Morality

Yes you did.

Look up what appeal to emotion is. I in no way was using emotion or sympathy to manipulate and win an argument; I was talking in their perspective.

Quote from: Jack on August 07, 2009, 07:50:05 PM

Psychological egoism is flawed, as it is circular logic. If a person acts, then he or she is acting in his or her self-interest no matter what; therefore, people acts only if it is due to their self interest.

That's also correct.

We all know that not everyone is always after their self-interest (e.g. heroism, altruism, sacrifice, etc), and I've yet to see a single proof that every act must be due to self-interest. The argument that "people do altruistic things due to their self-interest" is flawed: nobody would be interested in being disadvantaged, and we sometimes do things because we ought to do them (e.g. take care of our family).

To be perfectly honest, society was never meant to be successful. We're certainly not masters at it, at least. Otherwise the system would be perfect by now. We've have thousands of years to work on it afterall.

It's not perfect, but there are certainly progress. For example, in North America, most of us agree not to kill each other and loot things, otherwise you would see it happen on the street every day. Only a handful disagrees, and they are the criminals.

Besides, Karl Marx had the best idea on paper.  Care to guess at why Marxism ultimately fails in every instance it's been implemented? This is a one word answer, by the way. Bonus points for details.

Has Marxism truly been applied in our world? Name a state.

And none of that disproves morality as subjective and relative.

They sure did. In such a group, morality is not so subjective and relative; morality is created by contracts or agreements. People that have their own views of morality are the ones that step out of the contract and become criminals. Morality cannot be completely or 100% relative and subjective, as I seriously believe most of us at least share some common agreements with each other and we do have some sense of what is right and wrong: we cannot live with morality being completely relative and subjective, because, if that is the case, stealing and raping may as well be morally permissible mainly due to personal taste. We cannot say they are wrong as a result. "I rape women because I like it and I think it is right, therefore it is right." Clearly that is not the case in our society.

As outlined in the link I provided before, it is very easy to say there are no objective moral obligations, but it is much more difficult to live as if there are none. Our reactions, when we are mistreated or when we see atrocities, reveal what we really believe about morality.

People place different values on things, hence relativity.

You believe in values? I thought you're an nihilist, or am I missing something here?

The proof of this? Moreover, who decided that the upholding the stability of society was correct?

Very few people want to die. Do you want to live in a place full of chaos and unpredictability? Why is North America an attractive place for people that want to start a family? Why do they not choose war-torn places like Iraq and Afghanistan?

Quote from: Jack on August 07, 2009, 07:50:05 PM

The reason why it doesn't happen is that there are agreements. I don't kill people because I expect other people to do the same. To keep up with these agreements, there has to be fear. If everyone is after his self-interest, then everyone is on his own, and things will become chaotic. No agreements = no society.

We have partial agreements, based on self-interest/fear. Hence we have conformers and criminals in society.

But there are surely more conformers than criminals in our society, which means there are still agreements on certain moral rules, which means morality is not so relative and subjective.

We all know that not everyone is always after their self-interest (e.g. heroism, altruism, sacrifice, etc), and I've yet to see a single proof that every act must be due to self-interest. The argument that "people do altruistic things due to their self-interest" is flawed: nobody would be interested in being disadvantaged, and we sometimes do things because we ought to do them (e.g. take care of our family).

Even disadvantaged people still do things that are in self-interest. Some amputees wear prosthetics. People who have kidney failure go on dialysis. All these things are in self-interest. Amputees want to regain some functionality and people who are on dialysis want to stay alive. You cannot name one single action that isn't in self-interest.

It's not perfect, but there are certainly progress. For example, in North America, most of us agree not to kill each other and loot things, otherwise you would see it happen on the street every day. Only a handful disagrees, and they are the criminals.

I do see it on the street eveyday. I am a personal victim of such acts. But I also disagree with you, does that make me a criminal?

Has Marxism truly been applied in our world? Name a state.

No, but Communism has and it's based on Marxism and it still is failing. Name a truly Communist/Marxist state that has flourished? Can't? I wonder why.

