To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

[seer]

Except for that second part of the definition...

Well no, that is all part of the same definition - existential in the sense of universal, totality - and since nothing we do in the long run makes any difference and makes no difference in the universal scheme of things, it is nihilistic. Why you would even attempt to deny that is beyond me - why not embrace the title?

[seer]

I actually don't think we live in an amoral, unjust universe. YOU think that my worldview leads there, because you are assessing it against your need for moral statements to be absolute/universal. I do not have that need, so the subjective nature of morality doesn't bother me, or lead me to consider the universe injust or immoral.

I'm not sure what that means. A Stalin murders millions and dies in his bed a good old age. You find that just? The gassing of Jewish children is only relatively wrong, depending on the context of the culture, and you live in a moral universe?

As for the binary question cited above, if you frame the question as either/or, it's a little hard not to answer you in a binary fashion. That's a function of how you framed the question - not my worldview. So yes, given the binary options of subjective/relative vs. objective/universal - morality appears to be the former, not the latter.

That is the point Carp, none of us are beyond binary thinking, we all do on one issue or another. I mean you think that gay marriage is a good or acceptable, what is your non-binary take on that?

[carpedm9587]

Well no, that is all part of the same definition - existential in the sense of universal, totality - and since nothing we do in the long run makes any difference and makes no difference in the universal scheme of things, it is nihilistic. Why you would even attempt to deny that is beyond me - why not embrace the title?

Because the title, as defined, describes a worldview AND then provides an "outcome" that is completely framed from a universalist/absolutist perspective, which I reject.

You deny that subjective moral codes, justice, and purpose are "real" because you have arbitrarily decided that only objective/universal/absolute moral codes are "real." I don't accept your assertion, and you have yet to show it to be true. Ergo, I have no problem with the first half of the definition, and by it, I am indeed an existential nihilist. I reject the second half as driven by an objectivist/universalist/absolutist perspective, for reasons I have already explained.

[seer]

Because the title, as defined, describes a worldview AND then provides an "outcome" that is completely framed from a universalist/absolutist perspective, which I reject.

Hey I did not make up the definition, just because you fit it don't take it out on me...

You deny that subjective moral codes, justice, and purpose are "real" because you have arbitrarily decided that only objective/universal/absolute moral codes are "real." I don't accept your assertion, and you have yet to show it to be true. Ergo, I have no problem with the first half of the definition, and by it, I am indeed an existential nihilist. I reject the second half as driven by an objectivist/universalist/absolutist perspective, for reasons I have already explained.

I'm pretty sure the whole definition logically follows, existential is about the big picture:

With respect to the universe, existential nihilism suggests that a single human or even the entire human species is insignificant, without purpose and unlikely to change in the totality of existence.

[carpedm9587]

I'm not sure what that means. A Stalin murders millions and dies in his bed a good old age. You find that just?

No. But the existence of injustice does not make the entirety of the universe "unjust." There is justice - and there is injustice. Again, I have the sense you are in a binary place: the least hint of injustice, and it's all unjust. I live in a universe that is a continuum - it contains both justice and injustice.

The gassing of Jewish children is only relatively wrong, depending on the context of the culture, and you live in a moral universe?

Again, you left out your hidden word - permit me to add it

The gassing of Jewish children is only relatively wrong, depending on the context of the culture, and you live in a[n] absolutely moral universe?

My answer to THAT is no - it is not absolutely moral. Some people act against what I consider to be moral, for various reasons. I live in a subjectively moral universe. You (again) have arbitrarily decided that doesn't make it moral at all - but despite repeating it over and over again, with seemingly increasing levels of disbelief, you still have not made the case that it has to be as you believe it is.

That is the point Carp, none of us are beyond binary thinking, we all do on one issue or another. I mean you think that gay marriage is a good or acceptable, what is your non-binary take on that?

Some things are bninary, Seer - no question about that. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with binary thinking, Seer, if the thing in question is binary. Do you want to eat out or eat in is a binary question with a binary answer. Flipping a coin is binary. Preferring heads to tails is binary. Some things are binary. The problem arises when one applies binary thinking to non-binary realities.

Take your question about gay marriage. I do not think gay marriage is "good" - I do think it is acceptable. I have the same feelings about gay marriage that I have about heterosexual marriage - it can be great, it can be bad it can be hard. If someone asks me if I think gay marriage is "intrinsically wrong," then they have just framed a binary question so I will have a binary answer: no, I do not believe it is intrinsicaly wrong. If they ask me the more general question, "is gay marriage wrong," I will answer, "as with all marriages, it depends on the circumstances. Some gay marriages I would evaluate as wrong, some I would not."

The binary thinking I observe you engaging in is about things I do not see as binary: for example, the universe is "just" or "unjust" and there is nothing in between. "Absolute" worldviews tend to take people into binary thinking in places where it simply does not apply, IMO.

[carpedm9587]

Hey I did not make up the definition, just because you fit it don't take it out on me...

Take it out on you? Seer, I was merely explaining my position. No attack intended.

