skillosophy 101

[skillosopher]

i hesitated making this thread because...with the onslaught of "bad threads" being made, i have no clue what a "good thread" is anymore. but in general, in making this thread im hoping to make a new home for you philosophy, socialogy, psychology, and political science lovers. note*. this thread will have changing topics on a wide variety of philosophical views.

however, if this thread gets closed due to "bad thread-making" then no hard feelings. but assuming that this thread doesnt get closed in 5 minutes, id like topics in here to be at least be related to philosophy or some kind of humanities study. and...if this thread miraculously survives, then it would be nice if we could alternate topics every few days. so...





as an opening topic, id like to start things off with an ethical discussion (hopefully this will change later on). which is true and/or which is most suitable?

moral objectivist - i believe something is right or wrong even though everyone else dissagree's with me!
moral relativist - everything goes! nothing is wrong, everyone's different opinions are right!
moral nihilist - frederick nietzsche is my hero, no morals exist at all!

[p3psi]

just pick a font and stick with it, your hurting my eyes

[skillosopher]

this was exactly what i was hoping for in the first response!

eyes hurt: noted. thanks .

[Moon The Cat]

I think I would be moral relativist, (actually I don't like how it sounds) but I don't wouldn't put it like "everyone's differents opinions are right" but more like "everyone has a way". And that's cool, as long as you don't affect other people, everything will be just more or less fine.

[skillosopher]

Originally Posted by Moon The Cat

[...]but more like "everyone has a way". And that's cool, as long as you don't affect other people, everything will be just more or less fine.

yippie! a legit post! awesome moon-kun.

well to say a few words about your world view... i would say its dangerously liberal.

but, i wont continue on. i'll let other people speak about this...hopefully.

[kakashi222]

Since im as simplistic and just not so skillosophy as you guys might be.... i do not belong in this thread

But i would like to wish you guys luck on your "voyage" in to the "uknown".

BTW, its amazing how artistic some posts can be (referring to the first post )

[p3psi]

if you say we generally become these 3 types of people, do we really have a choice?

Up until our parents stick us in school with our own peers, morals and lessons are being feed to us by our parents and the enviorment that they put us in.

But our peers can have a great infulence on us, everything exposed to us by our parents are getting conflicted the first day they send us to public school.

Does a stronger relationship between your friends and than with your family change the way you view matters in life?
I mean by that, your friends wernt raised by your parents, they came from a strict christian household, or they came from laid back athiests, etc.

Does your parents have so much of an effect on your personality, that you search, or are more compatible with those who just so happened to be raised in similar way you were?
So you're unknowningly reinforceing lessons and morals forced upon by your parents? So would you really have a chance to change since you were born?

Can you truly say that you are a moral realist, objectiist, nihlist, or whatever, or were you just molded that why by the morals and views of the people you are exposed to and lessons taught to you by some talking bird on seseme street.

[Tzurial]

uh oh..an illegal thread as per the forum rules! ah well, I think its a good idea to have a thread where people can post their more subjective and intangible veiws.

Personally I am none of these. When I was little (boring story of the past) I was moved around alot and hense have had my veiws influenced to a point where I really cant consider myself an individual but more a slave to my influences. (AKA im flexible) And since indecisiveness is the key to flexibility! I cant consider myself an objectivist. I do have strong opinions but not so strong that Im not able to flip the coin and see where other people are coming from. Ive met a couple of objectivists and really what I think it is..is being an ass. People with too strong of an opinion can become blind and usually end up contradicting their original morals.
To be a straight moral relatavist to me, is pure naivity. To say, whatever floats your boat, is somewhat a denial that there are some people that -do- have some pretty shit morals and either you just dont want to deal with them, or youve never experienced them. But relativism can also be seen as tolerance which is an admirable quality that I dont see in many people.
Moral nihilism I think is the best choice for me, if by no morals it means no right and wrong, that is closest to what I believe. Right and wrong are really just seperations made by people so that they can judge one another. Kind of like how good and bad are antonyms and so are good and evil. To say good is the opposite of evil if wrong, what should be said is rightousness is the opossite of evil. Um is this making any sense? im trying to say the divisions in morals are somewhat superficial but I have a tendency to not know what Im talking about -_-;

anyway! its hard to divide morals into black and white categories because there's so much grey area...so my conclusion- too hard to say!!

[Tzurial]

Originally Posted by p3psi

Can you truly say that you are a moral realist, objectiist, nihlist, or whatever, or were you just molded that why by the morals and views of the people you are exposed to and lessons taught to you by some talking bird on seseme street.

