0
1

[–] jeegte12 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I think you might not know what nihilism is. You tried to give an example, but then supported nihilism.

0
1

[–] Calorie-Kin 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Yeah, goddamn. I meant altruism.

0
0

[–] Reow [S] ago 

lol - then you can ignore what I said about nihilism below :-P

0
0

[–] Reow [S] ago  (edited ago)

You raise a lot of interesting points, mate; I'll do my best to address them!

You suggest that morals are there to encourage desirable behaviour, and I agree with you. They are effectively the clauses of our social contract. But you also say that morals are invented, and I again agree with you. Here is the thing, we as intelligent beings are aware that morals are not absolute (they are human inventions), and we are aware of the purpose they serve - do we then truly follow the moral, or do we let our intellect and wisdom guide us? That is, do we choose not to kill because it is 'wrong', or do we choose not to do so because we know the adverse effect it will have on society, and desire to be protected by its contract?

I put it to you that the amoral man in a moral society has a significant competitive advantage if he can act without discovery. If everybody speaks the truth and he alone lies, until he is caught in a lie, he can manipulate people. The punishment for lying is distrust, as the punishment for killing is prison. For the amoral man, it is the potential for punishment that disincentivizes him from acting. I think we must accept that there are amoral men in our societies - aside from the evidence for this in crimes and experience, there is the simple Darwinian logic of advantage. So, in truth, are either the traditional morals or our intellectual understanding of them necessary, in order to hold society together, or is the threat of punishment sufficient?

It is your view that true nihilism doesn't exist, but you go on to say that Veganism is in the best interests of the environment, self, and animals. Why should the environment, self, and animals matter? If you are a true nihilist (that is, you accept there is no higher purpose), then no purpose you ascribe is more than a fanciful notion. If you believe that the environment, self, and animals are important, you must do so for a reason - you have not completely forsaken higher purpose. Personally, I think true nihilism is quite plausible; it's just that most nihilists are hedonists, ascetics, or dead.

Donating to charity in the hope that others would do the same for you is a false premise. If you are in the position to donate, you are better off saving your money and not relying on charity. At best it is a poor man's insurance - a hope that you will end up more in need than the total of which you have given. Game theory tells us that it is futile; there is no contract, and as such, there can be no assumption that people will continue to give. In my opinion, beyond the naïve notions of 'good', charity exists at an intellectual level for two reasons. Firstly, it keeps the poor from turning to crime, ergo is a voluntary protection money that we, the able, pay. Secondly, it has a nominal but sufficient impact in increasing the evolutionary fitness of the poor; that is, it enables them to have progeny and pass on their poor genetics. The purpose of this is robustness of the genome and acceleration of evolution: individual genes aren't bad, it is their combination that is bad; maximizing the number of alleles kept in the gene pool, ensures the best chance of survival of the species in the event of disaster, and increases the probability of the emergence of novel combinations.

1
0

[–] Calorie-Kin 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

I guess all I could say is.. Why not both? Could it be that our intellect and wisdom has taught us to think of moral behavior as 'right'? Kind of like you don't really think about stabbing yourself in the face, and couldn't even if you tried (well.. Most people couldn't). Where your brain tells you it's like "Duh".

An amoral man in a moral society does have and advantage, which is why amoral behavior happens in the first place. The amoral man calculates the risk vs. the reward. If the reward is worth it, he will consider the amoral behavior and might go through with it. This is a very hard philosophical question, delving deep into the whole "order can only exist with disorder" and all that crap. If history taught us anything is that it's a sweet spot somewhere in the middle. There are countries, specifically in the middle east, where the punishment for stealing is getting your hand chopped off. In a society that's so god-fearing, and with such a cruel punishment in the real world, it would seem that no people would steal. But no, people are in fact stealing just like in any other country (warning - NSFW very graphic).. On the other hand, you have countries with almost no punishment (like in The Netherlands - usually a fine, 6 years in prison for the harshest of thieves), and it seems to be self-governing just fine.

I meant altruism, sorry mate. Let's blame it on not getting enough sleep :)

Your cases for charity also make a lot of sense. I agree with them.