Existential Nihilism & Atheism...

[Starlight]

No, I'm just wondering why you guys don't accept and embrace Existential Nihilism as defined in the OP. It seems to fit your world view perfectly.

Because as all the atheists in this thread have explained to you, the OP contains an innate assumption that meaning is objective rather than subjective, and that's not something any of us accept. And as Doug noted, that doesn't even have anything to do with our atheism: "Whatever I believe about meaning, I believe for reasons unrelated to whether any god exists." Even if I thought God existed, I would still think meaning is subjective. God's existence doesn't affect the nature of 'meaning' anymore than it affects the nature of math.

Well I'm glad you agree that it would make our choices more significant.

Not what I said. You've consistently misinterpreted the comments of people in this thread who are not agreeing with you, as if they'd said they were agreeing with you. Why are you doing that?

One thing is certain, no matter what your view of works are, faith is just as important, if not more so.

No, that's not at all certain, and is totally dependent on the translation of the Greek word pistis. The depiction of a final eternal judgment according to deeds is spelled out multiple times using many different words and is not translation-dependent, but all statements about 'faith' hinge on the translation of a single word, and there is ample reason to believe that that translation is an incorrect one. Hence my opinion that a final judgment based on faith is a serious misreading of the NT. The NT writers believed that humans could do good deeds and thereby achieve a positive eternal final judgement, and believed that non-Christians were able to do so.

[Tassman]

No, I'm just wondering why you guys don't accept and embrace Existential Nihilism as defined in the OP. It seems to fit your world view perfectly.

...and it would fit your scenario that without God all is doom and gloom. Do you really need such validation to reinforce your beliefs?

Well I'm glad you agree that it would make our choices more significant.

That’s not what he said, he wasn’t agreeing with you.

One thing is certain, no matter what your view of works are, faith is just as important, if not more so. Without faith it is impossible to please God,

And of course one must “please God”; otherwise he might get angry and hurt us. The gods are like that. They all demand their sacrifices.

and as Jesus said:

Well as the gospels said Jesus said, but given that they were all written so long after the event nobody can know for sure.

[Doug Shaver]

Right, so you would accept that the definition of Existential Nihilism in the OP would apply to your beliefs.

No, that would be a non sequitur.

[robrecht]

img_0504.jpg

[seer]

No.... because genetics does not determine how we live and think.

So you are not a determinist?

Take yourself. You say you are a better man since becoming religious. I have no reason to doubt that. And it is common for people to change views and perspectives and conduct and philosophical perspective.... while having the same genes. So, obvously, genes don't determine eveything about you.

There is great significance to our own actions and interactions with others! (Whether you consider significance to be objective OR subjective.) Because how we treat others and interact with others will contribute and be a part of how they develop. Our actions and interactions with others can be destructive, and constructive, and hugely influential in how another person develops. If we find significance in others -- and nearly all of us do, whether we think that significance is intrinsic, or whether we take it as a subjective aspect of our own attributions of meaning -- then our interactions take on significance as well.

I deal with this question at my work quite a lot. I work in aged care, as a lifestyle officer. Most of the people I work with have some level of dementia, and many are extremely so. The interactions of staff with residents is very significant for them. It is also transient. Many cannot remember things from one moment to the next. One of the guiding principles I and my lifestyle colleagues apply is that people with dementia live in the moment; and we aim to give them lots and lots of good moments. The interactions we have with family (for whom the experience is really difficult) and with residents and with other staff give an immediacy to thoughts of meaning and significance. But I don't spend time at work searching for meaning. The notions of meaning and significance are a scafold for introspection and reflection later on, in down time.

Cheers -- sylas

Personally I think how we view the human person is paramount in these situations. I worked with the mentally handicapped for a decade, My mom and all her sisters suffered from Alzheimer's and have since passed - they and me went through some very trying times and much sadness. See I know that my faith helped me to see my fellow man in a different light. That we are not merely the accidental by products of the forces of nature. That love is not only a chemical response, but is tied into something permanent and eternal. These are not mundane questions and the answers color the whole of our lives, whether we are presently aware of them or not.

[seer]

Because as all the atheists in this thread have explained to you, the OP contains an innate assumption that meaning is objective rather than subjective, and that's not something any of us accept. And as Doug noted, that doesn't even have anything to do with our atheism: "Whatever I believe about meaning, I believe for reasons unrelated to whether any god exists." Even if I thought God existed, I would still think meaning is subjective. God's existence doesn't affect the nature of 'meaning' anymore than it affects the nature of math.

