Should atheists "act as though god exists"?

Dee

Regarding objective morality and a god as being the source of such , would an act kindness and generosity be any less kind , absent of god? Would murder and violence be any less murderous and violent absent of god? No. They would be exactly the same and have the same exact consequences on living beings if given no god. God is therefore an unnecessary middleman, to be rendered irrelevant 

AlexOland

@Dee I do not think you understand. What makes kindness "good"? What makes murder "bad"? I can hear you say: "Oh, because the well-being of humans is important." well, why? If you go to the core of it, you see that morality has no real basis. 

sear

"without a religion there can be no such thing as objective morality." AO

without a religion there may be no such thing as morality ostensibly dictated by divine authority * or insinuated by ostensible experts.

But the U.S. has standards of religion in multiple traditions, Many churches stand here. And many temples, and many mosques as well.

Our First Amendment (a matter of law, not religion) helps guard our LIMITED right to religious practice.  "No right is absolute. Conversely, no government authority is absolute." lawyer, law Professor and former ACLU head Nadine Strossen

"Therefore, atheism will - at the end - make us all nihilists." AO

No.

It's not all or nothing.

There may be a paradoxical shift in the agnostic mind not away from existence, but toward it.

"If we atheists do not want that, even though we do not believe in religion," AO

I believe in religion. I do not believe in supernatural deities that are omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and short of $cash.

"we should act as though there are objective morals. " AO

"Karma" may have roots in both Hinduism & Buddhism. But "karma" is basically a one word summation of our Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." inspired by Matthew 7:12

If Bruce staggered through life slapping in the face everyone he met, should we be surprised if Bruce too would be slapped? &

if instead Bruce is kind, thoughtful, considerate, and nurturing to others, should we be surprised if Bruce was not respected, appreciated?

No disrespect to Hinduism or Buddhism intended. I'm not sure we need presume some supernatural basis for karma. You reap what you sow.  Galatians 6:7

 * or holy scripture

Dee

@AlexOland

I wasn’t sure exactly where you were going with this but thank you for clarifying. We know the  positive effects of doing an act of kindness as we feel good when doing so and this gives us a feel good feeling that is experienced in the brain of everyone who does such. As humans most of us enjoy and see the pleasure in others when we do an act of kindness the reverse also applies  
You say what “makes murder bad” well to me it’s like we have this social “agreement “ that our survival depends on us allowing others to move about freely in the knowledge that they will not ( most likely ) attempt to murder us if we likewise and do not attempt to murder them 

Its basis is instilled in each of us in infancy and is handed down generationally through our parents and society , morality evolves with us and societal changes 

AlexOland

@sear I really do not understand how that answers any of what I said except that last paragraph. Suppose I killed a person without anyone knowing it. By your logic, this is okay because this will not affect how I am treated among society.

 Also, you assume that we will be living in the exact same environment when you are making that argument. If I slap someone I will be slapped? Maybe today, but if everyone became nihilists, people would not care about other people getting slapped. Let's say I am a muscular man and I am killing and torturing weaker men. Men powerful than I am will not do anything because they know I will not touch them. I do not reap what I sow in this scenario, I just reap. 

sear

" morality has no real basis." AO

Don't tell that lie to a pragmatist. If you try to come up with a definition for "real" you should find the fallacy of the assertion.

Morality is about judgment. Ethics is about rules of conduct (based on morality).

MayCaesar

Objective morals do not exist regardless of whether god exists or not. Even if the morals are instituted by god, they are still nothing more than his/her/its subjective opinion. 

Next, nihilism is the attitude of "nothing matters". However, just because some things are not objective, does not mean they do not matter to you.
Analogy. Hobbies are subjective: many of your hobbies likely are of no interest to me, and vice-versa. Does it mean that your hobbies do not matter? Of course not. They matter to you.
Each of us decides what matters to us and why. And none of it has to be objective.

