They might be detached in social settings, avoiding deep or meaningful conversations, and often resort to irony or sarcasm as a defense mechanism.

Resistance to Change or Growth: Passive nihilists might resist change or new experiences, feeling there is no point in trying something new or stepping out of their comfort zone. They may show little interest in self-improvement or personal development.

Minimalist Ambitions: They may adopt a minimalist approach to life not out of conscious choice or philosophy, but out of a lack of motivation to strive for anything more. Their main concern may be just getting by or surviving rather than thriving.

Recognizing a Contemporary Active Nihilist

Embraces the Absence of Meaning as Freedom:An active nihilist does not despair over the absence of inherent meaning; instead, they see it as liberating. With no predetermined purpose or objective truth to guide them, they are free to create their own values and live according to them.
Example: This person might take bold, unconventional paths in life, such as pursuing a career in a field they are passionate about, even if it defies societal norms or expectations. They see the freedom to shape their own existence as a form of empowerment.

Willingness to Challenge and Overcome Existing Values:Rather than passively accepting the status quo or existing moralities, the active nihilist critically examines and often rejects traditional values that no longer serve a meaningful purpose. They are willing to deconstruct established beliefs and norms to make room for new ones.
Example: They might engage in philosophical inquiry, activism, or art that challenges conventional thinking, questioning why things are the way they are and proposing new, alternative ways of understanding or living.

Affirmation of Life, Including Its Suffering and Struggle:An active nihilist fully embraces life in all its complexity, including suffering, struggle, and chaos. They see these aspects not as something to be avoided but as essential elements of growth and self-overcoming.
Example: They may actively seek out difficult challenges or adventures—such as climbing mountains, starting a risky business, or delving into personal trauma—believing that true strength and meaning come from confronting and overcoming these hardships.

Creation of Personal Meaning and Values:This type of nihilist understands that meaning is not given but created. They take responsibility for constructing their own purpose, values, and goals, often through acts of will, creativity, or passion.
Example: An active nihilist might dedicate themselves to an artistic or intellectual pursuit, not because they believe it has universal significance, but because they find it personally fulfilling and an expression of their own will to power.

Embodiment of the "Will to Power":Nietzsche's concept of the "Will to Power" involves a fundamental drive to assert, expand, and enhance one's capacities and existence. The active nihilist embodies this by constantly striving to push beyond their limits, not just physically or materially, but intellectually and spiritually as well.
Example: Such a person might frequently reinvent themselves, learning new skills, developing new philosophies, or embarking on transformative experiences. They do not remain static but are always in a state of becoming, continually evolving and transcending their former selves.

Embraces Creativity and Innovation:Active nihilists are often creative and innovative, viewing the absence of universal truths as an open field for new ideas, art forms, and modes of living. They thrive in ambiguity and see it as a canvas for their imagination.
Example: They might be artists, writers, inventors, or entrepreneurs who are constantly exploring new concepts or expressing themselves in ways that defy tradition. Their work often reflects a sense of playfulness with meaning, paradox, and contradiction.

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Jon Sochaux

An ultimate moral command is a moral command which cannot be questioned. If it could be questioned, and thus explained, it would not be ultimate.

On the contrary, some suggest, a moral command exists for most simply because they believe it is a moral command. From the Bible or from the Party or from the Committee or from the People. They leave all that "questioning about what is ultimate" stuff to the ecclesiastics.

For instance, if I say “You must not hurt puppies”, then if you ask: “Why” and I respond: “Because hurting puppies causes suffering”, then the first assertion is hypothetical, as in: “If hurting puppies causes suffering, then you must not hurt puppies”. In other words, the moral suggestion is based on the idea of none suffering which could be based on another idea etc.

Perhaps. But how are we not always faced with anchoring the idea in the often far, far more complex reality of actual human interactions? And then in a No God world the fact that even if philosophers could establish that hurting puppies is wrong deontologically, you still have to get caught doing it. After all, one of the reasons we invent Gods is to create Divine Justice. With most Gods, there is no question of being caught. And thus no doubt at all about being punished.

