Medivh's Weekly Debate #1

fladdermasken

Off-Topic Moderator
Level 38
Joined
Dec 27, 2006
Messages
3,689
178091-albums2336-picture61749.png


Welcome to Medivh's Tower Weekly Debate Challenge #1!

This week's debate is Nihilism


Every week (hopefully) I will host a debate. These debates can range from entire philosophical worldviews to a simple political statement. The participants will be divided into two (or more) teams. Each team will then be provided a stance on the question (regardless of each participants' actual stance) and argue for it. By the end of the week, I, or another appointed judge, will choose one user from each team as the team winner. The winner from each team will be awarded 10 reputation points.


How to participate



If you want to participate, just say so in the thread. After the teams are constructed, you will be provided the topic and which stance you are to take. Each team must make an opening case, after that the floor is open to tear each other's arguments apart.

Participants: APproject, Sky Green, Kyrbi0, Mythic, Keiji, VeljkoM, Archimonde supreme, kari0003, Selaya, Shar Dundred, Linaze, GhostThruster

Team A: Kyrbi0, Archimonde supreme, Shar Dundred, Keiji, Sky Green, GhostThruster
Team B: VeljkoM, kario0003, APproject, Mythic, Selaya, Linaze

Team A's viewpoint: We don't need to do anything at all outside of subjectively evolved desires and needs.
Team B's viewpoint: There exists concepts that are absolutely, objectively necessary, e.g. morality/religion/etc.


Rules and Regulations



All the site rules and lobby rules still apply. Apart from that, you may not
  • Switch sides.
    • This is a devil's advocate challenge. You don't need to approve of your own arguments.
  • Poison the well.
    • Whatever stance the participants of the other team held before the debate is of absolutely no consequence.
  • Post if you aren't on a team.
    • New participants may be accepted, but they will need to be sorted into a team before posting.
      Thus all posts from non-participants will be deleted.


Judging Criteria



100% of the winner will be decided by the appointed judge. The questions will mostly put so that the individual stance of the judge is of no consequence. It's all fun and games, there's no need to be upset if you aren't picked. It's just about flexing your debate muscles.

The criteria can be summarized with this:
There are many ways to debate.

There are also many ways to miss the point, attack someone who is agreeing with you, provide arguments against yourself, make analogies that are unrelated or don't carry over the aspects meant to be demonstrated, respond without providing a counterpoint, deny or fabricate facts, attack the character or reliability of others, or just in general say things that Do. Not. Follow.
Straying from your provided stance, arguing based on logical fallacies, not following the topic, etc. will be considered impurities.
(see http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/medivhs-tower-411/medivhs-tower-cheat-sheet-258001/ and http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/medivhs-tower-411/how-not-debate-161367/)


Deadline



The debates will be hosted on Mondays and end on [highlight]Sundays 11:59:59[/code], GMT.
 
Last edited:

Kyrbi0

Arena Moderator
Level 37
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
8,943
This is literally one of the best ideas I've seen in a while. The weekly format also makes for some consistency & regularity. I love this; I've been looking for something like this for a while.

Of course, I'm likely only to be available for the next 3 weeks, but hey.

I support this, and offer myself up for the first round... Whenever that is.

P.S. It's "Judging"
 

fladdermasken

Off-Topic Moderator
Level 38
Joined
Dec 27, 2006
Messages
3,689
Keiji reminded me how much work this would be if done weekly. So instead I will do a compromise. The contest will start on Monday and take its course for a week until the deadline (Sunday 21st). After that, all participants will have one week to apply for the next one, which also gives me one week to decide the winner. So these will be by-weekly instead of weekly, most likely.

This is literally one of the best ideas I've seen in a while. The weekly format also makes for some consistency & regularity. I love this; I've been looking for something like this for a while.
:>

P.S. It's "Judging"
Yeah. Typo.

Hello. I will join Team 2 of this week's debate.
I decide the teams!
 

fladdermasken

Off-Topic Moderator
Level 38
Joined
Dec 27, 2006
Messages
3,689
Been loaded with stuff I need to finish before Christmas, so I will push this forward to next week's Monday. You are free to apply until then.
I also would like to give this a go. Im not sure though how will we be able to act in teams.
The teams are just to level out the debate, i.e. so there are an equal, or close to equal, amount of pro and against. You won't (at least not in this run) be judged by the effort of your team. Read the first post in full.
 

fladdermasken

Off-Topic Moderator
Level 38
Joined
Dec 27, 2006
Messages
3,689
Okay. The teams are set and the theme is in place.

Theme: Nihilism

Team A: Kyrbi0, Archimonde supreme, Shar Dundred, Keiji, Sky Green
Team B: VeljkoM, kario0003, APproject, Mythic, Selaya, Linaze

Team A's viewpoint: We don't need to do anything at all outside of subjectively evolved desires and needs.
Team B's viewpoint: There exists concepts that are absolutely, objectively necessary, e.g. morality/religion/etc.
The debate starts now and will end on Sunday.

gogogogogogo.
 
Level 31
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
2,562
I'm glad I got the viewpoint I would be going for naturally. This way of making teams is kind of dangerious in my opinion. What if someone in the team with a set viewpoint doesn't really agree with it despite the existence of arguments for it? So Team A support nihilism and Team B does not, right? I read this word nihilism for the first time here, so sorry if I am going off a bit, I just read some wikipedia about what it is before writing this.

It wouldn't be fair just to go blind completely and support only one side, since both has their truths, however, I don't see how nihilism can be something more than a concept to think about and move on.

Since we all are human, this should begin with understanding the basic machanics of human mind. Without human mind nihilism is completely right, it is true, nothing holds any meaning without human mind since everything is being measured by consciousness, it is the stand point of everything. Humans are conscious and all well human beings obeys to the same mechanics of mind. Common and normal / well human beings can solve problems, feel emotions, be self aware, feel pain and follow the instincts of evolution to certain extent, etc. Since we all belong to the same mechanism of mind, it means we all have something big in common. Without mind nothing exists. Put a man without a mind and the man will hold no real meaning, that is why animals are not equal to humans in all aspects. We are animals as well, but with the level of mind that no animal possesses. Everything goes through mind, we all live in the world created by our minds and how we perceive things. Since our minds are common, we perceive commonly as well. If perception of things are being distorted, humans are still being driven by laws of evolutions to certain extent.