Finally, morality does have a real basis. For one, if we are to live together as a society, we have to develop certain norms, certain conventions, certain expectations to make our interaction productive. For example, not being killed by your fellow member of the society is something that would be nice to be able to reliably expect.
In addition, we each develop our own moral systems based on our life experiences and our reactions to them. I helped someone, that made me feel good, that made them feel good, and that led to a lot of positive interaction in the future. I helped someone else, and a similar thing occurred. In the end, I decided that helping others causes good things, and adopted it as my moral. At the same time, that moral is highly contextual, so, for example, I will not give a penny to a beggar, because I do not like beggars.

Ultimately, the question of "What matters to me in this life?" is something only you can answer for yourself. Of course, one of the possible answers is "nothing", and then, indeed, you will become a nihilist. But this is merely one of the infinity of possible answers, and you do not need to act as though god exists to be able to give many of those other answers.

AlexOland

@sear I seriously have no idea what you are talking about so I will assume that I could not explain my points very clearly and restate myself.

 What people consider as "good" or "bad" is not objective because there is no actual reason behind them. People might say that: "You should not kill." but that has no actual reason behind it. Assume that I am a psychopath who would like to go on a murder spree to enjoy myself just once, then kill myself. Why should I not kill here? 

 As I said, there is no actual reason behind moral laws. They are there to protect the well-being of humans but they are not rules that everyone, no matter what they think or feel, should follow.

 Religion gives moral laws basis. They are how god created the universe, and therefore they are objective. Therefore, being an atheist will make people realise that moral laws have no real basis.

 That said, if people realise that moral laws have no actual basis, they will be nihilistic. That is the definition of nihilism. Nihilism is not just something you notice and live on with. Being nihilistic will affect many people psychologically and, for example, even in the case that they feel that doing something is wrong, they will convince theirselves by reason that it is not actually wrong. This is what happenned to Raskolnikov. 

 Nihilism will cause humanity to slowly destroy most of the moral laws it has. And this will lead to a world where most people today would not want to live in.

 Now, the suggestion is that we never completely let go of our beliefs. We still act like we believe in a god, we act like we believe he created the moral laws and that they are the truth.

 Let me say that, it is not that I agree with this view. I just want to hear the thoughts around it. 

sear

" What people consider as "good" or "bad" is not objective because there is no actual reason behind them. " AO

So if you whittle a sharp point on a stick and strut round town gouging human eyeballs out with it, you think you'll end up blinding someone that thinks there's no objective basis for objecting? You better hope no one tries that on you !! I have a hunch you'd FIND a basis for objecting quite promptly.

" Nihilism will cause humanity to slowly destroy most of the moral laws it has." AO

Institutional nihilism might. But then what purpose would there be for ANY law at all? Why would you then not merely predict anarchy?

And candidly, I strongly doubt nihilism will become a widespread standard. For one thing, people would starve to death in a week or two; then end of the human race as we know it.

And the few non-nihilists would ignore the pseudo-intellectual pandemic, survive it, and repopulate the planet.

No. It's a silly notion from start to finish.

Dee

> As I said, there is no actual reason behind moral laws.

There is , we are born with the ability to reason , we use this reason to determine what is good and bad in a given situation based on our introduction to such from the earliest stages of our development 


>They are there to protect the well-being of humans but they are not rules that everyone, no matter what they think or feel, should follow.

Those that don’t are mostly punished by the law which seems to work on most of us as an effective detriment 

AlexOland

@MayCaesar "Objective morals do not exist regardless of whether god exists or not. Even if the morals are instituted by god, they are still nothing more than his/her/its subjective opinion." Objective morals could exist if an all powerful being said that they exist. That is what religious people believe. Eating pork is wrong to muslims not because of any real reason. It is wrong just because god decided it to be wrong. It is like a law of the universe.

 "just because some things are not objective, does not mean they do not matter to you." the point is that you noticing that they are not objective, makes you not care about them.

 " if we are to live together as a society, we have to develop certain norms" this doesn't show that, for example, killing is wrong every time. Let's say I know that I can get away with murder, and I murder someone. Why shouldn't I have done that? 

 "I helped someone, that made me feel good, that made them feel good, and that led to a lot of positive interaction in the future. I helped someone else, and a similar thing occurred. In the end, I decided that helping others causes good things, and adopted it as my moral." here, you assume that making people feel good is a "good" thing. But I see what you were trying to say and ignore that part. This might be true for you. If helping people makes you feel good, you will help people. But, you forget, that nihilism actually has an effect on people. Something that you feel good to do, might not make you feel good anymore now that you are a nihilist. 

