[ThereBeDragons]

And if I reduce myself to a quadruple amputee who needs to be fed through a tube, and am consequently unable to murder a million people, it seems as though I haven't done anything wrong as I cannot change the past (the complete gutting of my own autonomy) and cannot do so in the present.

[Saeko]

And if I reduce myself to a quadruple amputee who needs to be fed through a tube, and am consequently unable to murder a million people, it seems as though I haven't done anything wrong as I cannot change the past (the complete gutting of my own autonomy) and cannot do so in the present.

Why would you completely gut your own autonomy, though? Unless you had very good reasons for believing that that would somehow increase your power over things, you dun goof'd.

[Lightman]

Even if there are no moral facts, it is still possible that there are moral facts, and there is therefore a non-zero chance that there are moral facts.

No, this sentence is self-contradictory. If there are no moral facts, it is not possible that there are moral facts. What you mean to say is: even though we don't know any moral facts (which I don't accept, but I'll grant it for argument's sake), there could be moral facts. I'll be charitable and read your statement as such.

But we can only achieve those values if we have the power to do so.

That's presupposing quite a lot about what those values are.

For example, if a moral fact is: "One ought to be kind to others," one most certainly does not need power to fulfill that obligation. If a moral fact is: "One ought to keep to one's station," achieving power is actually immoral.

Furthermore, it might to turn out to be the case that getting as much power as possible is a value, so the unpredictability of what values might turn out to be true makes it necessary to become as powerful as possible (and since there actually are no moral facts, there is no reason not to do this).

What if the supreme moral fact is to be humble?

If you want to embrace nihilism, fine, but don't attach this pseudo ubermensch shit to it.

[ThereBeDragons]

Why would you completely gut your own autonomy, though? Unless you had very good reasons for believing that that would somehow increase your power over things, you dun goof'd.

Well, I wouldn't, and you wouldn't, but when you are trying to claim that "power is good because it allows you to comply with moral injunctions," reducing yourself to such a state means that since you can't do anything, you aren't expected to anything, and then theoretically you would automatically be complying with any meaningful moral injunction that was imposed on you.

It's just really weird logic. It's logically consistent to say that "there are no objective moral values" and then conclude that all courses of action are equally pointless, but to then choose one to elevate above the others (the pursuit of power) just seems weird.

[Saeko]

That's presupposing quite a lot about what those values are.

For example, if a moral fact is: "One ought to be kind to others," one most certainly does not need power to fulfill that obligation. If a moral fact is: "One ought to keep to one's station," achieving power is actually immoral.

If you reduce yourself to a vegetative state, you most certainly will not be able to be kind to others. You might need a very minimal amount of power to be kind to others, but you still need that amount anyway. As for the other one, without sufficient power, you could just as well drop below your station. See my response to ThereBeDragon's similar comment above.

What if the supreme moral fact is to be humble?

If you spend your whole life seeking power, and then tomorrow you find out that the supreme moral value is to be humble, then be humble. You can't change the past anyway why bother with it?

If you want to embrace nihilism, fine, but don't attach this pseudo ubermensch shit to it.

This isn't ubermensch shit at all, pseudo or otherwise.

[Saeko]

Well, I wouldn't, and you wouldn't, but when you are trying to claim that "power is good because it allows you to comply with moral injunctions," reducing yourself to such a state means that since you can't do anything, you aren't expected to anything, and then theoretically you would automatically be complying with any meaningful moral injunction that was imposed on you.

Completely gutting your own autonomy is a trivial solution to all decision problems it seems. After all, if you eliminate all of your options, you can't possibly choose poorly! But this kind of "solution" simply isn't acceptable since the whole point of deliberation is to achieve whatever goals we have not to be the best possible decision makers.

It's just really weird logic. It's logically consistent to say that "there are no objective moral values" and then conclude that all courses of action are equally pointless, but to then choose one to elevate above the others (the pursuit of power) just seems weird.