There is also a natural, evolution-driven desire to avoid the bad and seek for the good for yourself or others. Good and bad can not be defined as nihilism would suggest I suppose, however evolution could define terms good and bad. Since from evolution point of view we seek to survive and evolve, objective concepts of life can exist. Emotions and feelings are happening when certain chemicals are released in brain, so automatically from evolution point of view we seek to release those chemicals, that brings positivity and makes us satisfy two main needs: survival and evolution. By saying evolution I mean not necessary biological evolution, but evolution of certain sociaty or individuality that ensures positivity today and tomorrow. Since we have common mind mechanics and perceive things commonly, we also release same chemicals that makes us feel good about similar things due to similar perception of things. Proof for similar perception of things could be the same method of rock fixing to each other during the construction of Egyptian and Aztec civilizations pyramids, civilizations were insulated from each other, yet same methods of building emerged.

Since we live in the world of our mind and our mind wants similar things to satisfy evolution-driven desires, morality can exist. Religion however is driven from the lack of knowledge, so it is not necessary to exist in order to maintain morality when proper and more true knowledge is presented. So if this is the world of our mind, we can not ignore our minds and go for nihilism, because nihilism is the lack of natural human mind, because nothing exist when mind does not exist. Nihilism is also driven from human mind, it is driven from perception of lack for human mind, however human mind exist if nihilism is perceived, so in my opinion it can only be a concept to think about, not to follow, because it goes against natural mind of human that was shaped by laws of evolution and therefore evolution can present objective goals of life - survive and evolve.

Humanity is here where it is right now just because people managed to work together and obey for the laws of evolution. If there was no morality or order, if nihilism would be the main idea to follow, humanity could not work together and achieve what was already achieved and satisfy our human nature. Even animals do something, because it holds meaning for them, they all have their part in this circle of life just because of evolution. If we exist, if anything eixist, some meaning can be driven for every existing thing for the thing itself individually in certain closed system. If nothing existed, nothing would happen, same as a man is alive and he seeks for certain goals that holds meaning for him, for his mind and his sociaty, but if man died, his meaning dies with his mind. I guess that is what nihilism is saying. But we are alive, not dead, that is why nihilism doesn't work. Nihilism in sociaty wouldn't make any sociaty, it would be chaotic and evolution laws could not be satisfied.

Nothing exists without conscious mind, conscious mind as well as natural desire to evolve and survive was formed by evolution, so nihilism in conscious mind can not be more than a concept, because it simply would not work due to reasons pointed out above. I hope to be proven wrong so that I could learn, thanks for reading.
 

Kyrbi0

Arena Moderator
Level 37
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
8,943
Aww man... This was random? Criminy. :< The gods must hate me... Err, I mean, No one hates me except myself; I am fully in control of my future. But it doesn't matter anyway.

There, already got started.

(I don't understand your "viewpoint" description: I thought "nihilism" wasn't so much about "doing" as "believing"... Also ,what does it mean to "not do anything... outside of ... desires & needs"? Or am I reading that wrong?)
 
Level 12
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
1,152
Now, I'm not going to state what my actual opinion is, however, I must say that I am more or less informed about nihilism and constantly question everything, so prepare for a challenge.

APproject has stated the wish to be proven wrong, so I'll grant him that.

There is also a natural, evolution-driven desire to avoid the bad and seek for the good for yourself or others. Good and bad can not be defined as nihilism would suggest I suppose, however evolution could define terms good and bad.

Well, the the good for yourself or others is not necessarily objectively/morally good. For example, you (and your family) might have enemies who want to harm them, so you decide to kill them. It gives you a positive result, but according to the common moral rules, it is still bad.

Good and bad indeed cannot be defined through (moral) nihilism, since it rejects these terms. Friedrich Nietzsche actually wrote a whole literay work about this, which I suggest you read.

(Biological) evolution however, simply states that we have a common ancestor and that we changed over the period of generations of life-forms. I don't see how evolution defines good and bad.

Also, we don't seek to evolve. Evolution is random, since it does in fact come from mutations. We survive because we evolve in a changing enviroment. If our enviroment stays the same, we don't have the need to evolve.

So if this is the world of our mind, we can not ignore our minds and go for nihilism, because nihilism is the lack of natural human mind, because nothing exist when mind does not exist. Nihilism is also driven from human mind, it is driven from perception of lack for human mind, however human mind exist if nihilism is perceived, so in my opinion it can only be a concept to think about, not to follow, because it goes against natural mind of human that was shaped by laws of evolution and therefore evolution can present objective goals of life - survive and evolve.

The world is in fact of our mind, since we all perceive it that way. But (existential & moral) nihilism, the one we're talking about atleast (there are other forms) is not the lack of natural human mind. It is the belief that there is no meaning to life/morality.

Our objective is to survive, but you have to understand that we cannot hide from death. Existential nihilists believe that life has no meaning. You may ask 'Why?'. Well you see, we will all die one day. Even in the future where humans may transcend into immortal beings we will still only be trying to escape the cold truth. There is no reason for anything to exist at all, we are all going to disappear at the end of the universe (which according to some hypotheses may actually be the beginning of another Big Bang, but that's currently irrelevant).

Humanity is here where it is right now just because people managed to work together and obey for the laws of evolution. If there was no morality or order, if nihilism would be the main idea to follow, humanity could not work together and achieve what was already achieved and satisfy our human nature. Even animals do something, because it holds meaning for them, they all have their part in this circle of life just because of evolution. If we exist, if anything eixist, some meaning can be driven for every existing thing for the thing itself individually in certain closed system. If nothing existed, nothing would happen, same as a man is alive and he seeks for certain goals that holds meaning for him, for his mind and his sociaty, but if man died, his meaning dies with his mind. I guess that is what nihilism is saying. But we are alive, not dead, that is why nihilism doesn't work. Nihilism in sociaty wouldn't make any sociaty, it would be chaotic and evolution laws could not be satisfied.

Here we go with evolution, but no, we're not here because we managed to work together and obey the laws of evolutions. I mean, we're forced to follow evolution, wether we like it or not.

Well actually, existential nihilism states there is no reason to live, but there is also no reason not to live. From what I understand, nihilism is described like this 'Do whatever you want, the outcome is the same'. Imagine the following situation: You have one hour in a room from which you cannot escape, and once that hour passes, you'll be drowned in acid. No matter what you do in that hour, you'll still drown in acid (A.K.A. die).

Nothing exists without conscious mind, conscious mind as well as natural desire to evolve and survive was formed by evolution, so nihilism in conscious mind can not be more than a concept, because it simply would not work due to reasons pointed out above.

Well that's another philosphical debate (If a tree fell and nobody was there to hear it, did it make a sound?). But since things existed before conscious mind was created, I think we can rest assured that we are not necessary for the universes existance.