 

 

AlexOland

@sear " the few non-nihilists would ignore the pseudo-intellectual pandemic, survive it, and repopulate the planet." the point is that the world would come to that point. I never claimed that the whole world would end. I just claimed that it would go in an undesired way.

AlexOland

@Dee "There is , we are born with the ability to reason , we use this reason to determine what is good and bad in a given situation based on our introduction to such from the earliest stages of our development" I did not say that nothing caused our moral laws to exist. I said that moral laws do not have an actual reason. Meaning, they are not really laws that no one should break.

 "Those that don’t are mostly punished by the law which seems to work on most of us as an effective detriment" again, my point is that according to this logic a person who knows they can get away with murder is not a "bad" person.

sear

" I just claimed that it would go in an undesired way. " AO

"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

I doubt you or anyone you've ever met will live to see the day a significant % of Earth's human population resign from humanity in a coordinated event.

 HOWEVER !!

I'd be amused if you'd post one or two proposed campaign slogans for the nihilist cause. Something extremely persuasive if you please.

AlexOland

@sear I seriously cannot connect any of what you say to the current argument. If you would simplfy your holy.. prose(?) style, I would appreciate that.

Dee

> I said that moral laws do not have an actual reason. Meaning, they are not really laws that no one should break.

But we all have a moral compass that is seen at our earliest stage of development we know there are consequences to breaking these moral laws , it’s like your trying to nail down something that’s forever changing and evolving 

 >again, my point is that according to this logic a person who knows they can get away with murder is not a "bad" person.

But most people who do murder know they have done something “bad” they judge themselves going on their own sense of what’s right or wrong , those that don’t are normally deemed to be insane medically anyway 

MayCaesar

AlexOland said:

@MayCaesar "Objective morals do not exist regardless of whether god exists or not. Even if the morals are instituted by god, they are still nothing more than his/her/its subjective opinion." Objective morals could exist if an all powerful being said that they exist. That is what religious people believe. Eating pork is wrong to muslims not because of any real reason. It is wrong just because god decided it to be wrong. It is like a law of the universe.

 "just because some things are not objective, does not mean they do not matter to you." the point is that you noticing that they are not objective, makes you not care about them.

 " if we are to live together as a society, we have to develop certain norms" this doesn't show that, for example, killing is wrong every time. Let's say I know that I can get away with murder, and I murder someone. Why shouldn't I have done that? 

 "I helped someone, that made me feel good, that made them feel good, and that led to a lot of positive interaction in the future. I helped someone else, and a similar thing occurred. In the end, I decided that helping others causes good things, and adopted it as my moral." here, you assume that making people feel good is a "good" thing. But I see what you were trying to say and ignore that part. This might be true for you. If helping people makes you feel good, you will help people. But, you forget, that nihilism actually has an effect on people. Something that you feel good to do, might not make you feel good anymore now that you are a nihilist. 

 

 

Well, this is a wrong belief. Whether the being is all powerful or not, that being can still lie, be mistaken and make subjective judgements. Simply relying on its word does not guarantee anything.

Not at all. There are many things that are not objective and that I care about. Even right now, there is no objective reason for this post I am writing to be any good, yet I care about its quality and try to put an effort into it. 
There is a large gap between recognising something as subjective, and being nihilistic about it.

If you can get away with murder and think it is the right thing to do, then of course you should do that. Your personal morals should override any societal morals pretty much by definition of morals, and if you can exercise them without being stopped by the society, then by all means do so.
Me, I do not kill people because I personally do not see it as reasonable. But even if I saw it otherwise, I would still be aware that, living in the society, there is no guarantee that I will ever fully get away with it (I might think I could get away with it, only to then learn of a random witness, for example), and I would comply with the societal expectations.

If I am a nihilist, then sure. But I am not. Making people feel good makes me feel good. If at some point that changes, then my moral will likely change as well. Morals should be dynamic, just as our lives; they should change as we grow and change.

