Are most Autistic people consider themselves as nihilistic?

Post Reply New Topic

I think that's where moral beliefs come in. The 'system' believes in acts and consequences. It believes for example that people comply with tax obligations, or refrain from murdering people for fear of enforcement and penalty. The reality is that the vast majority of people comply because they believe in the social contract and moral obligation of paying for shared and vital services and because it's profoundly wrong to harm others.

On that basis, it's hard to imagine that nobody really genuinely does not care.

Religion did not provide us with moral values, it's merely a manifestation of what we already know and believe in (only centralised and industrialised)

Wrong. Scientific knowledge and spiritual beliefs are two different planes. It's wrong to attribute religious attitude to science (like holy beliefs - science is founded on doubt) or put one's religion in a place for science.

Well, for me assuming that there is no God meant exactly the opposite: there will be no recompensate for other people's suffering after their deaths, so what I do here and now to help them really matters. I can't devolve my responsibilities to some divine being.

Yes, blase, that's the word I was looking for.

There's no universal definition of being or doing good. What society considers as good might be the opposite in a different nation. A war veteran can be considered as a hero in his own country while he was a mass murderer overseas, but people will only see his "good side" because killing the enemies it's all good and socially acceptable but killing someone within your own tribe will always be punished because we're all goods, right? That's why I don't believe in society's standards in terms of doing good because it varies from people to people.

So the guy who was good in his own ages can easily turned to be an evil even a few years later. Hitler, Stalin was all viewed as a national hero but today they're considered mass murderer sociopaths, maybe a few decade later some system will consider Hitler as a good man because his acts will be in line with the leader's agenda.
All our definition about morality can be rewritten anytime.

A strange example but: I recall watching a a nature doc where a penguin was building a nest from stones. Everytime he went to fetch more, another penguin kept sneaking in and stealing the stones. Eventually he got caught, the nest maker went crazy at the thief, and the thief backed down and fled.
One bird knew they were doing wrong, and the other knew they were being wronged. No book, no 10 commandments, just universal and intrinsic knowledge. The core values seem to be universal at least.

Not a strange example. A very good example.

Religion did not create morals; people did.

Within religions, there are moral precepts that people promulgated. They are part and parcel of various religions.

Unfortunately, many people believe that the "Supreme Being/Beings" are the ones who promulgated morals, not giving enough credit to the ingenuity of Humankind.

That's very true. Altruism is actually a naturally beneficial behaviour in animals that live in groups, it evolved in us as a way to ensure we could live in large groups without constantly killing and thieving from each other. We evolved to be good to each other because it's how society thrives. Competition and violence only works well for animals that live mostly solitary lives.

That's the reason for "social rituals," too.

They seem superfluous now; but they were definitely necessary during the early days of Humankind.

Notice how the more "primitive" the society, the more involved are the "social rituals."

Making assumption based on animals and their limited understanding on group dynamics then translate it to human society doesn't make much sense in my opinion. There are certain common aspects among mammals which includes the human race but I don't believe in the categorization of people.

Society is based on competition everybody is competing since it's the key for survival. People step over other's shoulders to get a higher rank in society and base their worth on their income, status and access of sex. We also kill each other whether in a direct or indirect way. Make somebody homeless because he can't pay his bills is another form of passive murder since that person is technically limited to make his livings anymore and most likely die by hunger if he doesn't have any access to foods or basic things he will die within a few years.

People with asperger sydrome have an often harder time to compete. Statistics show that 80% of people with autism never had a job. Society let those people die who can't compete whether by their own attempt by suicide or drugs, alcohol and hunger. People are often cruel and bullying to each other it's part of the human nature. Psychopaths who often take high positions in society have zero emotion towards other people and give zero attention if someone dies because of their faults.

The new healthcare system in the US and UK refuse to threat those people who don't have money to pay for a faster treatment. There are of course no reports on the numbers of people who died because they didn't get the treatment in the right time because they didn't have enough money to pay for their medical treatment.