Again, we don't have a natural desire to evolve, only to survive. We evolve because our enviroment changes. Nihilism can exist, since it doesn't in fact affect anything but the reason why we exist.

On an EXTREMELY important note:
flad, you should have specified moral nihilism, because we've obviously started to argue about existential nihilism as well, and arguing about both at once has proven to be exhausting.

Now onto moral nihilism solely.

Let's first understand what moral nihilism is, without reading the whole wikipedia page.
It's the belief that nothing is 'right/good' or 'wrong/bad/evil'.

First I'd like to prove with a few examples that morality is in fact subjective.

First example (The obvious one):
Bob is a hobo. He's trying to survive the cold winter. He notices that a woman threw away a full McDonalds bag because her child now wants Burger King. However, John, a fellow hobo, also notices the bag. Both will need that to survive for a while, and they can't risk losing even a little bit of it, since they passed their best years. John is able to get a bit faster there, so Bob picks up a rock and kills John. Since nobody is there to see it, Bob takes the bag and hides John under a bridge. Bob did something good for himself, but in the eyes of society he is a bad person.

Second example (The less obvious one):
Mark is a respected member of society. He is a devout christian, never misses a sunday and volunteers at the orphanage and the retirement home. Tom is his neighbour, a hedonistic and manipulative opportunist, he does whatever feels right at the moment and only cares about himself. Mark and Tom are some kind of acquaintances as well, and as they walk together to their houses Mark mentions that they should donate money for the children who lost their home and parents in <catastrophy>. Tom asks 'Why?', to which Mark answers 'Because it would make me feel better'.

Both Mark and Tom, deep down atleast, do what they do because it makes them feel good. Mark contributes to society that way, while Tom doesn't. Mark is considered good, and Tom bad/evil.

Third example (The kinda complex one):
Christianity, among other religions, sees suicide as a sin, while the Japanese culture once saw ritual suicide as honourable. If morality was in fact objective, wouldn't it be unable to go from such polar opposites?

That's all I have to say for now, I doubt I'll be proven wrong easily, but I sure would like to see someone try. Cheers.
 
Level 31
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
2,562
Finally someone to join this, I thought this debate idea failed, hehe.
Well, the the good for yourself or others is not necessarily objectively/morally good. For example, you (and your family) might have enemies who want to harm them, so you decide to kill them. It gives you a positive result, but according to the common moral rules, it is still bad.
It is already bad to have enemies in the first place. Doing harm is just another piece of the chain that is leading to this end of events. Having enemies and seeking to harm is already a mind error, while the only enemy is the hater, because hater is controlled by his ego, not clear mind. So by my understanding proper motality should stop people from making enemies, because it is instincts-driven and it is not a clear state of mind.
(Biological) evolution however, simply states that we have a common ancestor and that we changed over the period of generations of life-forms. I don't see how evolution defines good and bad.
You must realize that evolution defines 100% of you, not just your biological body. Evolution deeply affects your mind, because just like biological evolution it has a great impact for the way you think and how your brain works. The survival instincts are triggered through mind. Evolution does not define good and bad directly, but since our minds were formed by evolution and we obey for its laws, we have similar way of thinking that has been shaped through many generations. Giving normal conditions, if you are not a psychopath and you are completely conscious, would you feel bad if you killed a man you knew? Yes you would. Why? You probably would say it would be so because of social influence, but no matter what influence, mind works similar even though you were raised and told that killing is good. Humans have emapthy for similar things, it is in their genes. What I am saying, people are born with certain way of thinking because of evolution and one hardly can suppress it. People are evolved the way that they are constantly and unconsciously seeking to release pleasant chemicals in their brain so that they would feel good about things, they would feel relieved and well. If person is well and without mental disorders, one would feel good about similar things as others would as well. Having this inborn similarity of wit in mind, good and bad could be defined from the point of evolution for closed system of human mind of course, because nihilism is right about having no real truth, but in closed system some kind of truth could be presented in my opinion.
Also, we don't seek to evolve. Evolution is random, since it does in fact come from mutations. We survive because we evolve in a changing enviroment. If our enviroment stays the same, we don't have the need to evolve.
Again, by saying evolve I do not mean biological evolution. We do however seek to evolve as personalities or evolve in certain area where we could put our effort in. For exmaple, we no longer need to be very strong or adapt very well in order to survive, we evolved from that as one solid sociaty that can assure survival with different kind of life. We evolved from that and it no longer play any role. This role disappeared not because environment changed naturally and we just adapted, no, it disappeared because WE changed the environment with the will to evolve as sociaty. Another example would be what we eat. We actually no longer need meat so a better and more healthy diet can be formed. It is possible to survive without meat and live on average 10 years longer being vegetarian (by statistics), because we again evolved as sociaty working together for the better course. So we do seek to evolve, but not biologically, because our biology is barely challenged today, except for some medicine or life style in some cases (sitting a lot). And finally we have technology because of natural desire to evolve beyond biology, every single person on earth has these traits, of course only few manage to make a bigger change.
The world is in fact of our mind, since we all perceive it that way. But (existential & moral) nihilism, the one we're talking about atleast (there are other forms) is not the lack of natural human mind. It is the belief that there is no meaning to life/morality.
What I am trying to say is that ignoring laws of all kinds of evolution and not biological one only, because I use word evolution for a wider specter of meaning rather than for biological side only, life's meaning may not be found beyond subjective and most primal needs such as shelter, food and sex, as for any animal. Opening doors for a wide range of evolution impact for your life may help to acquire objective ideas if going beyond biological evolution of course.
Here we go with evolution, but no, we're not here because we managed to work together and obey the laws of evolutions. I mean, we're forced to follow evolution, wether we like it or not.
Talked about this above. What to add, we are forced to follow biological and instinct-driven evolution indeed, but we are not forced to evolve as sociaty or evolve as a separate individual and improve certain skills, just because it gives joy, we just tend to evolve this way if we get pleasant conditions to break through basic needs and achieve more.
Imagine the following situation: You have one hour in a room from which you cannot escape, and once that hour passes, you'll be drowned in acid. No matter what you do in that hour, you'll still drown in acid (A.K.A. die).
That's a very good example. :) However, since I am trying to frame everything into a closed system of human mind, imagine a stuation where you get a whole world instead of one room and you get a lifetime instead of one hour. You would be presented with many opportunities to satisfy your brain and contribute for the good of sociaty, because in this room you would not be alone and you would have tools to leave a mark. It would make a change from evolution point of view for you as individual and your sociaty. However if you frame entire sociaty and humanity as one solid piece and put it in the room with acid, it doesn't matter at all what is being done, because all falls into acid. It does matter since that solid piece has many individuals and therefore we are individuals ourselves we seek to satisfy our brains formed by evolution.
Well that's another philosphical debate (If a tree fell and nobody was there to hear it, did it make a sound?). But since things existed before conscious mind was created, I think we can rest assured that we are not necessary for the universes existance.
No, we are not necessary for universe to exist at all, that is for sure and nihilism is completely right on this. But once we appear, we do care to exist and naturally we care leave a mark on this planet. No objective truth in universe indeed, but objectivity could be driven from ourselves, from our minds and what it needs to be satisfied in all aspects, not biological or instinct ones only. Current non-religious morality could be driven from empathy only.
First I'd like to prove with a few examples that morality is in fact subjective.
Yes it is and no it is not. It is subjective to the point that it is always driven from the human mind, there are no already set laws in the universe that would tell us exactly how to behave, however from evolution point of view having in mind that we all have similar minds and desires, objectivity can be driven to some extent as to describe what is good and bad. Bad could be something what stops from progress as sociaty or individuality and good as induces the improvement, because improvement makes us feel good, therefore evolution based mind is satisfied.
First example (The obvious one):
It is another error of the mind and I am sure humanity is quite far from evolving into that level yet so that something like this could be svoled without killings. This is the odd of sociaty, because they worked as selfish and primitive individuals and not as a sociaty. In real life conditions varies and nothing is ever as strict as conditions in exmaples such as this: only one eats it and only one survives, so they fight for it. In reality it is never like that, too many factors that goes into situation, it can not be even calculated.
Christianity, among other religions, sees suicide as a sin, while the Japanese culture once saw ritual suicide as honourable. If morality was in fact objective, wouldn't it be unable to go from such polar opposites?
Because religion and a culture of certain circle of people is never a good index to measure morality. Religion is based on the lack of knowledge and attempt to control stupid crowd, where culture is based on conservative truths and laws made up by sociaty which may not be always right, because unpleasant conditions led to this. Religion and culture puts us into certain frames of life, it doesn't promote evolution as sociaty or individuality, it sets limits that can not be passed so this distorts the concept of more pure morality.