Plaffelvohfen

@AlexOland

My thoughts... In its broadest sense, on a cosmological scale and considering the ultimate fate of this Universe, Existence is ultimately pointless. On this I agree with Nihilism. Where I differ is on whether such a thing as meaning or value are possible... I think that meaning and value can be said to be possible but only in what I call "limited space-time frames"... In other words, permanence nullifies value... For something to have any value, it can not be infinite and permanent... Which then prevents the very idea of "god" and of an "eternal afterlife" from having any value or purpose... 

The problem with Peterson and many others is that when they say Objective Morals, they really mean Absolute Morals...I think that Morals can be "universal" (independent of custom or opinion, as opposed to moral relativism), but not absolute (independent of context or consequences, as in absolutism).

Here we must take great care not to conflate "objective" with "absolute"... For something to be objective, all it needs is a well defined framework with a well defined purpose... I'm inclined here to use a metaphor Sam Harris used: "Many people worry that a universal morality would require moral precepts that admit of no exceptions. So, for instance, if it's really wrong to lie, it must always be wrong to lie and if you can find an exception, well then there is no such thing as Moral truth. Why would we think his? Consider, by analogy, the game of chess. Now if you're going to play good chess, a principle like "Don't lose your Queen." is a very good principle to follow, But it clearly admits some exceptions. There are moments when losing your Queen is a brilliant thing to do, sometimes it's the only good thing you can do. And yet chess is a domain of perfect objectivity, the facts that there are exceptions does not change that at all..."

Sam Harris proposed a very compelling Framework in which to articulate an objective morality in his Moral Landscape (best 20 min. video on the subject IMO, really worth it for anyone interested in what is morality or what it could be...).  The recent field of Neurosciences could open up a brand new perspective on what is Morality, the work of Patricia Churchland is fascinating in this regard. and relates to my last thought on the issue of Morality.

What I'm currently dwelling on, and which relates to Harris's moral landscape and Neuroscience is that I think that Morality really is gregarious, or exocentric in essence, and we're making a mistake in trying to define or apply it outside of this context. Meaning that, a single mind, alone in it's own universe couldn't  be said to be able to articulate a rational concept of Morality, because in such a universe, this mind would be utterly alone... All this mind could be said to have, are opinions. This would also defeat the idea of god being the source of Morality, because god being unique, cannot differentiate between opinions and morals. 

For all those things, I think it makes absolutely no sense to act as though there were a god. On  the contrary, it prevents us from having an actual universal morality. 

And to help understand where I'm coming from, I'll state that I define myself as an Absurdist. You might consider this when looking at my arguments.  

sear

"Existence is ultimately pointless." Pv

 - piffle -

Don't tell a hedonist that.

piloteer

There already is a suitable replacement for objective morality, it's the law!

Plaffelvohfen

@MayCaesar

Next, nihilism is the attitude of "nothing matters". However, just because some things are not objective, does not mean they do not matter to you.

Remember though that ultimately, "you" do not matter... The Self is irrelevant on a cosmological scale, the scale on which is articulated nihilism, the self has no intrinsic purpose...

MayCaesar

@Plaffelvohfen

True. But my perspective is not that of the cosmological scale; my perspective is that of me. To me, my self matters a lot.

I realise that 100,000,000 years away from now (a period completely insignificant on the scale of the Universe) there will, at most, only be a set of disjointed atoms scattered around the Milky Way that remain as my heritage. But that is irrelevant in any case, as my life will end the moment my brain stops functioning, which will likely occur some time in this or, if I am very lucky, the next century.

The question to me is not really how much effect my life will have on the cosmological scale. The question is: that little time that I have to live, what will it be like and how can I make it as enjoyable as possible? Nihilism assumes some sort of a indifferent attitude, but mine is nothing like that, mine is the attitude of constant excitement. There is so much to learn about the world, to see in it, to experience, to feel... It is not "nothing matters" to me; rather, it is very close to "everything matters"!

piloteer

@Plaffelvohfen

Whether "the self" does or doesn't matter to the rest of all existence is irrelevant. If we as individuals don't matter, then no other individual thing matters. If nothing matters as far as the rest of all existence goes, it still doesn't stop someone mattering to themself. It also doesn't stop any other people or other things mattering the themself.

sear

"Remember though that ultimately, "you" do not matter... The Self is irrelevant on a cosmological scale, the scale on which is articulated nihilism, the self has no intrinsic purpose..." Pv

The preponderance of sentiment expressed here seems to be rooted on the premise that there is an eternity. Perhaps so.

