Nietzsche

[Joe]

[rantmode]
Anyone familiar with this guy's work? We've been studying his rather perverse code of morality in my ethics class, and I can honestly say I've never read an author as full of shit as this guy.

He goes on and on about how justice and good is simply an illusion created by man - there is no true morality - at the same essentially trying to establish acting according to instinct as an a priori good, appealing to some vague bullshit notions of how it is in fact healthy to do so. God, I can't stand it, I'm gonna rip this guy a new one in my in-class essay on him.

[/rantmode]

[kojikun]

Since when does nature provide us with a moral code? It doesn't. There is no objective morals, it IS an illusion created by man. You think a lion stops to think "Hmm maybe I should kill these lion cubs because even tho theyre not mine thats ok"? Fuck no! He chomps on their little still soft skulls until their blood covers his face then he licks the blood off and goes and rapes the cubs' mother! You know why? Because nature doesn't give two fucks about emotions, thats why.

I'm not saying we as humans should go around killing people for fun, but the fact of the matter is, we dont kill because we choose it to be wrong, not nature.

So take your philosophical bullshit and shove it, because youre wrong.

[Joe]

Since when does nature provide us with a moral code? It doesn't. There is no objective morals, it IS an illusion created by man. You think a lion stops to think "Hmm maybe I should kill these lion cubs because even tho theyre not mine thats ok"? Fuck no! He chomps on their little still soft skulls until their blood covers his face then he licks the blood off and goes and rapes the cubs' mother! You know why? Because nature doesn't give two fucks about emotions, thats why.

I'm not saying we as humans should go around killing people for fun, but the fact of the matter is, we dont kill because we choose it to be wrong, not nature.

So take your philosophical bullshit and shove it, because youre wrong.

OK, you do realize that what you essentially just shoved at me was philosophical bullshit?

I'm not surprised, a lot of your beliefs sound Nietzchian.

[kojikun]

No, what I shoved at you was observation. If morals were some innate thing then everyone everywhere in every culture would have the exact same morals. We don't, they're made up because for humans its better that we have them. We don't live out in the wilderness, so we need ways of interacting with other people, and thats what morals are, a set of rules that ensure that a society doesnt fall apart at the seems.

BUT THEYRE STILL MANMADE

[Joe]

No, they arise naturally, because humans could not survive without them. They're part of what humans need to survive.

[kojikun]

Yes, they arise "naturally" as a result of where we live. When we lived out in the middle of the fucking savanna we didnt have these morals. Theyre HUMAN MADE tho, the need for rules is a necessity, but what those rules are WE CREATE not nature.

[Kuroneko]

No, what I shoved at you was observation. If morals were some innate thing then everyone everywhere in every culture would have the exact same morals.

Why in the world would that be the case?

We don't, they're made up because for humans its better that we have them. We don't live out in the wilderness, so we need ways of interacting with other people, and thats what morals are, a set of rules that ensure that a society doesnt fall apart at the seems.

BUT THEYRE STILL MANMADE

So what? The fact that there would be no morality without people does not mean that morality even subjectivist, and certainly not the ethical nihilism as Nietzsche would have it.

[Joe]

The belief that children must be protected and raised is an a priori good, and it can be found in every single culture in the world, because without the raising of children, society would completely fall apart. This is just one example.

There is less disagreement then there seems to be - many cultures throughout the world, essentially removed from each other completely - have arrived at what are basically the same conclusions concerning morality. It is true that many morals arise on account of where we live, but that does not mean there are no moral absolutes.

[kojikun]

im not sure what nietzsche would say, i dont know his arguements about morals, but the fact is, we created our morals, they ARE manmade constructs.

[Joe]

They are not all manmade constructs; so many are self-evident truths that are necessary for humans to live together in harmony. They are good rules concerning human behavior in themselves, and that makes them morals.