Thank you for replying, Sky Green, looking forward to your another reply. :)
 

fladdermasken

Off-Topic Moderator
Level 38
Joined
Dec 27, 2006
Messages
3,689
I'm just taking some time to reply to questions. Don't quote me in this thread, if you have further questions just VM/PM me.

What if someone in the team with a set viewpoint doesn't really agree with it despite the existence of arguments for it?
That's the point of the entire challenge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate

(I don't understand your "viewpoint" description: I thought "nihilism" wasn't so much about "doing" as "believing"... Also ,what does it mean to "not do anything... outside of ... desires & needs"? Or am I reading that wrong?)
Doing and believing are usually intertwined. Think of the sides as pro- and against nihilism. Nihilism eing life stripped down to its bare minimum, i.e. without any intrinsic value(s).

ooooooh can i join in late?
Sure. You are now in Team A.
 
Level 12
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
1,152
It is already bad to have enemies in the first place. Doing harm is just another piece of the chain that is leading to this end of events. Having enemies and seeking to harm is already a mind error, while the only enemy is the hater, because hater is controlled by his ego, not clear mind. So by my understanding proper motality should stop people from making enemies, because it is instincts-driven and it is not a clear state of mind.

That's not necessarily true, someone can hate you just because you have are of a different pigmentation/gender/religion/nationality.

Also, instincts are an essential part of us. Reflexes are instincts. And let's be honest, the human mind has many flaws. Research has proven that, for example, we continue to associate light/white with good traits and black/dark with bad ones. People were given 3 Obama's pictures, one normal, one with darker and one with lighter skin. Those who supported him said the lighter skin one was the correct image while those who were against him tended to choose the one with darker skin.
You must realize that evolution defines 100% of you, not just your biological body. Evolution deeply affects your mind, because just like biological evolution it has a great impact for the way you think and how your brain works.

Evolution does definitely not define 100% of you, wether it is sociocultural or biological one (and from now on please state which one you mean when arguing, it's a bit confusing). Like for example, some tribes who live in the forest adapt their perception to smaller distances, which in the end has nothing to do with biological evolution or society, since it can change once they leave the jungle. Even if it's 0.01%, it still enough to prove my point.

The survival instincts are triggered through mind. Evolution does not define good and bad directly, but since our minds were formed by evolution and we obey for its laws, we have similar way of thinking that has been shaped through many generations. Giving normal conditions, if you are not a psychopath and you are completely conscious, would you feel bad if you killed a man you knew? Yes you would. Why? You probably would say it would be so because of social influence, but no matter what influence, mind works similar even though you were raised and told that killing is good. Humans have emapthy for similar things, it is in their genes. What I am saying, people are born with certain way of thinking because of evolution and one hardly can suppress it.

The survival instincts are triggered not through our mind as we know it, but rather subconsciously. Also, I am going to say it's social influence. Let's just take Palestine for an example, children are handed guns at a young age and just get used to it. There's nothing wrong with them, they have just been taught that way. Evolution CAN be surpressed.

People are evolved the way that they are constantly and unconsciously seeking to release pleasant chemicals in their brain so that they would feel good about things, they would feel relieved and well. If person is well and without mental disorders, one would feel good about similar things as others would as well. Having this inborn similarity of wit in mind, good and bad could be defined from the point of evolution for closed system of human mind of course, because nihilism is right about having no real truth, but in closed system some kind of truth could be presented in my opinion.

Actually it's kind of the other way around. We evolved to take pleasure from the things that benefit our survival. For example, sugar. We enjoy it because back in ye ancient days it was the best source of energy. Same goes for salt and other minerals, which were extremely important in warm areas.

Again, by saying evolve I do not mean biological evolution. We do however seek to evolve as personalities or evolve in certain area where we could put our effort in. For exmaple, we no longer need to be very strong or adapt very well in order to survive, we evolved from that as one solid sociaty that can assure survival with different kind of life. We evolved from that and it no longer play any role. This role disappeared not because environment changed naturally and we just adapted, no, it disappeared because WE changed the environment with the will to evolve as sociaty. Another example would be what we eat. We actually no longer need meat so a better and more healthy diet can be formed. It is possible to survive without meat and live on average 10 years longer being vegetarian (by statistics), because we again evolved as sociaty working together for the better course. So we do seek to evolve, but not biologically, because our biology is barely challenged today, except for some medicine or life style in some cases (sitting a lot). And finally we have technology because of natural desire to evolve beyond biology, every single person on earth has these traits, of course only few manage to make a bigger change.

