The Ongoing Myth Of Human Morality And Ethics.

Mictlantecuhtli · February 17, 2016, 4:39pm

I’ve been reading a lot of Richard Joyce lately where I’ve been inspired to create a thread on the myth of human morality and ethics for all those skeptics or nihilists like myself.

Here we’ll discuss a whole range of topics such as moral nihilism, moral relativism, moral skepticism, emotivism, amoralism, existential nihilism, absurdism, and moral error theory. My second post after this first initial introductory one I’ll begin posting some theories or perceptions on these subjects.

Mictlantecuhtli · February 17, 2016, 4:55pm

Notice in the selected article it says useful fiction. We must ask ourselves useful, for who? The ruling establishments of course.

Fictionalism is the view in philosophy according to which statements that appear to be descriptions of the world should not be construed as such, but should instead be understood as cases of “make believe”, of pretending to treat something as literally true (a “useful fiction”). Two important strands of fictionalism are modal fictionalism developed by Gideon Rosen, which states that possible worlds, regardless of whether they exist or not, may be a part of a useful discourse, and mathematical fictionalism advocated by Hartry Field, which states that talk of numbers and other mathematical objects is nothing more than a convenience for doing science. Also in meta-ethics, there is an equivalent position called moral fictionalism (championed by Richard Joyce). Many modern versions of fictionalism are influenced by the work of Kendall Walton in aesthetics.

Fictionalism consists in at least the following three theses:

Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be truth-apt; that is, true or false
The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face value—not reduced to meaning something else
The aim of discourse in any given domain is not truth, but some other virtue(s) (e.g., simplicity, explanatory scope).

en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? … edirect=no

Mictlantecuhtli · February 17, 2016, 5:02pm

Moral skepticism (or moral scepticism) is a class of metaethical theories all members of which entail that no one has any moral knowledge. Many moral skeptics also make the stronger, modal, claim that moral knowledge is impossible. Moral skepticism is particularly opposed to moral realism: the view that there are knowable, objective moral truths.

Defenders of some form of moral skepticism include David Hume, J. L. Mackie (1977), Max Stirner, Friedrich Nietzsche, Richard Joyce (2001), Michael Ruse, Joshua Greene, Richard Garner, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (2006b), and the psychologist James Flynn. Strictly speaking, Gilbert Harman (1975) argues in favor of a kind of moral relativism, not moral skepticism. However, he has influenced some contemporary moral skeptics.

Moral skepticism divides into three subclasses: moral error theory (or moral nihilism), epistemological moral skepticism, and noncognitivism.[1] All three of these theories share the same conclusions, which are:

(a) we are never justified in believing that moral claims (claims of the form “state of affairs x is good,” “action y is morally obligatory,” etc.) are true and, even more so
(b) we never know that any moral claim is true.
However, each method arrives at (a) and (b) by different routes.

Moral error theory holds that we do not know that any moral claim is true because

(i) all moral claims are false,
(ii) we have reason to believe that all moral claims are false, and so, because
(iii) since we are not justified in believing any claim we have reason to deny, we are not justified in believing any moral claims.
Epistemological moral skepticism is a subclass of theory, the members of which include Pyrrhonian moral skepticism and dogmatic moral skepticism. All members of epistemological moral skepticism share two things in common: first they acknowledge that we are unjustified in believing any moral claim, and second, they are agnostic on whether (i) is true (i.e. on whether all moral claims are false).

Pyrrhonian moral skepticism holds that the reason we are unjustified in believing any moral claim is that it is irrational for us to believe either that any moral claim is true or that any moral claim is false. Thus, in addition to being agnostic on whether (i) is true, Pyrrhonian moral skepticism denies (ii).
Dogmatic moral skepticism, on the other hand, affirms (ii) and cites (ii)'s truth as the reason we are unjustified in believing any moral claim.
Finally, Noncognitivism holds that we can never know that any moral claim is true because moral claims are incapable of being true or false (they are not truth-apt). Instead, moral claims are imperatives (e.g. “Don’t steal babies!”), expressions of emotion (e.g. “stealing babies: Boo!”), or expressions of “pro-attitudes” (“I do not believe that babies should be stolen.”)

Moral error theory is a position characterized by its commitment to two propositions: (i) all moral claims are false and (ii) we have reason to believe that all moral claims are false. The most famous moral error theorist is J. L. Mackie, who defended the metaethical view in Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (1977). Mackie has been interpreted as giving two arguments for moral error theory.