The idea that this line of moral reasoning has to stop at some point, is the intuition behind the ultimate command.

Again, for all practical purposes, given this particular context, what on Earth does that convey? The idea that hurting puppies is wrong is one thing, a demonstrable proof that it is inherently/necessarily wrong [in a No God world] to hurt them...?

Tell that to the sociopaths.

I think you are, again, misunderstanding his point.

Yes, that's certainly a possibility. In fact, let's assume that I am misconstruing his point. In that case, will those here who believe they do understand it, please make an attempt to note how his point is applicable to conflicting goods in a No God world. Or how it is applicable to their own interactions with those who reject their moral philosophy.

But let me then ask you. It seems like you see a difference between the situation sans God and the situation where we have a God. He is specifically saying you still have the same issue. So, why do you think the problem of knowing what is moral disappears if there is a God?

If you can justify that position, I can then apply his reasoning for why the situation is not suddenly free from conflict or really any different.

And, indeed, he may be making a reasonable inference here that I keep missing.

All I can do then is to note once again what I believe is that "rooted existentially in dasein" distinction I make between morality and meaning in a God World and in a No God world.

With most Gods you get omniscience. And who can possibly grasp morality and meaning better than someone who allegedly knows everything? And with most Gods you get omnipotence. In other words, even if you reject God's own assessment of conflicting goods and behave instead according to what you yourself have come to believe is the right thing to do, let's see how that all plays out on...Judgment Day?

As for justifying any opinions regarding human moral, political and spiritual interactions, I'm still the one here who is "fractured and fragmented". In fact, that's what I keep trying to figure out about you: where in regard to moral and political conflagrations that pop up every day "in the news", do you situate yourself...given 1] a "my way or the highway" mentality on one end or 2] an "everything can be rationalized in a No God" world on the other end.

The author might insist that even in a God world, it is not necessarily the case that God and Goodness are the same thing, but if this God is omniscient and omnipotent, good luck [and you'll need it, I suspect] when it comes down to actually challenging Him.

There are a number of possibilities here:
with God can have an objective morality but without God we can't (likewise with God we can reconcile conflicts over moral goods, but not without)

Three theoretical possibilities? At least until one or another God reveals Himself and finally illustrates the text? For example, Jesus Christ returns and most are "left behind".

If that were to occur and the difference between ending up in Heaven or Hell or Purgatory revolved around accepting value judgments as God prescribes them, I won't hesitate myself. And, sure, some here might insist they would defy God if He actually advocated something that they believed was appalling and despicable behavior. Theoretically, here, in other words. But I suspect that most [as they toss and turn on their death bed] will come around to the Biblical narrative that God Scripted for them.

Provided of course that one of these Gods has plans to make it all official. In, say, our lifetimes?

Or
We can resolves both those issues with either avec eller sans God
Or
We can resolve both those issues with either.
Or
We resolve them without God, but not with God

To me he is arguing that there is no difference, in the end, between the sans and avec God scenarios, and it seems he thinks there is a confusions about morality itself in those who think the existence of a diety resolves conflicting goods and settles all the issue.

Resolve what in particular? All of these scenarios are, to me and to others of my ilk, just more of the same purely speculative conjectures about things we have no capacity whatsoever to resolve "in reality" at all. And that certainly includes my own.

As for this...

(as an aside, that last possibility might seem the least likely, but I do think a case could be made that at least some deities nearly eliminate the possibility of morality. A deity that will torture for eternity you don't follow the rules is not enhancing morality, unless morality is purely behavior. But purely behavior is not morality, it's, well, bahvior. OH, what a good person he was; he jumped out of the way of that bus. Or, some guy wants to rape, misses it, hates women, but doesn't rape to avoid hell. To me that's not morality either. I mean, that's a good outcome, don't get me wrong, at least from my preferences. However practical, obedience to power doesn't sound like anything other than practical behavior. I'm don't think that's what morality is, though that's my take of course. It just seems parsimonious to call it a practical response to power. We wouldn't look at it, in general, as moral behavior when its done in relation to menacing despots on earth, so why in relation to heaven.

...it's just another mere mortal making his own set of assumptions about God. Like mine.