We don't need to be strong anymore, but it's still there. People with good looks are still considered attractive because it used to mean they had the best chances for survival and procreation.
Also, vegeterianism has some issues. It can usually lack the needed amount of essential aminoacids, some of which are only found in animals.

What I am trying to say is that ignoring laws of all kinds of evolution and not biological one only, because I use word evolution for a wider specter of meaning rather than for biological side only, life's meaning may not be found beyond subjective and most primal needs such as shelter, food and sex, as for any animal. Opening doors for a wide range of evolution impact for your life may help to acquire objective ideas if going beyond biological evolution of course.

Well I think you're getting it wrong, nihilism isn't saying that we should all just die right now, it's actually the opposite. It doesn't matter what we do, we don't have any boundaries. Life might not have one objective meaning, but that just means we can give it the meaning we want it to have.

Talked about this above. What to add, we are forced to follow biological and instinct-driven evolution indeed, but we are not forced to evolve as sociaty or evolve as a separate individual and improve certain skills, just because it gives joy, we just tend to evolve this way if we get pleasant conditions to break through basic needs and achieve more.

Well, we kinda are forced to be influenced by sociocultural evolution. If you know anything about sociologists such as Weber (I think it was him) who said that we don't form societies because we want to, but because we are forced to. Society is a compromise. We agree to it because it benefits us to some extent.
That's a very good example. :) However, since I am trying to frame everything into a closed system of human mind, imagine a stuation where you get a whole world instead of one room and you get a lifetime instead of one hour. You would be presented with many opportunities to satisfy your brain and contribute for the good of sociaty, because in this room you would not be alone and you would have tools to leave a mark. It would make a change from evolution point of view for you as individual and your sociaty. However if you frame entire sociaty and humanity as one solid piece and put it in the room with acid, it doesn't matter at all what is being done, because all falls into acid. It does matter since that solid piece has many individuals and therefore we are individuals ourselves we seek to satisfy our brains formed by evolution.

Well perhaps I shouldn't have made acid represent death, but in the end the universe will suffer from proton decay and quantum fluctuation which might mean a new big bang, which in the end means everything will condense again and we'll be back at 0.

No, we are not necessary for universe to exist at all, that is for sure and nihilism is completely right on this. But once we appear, we do care to exist and naturally we care leave a mark on this planet. No objective truth in universe indeed, but objectivity could be driven from ourselves, from our minds and what it needs to be satisfied in all aspects, not biological or instinct ones only. Current non-religious morality could be driven from empathy only.

Yay.
Also, as I stated above, proton decay and quantum fluctuation will make it irrelevant in the end.

Yes it is and no it is not. It is subjective to the point that it is always driven from the human mind, there are no already set laws in the universe that would tell us exactly how to behave, however from evolution point of view having in mind that we all have similar minds and desires, objectivity can be driven to some extent as to describe what is good and bad. Bad could be something what stops from progress as sociaty or individuality and good as induces the improvement, because improvement makes us feel good, therefore evolution based mind is satisfied.

Improvement does not necessarily makes us feel good, I mean, many perfectly normal people don't like improvement/change much. Also, isn't improvement kind of subjective as well? There was a species of hominids who had incredibly developed brains, more developed than ours. But their surroundings were ones that needed muscles, not brains.

It is another error of the mind and I am sure humanity is quite far from evolving into that level yet so that something like this could be svoled without killings. This is the odd of sociaty, because they worked as selfish and primitive individuals and not as a sociaty. In real life conditions varies and nothing is ever as strict as conditions in exmaples such as this: only one eats it and only one survives, so they fight for it. In reality it is never like that, too many factors that goes into situation, it can not be even calculated.

Although there are numerous social factors, and you are right that they can not even be calculated, the instinct for surival usual surpasses most other "needs" or "wantings"

Because religion and a culture of certain circle of people is never a good index to measure morality. Religion is based on the lack of knowledge and attempt to control stupid crowd, where culture is based on conservative truths and laws made up by sociaty which may not be always right, because unpleasant conditions led to this. Religion and culture puts us into certain frames of life, it doesn't promote evolution as sociaty or individuality, it sets limits that can not be passed so this distorts the concept of more pure morality.

How come religion and culture are so influential then? Religion is not always based on the lack of knowledge. For example, hinduism and islam (and judaism). Hindus consider cows sacred because if they ate them they couldn't survive, as cows are more useful for them alive than on a plate. Islam and Judaism both ban eating pork. There's nothing wrong with pigs, however they eat the same food as humans and require much more, which is why the religion bans it, in order to help the people. Yes, religions (such as Christianity) can become a tool to control the crowd, they usually start as relatively useful and beneficial. They become tools because... Machiavellianism and other stuff. I'd like to call that nihilism's older siblings (although technically it should probably be existentialism and skepticism)
 