The first argument people attribute to Mackie, often called the Argument from Queerness,[2] holds that moral claims imply motivation internalism (the doctrine that “It is necessary and a priori that any agent who judges that one of his available actions is morally obligatory will have some (defeasible) motivation to perform that action” [3]). Because motivation internalism is false, however, so too are all moral claims.

The other argument often attributed to Mackie, often called the Argument from Disagreement,[3] maintains that any moral claim (e.g. “Killing babies is wrong”) entails a correspondent “reasons claim” (“one has reason not to kill babies”). Put another way, if “killing babies is wrong” is true then everybody has a reason to not kill babies. This includes the psychopath who takes great pleasure from killing babies, and is utterly miserable when he does not have their blood on his hands. But, surely, (if we assume that he will suffer no reprisals) this psychopath has every reason to kill babies, and no reason not to do so. All moral claims are thus false.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_s … ror_Theory

Mictlantecuhtli · February 17, 2016, 5:16pm

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorality

Mictlantecuhtli · February 17, 2016, 5:23pm

Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be constructed, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise without universal or even relative truth in any sense.[1]

Moral nihilism is distinct from moral relativism, which does allow for actions to be right or wrong relative to a particular culture or individual, and moral universalism, which holds actions to be right or wrong in the same way for everyone everywhere. Insofar as only true statements can be known, moral nihilism implies moral skepticism.

Expressivism
One form of moral nihilism is expressivism. Expressivism denies the principle that our moral judgments try and fail to describe the moral features, because expressivists believe when someone says something is immoral they are not saying it is right or wrong. Expressivists are not trying to speak the truth when making moral judgments; they are simply trying to express their feelings. “We are not making an effort to describe the way the world is. We are not trying to report on the moral features possessed by various actions, motives, or policies. Instead, we are venting our emotions, commanding others to act in certain ways, or revealing a plan of action. When we condemn torture, for instance, we are expressing our opposition to it, indicating our disgust at it, publicizing our reluctance to perform it, and strongly encouraging others not to go in for it. We can do all of these things without trying to say anything that is true.”[1] p. 293.

This makes expressivism a form of non-cognitivism. Non-cognitivism in ethics is the view that moral statements lack truth-value and do not assert genuine propositions. This involves a rejection of the cognitivist claim, shared by other moral philosophies, that moral statements seek to “describe some feature of the world” (Garner 1967, 219-220). This position on its own is logically compatible with realism about moral values themselves. That is, one could reasonably hold that there are objective moral values but that we cannot know them and that our moral language does not seek to refer to them. This would amount to an endorsement of a type of moral skepticism, rather than nihilism.

Typically, however, the rejection of the cognitivist thesis is combined with the thesis that there are, in fact, no moral facts (van Roojen, 2004). But if moral statements cannot be true, and if one cannot know something that is not true, non-cognitivism implies that moral knowledge is impossible (Garner 1967, 219-220).

Not all forms of non-cognitivism are forms of moral nihilism, however: notably, the universal prescriptivism of R.M. Hare is a non-cognitivist form of moral universalism, which holds that judgements about morality may be correct or not in a consistent, universal way, but do not attempt to describe features of reality and so are not, strictly speaking, truth-apt.

Error theory
Error theory is built on three principles:

There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong.
Therefore no moral judgments are true; however,
Our sincere moral judgments try, but always fail, to describe the moral features of things.
Thus, we always lapse into error when thinking in moral terms. We are trying to state the truth when we make moral judgments. But since there is no moral truth, all of our moral claims are mistaken. Hence the error. These three principles lead to the conclusion that there is no moral knowledge. Knowledge requires truth. If there is no moral truth, there can be no moral knowledge. Thus moral values are purely chimerical.[1]

Error theorists combine the cognitivist thesis that moral language consists of truth-apt statements with the nihilist thesis that there are no moral facts. Like moral nihilism itself, however, error theory comes in more than one form: Global falsity and Presupposition failure.

Global falsity
The first, which one might call the global falsity form of error theory, claims that moral beliefs and assertions are false in that they claim that certain moral facts exist that in fact do not exist. J. L. Mackie (1977) argues for this form of moral nihilism. Mackie argues that moral assertions are only true if there are moral properties that are intrinsically motivating, but there is good reason to believe that there are no such intrinsically motivating properties (see the argument from queerness and motivational internalism).

