Feel free to present your own personally preferred definition of NIHILISM at your leisure.I just want to know why you’re set on redefining the word.
meaningfulness is objective.
It MEANS if you live this way you’ll be punished and if you live another you’ll be rewarded therefore you should live by the latter.
Unless you have any support for these hypothetical questions,
I have every right not to take them seriously, I don’t know.
Well according to your hypothetical scenario you would be the monster and that’s a fact.
Now that we got that scenario out the way let me say that I’m not advocating that you stop caring (by all means care away) but why is it so hard for you to believe there’s validation for it?
u neither want nor need such validation.
It would not make me feel validated the way that being a free moral agent does
and what's more would not stop me from being a free moral agent.
meaningfulness is objective.I said this ONLY IF we’re rewarded or punished in some capacity, if we’re not then there is no meaning. But if you still want the demonstration if the former were true here it is.It MEANS if you live this way you’ll be punished and if you live another you’ll be rewarded therefore you should live by the latter.
neither want nor need such validation.As opposed to punishment?
It would not make me feel validated the way that being a free moral agent doesAnd you know this how?
survival of the fittest
I think if you examine your (subjective personal opinions about) morality you will disagree with any god(s) whose moral pronouncements differ too drastically from your personal moral intuition.
According to the hypothetical situation where things that are objectively harmful to all humans like theft, murder and dishonesty are also objectively morally correct I am perfectly happy to be an objectively morally incorrect even if that does make me a monster. I just can't choose to not care about humans. That is not under my control.
Lastly it’s easy to say the person you’ll be under circumstances that you already know but most likely if the hypothetical scenario were true it would be very difficult to maintain your code of conduct because people tend to be products of their environment and if your environment is wilding out then most likely sooner or later you will too because it’s survival of the fittest, kill or be killed and it’s a lot more difficult to care for people that want your head as opposed to people who reciprocate your feelings for them.
Punishment is immaterial
the fittest social animals are those that work and cooperate with others the best.
What do you mean?
Punishment is immaterial
The approval of some god(s) is immaterial especially if they are completely undetectable unknowable and of unknown moral quality.
the fittest social animals are those that work and cooperate with others the best.
That’s what I’m asking you, you’re the one asking the nonspecific question.
Or the one that’s the last man standing,
How can "objective meaning" be conditional?
Punishment is immaterialThat’s easy to say when your not being punished.
The approval of some god(s) is immaterial especially if they are completely undetectable unknowable and of unknown moral quality.That’s not applicable to the discussion because the narrative was if that weren’t the case.
the fittest social animals are those that work and cooperate with others the best.Or the one that’s the last man standing, nonetheless your argument isn’t applicable to your hypothetical scenario because if the goal was to kill as many people to receive your reward then most likely consensus would jump on it, I mean that’s not the message that’s currently being pushed yet we still have killers among us.
I don't have to agree with the moral correctness of an action tocapitulate with the demands of a mafia boss because I fear he will break my legs. I also do not have to capitulate. I am still an independent actor. Inserting a god into the role of the mafia boss and replacing the leg breaking with whatever you consider punishment does not in any way resolve these issues. Punishment is immaterial in determining my personal moral intuition REGARDLESS of what I was threatened with and also REGARDLESS of my capitulation under duress.
OBJECTIVE = UNCONDITIONALOBJECTIVE = ALWAYS THE SAME REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATIONSUBJECTIVE = CONDITIONALSUBJECTIVE = ALMOST NEVER THE SAME BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON THE SPECIFIC SITUATIONWhere’d you get that definition?
