Amoralism

[CosmicJoghurt]

Hey.

As an amoralist, I've always felt like I was the only one... at least in my circle of friends/online communication-thingies.

I was wondering how many of you fellow LoRers are moral nihilists as well... if so/if not... what's your take on amoralism?

*lonely*

It's a view that I've seen nearly no one advocate on YT or blogs... Quite strange, I'd guess there'd be more of us.

Cheers!

 

[judomuerte]

I've always considered moral nihilism to be the default position. It's what we choose to be
acceptable/unacceptable that defines the society. There is nothing "inherently" good or bad,
just what we each decide to label it.
That being said, I always get aggravated when someone assumes that it means I am unable
to purposely choose an act as unacceptable, simply because I don't believe it "should" be so.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

I think it is inherently bad to kill all life on Earth. I go from there and improvise the rest on the way.

 

[televator]

I care about knowing whether or not if my actions are more likely to be socially beneficial or benign. So I'm not an amoralist.

 

[Prolescum]

As I'm sure you could guess, I am not an amoralist.

It's a view that I've seen nearly no one advocate on YT or blogs...

Probably because most people grow out of it fairly quickly.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

As I'm sure you could guess, I am not an amoralist.

It's a view that I've seen nearly no one advocate on YT or blogs...

Probably because most people grow out of it fairly quickly.

That's nice of you.

I guess when I turn 18 I'll grow up.

I think it is inherently bad to kill all life on Earth. I go from there and improvise the rest on the way.

And do you feel it's wrong, then?

 

[Welshidiot]

Because I despise idiotic labels and the need to parade them in public, I had up to this point been unaware of what moral nihilism is. Upon discovery of this information I have come to realise that I am a moral-nihilist.

The universe does not enforce morality. Morality is a code of conduct constructed and construed by "sentient" beings.

Morality has no objective reality, and only exists in the minds of sentient beings. So I'm an amoralist/moral-nihilist.

 

[Prolescum]

That's nice of you.

I guess when I turn 18 I'll grow up.

Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

That's nice of you.

I guess when I turn 18 I'll grow up.

Your guess is as good as mine.

I didn't know my guesses were so bold and naive. Shit, I should take a look at myself in the mirror.

Thanks for the contribution.

Peace :?

 

[Thomas Doubting]

I think it is inherently bad to kill all life on Earth. I go from there and improvise the rest on the way.

And do you feel it's wrong, then?

Yes, pretty much the worst you can do, even if i don't count myself in there, i'd starve pretty fast, get ultra bored even before that happens and uhm.. die at some point leaving an empty planet.
I can't imagine anything being "more wrong" than that.

 

[Dean]

Hey.

As an amoralist, I've always felt like I was the only one... at least in my circle of friends/online communication-thingies.

I was wondering how many of you fellow LoRers are moral nihilists as well... if so/if not... what's your take on amoralism?

*lonely*

It's a view that I've seen nearly no one advocate on YT or blogs... Quite strange, I'd guess there'd be more of us.

Cheers!

Moral standards, as "nihilistic" as it may sound (though I am NOT a nihilist) are just projections of our momentary irrational impulses. We can all, of course, pre-conceive a "moral" situation and then extract a moral reaction from it, but ultimately, like it or not, there's nothing remotely rational, let alone objective about it. The 'fact' is that "harm" in our minds "feels", "bad", and then there is some jargon, from which we extrapolate that reaction to say that it "IS" bad - as an objective fact. BUT: nevertheless, the fact remains that if you are starving and desperate enough, you'll harm whenever capable, to the point of killing in order to perpetuate your own life. Morality would be easy if our irrational motives were all harmonious. In fact; it wouldn't exist.

 

[Squawk]

To show something of human nature

I would, if pushed, have to say I am a moral nihilist. I contend that morals are entirely subjective. I will then argue that certain subjective viewpoints are superior to others, leading to a notion of good and bad.

I'll then dispute the label. The Universe doesn't give a shit. I do.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

To show something of human nature

I would, if pushed, have to say I am a moral nihilist. I contend that morals are entirely subjective. I will then argue that certain subjective viewpoints are superior to others, leading to a notion of good and bad.

I'll then dispute the label. The Universe doesn't give a shit. I do.

So you see morals as subjective, while being a moral nihilist? I don't follow - so you don't have your personal set of (subjective) morals but you understand that others have their own subjective morals?