Further, that if it's not eternal, or if it won't continue for perpetuity, it's if not nihilist, it's nihilistic.

Neither of my parents are still alive. Shall I regard their now terminated lives as nihil ?

Plaffelvohfen

@MayCaesar

True. But my perspective is not that of the cosmological scale; my perspective is that of me. To me, my self matters a lot. 

And I relate absolutely to that, Myself also matters to me a lot...   But we're now entering metaphysics and epistemological waters and not everyone can sail a ship on these tricky waters unaware... Not saying that there's actually anything to be found on these waters, many people would affirm there isn't, but we won't find out if we do not go there. Many people don't care at all about metaphysics and who can blame them??? I don't because it doesn't matter anyway...  

But I feel compelled to warn people who might not be aware of where Philosophy lead, that it inevitably leads there... And to be prepared to retreat from these waters if you don't enjoy the currents and waves...    

I realise that 100,000,000 years away from now (a period completely insignificant on the scale of the Universe) there will, at most, only be a set of disjointed atoms scattered around the Milky Way that remain as my heritage. But that is irrelevant in any case, as my life will end the moment my brain stops functioning, which will likely occur some time in this or, if I am very lucky, the next century.

I agree with almost everything you said here but this begs the question about procreating no? If every thing that comes after you is irrelevant, why procreate? What does "heritage" means? Why have children at all? And one can even ask, does this relate to Morality?

The question to me is not really how much effect my life will have on the cosmological scale. The question is: that little time that I have to live, what will it be like and how can I make it as enjoyable as possible? Nihilism assumes some sort of a indifferent attitude, but mine is nothing like that, mine is the attitude of constant excitement. There is so much to learn about the world, to see in it, to experience, to feel... It is not "nothing matters" to me; rather, it is very close to "everything matters"!

I also feel compelled to see my existence this way... I reject nihilism.

Plaffelvohfen

piloteer said:

@Plaffelvohfen

If we as individuals don't matter, then no other individual thing matters. If nothing matters as far as the rest of all existence goes, it still doesn't stop someone mattering to themself. It also doesn't stop any other people or other things mattering the themself.

I'm not the one saying it is, but that is what Nihilism concludes.. Blame Nietzsche not me...

sear

"Blame Nietzsche not me... " Pv

"God is dead" -Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is dead" - god

Plaffelvohfen

AlexOland said:

@Dee I do not think you understand. What makes kindness "good"? What makes murder "bad"? I can hear you say: "Oh, because the well-being of humans is important." well, why? If you go to the core of it, you see that morality has no real basis. 

Camus said - "There is but one truly serious philosophical question: Should I kill myself?"
Everything else derives from the answer one gives to this question...

It is safe, I think, to assume, that all currently living human exists, because they keep answering this question by : No...
So if everyone alive "implicitly" acknowledges that "To exist" is worth something,
Then whether or not it is actually true is irrelevant, and it still has Value to those existing, right?

Wouldn't it be therefore logical to conclude that "existence" (To exist) has Value? An Objective Value, in the only sense that matters?? 

I think we may find ground for universal or "objective" Morality and I don't think any God is necessary for that. We're not there yet because we refuse to acknowledge that we might have to sharpen what we mean by "Objective Morality" and remove from it notions of "Absolute" and "Ego" in the process...

But that's just me...   

Dee

Interesting piece, actually I always thought that all mans problems arise from a primitive fear of annihilation thus the need for humans to invent gods to evade and examine the possibilities of an afterlife without one.

Buddhists teachings actually teach one to meditate on the process of dying and being buried , burnt and retuned back to earth to regenerate plants , soil etc , etc it’s to die before you die so to speak.

For morality to be objective, moral propositions such as "Killing is bad","Stealing is bad", etc... need to be true independently of the person who is stating them. 