Presupposition failure
The second form, which one might call the presupposition failure form of error theory, claims that moral beliefs and assertions are not true because they are neither true nor false. This is not a form of non-cognitivism, for moral assertions are still thought to be truth-apt. Rather, this form of moral nihilism claims that moral beliefs and assertions presuppose the existence of moral facts that do not exist. This is analogous to presupposition failure in cases of non-moral assertions. Take, for example, the claim that the present king of France is bald. Some argue that this claim is truth-apt in that it has the logical form of an assertion, but it is neither true nor false because it presupposes that there is currently a king of France, but there is not. The claim suffers from “presupposition failure.” Richard Joyce (2001) argues for this form of moral nihilism under the name “fictionalism.”

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism

Mictlantecuhtli · February 17, 2016, 5:41pm

Existential nihilism is the philosophical theory that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. With respect to the universe, existential nihilism posits that a single human or even the entire human species is insignificant, without purpose and unlikely to change in the totality of existence. According to the theory, each individual is an isolated being born into the universe, barred from knowing “why”, yet compelled to invent meaning.[1] The inherent meaninglessness of life is largely explored in the philosophical school of existentialism, where one can potentially create his or her own subjective “meaning” or “purpose”. Of all types of nihilism, existential nihilism has received the most literary and philosophical attention.[2]

The so called meaning of life
The idea that meaning and values are without foundation is a form of nihilism, and the existential response to that idea is noting that meaning is not “a matter of contemplative theory,” but instead, “a consequence of engagement and commitment.”

Jean-Paul Sartre, the author of Being and Nothingness, wrote in his essay Existentialism and Humanism, “What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself.” Here it is made clear what is meant by Existentialists when they say meaning is “a consequence of engagement and commitment”.

The theory purports to describe the human situation to create a life outlook and create meaning, which has been summarized as, “Strut, fret, and delude ourselves as we may, our lives are of no significance, and it is futile to seek or to affirm meaning where none can be found.”[3] Existential nihilists claim that, to be honest, one must face the absurdity of existence, that he/she will eventually die, and that both religion and metaphysics are simply results of the fear of death.[2]

According to Donald A. Crosby, “There is no justification for life, but also no reason not to live. Those who claim to find meaning in their lives are either dishonest or deluded. In either case, they fail to face up to the harsh reality of the human situations”.[3]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_nihilism

Mictlantecuhtli · February 17, 2016, 5:56pm

Absurdism

In philosophy, “the Absurd” refers to the conflict between (1) the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and (2) the human inability to find any. In this context absurd does not mean “logically impossible”, but rather “humanly impossible”.[1] The universe and the human mind do not each separately cause the Absurd, but rather, the Absurd arises by the contradictory nature of the two existing simultaneously.

Accordingly, absurdism is a philosophical school of thought stating that the efforts of humanity to find inherent meaning will ultimately fail (and hence are absurd) because the sheer amount of information as well as the vast realm of the unknown make total certainty impossible. As a philosophy, absurdism furthermore explores the fundamental nature of the Absurd and how individuals, once becoming conscious of the Absurd, should respond to it. The absurdist philosopher Albert Camus stated that individuals should embrace the absurd condition of human existence while also defiantly continuing to explore and search for meaning.[2]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

Mictlantecuhtli · February 17, 2016, 5:58pm

Emotivism: Emotivism is a meta-ethical view that claims that ethical sentences do not express propositions but emotional attitudes.[1][2] Hence, it is colloquially known as the hurrah/boo theory. Influenced by the growth of analytic philosophy and logical positivism in the 20th century, the theory was stated vividly by A. J. Ayer in his 1936 book Language, Truth and Logic,[3] but its development owes more to C. L. Stevenson.[4]

Emotivism can be considered a form of non-cognitivism or expressivism. It stands in opposition to other forms of non-cognitivism (such as quasi-realism and universal prescriptivism), as well as to all forms of cognitivism (including both moral realism and ethical subjectivism).

In the 1950s, emotivism appeared in a modified form in the universal prescriptivism of R. M. Hare.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism

Mictlantecuhtli · February 18, 2016, 1:12pm

Now that I am done with articles explaining in depth the myth of human morality and ethics I feel the need to deconstruct everyday moral or ethical human events. I’ll begin to do so in the next post. Nobody seems to want anything to do with this thread where I have to find some manner of keeping it alive here.

Mictlantecuhtli · February 18, 2016, 1:17pm

On the myth of morality and ethics concerning homelessness.

Here in the west we like to pride ourselves with morality, ethics, and compassion towards the homeless.

Well, let’s just analyze that and see what that all means.