[kojikun]

Durran, i suppose the same morals that say protect kids are the same ones that told ancient jews to kill kids? you know, that whole "sacrificing ones children" thing? Obviously your example is flawed majorly. Its QUITE clear that no morals are universal, its just the most succesful ones, namely the ones that prevent killing etc, have survived the best. Dumbass.

[Joe]

Durran, i suppose the same morals that say protect kids are the same ones that told ancient jews to kill kids? you know, that whole "sacrificing ones children" thing? Obviously your example is flawed majorly. Its QUITE clear that no morals are universal, its just the most succesful ones, namely the ones that prevent killing etc, have survived the best. Dumbass.

If the ancient Jews had not held the protection and raising of children as a moral belief, their society would have died out very soon. The fact is, the ancient Jews DID believe that the raising and protecting of children (not ALL children) was necessary to a great extent.

[Kuroneko]

im not sure what nietzsche would say, i dont know his arguements about morals, but the fact is, we created our morals, they ARE manmade constructs.

How does nihilism follow from this?

[Queeb Salaron]

I can solve this debate with a bit of Rousseau:

Rousseau argues that there is no State of Nature for human beings; that is to say that it is impossible to imagine man existing without other men for him to depend on and who depend on him. Man is primarily a SOCIAL creature, and depends on his other man, rather than nature alone, for his survival.

That being said, there must be a definite moral code that precludes any sense of law and order that keeps the interests of mankind (and therefore society) in mind. Murder and theft, for example, are both fundamentally opposed to the goals of any given society. Therefore, in every culture you can think of, murder and theft are wrong (or, in extreme cases, forms of punishment. Either way, the negativity of these acts shines through).

So are these boundaries NATURAL boundaries? In a sense, yes. But you have to understand that because man is a SOCIAL creature, these boundaries only exist in relation to mankind. If man were to find himself in the State of Nature that Rousseau claims does not naturally exist (a state wherein it is one man vs. the elements), there would be no such boundaries and man would be nothing more than a savage animal.

So you decide what a "natural moral" is, and then I'll tell you what Rousseau would think.

[kojikun]

If the ancient Jews had not held the protection and raising of children as a moral belief, their society would have died out very soon. The fact is, the ancient Jews DID believe that the raising and protecting of children (not ALL children) was necessary to a great extent.

OFCOURSE they would have fucking died out! thats common sense! but they still decided that continuing their culture was more important then having a jolly good time smashing baby heads together or something! not killing kids is essential and has nothing to do with morals, but believing its WRONG to kill kids is entirely a moral construct made by HUMANS

How does nihilism follow from this?

WTF are you talking about?

[Shinova]

He goes on and on about how justice and good is simply an illusion created by man - there is no true morality - at the same essentially trying to establish acting according to instinct as an a priori good, appealing to some vague bullshit notions of how it is in fact healthy to do so.

I would say that morality and justice rose out from logic and reasoning. Reasoning tells us that sharing equally will be the best for everyone and that outlawing murder is good for the species as a whole as well.

I wouldn't say it's exactly an illusion, but it's not natural either. At least on an individual scale. Common conduct teaches us not to get overly pissed-off angry in public, so we keep it in during those times, but letting it all go is healthy and relieves stress.

In general, morality and justice is a tradeoff. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one in our society, so we each agree to "keep some of the stress in" to preserve an envirnoment in which all human beings can thrive to a manageble degree.

[Kuroneko]

Durran, i suppose the same morals that say protect kids are the same ones that told ancient jews to kill kids? you know, that whole "sacrificing ones children" thing?ts QUITE clear that no morals are universal, its just the most succesful ones, namely the ones that prevent killing etc, have survived the best.

About clear as mud to me. Every culture you can find has a concept of murder, a difference between executions, etc. I don't see any substantial difference in the basic principles. The only differences are in the particulars--e.g., that weak babies should be exponsed (ancient Sparta), etc., but not killing persons is acceptable in general.