That is false, the definition in the OP is not assuming that there is an overriding meaning it is saying that there isn't - period. You don't believe that there is so your beliefs fit the definition of Existential Nihilism.

Not what I said. You've consistently misinterpreted the comments of people in this thread who are not agreeing with you, as if they'd said they were agreeing with you. Why are you doing that?

You are correct, I misread you. But of course it logically would make what we do or don't do more significant since the consequences are much more significant.

[sylas]

Yes. It's not surprising that humanity is extraordinarily diverse, but with some qualities that tend to be common (though not of course universal).

But wouldn't you have to say that these differences are merely, at bottom, the result of genetic differences? So can we bring moral judgement to genetics?

No.... because genetics does not determine how we live and think.

So you are not a determinist?

Determinism is not relevant to the question you asked and which I answered about genes. Whether one is a determinist or not has nothing whatever to do with the plain as a pike staff observation that we are not determined simply by genes. There are a host of other influences that play a part in what we are... including in particular our interactions with others. Which, as I said, gives significance to our interactions with others.

I've quoted the whole exchange here just to help keep focus on what you were asking and I was answering. No our differences are most emphatically not just the result of genetic differences, not even close; and that's an obvious fact of life regardless of what one thinks about determinism.

Personally I think how we view the human person is paramount in these situations. I worked with the mentally handicapped for a decade, My mom and all her sisters suffered from Alzheimer's and have since passed - they and me went through some very trying times and much sadness. See I know that my faith helped me to see my fellow man in a different light. That we are not merely the accidental by products of the forces of nature. That love is not only a chemical response, but is tied into something permanent and eternal. These are not mundane questions and the answers color the whole of our lives, whether we are presently aware of them or not.

If you mean that it is paramount that workers in these situations have the one true perspective on humanity, then no. My colleagues include some very religious, and some almost anti-religious. We are highly diverse in all kinds of ways, including philosophical outlook. Looking at who works well and effectively in these difficult situations looks to me as really strong evidence AGAINST there being one unique objective notion of what is meaningful.

The people living in the facility where I work are also extremely diverse. Deliberately so: where I work was specifically set up to provide care and support for people from diverse cultural backgrounds. We support all our residents in whatever way they best find meaning in life. A major first task when new residents come in is to find out about them, so we can build upon and work with that.

Cheers -- sylas

[seer]

Determinism is not relevant to the question you asked and which I answered about genes. Whether one is a determinist or not has nothing whatever to do with the plain as a pike staff observation that we are not determined simply by genes. There are a host of other influences that play a part in what we are... including in particular our interactions with others. Which, as I said, gives significance to our interactions with others.

I've quoted the whole exchange here just to help keep focus on what you were asking and I was answering. No our differences are most emphatically not just the result of genetic differences, not even close; and that's an obvious fact of life regardless of what one thinks about determinism.

OK, I will let this go for now, though I think there are much deeper implications.

If you mean that it is paramount that workers in these situations have the one true perspective on humanity, then no. My colleagues include some very religious, and some almost anti-religious. We are highly diverse in all kinds of ways, including philosophical outlook. Looking at who works well and effectively in these difficult situations looks to me as really strong evidence AGAINST there being one unique objective notion of what is meaningful.

I'm not saying that you have to be a believer to be compassionate, we are all after all created in the image of God. But why be compassionate? Especially if it causes you distress or loss? And again, in my case, and in the case of others I know, faith profoundly changed the way we looked at our fellow man. As a matter of fact one of the main reasons I got into managing a group home was because of my Christian beliefs. See this issue may not be paramount to you, but is is to many.

The people living in the facility where I work are also extremely diverse. Deliberately so: where I work was specifically set up to provide care and support for people from diverse cultural backgrounds. We support all our residents in whatever way they best find meaning in life. A major first task when new residents come in is to find out about them, so we can build upon and work with that.

Cheers -- sylas

OK

[Tassman]

I'm not saying that you have to be a believer to be compassionate,

Just as well. Very many "believers" are far from compassionate, e.g. their attitude towards LGBT folk or women faced with the difficult choice of having an abortion.

we are all after all created in the image of God. But why be compassionate? Especially if it causes you distress or loss?

We are not created "in the image of God", what a preposterous notion. We have evolved via natural selection into a social species with the resultant instincts of mutual reciprocity and desire to conform to the values of the group, even when it's not to our direct advantage. Because the benefits of belonging to an altruistic group out-way the disadvantages.

