RE: OBJECTIVE MORALITY
Ok I lied I also went to go buy cancer while thinking on this Axiom thing. From what I see it is a self-evident belief, so a foundational one. A position I would take, mmmm tricky. Yours for example is very broad, proHuman... I am on the other side of that if it means that human life matters above all. Family is also something that depends on context, but I can see that might probably include any support structure which you can use to stick to your "belief".
I think if anyone has spoken to me for a bit and read some of my trash that I consider people to be evil, the masses to be immoral and think life can be forfeited. I think cultures and religion are traditionally toxic and that violence should meet a literal death. People are not equal although we must endeavour to treat them as such, this is more inclined to be in line with things like IQ for want of a better example... Trying to keep things coherent but think that is about it, the broad strokes I would say, mainly guilty until proven innocent if I were to use a single phrase as an axiom.
Edit: I would have to think on it more since I tend to just go kamikaze and make connections as I go :)
Please explain.
Well, at the core it is more a judgement that I hold of anyone I meet. It is also more nurture than nature. Being able to consciously inflict harm and then do so because you can is evil, so everyone is evil. That is not a biggy though since it is just part of life. I have a problem with the masses because they seem to reject individual morality assuming they are part of the greater good. This makes anything they wish "the greater good" Life can be forfeited because life can be said to have rules, as we progress in thinking we can refine these - that is our social contract.
I agree that doing immoral things in the service of "the greater good" or because someone "trusts their god/boss/general" is a primary factor in the spread of "evil" and the shirking of "personal responsibility".
That's why I'm a big fan of deontological ethics. And also why I'm very skeptical of consequentialism.
It means (each individual) human life matters above all (to each individual).
Agreed on the to each individual. Self-preservation.
Survival instinct is primary. That's why "nihilism" is incoherent.
I think it may seem more or less incoherent almost solely based on how a person feels the day. Personally I like the idea of nihilism, it is comforting, it is a good baseline which I think flirts a bit with stoicism in attitude but does not have that irritating "appreciate" aspect.
The only issue I have with that quote is what is "meaning", seems a bit like a Witch trial where you must admit to delusion or dishonesty. Then even if I admit or am that and do not know, it just does not matter at all. I breathe because I always have.
Took a moment to respond while at work, I will read and watch the rest soon I get a focus gap. Just wanted to comment to thank you for the delegation. I must ask that you remove it though as I have more than enough RC, and I don't wish to be indebted. I am very sporadic in how I engage on the platforms so I would rather not feel indebted to comment, vote or resteem posts. Same goes for your voting sprees. :)
Excellent analysis.
REAL-TRUE-FACTS are Quantifiable, rigorously defined, scientifically verifiable and or logically necessary (like NOUMENON) - AND TECHNICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY MEANINGLESS.
Unfalsifiable Qualitative, experiential, personal private, opinions and feelings are MEANINGFUL.
We are told from a very young age that our feelings don't matter.
This is a counter-factual statement (propaganda) that is used to culturally brainwash us.
MEANING = MOTIVE (E-MOTION).
Without e-motion (motive/meaning) the nihilist will not move, will not eat, and will most certainly die (unless they are "rescued" and placed on "life support").
I have delegated to you to show my appreciation (just like an upvote).
Please do not feel obligated in any way.
I know it can feel a little strange, but you owe me nothing at all.
I have rephrased that a bit through the years:
"We should not think that our feelings / opinions matter to others."
Right, sometimes they do and sometimes the don't, but it's certainly not automatic.
Human life is impossible without a family, so it's actually just an extension of +proHUMAN.
Human life is impossible without a womb. The family then nurtures it, fair enough. Family, however, does not have to mean Mom, Dad etc. It just means support structure.
I agree.
Are you suggesting we should kill people to keep people from killing people?
Haha, I know that is probably an age-old discussion, personally I do not see a way around it. I think about it as if I never wanted to be sad then I could remove it but I would need to remove the happy also and feel nothing. Now to have a healthy society with people doing good, and we have established that individual and organizational (for lack of a better word) violence is bad for society but it is also the ultimate in bad. Because of the status that violence holds it is not as simple as just saying go to jail. So yes kill people from killing people, and obviously, by extention this means I think there must always be a governmental entity which inforces. So we have to still keep the bad to have the good.
There are humane prisons.
I found this interesting,
Do you believe a high IQ always = good (more valuable) person?
No. I think that if people were honest with themselves they would be well aware of their shortcomings, then I think things that are assumed prejudice are merely filters to find the right people for the right things. More than that I mean that people should think in those terms, they need to hold prejudice to make better decisions. If society as a whole were to think in those terms would we even have a political structure the way we do? Would we not then prefer facts as we know that we are prejudice, we as individuals would also not try to just get things we feel we are owed because of being aware of our own shortcomings thus I think people that then rise above would always be on merit. IQ alone means nothing, as a lot has to do with your personal moral and ethical views etc. I don't think a person can filter on a single criteria. I just think someone with a decent IQ stands a better chance of avoiding being swallowed by the masses.
Self-bias is extremely difficult to spot,
Sometimes they are useful and sometimes they are counter-productive.
It's important to try and be aware of your own prejudices as much as possible.
Eh, this is tricky. You'd have to rigorously define "merit" in order to make it scientifically quantifiable.
I agree, but they also have a better chance of subverting an otherwise fair system.
Can you scientifically quantify a person's "moral and ethical views etc."?
Maybe not yet, although I think we have enough knowledge to be able to create pretty accurate profiles on people albeit only what they show us. Machine learning could do that already and I would be inclined to believe it over public opinion.
Of course there's also the "psychopathy test" which would also be very interesting to see the results of a broad cross-section of school-children, average citizens and "successful" business leaders...
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/436/the-psychopath-test
You can listen to the full story directly from the web page by clicking the "play button"...
Are you advocating a general skepticism concerning claims?
I'd say that all claims are incoherent until proven to be coherent.
A presumption of incoherence should be maintained when evaluating claims.
I like how you are using incoherence to also mean unproven, it is basically how I process and even once I think I have something coherent I deliver it incoherent but maybe that is the nature of these things as I find them abstract.
Natural language is often ill-suited to serve epistemological concepts.