Then [of course] those able to fall back on "god works in mysterious ways". In other words, no matter how ghastly the next "act of God" might be, it does not make Him any less loving, just and merciful.

Of course there is a wide range of dieties, and we can look at how a few different kinds of deities might allow for morality or not, or, possibly allow for the ultimate elmination of conflicting goods, or not.

You can take it there if you wish, but I'm sticking with the assumption that "leaps of faith" are no less profoundly problematic embodiments of "whatever works" to comfort and console you in a world where few are not craving precisely that over and over again.

[Iwannaplato]

But let me then ask you. It seems like you see a difference between the situation sans God and the situation where we have a God. He is specifically saying you still have the same issue. So, why do you think the problem of knowing what is moral disappears if there is a God?

If you can justify that position, I can then apply his reasoning for why the situation is not suddenly free from conflict or really any different.

All I can do then is to note once again what I believe is that "rooted existentially in dasein" distinction I make between morality and meaning in a God World and in a No God world.

Great, appreciate it.

With most Gods you get omniscience. And who can possibly grasp morality and meaning better than someone who allegedly knows everything? And with most Gods you get omnipotence. In other words, even if you reject God's own assessment of conflicting goods and behave instead according to what you yourself have come to believe is the right thing to do, let's see how that all plays out on...Judgment Day?

So, one difference between your way of looking at the situatin is he is actually looking at what happens, on the ground, if we have a diety. You find proof there is a deity and the diety says rape is good and you need to get out and rape. Are you now in a world, for you, where the condlicting goods is eliminated on that issue?

For some people,this command is fine. They already like rape. But then, the commandment simply approves of their already present attitude.

For you and me, we have a problem. We have conflicting goods. I think rape is bad and on a visceral level. God sees it otherwise. Do I simply go along, in Eichman style: "I was just following orders."
and
"I was a mere instrument in the hands of stronger forces and stronger wills, and I was not a responsible leader."

Must one assume that a diety is correct morally? Why?
Must we override our very nature - which the diety presumably gave us? Why?

His point is that the avec God situation either confirms your already existing morals OR puts you in a situation with conflicting goods. That's oversimplification on his part. You hear that the deity says do X. You could then mull over X. Have I been mistaken? Is rape actually good? So it is possible that some people would at that point come over to God's side on the issue. Though I would guess many would simply be suppressed their own morality because of the power difference, especially if eternal damnation is part of the afterlife ontology.

So, you have the same morality, well, no difference between avec and sans God. You think rape is good.
So, you have a different morality, well, you still have conflicting goods. If there is a threat involved, as in certain Christian and Islamic models, well have we eliminate conflicting goods
or have we simply presented such an incredible threat that we go along with power
not for moral reasons
but out of fear.

I question whether this last is actually a resolution of conflicting goods. It seems to me it is not a conviction on morals, but a pragmatic response to a horrible choice.

So, you focused on the deity. The deity is more likely to know what is good, given its incredible omni-characteristics.
The author is looking at it from the perspective of the individual. Yes, the individual could think that. Jeez, God oughta know. But, the individual is their either already on that deities side - so, cool a confirmation - or disagrees. He is using rape, or at least I am, to show that really we are still at square 1, despite the omni characteristics.
1) because the very nature we got from God - in most models of God/human relations - and we have conflicting goods
but more relevantly
2) because we are most likely not going to suddenly or even in the long run find rape morally good. (though we may go along for pragmatic not moral reasons).
3) the demiiurge issue: a) how would we know this is actually the final God. Perhaps it is a demiurge and the ultimate big Kahuna deity does not want us to follow the demiurge's confused morality. b) how do we know God is Good? What if we cannot view rape as good? what then?

And given that you mention fractured and fragmented regularly: wouldn't almost any decree and set of commandments from an allpowerful deity, especially if they were one who uses eternal punishiments leave you fractured and fragments, but simply, perhaps in a new, and very scary way? It certainly would me. For me the fragmentation would be worse, at least with the Abrahamic deities? Unless I was incredbily lucky and all the commandments and idea of what is good and bad fit me really well, I would now be fractured between what I feel in my gut is moral and what I need to do to avoid being tortured for all time.