I do agree that we can get a notion of good and bad - I'm pretty sure that me blowing myself up on a plane is (objectively) bad. I'm taking innocent lives away, causing suffering, leaving families behind, widows, orphans... Hardly, if any, positive points. I think we'd (probably) all agree that's objectively bad.

I wouldn't say it's wrong, though. :?

 

[Squawk]

No thats not what I'm saying. I equate moral nihilism with the position that there is no such thing as objective morality. That makes morality subjective, and one could argue that since morality is subjective all moral viewpoints are equal.

I don't hold that view, I hold that all moral outlooks are subjective, but that some are superior to others, and I obviously hold the view that my own is a superior moral outlook as I wouldn't hold it if I saw it any other way.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

No thats not what I'm saying. I equate moral nihilism with the position that there is no such thing as objective morality. That makes morality subjective, and one could argue that since morality is subjective all moral viewpoints are equal.

I don't hold that view, I hold that all moral outlooks are subjective, but that some are superior to others, and I obviously hold the view that my own is a superior moral outlook as I wouldn't hold it if I saw it any other way.

Wouldn't that be a form of moral relativism?

My take at nihilism is that I hold no moral values, objective nor subjective. Neither do I think that others' moral rules are valid (quite arrogant when I think about it). I simply reject any notion of morality and claim it doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

No thats not what I'm saying. I equate moral nihilism with the position that there is no such thing as objective morality. That makes morality subjective, and one could argue that since morality is subjective all moral viewpoints are equal.

I don't hold that view, I hold that all moral outlooks are subjective, but that some are superior to others, and I obviously hold the view that my own is a superior moral outlook as I wouldn't hold it if I saw it any other way.

Wouldn't that be a form of moral relativism?

My take at nihilism is that I hold no moral values, objective nor subjective. Neither do I think that others' moral rules are valid (quite arrogant when I think about it). I simply reject any notion of morality and claim it doesn't make any sense to me.

Arrogant maybe.. i don't care. As long as you don't go around killing people and raping them and stealing etc because you don't see anything wrong about it, you can think whatever you want.
However.. i do have a small question.. If i do something bad, it automatically means (for me) that it was wrong to do it.. otherwise it would have been irrelevant or good to do it.
You say you realize that some things are "bad" but you don't see them as wrong?
That doesn't make much sense to me. Care to elaborate?

 

[Squawk]

Yeah, same as the above, I don't see how you can define bad or good. Beneficial or harmful maybe, but that's not the same. I suppose I do subscribe to something akin to moral relativism yeah.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Arrogant maybe.. i don't care. As long as you don't go around killing people and raping them and stealing etc because you don't see anything wrong about it, you can think whatever you want.
However.. i do have a small question.. If i do something bad, it automatically means (for me) that it was wrong to do it.. otherwise it would have been irrelevant or good to do it.
You say you realize that some things are "bad" but you don't see them as wrong?
That doesn't make much sense to me. Care to elaborate?

There's some confusion regarding what I mean by bad or good. By good/bad I mean objectively harmful, having an overall negative effect, from an objective point of view. I don't see anything as wrong because I really don't care. I don't see any objectively intrinsic value in anything - that "anything" includes human lives, human suffering, human loss, any negative effects on anything, anywhere
The same applies to 'good'. Helping an old lady crossing the road is good. But I don't see any reason to give a shit :?

The only half-plausible view (IMHO) is subjective morality. I won't get into that unless you ask me to (nicely), but basically, I don't see anything subjective as objectively meaningful (most bloody obviously - subjective != objective). For me, what follows is discarding subjective morality as anything meaningful.

if that makes sense..?

 

[Case]

There's an interesting paper on morals written by Claus Wedekind. Could have been Wedekind & Milinski (2000) or dos Santos, Rankin & Wedekind (2011)... got both in my notes, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now. Anyway, what intrigued me about his lecture was that he defined "moral system" as:

A set of rules translating behaviour into reputation.

and accordingly, he defined "moral good" as

Behaviour aimed at increasing reputation under a given moral system.

Very interesting stuff to think about.

 

[Squawk]

There's an interesting paper on morals written by Claus Wedekind. Could have been Wedekind & Milinski (2000)... that's what it says in my notes, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now. Anyway, what intrigued me about his lecture was that he defined "moral system" as:

A set of rules translating behaviour into reputation.

and accordingly, he defined "moral good" as

Behaviour aimed at increasing reputation under a given moral system.

Very interesting stuff to think about.

Now that I like. It does expose the elephant in the room, however, in that you're still stuck with the collective ideas of the masses as to what constitutes moral behaviour.