[Joe]

OFCOURSE they would have fucking died out! thats common sense! but they still decided that continuing their culture was more important then having a jolly good time smashing baby heads together or something! not killing kids is essential and has nothing to do with morals, but believing its WRONG to kill kids is entirely a moral construct made by HUMANS

Hey, I AGREE with you, I'm not a moral absolutist, I'm a moral objectivist.

But the fact is, for society to continue to function, there must be some childrearing.

And although many societies will tolerate murder in some form, in every society there is also a rejection or murder in its other forms.

[Kuroneko]

How does nihilism follow from this?

WTF are you talking about?

You mean you're defending Nietzsche without the slightest clue of what he's actually saying?

[Kuroneko]

I can solve this debate with a bit of Rousseau:

Rousseau argues that there is no State of Nature for human beings; that is to say that it is impossible to imagine man existing without other men for him to depend on and who depend on him. Man is primarily a SOCIAL creature, and depends on his other man, rather than nature alone, for his survival.

Hobbes is the originator of this idea. Rousseau didn't come along until much, much later. Although Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau all have this scenario, their conclusions are different...

[neoolong]

How does nihilism follow from this?

WTF are you talking about?

It's basically the idea that all values are due to society. There is no absolute or objective morality. And there is no intrinsic value to life.

Or something.

[Joe]

For all Nietzsche railed against nihilism he was quite the nihilist (in many ways) himself.

[Kuroneko]

For all Nietzsche railed against nihilism he was quite the nihilist (in many ways) himself.

He seemed like he was trying to construct some sort of virtue out of courage and discipline, but all it comes across for me is 'might makes right.' His ideal person regards himself as the creator of morality, and has the power to enforce it. While not technically ethical nihilism, it is effectively so as far as I'm concerned.

[Joe]

For all Nietzsche railed against nihilism he was quite the nihilist (in many ways) himself.

He seemed like he was trying to construct some sort of virtue out of courage and discipline, but all it comes across for me is 'might makes right.' His ideal person regards himself as the creator of morality, and has the power to enforce it. While not technically ethical nihilism, it is effectively so as far as I'm concerned.

Courage, yeah, but discipline, hell no; the last thing Nietzsche would encourage would be any sort of system of discipline and accountability. Discipline would limit the ability of the nobles to do whatever the hell they wanted with the commoners, and would thus be a bad thing.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I can solve this debate with a bit of Rousseau:

Rousseau argues that there is no State of Nature for human beings; that is to say that it is impossible to imagine man existing without other men for him to depend on and who depend on him. Man is primarily a SOCIAL creature, and depends on his other man, rather than nature alone, for his survival.

That being said, there must be a definite moral code that precludes any sense of law and order that keeps the interests of mankind (and therefore society) in mind. Murder and theft, for example, are both fundamentally opposed to the goals of any given society. Therefore, in every culture you can think of, murder and theft are wrong (or, in extreme cases, forms of punishment. Either way, the negativity of these acts shines through).

So are these boundaries NATURAL boundaries? In a sense, yes. But you have to understand that because man is a SOCIAL creature, these boundaries only exist in relation to mankind. If man were to find himself in the State of Nature that Rousseau claims does not naturally exist (a state wherein it is one man vs. the elements), there would be no such boundaries and man would be nothing more than a savage animal.

So you decide what a "natural moral" is, and then I'll tell you what Rousseau would think.

I tend to distill your post into a few brief points, then a conclusion:

Point 1: Humans have a socially-oriented "nature".
Point 2: Morality is a set of guidelines necessitated by the social nature of humans.

Conclusion: Morals are derived from the specifically social "nature" of humans. Further, variable conditions within specific human cultures can produce variable guidelines, but some basic guidelines, are universal due to the universal human needs that inspired them.

Therefore, both Kojikun and Durran are correct; the two positions are not mutually exclusive.

EDIT: Elaborated conclusion to address absolutism vs. relativism concern.