Level 31
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
2,562
someone can hate you just because you have are of a different pigmentation/gender/religion/nationality.
That's pure example of mind error or lack of intellect. This kind of stuff should not exist in sociaty that is willing to do progress.
And let's be honest, the human mind has many flaws.
Yes indeed, it is really hard or nearly impossible to be completely rational, but that is what sociaty / individuals should be trying to achieve, because more rational individual will always be winning or having an edge over others. This can be trained, for example, through medidation that enables to be less impulsive.
Evolution does definitely not define 100% of you
Well I didn't mean it so straightforward, you have to read between the lines, hehe. What I meant was evolution affect every single aspect, not biological only. However I do not see how you link distance perception with evolution, could you go more into that?
but rather subconsciously
Yes, that is exactly what I meant, it is linked with clear mind however, there is a link between those, but definitely it is not the same.
Evolution CAN be surpressed.
You said it, you need to begin supressing it in the first place, you need to override what was kind of inborn and what would develope naturally without outer stronger influence. This however does not eliminate the fact, that people are born with similar traits of thinking towards good and bad.
Actually it's kind of the other way around. We evolved to take pleasure from the things that benefit our survival.
Many things can be narrowed towards benefiting survival, but definitely not all. How art can benefit in survival? Because people tend to express themselves in art, it gives great pleasure, that is individual progress / evolution.
We don't need to be strong anymore, but it's still there. People with good looks are still considered attractive because it used to mean they had the best chances for survival and procreation.
Also, vegeterianism has some issues. It can usually lack the needed amount of essential aminoacids, some of which are only found in animals.
It is here indeed, but we don't need the strength. You can look good, but be really weak and maintain good looks. Muscle size not necessarily mean bigger strength, it is in consistency. Many guys doesn't look good, they maintain big percent of fat, but their strength is just wow. About vegetarianism, milk and eggs provide those missing elements so it is completely valid, perhaps you meant vegans?
Well I think you're getting it wrong, nihilism isn't saying that we should all just die right now, it's actually the opposite. It doesn't matter what we do, we don't have any boundaries. Life might not have one objective meaning, but that just means we can give it the meaning we want it to have.
Yeah, it doesn't matter in the big picture, but it matter to you as individuality or sociaty itself, I am narrowing it to it only, because other than that nihilism is right. And basic simple truths with title of objectivity could be driven from evolution due to similar mechanics of mind and what it seeks to satisty. That's my main idea. I don't think nihilism suggest that we can get our meanings, it suggest there is none no matter what (excluding basic needs such as shelter, food and sex), or am I missing something? I may though.
Well, we kinda are forced to be influenced by sociocultural evolution. If you know anything about sociologists such as Weber (I think it was him) who said that we don't form societies because we want to, but because we are forced to. Society is a compromise. We agree to it because it benefits us to some extent.
That is very true, but as I said we are not forced to evolve as sociaty. We do become a part of it, but it is all up to us if we settle down with certain laws of culture and rules and be afraid to change or we actually see it as a pattern in which we can progress and achieve greater things. It is human trait to stay conservative and not move on, it is the crime of survival instincts, because your subconsciousness is telling you that new things might be dangerious for you and old stuff has been tested by time. This is where people should be trying to do the change, because it is really hard to evolve as sociaty right now. But we are getting there, step by step with generations.
Well perhaps I shouldn't have made acid represent death, but in the end the universe will suffer from proton decay and quantum fluctuation which might mean a new big bang, which in the end means everything will condense again and we'll be back at 0.
Maybe we will be in the other universe by then, we don't know, we have plenty of time though. :) And we would survive this only because we were willing to do the progress as one solid unit that were driven by natural evolution based desire to evolve as sociaty and individuals.
Improvement does not necessarily makes us feel good, I mean, many perfectly normal people don't like improvement/change much. Also, isn't improvement kind of subjective as well? There was a species of hominids who had incredibly developed brains, more developed than ours. But their surroundings were ones that needed muscles, not brains.
Yes, as I just said few paragraphs ago, change means danger, but evolution present us ways on how to overcome it and perhaps after many thousands of years this will be permanently supressed. Current surroundings don't need muscle (of course we need to move to maintain health), that age is done, we evolved from that, but not biologically, because it simply happened faster and biology just can't keep up with this.
How come religion and culture are so influential then? Religion is not always based on the lack of knowledge. For example, hinduism and islam (and judaism). Hindus consider cows sacred because if they ate them they couldn't survive, as cows are more useful for them alive than on a plate. Islam and Judaism both ban eating pork. There's nothing wrong with pigs, however they eat the same food as humans and require much more, which is why the religion bans it, in order to help the people. Yes, religions (such as Christianity) can become a tool to control the crowd, they usually start as relatively useful and beneficial. They become tools because... Machiavellianism and other stuff. I'd like to call that nihilism's older siblings (although technically it should probably be existentialism and skepticism)
It is influential because human is extremely flexible. I still don't see how religion is not based on the lack of knowlede. Cows no longer serve the same purpose as they did before, they still worship cows because it is the tradition. Pork issue is irrelevant today as well, many countries support pork, if it was so economically inefficient, which will be within time though, they wouldn't be producing it. Islam / Judaism prefer saying it is really dirty rather than ineconomical. It is traditions that are keeping those completely needless beliefs. Many christians aren't really christians, but they celebrate events such as christmas, yet they don't give a single fuck what is it about, it is just a tradition to follow, cold reality. I prefer sticking to pegan idea which actually holds meaning. And religion basis is to present answers to those who lack knowledge and can't live with it. They would rather hear the answer from someone else than attempt to find out by themselves.
 
I feel like the debate has currently gone off the rails, so I'm just going to try dive past all the red herrings and hit the crux of APproject's argument. (plus Sky Green has already contributed certain points that I need not repeat)

Since from evolution point of view we seek to survive and evolve, objective concepts of life can exist
You've provided zero evidence for this claim. 'Emotion' and 'feeling' are not objective concepts, they are subjective experiences, and they are definitely not 'absolutely, objectively necessary'. Plants have survived and evolved for a lot longer than us, yet they possess no sentience, no emotion.

You're right though;
If there was no morality or order, if nihilism would be the main idea to follow, humanity could not work together and achieve what was already achieved and satisfy our human nature.
Emotion, morality, the drive to find meaning... these are all things that we needed to have achieved what humanity has achieved. Unfortunately for your argument, they all are still subjectively evolved desires and needs.
 
Level 31
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
2,562
I feel like the debate has currently gone off the rails
Well not really, because it is all linked with nihilism. Must prove other points to prove another point.

You've provided zero evidence for this claim. 'Emotion' and 'feeling' are not objective concepts, they are subjective experiences, and they are definitely not 'absolutely, objectively necessary'.

Unfortunately for your argument, they all are still subjectively evolved desires and needs.
It seems like I fail to tell what I want to tell. These concepts are absolutely subjective if you narrow it down to idea that each feeling and emotion belongs to each individual and each feeling and emotion triggers in different circumstances on a different level. It is subjective in idea that these emotions and feelings belongs to an individual, true, but that is not what I am really trying say.

Every single human being, who has no disorders, is marked with very very similar traits of mind towards emotions and feelings. These traits were evolved. Because human beings are all of the same species, we all have similar or even the same traits of mind mechanics. Having this in mind, objective concepts of evolution-driven traits towards similar mindset can be set. Human is not born as an empty sheet of paper, these traits are inborn because of evolution, you can however change and override these inborn traits with strong influence to certain extent only, because human is born programmed, you don't do all the programming yourself when you raise a kid, it happens naturally.

Darwin's observations on evolution of emotions suggests:
"One important observation he made was that even in individuals who were born blind, body and facial expressions displayed are similar to those of anyone else. The ideas found in his book on universality of emotions were intended to go against Sir Charles Bell's 1844 claim that human facial muscles were created to give them the unique ability to express emotions."

Important notes of Darwin's principles for evolution of emotion:
"Principle of serviceable habits, which he defined as useful habits reinforced previously, and then inherited by offspring. (...) He cited examples of people attempting to remember something and raising their brows, as though they could "see" what they were trying to remember."
"The third of the principles is expressive habits, or nervous discharge from the nervous system. This principle proposes that some habits are performed because of a build-up to the nervous system, which causes a discharge of the excitement."