They sure did. In such a group, morality is not so subjective and relative; morality is created by contracts or agreements. People that have their own views of morality are the ones that step out of the contract and become criminals. Morality cannot be completely or 100% relative and subjective, as I seriously believe most of us at least share some common agreements with each other and we do have some sense of what is right and wrong: we cannot live with morality being completely relative and subjective, because, if that is the case, stealing and raping may as well be morally permissible mainly due to personal taste. We cannot say they are wrong as a result. "I rape women because I like it and I think it is right, therefore it is right." Clearly that is not the case in our society.

Just because someone is in a common agreement with someone else or a group is with another does not mean it's not out of self-interest. I think this is where you are missing the point. Group A agrees not to annihilate Group B if Group B pays them money. Group A is gaining something and so is Group B in this agreement. Both are in self-interest.

You believe in values? I thought you're an nihilist, or am I missing something here?

How are you defining nihilism?

Very few people want to die.

Self-interest (through self-preservation, the want to survive).

The reason why it doesn't happen is that there are agreements. I don't kill people because I expect other people to do the same. To keep up with these agreements, there has to be fear. If everyone is after his self-interest, then everyone is on his own, and things will become chaotic. No agreements = no society.

Again, see my response above about agreements. Your expectation is a self-interest; You wish not for others to kill others so that you yourself are not exterminated.

But there are surely more conformers than criminals in our society, which means there are still agreements on certain moral rules, which means morality is not so relative and subjective.

Agreements are not morals.

You believe in values? I thought you're an nihilist, or am I missing something here?

"Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical doctrine suggesting that values do not exist but rather are falsely invented."

That doesn't mean I can't have my own invented ones, which is why I'm also an existentialist, which ascertains aspects of "authentic choices," or values.

Very few people want to die. Do you want to live in a place full of chaos and unpredictability?

I already do.

Why is North America an attractive place for people that want to start a family? Why do they not choose war-torn places like Iraq and Afghanistan?

Quality of life in accordance with their invented values due to their self-interest. Some people do choose to go to third-world countries and war-torn countries, though.

But there are surely more conformers than criminals in our society, which means there are still agreements on certain moral rules, which means morality is not so relative and subjective.

The fact there are deviations means that it is relative and subjective.

Even disadvantaged people still do things that are in self-interest. Some amputees wear prosthetics. People who have kidney failure go on dialysis. All these things are in self-interest. Amputees want to regain some functionality and people who are on dialysis want to stay alive.

I never said that the disadvantaged do not have self interests. I said no one is interested in being disadvantaged. For example, nobody wants less money, but we still have people donating their money to help the poor. Very few wants to die, and those that do not want to die are still willing to sacrifice their lives so the others can live. This is not selfishness. I'm not arguing that we have no self-interest at all, but that we sometimes may do things not in our self interest. Heroism and altruism are examples.

You cannot name one single action that isn't in self-interest.

I just did. In addition, I am sure you heard of something called "obligations." I take care of my family because I ought to do it, not because I am selfish. It is my duty. In addition, we sometimes may feel obligated to do something because we promised, even though we may not want to do it.

I do see it on the street eveyday.

I don't.

But I also disagree with you, does that make me a criminal?

Disagree with me about what?

Just because someone is in a common agreement with someone else or a group is with another does not mean it's not out of self-interest. I think this is where you are missing the point. Group A agrees not to annihilate Group B if Group B pays them money. Group A is gaining something and so is Group B in this agreement. Both are in self-interest.

I never said you cannot have self-interest in a group. The people are protected within the group, and so they are free to pursue their own interest, provided they do not break the contract. Hence, the fear factor, as explained by the Ring of Gyges analogy.

Your expectation is a self-interest; You wish not for others to kill others so that you yourself are not exterminated.

Again, I fear of getting caught by authorities if I do so. Since both sides fear of prosecution, both sides agree to refrain from killing. As Plato and Hobbes put it, without fear, there will be no reason to do the right thing. If I put on the Ring of Gyges, I would kill people for fun: I become invisible and it would foolish for me to act morally. It is not that I do not wish people to kill each other so I do not get my turn.

Agreements are not morals.

They are not, but they are the basis of morality, as I have stated before. Look up contractarianism.

I already do.

Where do you live?

Some people do choose to go to third-world countries and war-torn countries, though.

