The Most Valid Metaethical Theory...

I have asked this question in other ways, but not like this. Mods, you can add this to an existing thread. Just for the record, I consider this a thread by itself.

Anyways, science doesn't work by conclusion. It works by consensus. And on the subject of which metaethical theory is thought be be valid. Most modern philosophers are realists or moral realists. 56% according to a 2009 survey. (People just talk about moral nihilism to make people think. There probably was never a true moral nihilist. Some think Nietzsche might have been. He was off his meds sometimes. But a true moral nihilist would have blown up the world by now. Although Hitler might have, some people think, if he developed the A-bomb first.)

I am a little confused still. I know moral naturalism has been disproved. Because of the Naturalistic Fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy seems to suggest moral nihilism, doesn't it? So why doesn't it then really?

EDIT:

I was also going to add. A lot of words are old and dated. Also a lot classic philosophy is taken up by other fields, like cosmology and psychology. What category do you think ethics should be put in? Medicine tells you how to be healthy. Maybe that. Or does ethics need its own field?

Please discuss...

 

Yes it most certainly does. A shining haha example. Is the dichotomy betw the media violence. Mostly action & horror films & series. & anything whatsoever nonviolent. No ones ever adequately explained that to me. & even i used to watch violent stuff. But i quit sevral yrs ago. & ever since then i constantly get oh ya gotta see this or that.

 

Academic ethics belong in the category of the nearest public toilet. In recent years, they've even promoted antisemitism again, while a quarter of their own students still claim the sun revolves around the earth, and none of them can teach a child how to use a fucking dictionary if their lives depended on it. If you want better ethics, consult your nearest bank, at least, they have standards.

Academic philosophy went entirely down the toilet, over a century ago. The more technology modern science provides their own students, the faster they've destroyed the entire planet, and censored half of reality. They killed Socrates, for money, and the current widespread insanity threatening to start WIII started well over a century ago, when academia threw their own dictionary out the window, for fun and for profit. How anyone can claim their philosophy is the love the knowledge, when their own schools cannot teach a child how to use a dictionary, and a quarter of their students still claim the sun revolves around the earth, and they never talk about it, boggles the imagination.

AI commonly learn languages without ever learning grammar, and can now calculate the orbits of the planets without using the laws of motion so, of course, academics are now claiming:

We Don't Need No Stinking Grammar! Or, Figgy Newton's Silly Laws of Motion! And, Grammar Nazis and Reality Snobs Are All Delusional!

Philosophy has now become commercial industry, censored by the Pentagon.

 

Let me first point out that I do not think Nietzsche was a moral nihilist. Rather he was a hippie well before his time. To go beyond good and evil, for example was to break down the established morals which were fundamentally corrupt in themselves, in order to find a deeper morality.

But how can we argue that morals are natural when they are a human construct. For example, we could argue that it is morally wrong to eat humans. If we eat humans that would be cannibalism and if animals eat humans we naturally see something repugnant in that---the idea of a human body being torn apart by animals is repugnant, and therefore would seem to be naturally immoral by human reasoning. Apparently though, if you were to die in your home, with your pet dog or cat, it is said that they will eat you. In fact, cats apparently lick your face when you sleep, I have heard, to see if you are dead and ready to be eaten. Different breeds of dogs will eat you sooner than others, but eventually they will all eat you. And they are doing so out of their natural behavior. Now this may not be the best argument for this point, but nature does no act with the same ethics that humans believe are common sense.

Even in religion, if we were to try to use the Bible to argue that there is a natural order to the universe that god put into place, for example, abortion is wrong and god said thou shalt not kill and therefore he does not want babies to be killed, it is incredibly problematic. Because he himself killed babies intra utero, and when he didn't, but apparently wanted them dead, he had humans kill babies intra utero. And then of course there is the problem that no where in the Bible does it actually condemn abortion in the same manner it condemns murder. For example, if you kill someone, it is a life for a life which we could equate with a criminal charge. However, in the same scripture, if you were to cause a baby in the womb to die, the punishment is to be determined by the father as if he had lost his property, in other words it is treated as a civil case. Or even just the fact that he said thou shalt not kill, even though he killed just about everyone in a flood, and killed people at other times, sent out armies to kill people, answered prayers to kill people, etc.

