Peace is worthless if you don't have freedom.

Post Reply New Topic

Moral nihilism much? At least adopt the basic libertarian idea that anything which harms another or infringes on their rights is wrong.

Yes, nihilism a lot. See, there is a reason I have an issue with the basic libertarian idea. I think it is efficient, but I cannot say I would want to force it down on other people. Let them set up their own legal systems so that way they can screw with the law however they want.

efficient at what?

Efficient from the perspective of each person pursuing their own goals. Or, I can just generally say "economically efficient":

* No one can be made better off without making someone else worse off.
* More output cannot be obtained without increasing the amount of inputs.
* Production proceeds at the lowest possible per unit cost.

(of course keeping in mind that perfect efficiency is not something that most systems can have)

Killing is an act of freedom unless you're the one being killed. There are far better and less drastic means of self-expression. If you have the right to kill, I have the right to live.

So. . . you have a magical definition of "increasing" that takes in technology, right?

Edit: or maybe the magical word is "amount?"

Last edited by Jainaday on 22 Jul 2008, 8:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

If you advocate moral nihilism, you speak for the devil. You might as well be the devil.

"The notion of ambiguity must not be confused with that of absurdity. To declare that existence is absurd is to deny that it can ever be given a meaning; to say that it is ambiguous is to assert that its meaning is never fixed, that it must be constantly won. Absurdity challenges every ethics; but also the finished rationalization of the real would leave no room for ethics; it is because man's condition is ambiguous that he seeks, through failure and outrageousness, to save his existence. Thus, to say that action has to be lived in its truth, that is, in the consciousness of the antinomies which it involves, does not mean that one has to renounce it."

-Simone De Beauvoir

I did not understand a word of that quote.

I guess the language is too fancy for me.

I'm sorry. .

That was in no way the intent.

It helps to have read the rest of the book. . . titled "the ethics of ambiguity." It's largely about how what a lot of people (I'm guessing at the inclusion of awesomelyglorious and yourself) call nihilism does not preclude a strong ethics.

Ambiguity is a basis for "nihilism"* under which ethics are reasonable; in a distillation of the quote, "To declare that existence is absurd is to deny that it can ever be given a meaning; to say that it is ambiguous is to assert that its meaning is never fixed, that it must be constantly won." . . . and from meaning, then ethics--ethics, from the Greek ethikos, translated by Cicero directly to the Latin moralis from which we have our word morals.


* I use quotes because I can't deliver a philosophically competent definition of this word, nor am I sure exactly how De Beauvoir would have it used.

Technology at a given point in time is constant, as is capital, so the issue isn't a magical definition, but rather the fact that "cannot be obtained" refers to a period of time. So, technology does not really impact economic efficiency because it is still a part of it.


If you advocate moral nihilism, then you advocate moral nihilism. Frankly, a better term for me is moral skepticism, which really is less demonic as far as I can tell from a moral perspective.


I can understand the idea, it makes sense. I disagree with the idea of "never fixed", but "constantly won" makes sense. Essentially, the idea is moral skepticism combined with moral necessity.


Nihilism does preclude strong ethics. The reason is that nihilism is a declaration of absurdity, so therefore there is no problem. Skepticism however does allow for strong ethics, and technically I fall into the skeptical category, I just accepted nihilism simply because I did not care much about the difference.

Nihilism is absurdity, skepticism is ambiguity. The quote and idea are valuable for clarification as I simply took the position assigned to me by an opponent, but if you look upon my idea, I allow for freedom for ambiguity: "I cannot say I would want to force it down on other people. Let them set up their own legal systems so that way they can screw with the law however they want.".