For people that think long life is boring and want to be rambos instead, yes. For people that want a long life and perhaps start a family, I do not think so. For example, when Vietnam was unified under a communist government, thousands of Vietnamese fled from the war-torn country in boats and sailed toward North America.

The fact there are deviations means that it is relative and subjective.

Again, I do not agree. Morality cannot be solely based on personal tastes. Even though you personally think morality does not exist in reality, we humans do have a sense of immorality or wrongness when we are mistreated. We do not simply say, "it is right for him." I do not believe it is morally acceptable for people to beat me up and steal my belongings. I do not believe it is morally acceptable for professors to mark my essay based on the color of the cover. It's the same thing when we see atrocities done by other people. Our reactions show that we do not believe morality to be purely relative and subjective.

Where do you live?

The real world.

For people that think long life is boring and want to be rambos instead, yes. For people that want a long life and perhaps start a family, I do not think so. For example, when Vietnam was unified under a communist government, thousands of Vietnamese fled from the war-torn country in boats and sailed toward North America.

Those being their relative and subjective choices.

Again, I do not agree. Morality cannot be solely based on personal tastes.

Personal taste makes it sound more volunteer than it is. I guess I'll try to explain.

All of our "values" are innately programmed. Something I brought up in another thread is that, no human can say why they like something in actual truth. We can say we like a show, or food, or color, and we can logically and consciously make up reasons for saying that, but the real preference is never a conscious one.

The same is true of morality. Your moral values make up part of your self-interest. Whether that be the average biological imperative to preserve your life, or whether or not you feel the urge to kill people, it is all within your self-interest.

Even though you personally think morality does not exist in reality, we humans do have a sense of immorality or wrongness when we are mistreated.

Because it goes against our self-interest.

I do not believe it is morally acceptable for people to beat me up and steal my belongings. I do not believe it is morally acceptable for professors to mark my essay based on the color of the cover. It's the same thing when we see atrocities done by other people. Our reactions show that we do not believe morality to be purely relative and subjective.

All explained by self-interest; and all people have different values for that self-interest.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on August 07, 2009, 06:10:34 PM

Quote from: Toth on August 07, 2009, 05:54:50 PM

What I said was that a nihilist is either not actually a nihilist or he/she is a psychopath.

Nihilists may not recognize moral guidelines as intrinsically meaningful, but that doesn't make them immoral.

Nihilists do not recognize moral guidelines at all.

Everyone has morals to an extent, just as much as everybody has emotions. A logician may not recognize emotion as being intrinsically meaningful in a debate, yet he still recognizes that it exists. Denying higher meaning doesn't mean denying assigned meaning. It would seem you misunderstand nihilism.

Quote from: Jack on August 06, 2009, 11:39:10 PM

Quote from: Hara Taiki on August 06, 2009, 09:52:27 PM

That's like saying that one man thinking that killing someone else is immoral while another thinks it's perfectly ok. They are completely subjective and relative.

No, that's not what Hobbes meant. If everything is all subjective and relative, there will be no agreements on certain moral rules, and there will be no society. All people in the society hesitate to kill as long as they are within the contract (that is, agreements). In this contract, there is a central power or government that induces punishments for those that try to disrupt the contract. Thus, people fear. People join into this contract to avoid death, to avoid going into the state of nature that is chaotic. People that are outside the contract are free to do whatever they want, but they are outlaws and are vulnerable. These are the people that think it's perfectly ok to kill.

As for morality being subjective and relative, consider this. For example, person A thinks capital punishment is wrong because he does not like it, while person B thinks capital punishment is right because he likes it. If subjectivism is true, then we are just reporting our own attitude, and we are not saying the same subject at all. There will be no moral disagreements and we are infallible as a result.

In addition, using that example, how can there be morality at all if each person's moral codes are relative to each other? How can I ever judge that the other person is immoral? Same goes to different societies. Society A permits infanticide, while society B does not. People from society B thinks it is immoral to kill infants, but if moral relativism is true, these people cannot judge the other society because they too have their own separate moral codes. The Nazi party permitted genocide, while we thought it was completely immoral. If moral relativism is true, then we cannot judge that the Nazi party is wrong. What is considered moral then?