From an optimistically point of view we don't murder each other therefore we have a peaceful lives but we're all here for competition for our own goods. We can't look aside and expect some God or leader to take care for us because that's not how things go by. We can legally murder people by abortion and euthanasia in some states already. but illegal murders like dying because of the psychological pressure the society makes upon it's citizens makes no statistics. A lot people would be way better living alone but the government exploit it's citizens by taxes and forces everybody to attempt schools to become a so called "good citizen" what kind of freedom we talking about when parents can't even make a decision over their kids own good. Some people have social phobia and would prefer to study alone why should we force everyone to think and act the same when it just limits our abilities and make us mentally more incapable for the rest of our lives. All we do is make a limit of human nature by creating a mindset which lies inside a box made by people whose authority can never be questioned because they're the experts of society and surely know everything better. i'm being ironic here
We slowly gave up our own rights because of fear, but this made us more exploitable and victim of a system which practices mass control over it's citizens.

I'm not making assumptions, there has been a lot of research done on animal behaviour and altruism and co-operation show up again and again as behaviours in species that live in groups because it is mutually beneficial to take care of each other rather than compete when you live in a group. Competition works better as a strategy for animals who don't rely on community to survive, which is why it is the strategy of most solo predators. It really has nothing to do with morals and everything to do with what is practical. Mother Nature understands that a moral system based on co-operation and taking care of each other makes sense for a group of organisms that rely on each other to survive.

Palaua seems to totally disregard win/win situations, positive sum games. There is a competition-cooperation dynamics among humans. Humans have been living in groups/tribes/societes since they were common ancestors with chimps.

Long, long time ago a whole village needed to cooperate to hunt down an elephant. Then they needed to divide the elephant somehow – preferably the way maximizing their chance to hunt down another elephant. The most useful individuals get the best parts, don't let anyone useful starve.
Thus, a feeling of justice is very deeply rooted in us. It helped to promote cooperation. Of course, the details depend on culture, but the need for behaving "the right way" is an effect of evolution pressure. Because humans have been always living in groups and the pressure to cooperate was put on whole groups.

I identify as a nihilist, but doubt that is a common philosophical view amongst autistic people or the population in general (at least in my experience).

People who live in small tribes less likely to compete than today's average urban citizens. We're built to compete against each others within rules.I assume you mean co operation by not killing each other because laws make it forbidden but we still step over other people and either exploit them or make ourselves exploited given by our abilities. Smarter individuals exploit less intelligent ones. Human farming exist since our leaders farm and herd us into the direction they find pleasurable. That's why we're forced to attend education and study to become good citizens, aka useful for the government. We're technically tax paying animals nothing more nothing less. It's a Walt Disney like lie to think humanity is good and not made this system based on their selfish, narcissist needs.

I had nihilistic leanings when younger, but could never return to them at this point in my life - the world is just so packed full of wildly improbable phenomena and deep meaning. When I wake up in the morning, when I go out in nature, when I learn new things it's as if I get smacked in the face with big surprising wallops of relevance of events. The world is so deep and rich that at times it almost seems absurd. NTs seem to take that richness for granted for some reason. Oftentimes I see the clear relevance and synchronicity of life events only in hindsight, years later. I was a physical materialist way back in high school, 40+ years ago, but over time it has become obvious that there is so much more to this world than simple physical reality - having that materialist world-view was a way for me to cope with frustrations relating to integrating difficult concepts for me. I was reducing the world to formulas that my autistic mind could work with and manipulate. It's challenging to be open-minded. The older I get the more humble I've become about my ability to master the world on the basis of intellect alone - and the more I've come to realize that there is no way for me to ever know it all - there are worlds upon worlds beyond my dreams.

I'm not sure if my lack of interest in morality is sourced in neurodivergence, my utter lack of a religious upbringing, or just general cussedness - possibly an intersection of these.

Regardless, I find ethics to be a far more productive area of focus - ethics isn't concerned with any abstract, absolutist definition of good or evil, it's a pragmatic analysis of which course of action is most likely to yield the greatest benefit for the greatest number. (Of course that's a simplistic explanation, I'm using it as a contrast with morals, which I find arbitrary and ambiguous.)