And again, in my case, and in the case of others I know, faith profoundly changed the way we looked at our fellow man. As a matter of fact one of the main reasons I got into managing a group home was because of my Christian beliefs. See this issue may not be paramount to you, but is is to many.

I trust you're not abusing your position as a group-home manager to inculcate your religious views on the hapless victims under your care.

[sylas]

OK, I will let this go for now, though I think there are much deeper implications.

Oh for sure. Could be a topic for another thread sometime. We've done it all before in this forum, but it recycles ok. Free will, determinism, materialism, etc.

I'm not saying that you have to be a believer to be compassionate, we are all after all created in the image of God. But why be compassionate? Especially if it causes you distress or loss? And again, in my case, and in the case of others I know, faith profoundly changed the way we looked at our fellow man. As a matter of fact one of the main reasons I got into managing a group home was because of my Christian beliefs. See this issue may not be paramount to you, but is is to many.

One nice thing about seeing meaning as subjective is that I am totally ok with people having widely different notions of what is paramount.

For sure, we try hard to build on whatever is most important to our clients. I've just got hold of a hymn book from my Dad to bring to work, so I can play and sing some of the hymns with a lady for whom her faith (Roman Catholic) is paramount, and who has expressed it in music all her life.

As for why be compassionate. I don't know but you seem to be still thinking that if significance is not objective then nothing is significant. It doesn't work like that. Helping other people manage better with really difficult and painful situations is very fulfilling. If *I* find that significant, then *I* will find it fulfilling. It really doesn't matter for my experience of fulfillment and meaning what other people -- or even a putative God -- finds significant. My view is that meaning and significance are inherently subjective. Meaningful is, implicitly, "meaningful TO someone".

To be honest, I don't think that my work causes me much in the way of pain and loss. Maybe that means I'm actually a bit cold, because we do sure deal with situations full of pain and loss! Some of my colleagues are far more likely to end up in tears at some of the situations that show up than I am. I don't experience the same level of heartbreak as a son or daughter or spouse at the decline and loss of their loved one. But I'll do what I can to help; and it *does* help. Which, given what I find to be significant in life, is very very meaningful. But we aren't the same as family.

It definitely isn't all despair and doom and gloom, and it's part of my job to make sure of that. We do deal with heartbreaking situations, but one of the things I love in my job is that we enable lots of times of joy and humour and fun, and that's what we are trying to do, every day. We get heaps of those times. We get to organize balls, dances, art shows, etc. We reminisce, we sing, we read stories, have games, etc.

Dance, for example, is great. Many older people have danced all their lives, and now feel beyond it. But with a solid ballroom grip I can dance with almost anyone as long as they can bear their weight. The ballroom grip is a very stable support even for someone who can't get up out of a chair by themselves. As long as they can stand, dance is possible. And that moment isn't sad or heartbreaking. It's thrilling and happy and exciting. Or you can dance with a wheelchair. Or just hold hands and move with someone confined to a tubchair.

Or someone who has lost the ability to speak coherently... but can still sing. Surprisingly common... The rhythms and the well known established lyric sequence can be managed sometimes by a mind that gets short circuited trying to convert thought to speech. Getting a big smile from someone who no longer is able to communicate verbally at all is lovely. For me AND for them.

Cheers -- sylas

[seer]

For sure, we try hard to build on whatever is most important to our clients. I've just got hold of a hymn book from my Dad to bring to work, so I can play and sing some of the hymns with a lady for whom her faith (Roman Catholic) is paramount, and who has expressed it in music all her life.

As for why be compassionate. I don't know but you seem to be still thinking that if significance is not objective then nothing is significant. It doesn't work like that. Helping other people manage better with really difficult and painful situations is very fulfilling. If *I* find that significant, then *I* will find it fulfilling. It really doesn't matter for my experience of fulfillment and meaning what other people -- or even a putative God -- finds significant. My view is that meaning and significance are inherently subjective. Meaningful is, implicitly, "meaningful TO someone".

To be honest, I don't think that my work causes me much in the way of pain and loss. Maybe that means I'm actually a bit cold, because we do sure deal with situations full of pain and loss! Some of my colleagues are far more likely to end up in tears at some of the situations that show up than I am. I don't experience the same level of heartbreak as a son or daughter or spouse at the decline and loss of their loved one. But I'll do what I can to help; and it *does* help. Which, given what I find to be significant in life, is very very meaningful. But we aren't the same as family.