It seems weird until you realize that arguments can be rational and at the same time not objective.

[Gassho]

@Saeko

I can agree there is no moral authority. But one can think about what is most sensible in terms of being with reality. We can only occupy the present moment so I would say being present to it as fully as possible provides the best chance of understanding what reality is - or to figure out what one should do with a life. Those that see it this way would speak of joy and compassion. Naturally, as already stated, this carries no moral weight, but it does have mental authority because it makes you happy. As far as I can see, that's all anyone really struggles to achieve, either correctly or warped. I can't argue with your right to seek power, but I can fairly ask you, what's the point? There is no point - well, then again, what's the point?

[Saeko]

@Saeko

I can agree there is no moral authority. But one can think about what is most sensible in terms of being with reality. We can only occupy the present moment so I would say being present to it as fully as possible provides the best chance of understanding what reality is - or to figure out what one should do with a life. Those that see it this way would speak of joy and compassion. Naturally, as already stated, this carries no moral weight, but it does have mental authority because it makes you happy. As far as I can see, that's all anyone really struggles to achieve, either correctly or warped. I can't argue with your right to seek power, but I can fairly ask you, what's the point? There is no point - well, then again, what's the point?

What's the point of asking that question if you already know the answer?

[Gassho]

I'm asking you what's the point in seeking power? I'm not sure your reply really satisfies the question.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

So if you do seek power, and there are no objective values, no problem. But if you don't seek power, and there are objective values, then you might have a problem, because you might not be able to actually achieve those values.

Man has mistaken the beasts that roam the plains with nature herself. He has conquered the lion, but his cleverness means nothing to the sea.

[Saeko]

I'm asking you what's the point in seeking power? I'm not sure your reply really satisfies the question.

You said it yourself. There is no point.

Man has mistaken the beasts that roam the plains with nature herself. He has conquered the lion, but his cleverness means nothing to the sea.

Yeah? Tell that to this guy: http://seriousfacts.com/emperor-caligula-once-decided-to-go-to-war-with-poseidon-god-of-sea-he-ordered-his-soldiers-to-randomly-throw-spears-in-the-water/

I just noticed your avatar is O'Brien from the 1984 movie.

[Gassho]

@Saeko

Caligula didn't go to war with the sea, he ordered his soldiers to stab the waves to embarrass them. It was a weird symbolic punishment, or so it seems anyway.

Well, ok, so we are agreed there is no point in seeking power for its own sake. So why would you want to do it then? Do you erroneously equate power to happiness?

[Saeko]

@Saeko

Caligula didn't go to war with the sea, he ordered his soldiers to stab the waves to embarrass them. It was a weird symbolic punishment, or so it seems anyway.

Well, ok, so we are agreed there is no point in seeking power for its own sake. So why would you want to do it then? Do you erroneously equate power to happiness?

No I don't, and I'm pretty sure I explained why just a little earlier in this thread.

[Far-Right Sage]

Anyway, you're pretty much a moral nihilist, which there aren't very many of around here.

How so? Perhaps not nihilists, but there are certainly enough relativists.

If an ideology is entirely personal, it's just self-interest. This is the exact opposite of the universal morality behind almost all modern ideologies, which attempt to create rules that everyone should follow.
Image

Yes, but as it pertains to post-Enlightenment ideologies, many of their architects and more learned adherents even today oftentimes understand, or let us say, possess a lack of belief in a universal morality. They simply view their own as one worth imposing, essentially a belief in the superiority of their own values and views. It is their more ideologically unconscious adherents who believe in a universal morality and don't question a particular ideology's moral code, as they are limited to seeing only the four walls of a building but not what lies beyond it.

[JohnRawls]

How so? Perhaps not nihilists, but there are certainly enough relativists

That is correct, I would consider myself to great degree a moral/issue subjectivist(Almost the same). I don't view it in all black though to be called a nihilist.