Does this leave us with moral nihilism? No, because even if ethics are a human construct, and are not fundamentally natural to the universe, they are very real at an existential level---they are a part of our view of the universe and human life within it, and what we mutually and collectively view as moral. What is nihilisitic is also a human construct, existential, and confined to the context of what we see as ethical and not ethical within our view of the universe and human life within it. Both are human constructs and therefore human defined.

 

Perhaps we could explain it all, by simply comparing the human race to a flock of sheep.

 

You are using dualistic logic to frame morality, when neither quantum mechanics nor the world around us obey classic logic.

The simple truth is, logic and humor express particle-wave duality, and modern academia's response has been to help censor half of reality. Graphic artists and others have been suggesting in the mass media for over half a century, that the only problem with quantum mechanics, is academia has made humor taboo.

Nietzche is not considered a philosopher by academic standards, just another science fiction author.

Descartes famously said, "I think, therefore I am", but all the evidence indicates its more like "I can still think, therefore, I must still be capable of feeling something!" ALL THE EVIDENCE, for over a century now, has indicated that, without a sense of humor, academia is the source of Global Warming. Evidence, that Vaudeville exists for a reason, and the Ivory Towers are about to fall on their fat asses again!

 

That's an easy fix, the duality being human constructed ethics vs no ethics. So if we define human ethics as that which is constructed of rules, codes, laws, and mores, and then say that animals have their own nature, which we could label as a natural ethics, e.g. carnivores eat meat, herbivores eat plants, etc. and that the physical world is subject to its own ethical conditions, e.g. particles, despite being superpositioned as waves are subject to the speed of light in terms of where they have the greatest probability of manifesting in both space and time, and then even an absolute consciouosness which we label as god would have its own ethos, which might include something about the totality of all information. This would allow a multiplistic ethos befitting the quantum reality of the cosmos.

But I would still make the same argument, because these other levels of ethos take us out of the context of humans using rationality to construct human ethics while limited by the constraints of existential experience---i.e. human experience within the limited of physical existence (and when I say physical, I limit this to a reality where we can only observe, experience and perceive the particle side of the wave-particle quantum reality. (We can calculate the existence of the wave, we can see its effects (e.g. the classic interference patter), we even use it everyday, and can measure it, but all of this is only insofar as it manifests through physical particles.)

I would say there are a lot of philosophers, such as Sartre and Heidegger to name two, who would disagree with you.

Yes, his idea of recurring time is arguably ludicrous, but most philosophers have some kind of a mostly unsupportable way of explaining realities they observe but can't explain, such as Liebniz' monads or Plato's forms. As long as they have a sound argument of rationality to support the idea, which they would likely concede is a mind experiment in attempt to explain such things. Nonetheless Nietzsche's impact on the path of philosophy was significant.

If I were to label a philosopher as such, I would choose Hegel. His attempt to turn god and idealism into a physical 'thing' in a strictly materialist world is what gave birth to the Nihilism of today. How many poor souls became State slaves or poltical martyrs under Marxism which was a Left Hegellian philosophy. Technology and science made great strides after Hegel, but at what costs to human happiness and satisfaction, and even as you say, the loss of our sense of humor?

But Hegel was a philosopher and the modern world would not exist as we know it, if it hadn't have been for him. Coincidentally, Nietzsche saw Hegel as a bit of a fraud. I think he had a good argument.

 

Harmony neither acts nor reasons, merely lending everything greater meaning, thus, promoting quantum entanglement. This issue is not our labels, but the efficiency of the system, because everything is self-organizing in a Singularity. Morality is synonymous with normalization, and the conscious mind, and the only way to comprehend either one better, is to first master the subconscious. Modern science has no sense of humor whatsoever, and no clue what "consciousness" means, indicating the fault my dear Brutus, is not in the stars, but in ourselves. If society doesn't have a clear comprehension of metaethics, its because they're taboo.

Comprehend the metaethics of Kindergarten, and you can document academia's ongoing insanity, and compare the two. They cannot teach a child how to use a dictionary, making it all too easy to figure out how the idiots are screwing everything up.