It definitely isn't all despair and doom and gloom, and it's part of my job to make sure of that. We do deal with heartbreaking situations, but one of the things I love in my job is that we enable lots of times of joy and humour and fun, and that's what we are trying to do, every day. We get heaps of those times. We get to organize balls, dances, art shows, etc. We reminisce, we sing, we read stories, have games, etc.

Dance, for example, is great. Many older people have danced all their lives, and now feel beyond it. But with a solid ballroom grip I can dance with almost anyone as long as they can bear their weight. The ballroom grip is a very stable support even for someone who can't get up out of a chair by themselves. As long as they can stand, dance is possible. And that moment isn't sad or heartbreaking. It's thrilling and happy and exciting. Or you can dance with a wheelchair. Or just hold hands and move with someone confined to a tubchair.

Or someone who has lost the ability to speak coherently... but can still sing. Surprisingly common... The rhythms and the well known established lyric sequence can be managed sometimes by a mind that gets short circuited trying to convert thought to speech. Getting a big smile from someone who no longer is able to communicate verbally at all is lovely. For me AND for them.

Cheers -- sylas

Yes Sylas, I went through much of the same in my years working with the mentally handicapped. And I give you kudos for being in this field. But my point is that there is an undercurrent in Western Culture that I believe will directly effect the very people you help. It is no accident that, though there is crossover, it is largely Religious folks who are trying to prevent abortion, euthanasia and infanticide. Our own Starlight is a supporter of infanticide and it is gaining ground in academe. So it is largely Secularists that support these. Even when I was in the field there were these "quality of life" questions. So you may find it meaningful to help your residents, others, in the future, may find it meaningful to euthanize them for financial considerations. And why would your meaning be more valid or correct than theirs? Because you hold it?

[sylas]

Yes Sylas, I went through much of the same in my years working with the mentally handicapped. And I give you kudos for being in this field. But my point is that there is an undercurrent in Western Culture that I believe will directly effect the very people you help. It is no accident that, though there is crossover, it is largely Religious folks who are trying to prevent abortion, euthanasia and infanticide. Our own Starlight is a supporter of infanticide and it is gaining ground in academe. So it is largely Secularists that support these. Even when I was in the field there were these "quality of life" questions. So you may find it meaningful to help your residents, others, in the future, may find it meaningful to euthanize them for financial considerations. And why would your meaning be more valid or correct than theirs? Because you hold it?

Here are three quick thoughts.

1. Whether meaning or morality is subjective or objective does nothing at all to resolve ethical disputes. Even if there was some single objective standard, it's a plain matter of observation that people don't all have the same standard. Even those who believe in one objective standard can still disagree as to what that standard is, and the debate between such individuals is frequently shallow and devoid of useful consideration of the real ethical issue, tracking rather into debates about which religion is right or which bible interpretation is right, or something like that.

Ethical disputes are ALWAYS going to be about clash of different perspectives. The whole subjective/objective distinction is rather abstract and only clouds real engagement with the ethical questions.. In practice, ethical issues get resolved not by appeal to a universal standard, but by lots of people engaging the issue itself.

2. Subjective does not mean arbitrary. The phrase "meaningful to euthanize them for financial considerations" is, I suggest, abuse of the term "meaningful". A better phrase is: "some people may find it convenient or desirable to euthanize for financial considerations". It's not that it is "meaningful to euthanize" (or to steal, or lie, or cheat, or whatever else) but that some folks don't put enough meaning or significance on the worth or value of others; and so end up trampling over them in pursuit (usually) of some personal gain of some kind. You might say what they find meaningful is personal wealth, perhaps (suggested by the phrase financial considerations). The result is a lack of restraint on actions harming others; but not a positive value on harming others.

Here's the point though. People generally tend to recognize selfishness as a vice. This doesn't imply a universal objective standard; I think it is simply that there is a natural tendency for humans as social beings to see selfishness as a vice. So it isn't so much that I am right and someone else is wrong. It is rather than I support a standard which is supported also by many others, and so will work side by side with many others against euthanasia as a economic policy. This example isn't really about different ethical standards, one in which economic euthanasia is a virtue and another in which it is a vice. It is rather about whether society is ethical or unethical. And you don't need a single objective standard for that.

3. Genuine ethical disputes are where both sides are attempting to apply ethical principles in support of a better society. We can pick more illuminating examples than economic euthanasia: for example, voluntary euthanasia of various forms; because the question is "what is ethical", rather than "am I gonna be constrained by ethics at all".