That is the way this position is normally put but a problem arises as in if there are objective moral facts how would we know this to be the fact?  To know something is an objective moral fact only needs an agent to know this , how can a moral fact be known independent of a human mind to decide?

Sam Harris and others take objective morality to be totally different than this position put forward by many regarding definitions of objective morality 

Plaffelvohfen

@Dee

Sam Harris and others take objective morality to be totally different than this position put forward by many regarding definitions of objective morality 

And as Galileo and others, many (not just religiously inclined folks) would burn him and others like him as heretics for questioning this definition... To question established doctrine and dogmas is always viewed as rebellious and even dangerous to those who hold them as unquestionable truths...  

sear

Pv,

... yes BUT !!

I'm not sure it was the questions Galileo asked that angered the Church. It's the answers that angered the Church.

"What we mistake for thought may merely be the reinforcement of our own prejudice." Italo Benin PhD

I suspect if Galileo's astronomical observations confirmed holy scripture instead of refuting it, Bertolt Brecht might have written a sit-com.

AlexOland

@MayCaesar "Well, this is a wrong belief. Whether the being is all powerful or not, that being can still lie, be mistaken and make subjective judgements. Simply relying on its word does not guarantee anything." you do not rely on what the being says. You believe it. They are different things. If someone believes that there is a god that created the universe and the moral laws, you can not object with "well, god could lie." because that someone has already accepted that the god created the universe with the moral laws built in. 

 "There are many things that are not objective and that I care about." I did not say that you can't care about not objective things. I said that once people realise that moral laws that they have considered objective turns out to be not objective, they start to not care about them as much. (Okay, I will give you that, I should have used "as much" in my first reply.)

 You did not actually object to what I said in your other statements, So I will leave them. 
 

AlexOland

@Plaffelvohfen " ...It is safe, I think, to assume, that all currently living human exists, because they keep answering this question by : No...
So if everyone alive "implicitly" acknowledges that "To exist" is worth something... "

 This is where you make the jump, I believe. Even if we follow that logic; people do not acknowledge that "to exist" is worth something. They acknowledge that their own existence is worth something. 

 But I do not think that logic works. Just because someone doesn't kill himself, it doesn't mean that he values life. Maybe he values not life nor death? He does not kill himself, because killing yourself would mean that you choose death over life. Which are both meaningless(Not making a claim here, just talking about that person's point of view).

sear

"Whether the being is all powerful or not, that being can still lie, be mistaken and make subjective judgements. Simply relying on its word does not guarantee anything." AO / MC

That may vary among religious traditions. My religious training taught me not only that god is inerrant, but that holy scripture is inerrant as well.

"you do not rely on what the being says. You believe it." AO

"Ideas are not for believing. Ideas are for using." Psychologist Joy Browne

AlexOland

@sear yeah... I do not think you understand the point. I do not argue that believing in this idea is the correct thing to do. I argue that if people believe the idea that god created the universe with moral laws, they can be sure of the validity of those moral laws. They can claim that those laws are objective.

Plaffelvohfen

@AlexOland

This is where you make the jump, I believe. Even if we follow that logic; people do not acknowledge that "to exist" is worth something. They acknowledge that their own existence is worth something. 

Now this address another problem I have... I have an issue with the notion that an "opinion" regarding oneself can be said to relate to "Morality" in the practical sense... Maybe we should talk on morality in the Applied Ethics sense?

Sure it is a judgment of Value, but to me it should fall into what I'd call the domain of "Moralia" (Where are linguists when we need one!!! ), some sort of encompassing domain relating to Value in the broadest sense possible and would include one or more sub-domain which we could name "Morality", some sort of a more sophisticated classification system for "Value"...  Something like Moralia encompassing Moralus, Moralum, Mathemathics, Logics, whichever name we can come up with to distinguish between levels and types of Value assertions? 

Just musing here...  

PS: If you care to, take a look at this thread, where I develop on this notion... There's probably faulty reasoning in there and if you could point it out I'd appreciate! It's all about the journey right?  

sear

AO,

Or not.

The divine imprimatur is a powerful and dexterous instrument.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." sometimes attributed to Seneca the Younger (c.3 BCE - CE 65)

MayCaesar

Plaffelvohfen said:

@MayCaesar

True. But my perspective is not that of the cosmological scale; my perspective is that of me. To me, my self matters a lot. 