And by the way, to be clear: I understand how it might seem and seem obvoius that avec God solves conflicting goods, but I think in general he is right: it is either unnecessary (for those already aligned with God's perfect morality or just creating new problems for those who are not aligned. It doesn't really resolve anything.

Further one might well be Eichmanns. Hitler has more advisors than I do. He is the leader. He has more information. Perhaps the Jews are really causing horrific problems and he, with his greater knowledge and access can see this. In any case, who I am to contradict the leader. I have a clear role, and heck I don't want to go to prison or be shot, so......that aint morality. Note I am not saying Eichman was bad, here. My focus is on the moral problem one has even avec God.

You approached the issue using deduction and an outside perspective.
He is approaching the issue in situ. What actually happens, here on the ground, when I get the message?

[iambiguous]

With most Gods you get omniscience. And who can possibly grasp morality and meaning better than someone who allegedly knows everything? And with most Gods you get omnipotence. In other words, even if you reject God's own assessment of conflicting goods and behave instead according to what you yourself have come to believe is the right thing to do, let's see how that all plays out on...Judgment Day?

So, one difference between your way of looking at the situatin is he is actually looking at what happens, on the ground, if we have a diety. You find proof there is a deity and the diety says rape is good and you need to get out and rape. Are you now in a world, for you, where the condlicting goods is eliminated on that issue?

If some day there actually is a God who chooses to reveal Himself to us, and He makes it abundantly clear that He is both omniscient and omnipotent, sure, there may be any number of moral commandments we might have to shift our thinking about. If, for example, we wanted to attain immorality and salvation.

Now, admittedly, it is hard to imagine a "loving, just and merciful" God sanctioning rape. On the other hand, look at all of the things He did sanction in the Old Testament.

Besides, once you invoke those "mysterious ways", what can't be attributed to God?

Or suppose God turns out to be but one more creepy misogynist...just one more sexist pig in a universe that seems to be full of them. In other words, what if, in order to gain access to immortality and salvation, you were obligated to rape?

Rape...or oblivion? Meanwhile, in the interim, any number of followers of this God might assure us that there must be a Divine reason why God would permit this. We just can't grasp it as mere mortals. Like trying to figure out why this God would slay millions of unborn babies year in and year out re either still births or miscarriages. Then all those "acts of God" that cripple or end the lives of millions decade after decade after decade.

For some people, this command is fine. They already like rape. But then, the commandment simply approves of their already present attitude.

In fact, there are any number of men who will rationalize rape as but a manifestation of biological imperatives that propel gender relationships "naturally".

For you and me, we have a problem. We have conflicting goods. I think rape is bad and on a visceral level. God sees it otherwise. Do I simply go along, in Eichman style: "I was just following orders."
and
"I was a mere instrument in the hands of stronger forces and stronger wills, and I was not a responsible leader."

Down through the ages we can note any number of populations that were commanded [by the powers that be] to pursue behaviors that any number of us might find morally appalling. Cultural and historical biases. Yet many of these behaviors continue today and remain embedded in conflicting goods that go all the way back to...to when exactly?

Must one assume that a diety is correct morally? Why?

Must children be brainwashed around the globe to assume exactly that? Or perhaps the assumptions revolve instead around one or another political ideology or school of philosophy.

Must we override our very nature - which the diety presumably gave us? Why?

Our very nature? And what might that be? Start here -- https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora -- say?

His point is that the avec God situation either confirms your already existing morals OR puts you in a situation with conflicting goods. That's oversimplification on his part. You hear that the deity says do X. You could then mull over X. Have I been mistaken? Is rape actually good? So it is possible that some people would at that point come over to God's side on the issue. Though I would guess many would simply be suppressed their own morality because of the power difference, especially if eternal damnation is part of the afterlife ontology.

What can I say? In the end, if comes down to whether or not a God, the God does exist. And if he does, what does He believe about rape or abortion or genocide?

And if it is not in sync with what existentially you have come to believe...? Do you confront God...dare Him to send you to Hell?