Genuine ethical disputes, in my view, are another good example of the difficulty and indeed shallowness of the the notion of one single objective standard. Ethics gets worked out in a community, with some basic notions being pretty much universal to anyone wanting society to be ethical in some sense, and other points of real dispute that don't have simple answers.

Cheers -- sylas

[seer]

Here are three quick thoughts.

1. Whether meaning or morality is subjective or objective does nothing at all to resolve ethical disputes. Even if there was some single objective standard, it's a plain matter of observation that people don't all have the same standard. Even those who believe in one objective standard can still disagree as to what that standard is, and the debate between such individuals is frequently shallow and devoid of useful consideration of the real ethical issue, tracking rather into debates about which religion is right or which bible interpretation is right, or something like that.

Ethical disputes are ALWAYS going to be about clash of different perspectives. The whole subjective/objective distinction is rather abstract and only clouds real engagement with the ethical questions.. In practice, ethical issues get resolved not by appeal to a universal standard, but by lots of people engaging the issue itself.

I generally agree except... I again think it is paramount on how we view the human person. What is a human? The accidental by product of natural forces, or immortal beings created for a purpose. Is love merely a chemical reaction or is it tied to something permanent and eternal. Something certain. I'm sorry Sylas, these are very important consideration that certainly do color our worldview.

2. Subjective does not mean arbitrary. The phrase "meaningful to euthanize them for financial considerations" is, I suggest, abuse of the term "meaningful". A better phrase is: "some people may find it convenient or desirable to euthanize for financial considerations". It's not that it is "meaningful to euthanize" (or to steal, or lie, or cheat, or whatever else) but that some folks don't put enough meaning or significance on the worth or value of others; and so end up trampling over them in pursuit (usually) of some personal gain of some kind. You might say what they find meaningful is personal wealth, perhaps (suggested by the phrase financial considerations). The result is a lack of restraint on actions harming others; but not a positive value on harming others.

Again, even here, to even speak of worth or value is an arbitrary designation - how could it be otherwise?

Here's the point though. People generally tend to recognize selfishness as a vice. This doesn't imply a universal objective standard; I think it is simply that there is a natural tendency for humans as social beings to see selfishness as a vice. So it isn't so much that I am right and someone else is wrong. It is rather than I support a standard which is supported also by many others, and so will work side by side with many others against euthanasia as a economic policy. This example isn't really about different ethical standards, one in which economic euthanasia is a virtue and another in which it is a vice. It is rather about whether society is ethical or unethical. And you don't need a single objective standard for that.

How do you know that recognizing selfishness as a vice doesn't imply a universal standard? And even suggesting that a society is ethical or unethical is both arbitrary and subjective. How do you come to those conclusions?

Genuine ethical disputes, such as those over voluntary euthanasia, are where both sides are attempting to apply ethical principles in support of a better society. Such disputes are, in my view, another good example of the difficulty and indeed shallowness of the the notion of one single objective standard. Ethics gets worked out in a community, with some basic notions being pretty much universal to anyone actually society to be ethical in any sense, and some points of real dispute that don't have simple answers.

Cheers -- sylas

Again, who defines "better?" The Maoist? The Stalinist?

[sylas]

I generally agree except... I again think it is paramount on how we view the human person. What is a human? The accidental by product of natural forces, or immortal beings created for a purpose. Is love merely a chemical reaction or is it tied to something permanent and eternal. Something certain. I'm sorry Sylas, these are very important consideration that certainly do color our worldview.

Saying "love is merely a chemical reaction" is just being silly. It's a bit like saying growth of a tree is merely a chemical reaction. This is not any kind of point or argument, and it's certainly not going to be convincing to anyone in this forum, which is where we are ideally supposed to trying for engagement across different perspectives. Who are you trying to convince of anything here? Me? Seriously? I don't get what you are even trying to do with this, it's so inept.

Growth of a tree is a whole HEAP of reactions. From my perspective, as a materialist, sure, growth of a tree is lots and lots of chemical reactions. There's no other underlying substrate; it's all interactions of atoms and chemistry. But considering that growth of a tree is an exclusively material process (lots and lots of interacting chemical reactions, if you like) doesn't diminish the tree. It elevates chemical reactions. It shows just now amazing they can be.