Paul Ekman's research:
"Ekman and Wallace Friesen presented to people in a preliterate culture a story involving a certain emotion, along with photographs of specific facial expressions. The photographs had been previously used in studies using subjects from Western cultures. When asked to choose, from two or three photographs, the emotion being expressed in the story, the preliterate subjects' choices matched those of the Western subjects most of the time. These results indicated that certain expressions are universally associated with particular emotions, even in instances in which the people had little or no exposure to Western culture. "
"These expressions have clear similarities to displays of submission and dominance by other primates."

This suggests that emotions and feelings are driven by evolution. Since we live in the world of our mind, that has similar traits, certain laws to all individuals can be set rather objectively towards good and bad, because we all possess same mechanism of mind, we all are the same in terms of inborn and non-influenced mindset. Control and strong influence is needed in order to change that.

So if similarities of inborn evolution-driven mindset mechanics are accepted, objective truths in closed system of human beings can be set. Human and other closely related primates do express themselve in similar ways, they excite and feel joy because something good happens for them, so in objective perspective I would suggest to support positive emotions and feelings, therefore morality could / can / partly is be based on this. Same thing goes for desire to evolve, it is not subjective, because every being has these traits, it is not like only some had desire to evolve as sociaty or individual and managed to achieve what is achieved today, for example, technology. If morality have this basis, nihilism doesn't work in closed system of similarily minded individuals due to inborn desires to satisfy one's brain. (excluding mind errors such as killing to remove the threat, threat should not exist in well balanced sociaty)
 
Level 12
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
1,152
This suggests that emotions and feelings are driven by evolution. Since we live in the world of our mind, that has similar traits, certain laws to all individuals can be set rather objectively towards good and bad, because we all possess same mechanism of mind, we all are the same in terms of inborn and non-influenced mindset. Control and strong influence is needed in order to change that.

So if similarities of inborn evolution-driven mindset mechanics are accepted, objective truths in closed system of human beings can be set. Human and other closely related primates do express themselve in similar ways, they excite and feel joy because something good happens for them, so in objective perspective I would suggest to support positive emotions and feelings, therefore morality could / can / partly is be based on this. Same thing goes for desire to evolve, it is not subjective, because every being has these traits, it is not like only some had desire to evolve as sociaty or individual and managed to achieve what is achieved today, for example, technology. If morality have this basis, nihilism doesn't work in closed system of similarily minded individuals due to inborn desires to satisfy one's brain. (excluding mind errors such as killing to remove the threat, threat should not exist in well balanced sociaty)

Emotions and feelings are indeed driven by evolution, but you seem to fail to understand their effect on our human society (not sociaty) and on the concept of morality.

Let's just look at some of the emotions that contribute to morality.
Shame - A very important one. Let's say you do a minor "bad" thing. You don't feel shame because you did it per se, you feel it because society either taught you too feel it or because some people saw you do it and reacted negatively (but they were also taught to do that).

Also, not every being has the desire to evolve wether it is socioculturally or biologically. Evolution happens without our consent, atleast not the biological one. Sociocultural is a different thing, but it all depends on our enviroment. If everyone had their needs satisfied, there would be no need for SCE (SocioCultural Evolution), but our enviroment constantly changes, and therefore we change, causing a catalyst that cause even more changes.

Also, you're trying to say that nihilism doesn't work, but you fail to see the point of it. It isn't some philosophy that's urging you to commit suicide because everything is pointless, it's trying to say that it really doesn't matter. Nihilism would in fact work in a closed system of similarly minded individuals because they would have the same delusion of their objective/goal in life. Those who believe life has a meaning are either dishonest or deluded

(excluding mind errors such as killing to remove the threat, threat should not exist in well balanced sociaty)

I doubt that's a mind error. All animals kill eachother, even we humans kill other animals, and sometimes eachother. Wars for example show that it can be socially accepted to kill another human being, yet it doesn't mean that the killer has a mind error. Now onto the bolded part, that's a bit utopian in my opinion. Threats can be created randomly, perhaps as a side-effect of a natural disaster, society cannot always affect some threats, no matter how well-balanced it is.
 
Level 31
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
2,562
Emotions and feelings are indeed driven by evolution, but you seem to fail to understand their effect on our human society (not sociaty) and on the concept of morality.

Let's just look at some of the emotions that contribute to morality.
Shame - A very important one. Let's say you do a minor "bad" thing. You don't feel shame because you did it per se, you feel it because society either taught you too feel it or because some people saw you do it and reacted negatively (but they were also taught to do that).
In order to feel shame you do not necessarily need to be taught about it. Siblings of one-year-old may feel ashamed when they are interrupted in exploring the world, by making a mess for example and parents says somewhat irritably. Shame is pure matter of society, it got nothing to do with morality though. According to Silvan S. Tomkins, shame is about inferiority, interruption of interest, mismatch, and guilt about moral transgression. (source) Since society is ever changing, concept of shame is also adaptive so it doesn't really play a major role in shaping morality indeed, but society.
Also, not every being has the desire to evolve wether it is socioculturally or biologically. Evolution happens without our consent, atleast not the biological one. Sociocultural is a different thing, but it all depends on our enviroment. If everyone had their needs satisfied, there would be no need for SCE (SocioCultural Evolution), but our enviroment constantly changes, and therefore we change, causing a catalyst that cause even more changes.
We are constantly consciously and subconsciously driven to satisfy those needs that is why sociocultural evolution is here. I am not saying we are going to solve every problem soon, not at all, but we all have a drive for that. We change the environment, because it stopped changing by itself long time ago. That's odd, because it seems like you denied your first sentence. Every being desire harmony and self development once other problems are solved, check Maslow's pyramid, it illustrates it very well.
Also, you're trying to say that nihilism doesn't work, but you fail to see the point of it. It isn't some philosophy that's urging you to commit suicide because everything is pointless, it's trying to say that it really doesn't matter.
If nothing really matters, nothing has any point, it is pointless, I see a very normal logical link here.
Nihilism would in fact work in a closed system of similarly minded individuals because they would have the same delusion of their objective/goal in life. Those who believe life has a meaning are either dishonest or deluded.
But I doubt nihilism supports delusion. It doesn't say: nothing matter what you do, so you will have to be delusional and get your own meaning. Does it? As I see it delusional people do not support nihilism, because they have a meaning for themselves. Nihilism is right about big picture, but in small picture we still bend for the laws of evolution and we are driven by desire to evolve socially and individually, so since we have this drive, I don't see why we can not call it objective to certain extent. Mind being flexible still doesn't eliminate idea that our minds are common in mechanics and seek to basically satisfy the same.
I doubt that's a mind error. All animals kill eachother, even we humans kill other animals, and sometimes eachother. Wars for example show that it can be socially accepted to kill another human being, yet it doesn't mean that the killer has a mind error. Now onto the bolded part, that's a bit utopian in my opinion. Threats can be created randomly, perhaps as a side-effect of a natural disaster, society cannot always affect some threats, no matter how well-balanced it is.
But humans are different from animals, we are able to more than animal in all aspects, there is no question about it. So comparing animal killing animal is not really equal to human killing human despite human being animal as well, because human seeks more than primitive instincts are telling to seek.