And I relate absolutely to that, Myself also matters to me a lot...   But we're now entering metaphysics and epistemological waters and not everyone can sail a ship on these tricky waters unaware... Not saying that there's actually anything to be found on these waters, many people would affirm there isn't, but we won't find out if we do not go there. Many people don't care at all about metaphysics and who can blame them??? I don't because it doesn't matter anyway...  

But I feel compelled to warn people who might not be aware of where Philosophy lead, that it inevitably leads there... And to be prepared to retreat from these waters if you don't enjoy the currents and waves...    

I realise that 100,000,000 years away from now (a period completely insignificant on the scale of the Universe) there will, at most, only be a set of disjointed atoms scattered around the Milky Way that remain as my heritage. But that is irrelevant in any case, as my life will end the moment my brain stops functioning, which will likely occur some time in this or, if I am very lucky, the next century.

I agree with almost everything you said here but this begs the question about procreating no? If every thing that comes after you is irrelevant, why procreate? What does "heritage" means? Why have children at all? And one can even ask, does this relate to Morality?

The question to me is not really how much effect my life will have on the cosmological scale. The question is: that little time that I have to live, what will it be like and how can I make it as enjoyable as possible? Nihilism assumes some sort of a indifferent attitude, but mine is nothing like that, mine is the attitude of constant excitement. There is so much to learn about the world, to see in it, to experience, to feel... It is not "nothing matters" to me; rather, it is very close to "everything matters"!

I also feel compelled to see my existence this way... I reject nihilism.

I think many people make a mistake in how they approach philosophy. They seem to think that philosophy should be considered in a very abstract way, and its conclusions taken literally. 

I see it differently. I see philosophy as a tool, not a goal in itself. Indeed, by taking a certain philosophical route, it is possible to come to the conclusion that, since we are very small and insignificant on the scale of the Universe, we are of no consequence. But that is a mistaken position in my view, because it misses the context. 

Suppose we learn that somewhere far away, say, in the Phoenix cluster (~3 billion light years away from us) two robotic civilisations are waging a war that is wiping out countless organic civilisation. It is a genocide of an unprecedented scale. Would we care, however? I personally would shrug and move on, because that does not affect me in any way.
What happens to me, however, matters a great deal. After all, what is the Universe if not my perception of it? If my perception dies, then the Universe as I know it dies as well.

Regarding the point on procreation, I somewhat agree with it. I do not think people should have children out of some sense of duty before humanity. They should have children if they enjoy having children, if they enjoy the process of raising them and helping them get into the life. But all the while they should realise that their children will effectively disappear the moment their brain dies: even if in some "objective" Universe the children will keep living, they will not in the subjective Universe the individual lived in.

AlexOland said:

@MayCaesar "Well, this is a wrong belief. Whether the being is all powerful or not, that being can still lie, be mistaken and make subjective judgements. Simply relying on its word does not guarantee anything." you do not rely on what the being says. You believe it. They are different things. If someone believes that there is a god that created the universe and the moral laws, you can not object with "well, god could lie." because that someone has already accepted that the god created the universe with the moral laws built in. 

 "There are many things that are not objective and that I care about." I did not say that you can't care about not objective things. I said that once people realise that moral laws that they have considered objective turns out to be not objective, they start to not care about them as much. (Okay, I will give you that, I should have used "as much" in my first reply.)

 You did not actually object to what I said in your other statements, So I will leave them. 
 

It is hard for me to imagine how moral laws can be built into a Universe. Moral laws are not physical objects or forces. They are philosophical constructs. How do you embed a philosophical construct into space-time and/or matter? This does not seem to be possible.

I am not sure I agree with this. Often we care much more about subjective things, than objective things, because the former are more intimate to us. Our loved ones, for example, are only loved subjectively, and objectively the vast majority of people do not care about them - yet they can often be the most meaningful thing we have in our lives.
Similarly, I would think that personal, well thought-out, subjective morals can be taken much more seriously by a person, than some abstract moral system they see as objective, but that does not ring true with their psychology.