Love is even more subtle (and a heck of a lot harder to define; I'm gonna have to guess what kind of love you mean). The subtlety, complexity and wonder of human relationships is a given. To say it is all emergent from physical processes and chemistry is to say chemistry and physical processes can give rise to something amazing. Which they most certainly can.

Take a simpler example. Van Gough's Starry Night is paint on a canvas. This is not a criticism of Starry Night. It shows how much can be done with paint on a canvas. The person who says it is "merely" paint on a canvas, as if there was no difference between Starry Night and tripping over a paint can, is just playing silly games; and is just avoiding consideration of art.

The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Proposing some additional "part" does nothing at to explain or illuminate love.

How do you know that recognizing selfishness as a vice doesn't imply a universal standard? And even suggesting that a society is ethical or unethical is both arbitrary and subjective. How do you come to those conclusions?

At this point, I think you are just not listening any more.

The question of how I COME to these conclusions is a whole different conversation. I'm only so far trying to help explain what my position entails. (In this thread, looking at holding to existentialism without nihilism.) I've given a couple of indications of various things that have contribute to the formation of my philosophical perspective, but that's been secondary. Mainly I'm answering the question of the OP, about atheism and existential nihilism.

I don't expect you or aim to persuade you adopt my philosophical perspectives.

I would like to help you comprehend it sufficiently well to express it with a minimal level of accuracy. That is NOT the same as agreeing with it, but it is for sure a basic starting point if you ever want to be able to mount a coherent critique.

Again, who defines "better?" The Maoist? The Stalinist?

AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN for the nth time that you've asked this same question and been given the same answer.

*I* do. And for most of the straightforward ethical questions, so do you and just about anyone else with any interest in being ethical at all. Subjective is not the same as arbitrary.

Cheers -- sylas

[seer]

Saying "love is merely a chemical reaction" is just being silly. It's a bit like saying growth of a tree is merely a chemical reaction. This is not any kind of point or argument, and it's certainly not going to be convincing to anyone in this forum, which is where we are ideally supposed to trying for engagement across different perspectives. Who are you trying to convince of anything here? Me? Seriously? I don't get what you are even trying to do with this, it's so inept.

Growth of a tree is a whole HEAP of reactions. From my perspective, as a materialist, sure, growth of a tree is lots and lots of chemical reactions. There's no other underlying substrate; it's all interactions of atoms and chemistry. But considering that growth of a tree is an exclusively material process (lots and lots of interacting chemical reactions, if you like) doesn't diminish the tree. It elevates chemical reactions. It shows just now amazing they can be.

Love is even more subtle (and a heck of a lot harder to define; I'm gonna have to guess what kind of love you mean). The subtlety, complexity and wonder of human relationships is a given. To say it is all emergent from physical processes and chemistry is to say chemistry and physical processes can give rise to something amazing. Which they most certainly can.

Take a simpler example. Van Gough's Starry Night is paint on a canvas. This is not a criticism or Starry Night. It shows how much can be done with paint on a canvas. The person who says it is "merely" paint on a canvas, as if there was no difference between Starry Night and tripping over a paint can, is just playing silly games; and is just avoiding consideration of art.

The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Proposing some additional "part" does nothing at to explain or illuminate love.



At this point, I think you are just not listening any more.

The question of how I COME to these conclusions is a whole different conversation. I'm only so far trying to help explain what my position entails. (In this thread, looking at holding to existentialism without nihilism.) I've given a couple of indications of various things that have contribute to the formation of my philosophical perspective, but that's been secondary. Mainly I'm answering the question of the OP, about atheism and existential nihilism.

I don't expect you or aim to persuade you adopt my philosophical perspectives.

I would like to help you comprehend it sufficiently well to express it with a minimal level of accuracy. That is NOT the same as agreeing with it, but it is for sure a basic starting point if you ever want to be able to mount a coherent critique.



AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN for the nth time that you've asked this same question and been given the same answer.

*I* do. And for most of the straightforward ethical questions, so do you and just about anyone else with any interest in being ethical at all. Subjective is not the same as arbitrary.

Cheers -- sylas

Let me repeat Sylas, how we view the human person is key. What are human beings, ontology is of utmost importance. And when you speak of ethical or unethical or better I believe you are in fact smuggling in some idea of an objective moral standard. If not there is no way to claim that what ever ethical position you hold is any more correct or valid than its opposite. But I bet that is not the case. I bet your really believe that your ethical views are more correct and valid than let's say the Stalinist. That your view of what constitutes a better society is actually right.