Nobody wants a war, so war should not exist. War is based on having no choice, you kill, or you get killed. Someone is willing to go against someone's will by force, then war happens, but it should not ever happen, I still don't see how it is not a mind error of goverment people who does the force / propaganda thing.

I never wanted to kill anyone and I doubt if I ever will. Why? Because my environment is favourable. I don't hate anyone and I don't think I ever did. Why? Because my environment is pleasant for me. Killings, hates, mind errors doesn't just happen randomly, it happens because of problems that people are constantly trying to solve. If everyone had pleasant conditions for life, mind error would be minimized to minimum. Army should not exist as well, money spent for it could be put towards much more useful things, but it does exist because of threats created by mind error, including religions that doesn't do much in terms of peace even today.

It sound utopian indeed, but that is humanity's ultimate goal. This goal may not be reached completely never ever, but society as one solid unit can go forward and improve towards better conditions of life, that is what actually people are trying to do right now. What I am trying to say is that having an argument that is driven by mind error, which should not really be here, is not really strong enough in terms of deciding objectivity of morality that is driven by evolution, that's how I percieve it.

Oh and cheers, 2000th post. :)
 
Level 21
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
6,810
But I doubt nihilism supports delusion. It doesn't say: nothing matter what you do, so you will have to be delusional and get your own meaning. Does it? As I see it delusional people do not support nihilism, because they have a meaning for themselves. Nihilism is right about big picture, but in small picture we still bend for the laws of evolution and we are driven by desire to evolve socially and individually, so since we have this drive, I don't see why we can not call it objective to certain extent. Mind being flexible still doesn't eliminate idea that our minds are common in mechanics and seek to basically satisfy the same.

Nihilism is not right about anything. Nihilism in itself is a delusion, created by a mind too fearful to accept that there is a power greater than itself, and in it's delusion rebel against everything and try to destroy everything that proves of existence of that which it is hiding from.
 
Level 31
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
2,562
Nihilism is not right about anything. Nihilism in itself is a delusion, created by a mind too fearful to accept that there is a power greater than itself, and in it's delusion rebel against everything and try to destroy everything that proves of existence of that which it is hiding from.
I thought you were on Team A. I bet on my house you can't prove that statement you just typed down.

Nihilism is right on many things, what I attempted is to highlight some objectivity from evolution point of view because all of us are driven by same mechanism of mind.

It would be cool if others from Team B with other point of view joined as well.
 
Level 7
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
207
The deadline`s little more than 10 hours ahead, amirite?
I shall try to respond by then.
<3, Sela
 

Kyrbi0

Arena Moderator
Level 37
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
8,943
~Team A~

I'm late, and have ~10 seconds. My bad; hopefully next week will give me more time to go on.

(Though I will say, the statement (& even the explanation) given for Team A's side is remarkably... un-clear. Nevertheless...)

~~~

Nihilism... The 'rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless', and/or 'the extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence'... It is the most true. It is the most objective reality to which we can correlate the many, ultimately meaningless advances of the subjective.

For do not many religions and moral frameworks necessitate the veracity of their claims at the expensive of all/most/any others? If one is to be correct, all others must be false; and if all are correct, all are likewise false.

The only reasonable stance is that none of them are true. Thus is true freedom wrought from the jaws of illusory 'truth'.
 
Level 31
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
2,562
The only reasonable stance is that none of them are true. Thus is true freedom wrought from the jaws of illusory 'truth'.
Very true that, despite religious people telling their silly argument "we all worship the same deity, but with different name", it is just ridiculous. Religions are too different for them to work together and it makes no sense that God would seek for different life styles and values for a different latitude. Religion however is not needed to maintain clear mind and objective morality to certain extent due to similar perception of values that were formed by evolution.
 
Level 7
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
207
Alright, since I`m kinda busy this week I`ll justmake this short and painful.
I`ll disregard the sub-discussions spawned, as neither am I aware of how much of derailment is tolerated or even desired, nor do I have the time left to adress them.
Anyways, lets get down to business

As Thomas Hobbes has (correctly) pointed out some 500 years ago, a lack of constraints will ultimatively lead us murdering one another for good. While existential nihilism would suggest that this (or anything else) matters not, we cannot assume that everyone is of that belief, thus, some /care/ about their lives. As long as this is the case, we must respect this, because Kant`s Kategorischer Imperativ dictates so.
In fact, the Kategorischer Imperativ by itself is enough to, well spawn off a reasonable moral system (?) by itself, but that would be another entire discussion.

(crappy last minute contrib, amirite?)

<3, Sela
 

sentrywiz

S

sentrywiz

I want to join Team A if there's room and this isn't over.
 
Level 31
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
2,562
a lack of constraints will ultimatively lead us murdering one another for good.
Perhaps it would back 500 years ago. This saying represents holes in the structure of society, morality and basic human intellect. Human does not have an urge to kill without a reason. Don't provide reason and there will be no killings. People evolved individually, socially and basic living conditions now are much greater than it was before therefore reducing amount of problems that MIGHT drive for murder, yet we do have other problems today that also needs to be minimized. Eliminate problems, murdering is gone. Problems lies not only in society, but in self development as well. I do not want to harm anyone, I live a quite good life, am I different from you by any means? Nobody (mental disorders excluded) wants to kill, they are usually forced to kill due to unpleasant situation. Just going against this statement.
because Kant`s Kategorischer Imperativ dictates so.
You should expand this a little bit, because to this idea saying "because bible said so" is also an argument.
well spawn off a reasonable moral system (?) by itself,
Morality can not spawn by itself, it is a concept, it doesn't work on itself. Since everything has a reason, deeper cause of why it forms like that must be highlighted, that's what I attempted to do from evolutionary point of view above.

EDIT: Bah, I just argued against my team member.
 
Level 7
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
207
I am utterly certain that we`re still able to murder each other for petty reasons, even now.
And what I meant is that you can construct a worky moral system using the Kategorischer Imperativ as its axiom.

(Anyways, isn`t this debate`s deadline over?)
 
Top