I question whether this last is actually a resolution of conflicting goods. It seems to me it is not a conviction on morals, but a pragmatic response to a horrible choice.

Again, for any number of these folks -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- there are no conflicting goods. There's what God has Scripted [for most of them] and there's not wanting to tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion, or tumbling all the way down into one or another rendition of Hell itself.

So, you focused on the deity. The deity is more likely to know what is good, given its incredible omni-characteristics.

What is there about omniscience that you don't understand? If God does in fact embody an all-knowing perspective about, well, everything, why should rape be any different?

And given that you mention fractured and fragmented regularly: wouldn't almost any decree and set of commandments from an allpowerful deity, especially if they were one who uses eternal punishiments leave you fractured and fragments, but simply, perhaps in a new, and very scary way?

What leaves me "fractured and fragmented" is the assumption that in a No God world, mere moratls have no access to objective morality. No access to immortality. No access to paradise.

Again, unless one of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...can demonstrate to me why, if I wish to be thought as rational and virtuous human being their own path really is the one true path.

[iambiguous]

How do I refute nihilism?
from the Quora site.
Mitchell Greig

Spoiler Alert: I don't have the answer.

Bigger Spoiler Alert: If there was one answer then there would be no nihilism.

Instead, we live in a world where hundreds and hundreds of various objectivists -- God/No God -- insist they have already found an Answer. And that it's their own answer shouldn't surprise us. And I'm certainly not here to suggest that my own assessment is anything other than but one more "educated guess" given all the variables involved.

Most of the answers given make some sense, and are the kind of answers you will find often to this question. Especially the part about making your own meaning.

That's what we bombard others here with post after post after post. Our Meaning. Our Morality. Our Answer.

Here is the problem: that meaning you make can be anything, and there is no way to value one meaning higher than another. You can "justify" any opinion or action whether it's volunteering at a soup kitchen or genocide.

Taking us -- taking me -- back around to this: "in the absence of God, all things are permitted." At least until philosophers or scientists are able to provide us with moral commandments able to be demonstrated as the next best thing to God. If only on this side of the grave.

Because of that, there are three types of options: Embrace what you "instinctively" feel, embrace something that is relatively socially acceptable, or go against both.

Which, I suspect, explains in part people's reactions to me. Any options available become increasingly more problematic the more fractured and fragmented you feel. The objectivists will squabble over who is "one of us" or "one of them". But I come along and argue there may well be no way in which to differentiate right from wrong behaviors in a No God universe. That, however, many sustain moral philosophies derived from lives awash in contingency, chance and change, in lives that evolve out of uniquely personal experiences awash, in turn, in variables they did not either fully grasp or control...doesn't surprise me.

What you feel instinctively probably doesn't feel like it's working, or you wouldn't be here. You instinctively feel that rationality needs to be given priority, hence you end up at complete meaninglessness. The other options feel difficult to weigh because they don't come natural to you and inherently have no weight, and then you are still stuck.

Instinctive morality? That's just we need, right? Only some instincts are more equal than others. Those, for example, that are anchored to one or another religious or ideological or deontological dogma among those who actually have the political and economic power to enforce it.

[Gary Childress]

If a person is a nihilist, does that mean they don't believe in "nihilism" either? How does one believe in "nothing"?

[Iwannaplato]

If a person is a nihilist, does that mean they don't believe in "nihilism" either? How does one believe in "nothing"?

There's nihilism about values (morals, aesthetics). Then there's nihilism about knowledge also. I think mostly the thread has been dealing with the former. If you are the complete nihilist there's no much point to a philosophy forum. You can't really make arguments or justify your position or lack of one or you are being a hypocrite. I suppose hte complete nihilist could just enjoy trying to destroy other people's beliefs, and so use arguments that the nihilist himself (probably will be a he) doesn't believe. They are just tools of destruction.

Iif you actully meet a complete nihilism they are likely to have at least many implicit beliefs - which they avoid asserting - but are present in their defense or attacks.

The value based nihilists often draw a distinciton between facts (perhaps thinking of science) and values. We can know the former but not the latter. That can raise some problematic issues also.