Hey! Big Bird taught me my alphabet!! Im forever in his debt

[skillosopher]

Originally Posted by Tzurial

Hey! Big Bird taught me my alphabet!! Im forever in his debt

well. most of you are making a mistake. you guys (p3psi) are talking about "applied ethics" (we can talk about applied ethics later on!) but, this first (and changing) topic has nothing to do with how you apprehend these certian moral value judgments. if you learn your morals from your parents, school, friends, or big bird, this doesnt matter because...

im talking about the deeper meaning. that is, the ontological questions about the objective truth concerning morality. Tzurial saying that moral nihilism is true would be an example of what im talking about.

back on current topic:

Originally Posted by p3psi

if you say we generally become these 3 types of people, do we really have a choice?

thats not at all what im saying. but im glad you brought it up. let me be more clear. im asking "which world view is true?" not "how do you apply your ethical choices." the two are very different. *note, this is not a "what type are you" topic or thread.

Tzurial: if moral nihilism is true there are no morals, and thus far worse than moral relavitism. if there is no objective right and wrong, then burning babies in gasoline is not wrong, genocide is okay, saving lives and killing lives are no different. i just want to show that if you are a moral nihilist, you must believe these things.

so far two people say this thread is against forum rules, but i still dont see how. however, i dont mind if in fact this is a deviation from the rules, that this thread be closed. i'll let the mods decide if my either this current topic or this thread is a violation. all i wanted was some form of academic, intellictual discussion at animesuki .

[Tzurial]

Originally Posted by skillosopher

Tzurial: if moral nihilism is true there are no morals, and thus far worse than moral relavitism. if there is no objective right and wrong, then burning babies in gasoline is not wrong, genocide is okay, saving lives and killing lives are no different. i just want to show that if you are a moral nihilist, you must believe these things.

o-ho-ho..yeah, now that I think about it..nihilism was that movement in russia wasnt it, the one that used terrorism and assaination and such to destroy the old so that they could build the new. Yeah, thats not me

[skillosopher]

Originally Posted by Tzurial

o-ho-ho..yeah, now that I think about it..nihilism was that movement in russia wasnt it, the one that used terrorism and assaination and such to destroy the old so that they could build the new. Yeah, thats not me

lol. it was actually popularized by the atheist german philosopher frederick nietzsche. im not sure what ethic was in place during WWII in russia. but i do know that stalin who was an atheist. and atheism and nihilism go hand in hand perfectly.

and btw. stalin killed more of his own people, than hitler killed in total.

and...for those who are curious and for the record... i'll state that believe moral objectivism to be true, and simultaniously believe that its the best working wold view of ethics held by academia .

[p3psi]

nihlisim is just saying we are nothing more matter, when we die, we're nothing more than a spot on a rug.
that is comparing us to bugs, more or less. the fact that we have a conscious, that fact we are able to contemplate such ideas sets us apart from just f$#king, living, and dieing. we can have a anarchist society, but that is an oxymoron. Our history has shown that such a thing doesnt last, either they destroy themselves or an organized group, wether it be from the outside or in, destorys them and rebuilds them with rules and standards.

moral relitivism just sound like nihlism, but its really sounds just ludicirs. something like a hippy would be: "its ok man, its all good" People cant live in moderation, they are driving by there desires and needs. you would think that moral relativist means more freedom to do what you want, "everything goes" as said by skilos, but you are just throwing everyone's thoughts and feelings aside just as if they are just empty shells with no souls or a mind of thier own, like a robot. again, are we nothing but simple insects? do we not have basic human rights? we are human, arnt we?

and when it comes to moral objectivist, i think my earlier post was on topic when it comes to this. we just dont hold our own thoughts, others and our enviroment has created schemas that frame our mindset. to truely hold a thought, belief, or opion that was completely entirely your own is going to be someone of a miricle, think about this. Matter comes from matter, you cant create when you have nothing.
Therefore, to have believe in something that everyone disagrees with you is never going to happen, frankly.

I hope this sounded more on topic.

[Tzurial]

well then scratch what I said about nihilism. I jumped at it before I thought about it. I think objectivism and reletavism are both good ways to set up ethics and I might be a hybrid between the two, but get to radical in either of them and they can be just as bad as anything else

[skillosopher]

Originally Posted by Tzurial

I think objectivism and reletavism are both good ways to set up ethics and I might be a hybrid between the two, but get to radical in either of them and they can be just as bad as anything else

im glad some people are interested. and im more glad that Tzurial has brough this up so that i can be more clear about what is being discussed. to make things completely clear...there is no hybrid. and this is not about how we apprehend these ethics, rather the question is, which ontological view has most truth plausiblity!

Tzurial - unfortunatly your still talking about applied ethics. your talking about an imperative subject, while im asking about a normative subject. its important to make this dinstinction. to say that either view is radical is weird. for instance...