I'm pretty sure the whole definition logically follows, existential is about the big picture:

With respect to the universe, existential nihilism suggests that a single human or even the entire human species is insignificant, without purpose and unlikely to change in the totality of existence.

Of course it does, Seer - to you. It is aligned with your worldview. It does exactly what you do - it leaves out words. In order for me to agree with the entire definition, it would need to read like this:

With respect to the universe, existential nihilism suggests that a single human or even the entire human species is insignificant, without universal/absolute purpose and unlikely to change in the totality of existence.

With that definition I have no issue. It is correct, and I am an existential nihilist by definition. But note the scale: with respect the the entire universe, universal/absolute, and totality of existence. Frankly, my newfound friend, even in the Christian worldview you espouse, you are unlikely to impact the "totality of existence."

Meanwhile, I am fine acknowledging that I am a tiny spec on a small world in a remote corner of the universe that will not do much to change the cosmos. I am even fine acknowledging that 500 years from now it is entirely possible no one will even remember I existed. Neither of those things makes my life "without purpose." It does make my life without "eternal" or "absolute" purpose. But I have plenty of purpose each and every day - for the people I interact with - and the marks I leave on the world around me. I do not need it to be "eternal" for it to be "purposeful."

[JimL]

Right and you have your moral code, the Nazi his and the Communist his, and on and on we go...

Nazism and Communism are no more of a moral system than is Capitalism or Democracy.

Again, so Why would the Communist Chinese leaders give up power for greater democracy and freedom for the general population?

Apples and oranges seer. You're confusing forms of governance with the moral systems therein.

[seer]

Take it out on you? Seer, I was merely explaining my position. No attack intended.

I was just yanking your chain - no worries...

Meanwhile, I am fine acknowledging that I am a tiny spec on a small world in a remote corner of the universe that will not do much to change the cosmos. I am even fine acknowledging that 500 years from now it is entirely possible no one will even remember I existed. Neither of those things makes my life "without purpose." It does make my life without "eternal" or "absolute" purpose. But I have plenty of purpose each and every day - for the people I interact with - and the marks I leave on the world around me. I do not need it to be "eternal" for it to be "purposeful."

OK, we will leave it here..

[seer]

Nazism and Communism are no more of a moral system than is Capitalism or Democracy.

Yes but totalitarian government has moral consequences for the population.

Apples and oranges seer. You're confusing forms of governance with the moral systems therein.

No, you don't think that a government that can pull you out of your home and execute you without a trial is not a moral question? But you were speaking of the greater good so again, why would the ruling Communist elite give up power, status and control for the greater good?

[carpedm9587]

I was just yanking your chain - no worries...

OK, we will leave it here..

As you wish...

[seer]

As you wish...

[JimL]

Yes but totalitarian government has moral consequences for the population.

Possibly, most likely, but not necessarily. The moral consequences are dependent upon the moral system not the type of government that enforces them.

No, you don't think that a government that can pull you out of your home and execute you without a trial is not a moral question? But you were speaking of the greater good so again, why would the ruling Communist elite give up power, status and control for the greater good?

Again, you are confusing governmental authority, the abuse thereof, with the actual moral system of the community in general.

[seer]

Possibly, most likely, but not necessarily. The moral consequences are dependent upon the moral system not the type of government that enforces them.

Again, you are confusing governmental authority, the abuse thereof, with the actual moral system of the community in general.

Jim, the government in totalitarian regimes basically decides what is acceptable or not. You can not divorce the two. China for instance only allowed a one child policy - if a woman got pregnant again she had to abort the child. The Nazi government decided to murder Jews and steal their wealth and property. If these are not moral questions, then there are no moral questions. But I will ask again: why would the ruling Communist elite give up power, status and control for the greater good?

[JimL]

Jim, the government in totalitarian regimes basically decides what is acceptable or not. You can not divorce the two. China for instance only allowed a one child policy - if a woman got pregnant again she had to abort the child. The Nazi government decided to murder Jews and steal their wealth and property. If these are not moral questions, then there are no moral questions. But I will ask again: why would the ruling Communist elite give up power, status and control for the greater good?

Yes seer, but Totalitarian regimes don't necessarily hold themselves responsible to the same laws, moral or otherwise, as they do the general populace. The moral system of the society is not the same thing as the ruling body. You can make that same argument for any individual within society, i.e. "why should anyone do that which is in the best interests of the society as a whole if they can personally benefit by doing the otherwise?" My answer would be that moral behaviors which are in the best interests of society as a whole are ultimately in the best interests of everyone, including the ruling elite. As history has shown, that which can be done to the masses can also be done to the ruling elite. Marie Antonnette, The tsars, the Kings etc. etc. etc.

[seer]

As history has shown, that which can be done to the masses can also be done to the ruling elite. Marie Antonnette, The tsars, the Kings etc. etc. etc.

That doesn't make sense Jim, you can be killed or harmed and not even be part of the elite. The fact is you really have no good argument for why the Chinese ruling class should give up power for the greater good or a more fair society...