Plaffelvohfen

@MayCaesar

Good points, it's not like we're going to change the course of humanity here anyway right?  

I think many people make a mistake in how they approach philosophy. They seem to think that philosophy should be considered in a very abstract way, and its conclusions taken literally. 

I agree that it's a mistake to think that its conclusions are to be taken literally, knowledge for the sake of knowledge is just that, and not all knowledge have practical uses or consequences in the physical universe so, there's that...

I see it differently. I see philosophy as a tool, not a goal in itself

I'm of the school that thinks it can be both...

Suppose we learn that somewhere far away, say, in the Phoenix cluster (~3 billion light years away from us) two robotic civilisations are waging a war that is wiping out countless organic civilisation. It is a genocide of an unprecedented scale. Would we care, however? I personally would shrug and move on, because that does not affect me in any way.

Until we actually develop some sort of "xeno-ethics" specific to relations with alien species from outer space, I can't really argue that we should do anything about it... Considering all we know about the universe and the possible number of habitable worlds, I think I wouldn't be wrong in saying that ; In the whole universe, entire civilizations are wiped out of existence as regularly as stars explodes... So, I'm not inclined to say I'd care either.

That leaves the last point on procreation, I wonder... Is the question "Should I have a child" a moral question? My intuition tells me it is... But I'd agree with you that it shouldn't be out of some sense of duty before humanity but rather a question of having the available resources to care for this child long enough for it to be autonomous... For example, could it be deemed immoral for a couple living in abject poverty, in an environment with very limited resources & plagued with incessant droughts and such, to have babies? 

I intuitively would tend to say it is immoral, but could anyone be legitimized in preventing them to do so? I guess It could warrant a discussion of its own, but not here so I'll leave it at that...  

sear

Seems to me 3rd millennium U.S. society is geared toward promoting criminals.

In aboriginal cultures, such as illiterate hut dwellers in the Amazon, or Inuit up North, private property plays less of a role.

I've read that some Inuit communities has just one law, or rule: No trouble-making!

Might work fine for such lifestyle. It wouldn't work here.

AlexOland

@MayCaesar ; "It is hard for me to imagine how moral laws can be built into a Universe." built in as in, for example, murder is objectively wrong. There is no doubt to this because god himself says that it is wrong and you believe his words. 

 "Often we care much more about subjective things" again, not what I said. I am not claiming that we care more about objective beliefs. I am claiming that once people realise that the moral laws they have accepted are not objective, they go into this state of "depression" because they realise how meaningless life really is. "They can create their own meanings." you might say but that is not the point. The point isn't that they can not find their own meaning in life, the point is that they will be depressed once they see that life doesn't actually have a meaning.

Plaffelvohfen

@AlexOland

The point isn't that they can not find their own meaning in life, the point is that they will be depressed once they see that life doesn't actually have a meaning.

That's not exactly how I would describe things, not by much but still, let me expand on this... 

I would say that Existence itself (the continuum of all that ever existed, exists and/or might exist, here include a multiverse, an ever recurring universe, infinity, eternity, whatever, etc) has no "meaning potential" because it's permanent... I think that "permanence" nullifies Meaning/Purpose... But that "life" has a "meaning potential" because it is non-permanent... Stated otherwise my assertion is that: Meaning can only exist in "Localized and limited space-time frames", it's an image, although imperfect, of what I think about this... So "life" has a "meaning potential" insofar as a conscious being has the potential to give itself meaning within the limits of his own existence... Once out of this space-time frame, meaning doesn't and can't exist... 

Dee

@Plaffelvohfen

p .....a conscious being has the potential to give itself meaning within the limits of his own existence... Once out of this space-time frame, meaning doesn't and can't exist... 


Yes , we give our lives meaning our interactions with others and relationships give most more than enough meaning and your right once out of that frame so what?

Plaffelvohfen

@Dee

Yes , we give our lives meaning our interactions with others and relationships give most more than enough meaning and your right once out of that frame so what?

So what? So nothing...?  Not sure what you're pointing at exactly...    

Dee

@Plaffelvohfen

P ...I’m agreeing with you as in your closing remark 

Plaffelvohfen

@Dee

lol Ok, I took it as a question...