draft notes: moral nihilism, value, words

words:

symbolic representations, signifiers for things/objects;

close approximations of what is being represented;

the word ‘circle’ is fairly clear in its meaning;

the word ‘negative’ is an approximation of a fact;

language has limitations, it is not always easy to communicate some ideas due to the way language is being used or understood;

value in ethics:

-   value is either manifested in and of itself or projected externally onto some other thing by the sentient creature;

-   the sentient creature is the only thing in the universe that can manifest intrinsic or projected value;

-   all discussions of value have to be related to the experiential states of a sentient creature;

what is “intrinsic value”?

-   refers to a thing that has importance/meaning/significance in and of itself;

-   a thing that posses the character of “intrinsic value” needs no qualification;

-   “intrinsic value” is the creator of meaning;

-    

what has “intrinsic value”?

-   feelings manifested in the consciousness of sentient creatures have intrinsic value;

-   these feelings can be either positive or negative in character;

what is “projected value”?

-   projected value is not “real”;

-   projected value is the product of need/want/desire in the sentient creature, e.g.,

o   a diamond is not a sentient creature

o   a diamond cannot manifest feeling states

o   a diamond can be desired by a sentient creature

o   the diamond becomes valuable in the perception of the sentient creature valuing it

what has “projected value”?

-   anything can fall within the definition of “projected value”;

-   the only necessary component is that there be a sentient creature around to need/want/desire that thing;

-   the projected value thing is entirely within the perception of a sentient creature;

-   things that fall within the definition of projected value are subjective in nature, they can vary according to the needs/wants/desires of the sentient creature creating it;

what is the difference between “intrinsic value” and “projected value”?

-   intrinsic value refers to the feeling states manifested in the consciousness of a sentient creature;

-   intrinsic value refers to a fact/event taking place in the universe, i.e. feelings in conscious sentient creatures;

-   projected value defers to the product of need/want/desire of a sentient creature;

-   the things which fall within the definition of “projected value” do not necessarily have intrinsic value, e.g. a rock does not have the capacity to feel, whereas another sentient creature has the capacity to feel;

moral nihilism (ethics):

-   moral nihilism is the belief that there are no better than or less than values in the universe;

-   moral nihilists believe that all values are the product of subjective preferential determinations made by a sentient creature, specifically the human being;

critique of moral nihilism (ethics):

-   moral nihilism does not matter;

-   all humans have values;

-   the question becomes whose values are better than others?

-   values are not immutable, we are not born with values;

-   values are developed over time through exposure to memes, cultural conditioning, application of critical thinking/rational though, acquisition of facts/knowledge of the world one lives in;

-   if the moral nihilist says, values are subjective and preferential, one can sidestep this objection and go into a discussion of comparing and contrasting the moral nihilist’s personal value system with another value system;

-   values can be changed;

-   one way to change a person’s values is to question their underlying assumptions/beliefs of the world they live in and present them with a different model that is superior;

-   whether a value system is superior depends on the facts and arguments used to support it;

is/ought gap:

fact (description): suffering is “bad”;

bad -> negative unpleasant noxious feeling state manifested in the consciousness of sentient creatures;

moral nihilists seem to accept this descriptive definition of “bad”;

but moral nihilists argue that an ought ethical obligation cannot be logically derived from this fact description;

suffering is “bad”;

“bad” being used in two sense of factual description and ethical ought obligation;

(fact):suffering is bad (feeling state)

(ought): since suffering is bad, it is rational to not impose suffering without good cause;

proposal of a rational value system:

premise: suffering is “bad” (fact);

evidence: personal experience as sentient creature;

ethical ought obligation:

the ethical ought obligation to not impose suffering is incumbent on the very acknowledged acceptance of its factual noxious character;

since suffering is bad, a rational person should not impose suffering without good cause;

the moral nihilist view that all value systems are equal and subjective is invalid;

we can clearly argue for a superior value system by providing evidence-based facts and logical arguments to support it;

the value system proposed need not satisfy the truth status of being 100 percent accurate;

it only needs to be satisfy the standard of being “beyond a reasonable doubt”

conclude: the value system proposed by efilists is the most superior value system available because it is grounded on an accurate factual description of reality and is logically sound.

values are the product of thoughts/memes;

values can be changed by changing the way people think;

this is what we are doing, trying to change the way people behave by changing the way they think;