Morality And Ethics: How Nihilists And Idealists Are Right

Morality And Ethics: How Nihilists And Idealists Are Both Right But Where Forceful Overbearing Idealists Win In The End.

The moral/ skeptical nihilists are correct in asserting that there is no objective morality or ethics universally where there is only its absence where many [including Thomas Hobbes] have asserted that the crux of human nature is inherently cruel, selfish, egotistical, primal, sociopathic, greedy, self serving, and destructive. Yes, all of morality and ethics is fictitiously scripted or narrated by the prevailing social power structure.

What the nihilist however refuses to relent in understanding historically or sociologically is that is why morality and ethics was created to begin with by idealists as a reaction to that fact filling in that disparaging void of human nature itself. The idealists had no choice but to do so or forever be plagued by the inherent problems of human nature itself.

Where modern idealists of morality or ethics fail to understand is that, no human nature is not inherently good, it’s quite the opposite. They’ve forgotten this little caveat concerning their philosophical morality or ethics yet one English gentlemen by the name of Thomas Hobbes did not.

Understanding the real underlying presence of human nature like Thomas Hobbes did with his greatest writing ‘The Leviathan’ the only guiding force to make humanity become moral or ethical is by commanding intervening force. Human beings must be forced to become moral or ethical by whip and all levels of armaments by the state. Human beings will never become moral or ethical on their own independently of the state where instead they must be dictated to be so where if necessary underfoot. Yes, morality, ethics, and all laws can only be dictated by the end of sword or the end of a barrel of a gun, as it should be.

This is my new understanding of nihilism, idealism, morality, and ethics.

Humans aren’t human enough?
That’s the basic argument the idealists may use.
It’s circular.

Explain.

Human = good. Animal = bad / amoral.
Then they call the bad class of people animalistic,
and the good humiez are human / humane.

It’s just a fallacy im talking about. Don’t worry about it.

It’s neither really, for civilization and social order to exist for the sake of pragmatism human beings must be coerced into something that they won’t do willingly on their own. I make no judgements against the primitive origins of humanity however we’re not there anymore and where we are currently we must address the subject pragmatically in this manner.

I’m still a critic of both humanism and transhumanism, that hasn’t changed at all. To enforce morality or ethics all sense of humane must be thrown out the window and peripheral.

There are no natural rights, there is only the rights given to people by the state along with those that rule it. Humanity left to its own vices leads only to self destruction where only the state is its salvation in transcending its animalistic impulses.

Myself I think humans are a mix, not wholly a/immoral, selfish, but not wholly moral, selfless, but leaning more towards the former than the latter, generally.
I think this sense of fairness and sympathy is both partly biological, and partly self conditioned, and partly socially conditioned.
Rather than do away with morality altogether, I recognize both its existence, and its (inter)subjectivity, I recognize its variation within and between individuals, races and cultures, and its limitations.
I seek to make the world more moral and valuable, according to my personal vision of morality and value, a product of my thoughts and feelings about things, rather than accepting the morals and values of my culture, which don’t sit well with me, or serve me, nor the people, nor nature.

There can be no individual morality or ethics, the only kind of functioning morality and ethics is collectivist where individuals must be forced to get along respecting others.

There is no natural goodness in humanity where without the state human beings have no redeeming qualities, none at all.

In terms of ideology, I’m sort of torn between two ideas, either I think we should be ruled by a mitigated philosophical oligarchy, or an extreme democracy, as opposed to the cryptoplutocracy we have today.

Democracy is oligarchy, not much difference between an oligarchy and plutocracy. If that is your highest maximum ideal it simply fails as an answer to anything.

We need a new social order that aspires towards virtuous order collectively, I will settle for nothing less.

If human have absolutely no goodness in them…then that’s that, an evil dictator will just beget more evil.

No, there is a difference between a benevolent ruler and a tyrannical one. The philosopher king takes the irredeemable qualities of humanity and through wise council fashions/molds into it something better than itself. The sole goal of the philosopher king is to elevate humanity beyond its natural selfish animalistic existence and to root out those that get in the way of this transformation as enemies of humanity.

Democracy is democracy, and while we’re not very free, or in control of our government, we’re still more free, and in control than say North Koreans.
If I was going to push for something, I’d push for more freedom, and control of our governmnent, rather than less.

The philosophical oligarchy will ideally be made up of decent men, but of course that’s not something that can be guaranteed.
They will be educated in ethics and philosophy.
There will also be some democracy and checks/balances.
They will govern things according to the golden mean, moderation in all things, nothing in excess, as opposed to the greedy, corporate oligarchs we have now.

There’s no way around it, a wholly evil man, will make wholly evil laws, unless he can be partly controlled from outside somehow.

People will just have to judge these philosophers for themselves, if they’re decent, and wise enough to relinquish some of their sovereignty to, but they don’t have to relinquish all of it, we’ll find a balance.

No democracy is free, that is all a gimmick sold to the masses. No democracy is free from tyranny, oppression, or without constant bloodshed either. Here we are at the height or peak of democracy where your retort is that we need more democracy. None are more slaves than those slaves who think of themselves as being free. I like and respect you Gloominary but this is where we part ways ideologically. Nobody is free within any society as all individuals rely on each other for survival no matter how lowly or great that reliance is. We all stand on each other’s shoulders. There are no checks and balances in democracy, that’s just more propaganda gimmickery sold to the masses as an unquestionable acceptable lie. All of democracy is excessive especially since it has no moderator to enforce moderation.

A dictator within certain parameters and restrictions in place is what I support. I’ve alluded to this in our prior conversations.

I like and respect you too, but we’ll have to part ways on this.

Care to elaborate on these parameters and restrictions?
Who would enforce them, if the king fails to govern within them?

A majority of human beings are knuckle dragging morons, idiots, and simpletons that cannot discern anything for themselves let alone for others which is why democracy fails.

There would be an ideological tenet, decree, oath, or charter in place for every chancellor that comes into power that would effectively make it impossible for the chancellor to violate without being dethroned and exiled themselves. The chancellor would have absolute power but only within this charter which they would be unable to violate to protect against the abuses of power for the larger segment of the population.