- if i were to ask you, "is the door, open, or is it closed?" you wouldnt respond and say, "neither, those two choices are too radical, i believe there is a hybrid." lol. you see what im talking about?

to be more clear. when talking about ontological truth value, we must follow the law of exclusionary middle. this law states that a statement (not opinion), is either true or false. it cannot be both true and false at the same time.

note that these claims are not about ethical judgments themselves, these are claims that speak noramtively about a world view. in short, a normative subject tells us "what something is." imperative implies "ought." so...tell you all that i have blue boxers on right now, is a normative claim. it has nothing about becomming, or practicing anything.

so, the claim moral objectivists are making is that, morals do exist, whether we like it or not, some things are wrong even though some people believe it to be right. they are appeling to an objective standard of rules. like having the quality of being written in the sky somewhere or etched in tablets of stone.

while moral relavitists are claming that morality is nothing more than opinions, therefore cannot have an objective truth value put on them. morals are just expressions of our taste, like a favorite color or type of fasion.

moral nihilits are saying that no morals exist at all!

either you are one of these three, or your crazy. either that, or im crazy. but if i am, id like to know of the other options.

and!

Originally Posted by p3psi

nihlisim is just saying we are nothing more matter, when we again, are we nothing but simple insects? do we not have basic human rights? we are human, arnt we?

thats exactly right p3psi. at least, this is the consistant atheist/naturalist world view. simple question is...why arent we just animals?

and ps. you are right on topic now.

[Tzurial]

Ok! Ill try! there is no middle, there is no middle...
Then it has to be relatavism, objective truths cannot be applied to morals

whoo that was hard

[Esperchld]

wow, now this thread will go over 90% of the forum goers heads.

Morals are mearly the remanants of what we learn (either directly or indirectly). Society creates these morals, and the inhabitants are to learn them or not fit in. These morals in turn help society function better as a machine.

The truth lies in what it is made to be. It doesn't exist but to be found by others. And as such we must learn the nature of this truth in order to see it. To not understand the truth is to not see it in the first place. This is the nature of truths

[skillosopher]

Originally Posted by Tzurial

Ok! Ill try! there is no middle, there is no middle...
Then it has to be relatavism, objective truths cannot be applied to morals

whoo that was hard

im glad to see you finally made a choice. the wrong choice IMO but a good definative choice nonetheless!

Originally Posted by Esperchld

wow, now this thread will go over 90% of the forum goers heads.

edit: whoa...that went over my head alittle. and funny that you mention this, cause i hope that this isnt the case. i say that a greater number dont even care about topics like these.

Originally Posted by Esperchld

Morals are mearly the remanants of what we learn (either directly or indirectly). Society creates these morals, and the inhabitants are to learn them or not fit in. These morals in turn help society function better as a machine.

im glad that you contributed something very interesting! very on topic. this is exactly the kind of response i was looking for. much like P3psi's and Tzurial's later posts.

well, this view is that ethics are mere conventions. which is a subjectivist relavitist view. on this world view, if ethics = social conventions, then ethical choices become arbitrary, like the choice between tying your right shoe before your left. we cant say that tying our right shoe before our left is wrong. thus, on this view, its impossible to condem any acts as objectivly wrong, or praise acts as objectivly good.

simlarily, to give you an example of social conventions. europe drives on the left hand side of the road, while the U.S drives on the right hand side. do we have the right to go over to europe and demand that they must drive on the right hand side? what right do we have to impose our social conventions on others?

if japan chose to burn babies in gasoline tonight, they are merely expressing their subjective view of what is subjectivly good or what is subjectivly right. therefore we are not in the position to condem their acts objectivly wrong. even if we personally find these acts disgusting, we are forced to say that they simply feel differently and that they are not wrong for doing so. if we do say that japan is wrong for burning babies in gasoline, then we are in fact imposing "our" moral conventions on them.

if morlality = social conventions then this is the horror we must live in.

*note. once this topic gets tiresome, i hope we can move on to more interesting philosophical topics. given that there is enough of us academic lovers here at animesuki.

[Tzurial]

Originally Posted by p3psi

nihlisim is just saying we are nothing more matter, when we die, we're nothing more than a spot on a rug.
that is comparing us to bugs, more or less.

More or less? not quite. I usually dont tell people this (but this is a forum and I should be Ok, right?) but Im aetheist. I believe that when I die thats it, Ill end, just like bugs. But this doesnt mean we are 'more or less' bugs. We are still human- complex biological organisms given consiousness and reason through purely biological processes. To say that a humans life constitutes more value than a bugs, is to miss out on the value of life entirely. This whole heirarchy of humans over animals is really just ego and somewhat to fufill a justification that your life is important.

[skillosopher]

Tzurial - thats an absolutely correct view of modern atheism. i happen to believe differently, but i'll wont offer any arguments so i can leave some room for others who feel the same, or can offer alternative arguments.