In an objectively nihilistic universe, rape wouldn't even be possible.

Because rape (as we understand it) matters, and if nothing matters, then rape can't exist.

Rape is sexual acts done on a partner who does not consent. That description exists independent of whether or not it is bad or good, yeah it's bad, but that's not what rape means.

You don't even understand the definition of rape properly, how can I expect you to be able to know the nature of your own little emotional fits you call reasons.

If rape didn't matter, you wouldn't have tried to use it as some kind of smear tactic against me, you petty cunt.

That's how little you know about objectivity.

It's almost as if I'm free to have a personal assessment of morality and worth that is independent of my ability to recognize nihilism. But you wouldn't know that, since you demonstrate a complete inability to distinguish subjectivity and personal belief from objectivity and empiricism.


edit: just realized the problem with saying empiricism in this conversation.
not going to edit it out though because that'd be unfair
nihilism kinda lends itself to revoking the authority of the senses, so I shot my own foot there.
I more or less the distinction between reasoned observation and your emphasis on emotion. You say you're not focusing on emotion because pain is so visceral. But pain and suffering are pretty intertwined, and I'm sure your argument ultimately includes suffering.

It's impossible to refute anything you say because whenever someone does you just say "nuh uh its an axiom".
I guess I'm done if the only frame you're willing to play in is your own. Have fun in your bubble I guess.

It's impossible to refute anything you say because whenever someone does you just say "nuh uh its an axiom".
I guess I'm done if the only frame you're willing to play in is your own. Have fun in your bubble I guess.

yeah but the point is to explain why your axiom is better than my axiom

you and i both have a relatively similar moral compass

what you're having trouble with is understanding that our moral compass does not have to be objective by this universal, god-given, all-encompassing perspective

it only has to be objective under the parameters of the human condition, because we are the only things that can even ponder such things

why would we look at morality from any other angle other than our own?
and why should we?

Quote from: eggsalad on April 19, 2016, 11:22:32 AM

It's impossible to refute anything you say because whenever someone does you just say "nuh uh its an axiom".
I guess I'm done if the only frame you're willing to play in is your own. Have fun in your bubble I guess.

yeah but the point is to explain why your axiom is better than my axiom

you and i both have a relatively similar moral compass

what you're having trouble with is understanding that our moral compass does not have to be objective by this universal, god-given, all-encompassing perspective

it only has to be objective under the parameters of the human condition, because we are the only things that can even ponder such things

why would we look at morality from any other angle other than our own?

Because the premise of nihilism is that morality is an artificial construct?
Er, maybe not "artificial" per say. It's not manufactured, but it is not an innate property of the universe.
Yeah, nihilism is pretty awful for life.
If I want to feel good then nihilism isn't very good at achieving that.
The purpose of nihilism is being able to recognize that the desire to feel good and not feel bad aren't inherent to reality.

Quote from: Verbatim on April 19, 2016, 11:24:24 AM

Quote from: Caped Baldy on April 19, 2016, 10:54:01 AM

Pain is bad, but sometimes useful. Like if somebody runs up behind me and stabs me, the pain warns me that something is fucking wrong and I need help fast. It wouldn't be pleasant by any means but I would certainly bleed out and die if I didn't feel it and never noticed.

But in most cases, yeah, it's just bad.

It's not even designed in a sensible way. If I break one of my bones or two, I'm going to be writhing on the ground in severe pain for quite awhile before I'm ready to pick myself up. Ideally, you would be able to tell your brain, "Okay, I get it, my leg is broken. I need help. Got it."

Then you wouldn't be in pain anymore, and you'd be able to carry yourself to a hospital or something.

That's generally my problem with the whole "pain is useful" argument. It can be useful all it wants--but why does it have to SUCK so much?

Pain discourages movement that would make injuries worse.

Only in very specific situations...if you get your hand cut off, you need to move and get to someplace where you can stop the bleeding. Moving only hurts certain kinds of injuries, and it doesn't make sense for pain to be as intense and long lasting as it is - it's counterproductive.

It's important to note that life in earth hasn't been around for all that long in terms of evolution, and humans ourselves are a very young species. We have countless flaws in our biology, and the magnitude of pain we feel is one of them.

Because the premise of nihilism is that morality is an artificial construct?
Er, maybe not "artificial" per say. It's not manufactured, but it is not an innate property of the universe.

And my premise is that morality being an "artificial" construct, or whatever word you want to use--the fact that it is not an innate property of the universe has no bearing on anything. It does not delegitimize it, it does not contradict it, and it does not compromise its integrity.

You're choosing to focus on the room that the elephant is in, rather than the elephant itself.

So our conception of morality has no objective basis. So what?

We still have the ability to make our world a more pleasant place to live in. And part of making the world a more pleasant place to live in is the establishment of morality, from which we can derive the do's and don'ts of society. That's what it's all about.

It doesn't have to be universally objective--it only has to be objective from our vantage point, because we simply cannot experience reality in any other way. We're trapped with the perceptions that we have right now. I'm working with the cards that I've been dealt. You're trying to work with the whole deck, when you can only draw so many cards.

Yeah, nihilism is pretty awful for life.
If I want to feel good then nihilism isn't very good at achieving that.
The purpose of nihilism is being able to recognize that the desire to feel good and not feel bad aren't inherent to reality.

It's an inherent to our reality. Our perception. What we experience.

That our sensations do not implicate reality in any way is of no consequence to me, and it shouldn't be to you either.

I don't know, but goddamn, I'm one eloquent motherfucker.

Any time you take away someone's rights, you're being more unfair than allowing someone to die from a disease they would've died from regardless.

Okay, I get that this is what you believe, but what you haven't done much of so far is explaining your logic. You're restating your opinions, but that's not going to be enough to compel me to agree, if that's what you're trying to do.

I don't see how it's more unfair.

Indirectly causing suffering in your eyes is allowing things that would happen anyway to happen. Not intervening. Of course that's not as bad as directly causing the suffering. With indirect suffering, something had to be there first.

An arbitrary standard. So because they were there first, it's okay not to do anything about it. I don't think so.

But with your logic, we're all monsters and allowing tens of millions of people to die by not doing absolutely everything we can to cure cancer.

Of course we are.

Why do you think I'm so hateful? Because people couldn't give a fuck about anyone other than themselves. We're selfish pieces of shit, but a great deal of us are victims of circumstance. There's way too many of us, so I can't really expect people to help everyone in the world out.

But to me, that doesn't negate our innately terrible nature. We all suck. We're all monsters. Me included--but at least I recognize the problem, and I try to help solve it in as many ways as I can muster.

But you only have the obligation to make that sacrifice if the suffering was from a result of your initial action.

according to who, and for what reason

No, there aren't.

the welfare of the collective human race > your individual rights