How do communities help the homeless? With food, shelter, and hygeine. Wow, that’s all simply very touching, isn’t it?

Of course it’s not much for even a pet dog receives all those things by comparison. In fact your pet dog is treated better than homeless people. The homeless are treated with a sort of pretend kind neglect with those three things mentioned everyday. What do we really think of individuals that are treated no better than pet dogs exactly?

Like any kind of dog or pet there is animal control and management. With the homeless this comes under the guide of the police or law enforcement.

You see the homeless are wild human vermin that when running around loose need to be rounded up where like wild animals they are concentrated in an area that they can be controlled. As with wild loose dogs there is the animal shelter and with human beings there is a different kind of animal shelter known as the homeless shelter.

At a homeless shelter you’re practically caged up fattened on an abundance of food so that some observing passing by asshole or bitch can proclaim as a do-gooder that atleast they’re kept alive humanely in order to give the illusion of overall caring. They can all sit together at a dinner table drinking amongst friends bragging about their so called humane efforts amongst their local community over a cup of tea.

Like an animal shelter human homeless shelters are overcrowded and this is where the term human warehousing comes in handy.

Mictlantecuhtli · February 18, 2016, 1:59pm

On the morality and ethics of law.

Laws are for all the little people and by that I mean for all those without power, wealth, or affluence for all of those individuals that have such are largely immune to them. This of course makes perfect sense since laws ars authored, tailored, and created to fit the needs of the powerful to control the rest of society or civilization as a whole.

Law is the monopoly of all existences of human living itself by the wealthy, powerful, and affluential being nothing else beyond that.

Mictlantecuhtli · February 22, 2016, 10:34am

It has been said that for “evil” to persist that “good” people only have to do nothing and not act against it.

It’s a pretty hilarious traditional moral saying because if people were good one would imagine them being proactive daily on their crusade against evil.

Of course if they’re doing nothing in inaction, how can we call these people good? Apathy is the very definition of the complete opposite of good.

And why are they doing nothing? It’s because in their apathy it is made abundantly clear that their own concerns are of their self interests only. The problems of others or the world around them be damned.

They do nothing because their own selfish vanity is their highest value or virtue.

They do nothing because anything consisting of going outside of their comfort zone is too risky where they will not risk life or limb beyond the pursuance of their self interests. It is clear that a good world does not concern them at all.

Finally, by doing nothing in their apathy it appears they’re complicit in the very evil that they’re portraying themselves to be against.

Mictlantecuhtli · February 22, 2016, 11:11am

Mictlantecuhtli · February 22, 2016, 11:15am

Mictlantecuhtli · February 22, 2016, 11:25am

Mictlantecuhtli · February 22, 2016, 11:30am

Mictlantecuhtli · February 23, 2016, 2:41am

Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other.”
― Mark Twain

What is right? How will it gratify mankind? Astound? Astound how?

Mictlantecuhtli · February 23, 2016, 2:43am

“Compassion is the basis of morality.”
― Arthur Schopenhauer

This is an ideal. That isn’t the scope of things in the real world.

What is morality in a world that completely lacks compassion?

Mictlantecuhtli · February 23, 2016, 2:45am

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
― Mahatma Gandhi

I like eating steak, pork, chicken, and hamburger. Now what Gandhi?

Mictlantecuhtli · February 23, 2016, 2:48am

[b]You Chose

You chose.
You chose.
You chose.

You chose to give away your love.
You chose to have a broken heart.
You chose to give up.
You chose to hang on.

You chose to react.
You chose to feel insecure.
You chose to feel anger.
You chose to fight back.
You chose to have hope.

You chose to be naïve.
You chose to ignore your intuition.
You chose to ignore advice.
You chose to look the other way.
You chose to not listen.
You chose to be stuck in the past.

You chose your perspective.
You chose to blame.
You chose to be right.
You chose your pride.
You chose your games.
You chose your ego.
You chose your paranoia.
You chose to compete.
You chose your enemies.
You chose your consequences.

You chose.
You chose.
You chose.
You chose.

However, you are not alone. Generations of women in your family have chosen. Women around the world have chosen. We all have chosen at one time in our lives. We stand behind you now screaming:

Choose to let go.
Choose dignity.
Choose to forgive yourself.
Choose to forgive others.
Choose to see your value.
Choose to show the world you’re not a victim.
Choose to make us proud.”
― Shannon L. Alder[/b]

Fuck you Shannon! I am a determinist. I choose nothing! There is no free will and even if there ever was it is limited upon various determinating circumstances.