My own view is that certain aspects of common morality are part of an instinctive behaviour code. Many animals have a clan/tribe structure with a dominant male and accepted patterns of behaviour. If you ask me, it's clear that some degree of instinct is involved in our social behaviour. What we generally consider murder is generally bad for society- if everyone tried to kill anyone who annoyed them or inconvenienced them the whole thing would fall apart fairly quickly.


However, that doesn't change the fact that morality is subjective. Isolate someone from the conventions of a given type of society and before long, many will lose their moral shackles (you can even see this within certain parts of some societies). Likewise, people will adapt to any society they're raised in, and accept the moral conventions of that society.

I agree, the biological capability of complex emotion in humans, as well as a highly social lifestyle, is a product of Natural Selection.  Though much of it is learned and taught to us (adaptation), the capability and instinctual nature of being social is an evolved trait in my opinion.  We are highly moral and social beings because given the current environment, these traits give us the highest chance of survival.  Morality has no objective significance beyond that. 

A community of people might come up with a code or contract, specifying for that community what is right and wrong.  I consider this part of one's environment, and the inability to adapt, or accept the contract could result in one's removal from the gene pool.

From a Nihilist perspective, this social structure is still insignificant because life itself is insignificant.  Even so, that does not change the fact that we are a slave to our design.

Quote

Where do you live?

The real world.

Prove it.

All of our "values" are innately programmed. Something I brought up in another thread is that, no human can say why they like something in actual truth. We can say we like a show, or food, or color, and we can logically and consciously make up reasons for saying that, but the real preference is never a conscious one.

I do not understand what you are talking about.

Your moral values make up part of your self-interest. Whether that be the average biological imperative to preserve your life, or whether or not you feel the urge to kill people, it is all within your self-interest.

Innocent people getting raped and tortured have nothing to do with my self-interest, yet I still find these actions to be immoral and unjust.

Quote

Even though you personally think morality does not exist in reality, we humans do have a sense of immorality or wrongness when we are mistreated.

Because it goes against our self-interest.

Right, but we do not simply say the action is right or acceptable for the perpetrator, which means ethical relativism is not so true.

All explained by self-interest; and all people have different values for that self-interest.

See above.

Quote from: divito the truthist

Your moral values make up part of your self-interest. Whether that be the average biological imperative to preserve your life, or whether or not you feel the urge to kill people, it is all within your self-interest.

Innocent people getting raped and tortured have nothing to do with my self-interest, yet I still find these actions to be immoral and unjust.

Just because your morals are originally constructed to be applied to conditions you would find favorable or unfavorable, doesn't mean that they can't be applied to the actions of others or the effects on others. You're sure to think, "glad that's not me getting tortured" to some degree. That is the foundation of empathy.

If you prefer social stability over the notion of random murder and no personal security, it will become important to you how society acts. An unstable society will collapse as the members eat each other alive, while a stable community will develop empathy and grow to produce more empathetic members. Kind of like: survival of the fittest society. Piranhas do not each each other because it is benefits them all to refrain from such action. Any population that did eat each other didn't have a good chance to sustain itself, and thus there are no subsequent generations or immoral fish.

Right, but we do not simply say the action is right or acceptable for the perpetrator, which means ethical relativism is not so true.

Human concerns are not so different. I think most of us don't want to be tortured.

Just because your morals are originally constructed to be applied to conditions you would find favorable or unfavorable, doesn't mean that they can't be applied to the actions of others or the effects on others.

What are you talking about?

You're sure to think, "glad that's not me getting tortured" to some degree. That is the foundation of empathy.

That is not why I think it is immoral and unjust.

If you prefer social stability over the notion of random murder and no personal security, it will become important to you how society acts. An unstable society will collapse as the members eat each other alive, while a stable community will develop empathy and grow to produce more empathetic members. Kind of like: survival of the fittest society. Piranhas do not each each other because it is benefits them all to refrain from such action. Any population that did eat each other didn't have a good chance to sustain itself, and thus there are no subsequent generations or immoral fish.

This does not contradict my argument. You need to read the thread. I subscribe to the contractarian idea that we agree with each other because it benefits us all and prevents us from going back to the State of Nature.

I think most of us don't want to be tortured.

Right, and?

Quote from: Soze on August 15, 2009, 09:52:03 PM

You're sure to think, "glad that's not me getting tortured" to some degree. That is the foundation of empathy.

That is not why I think it is immoral and unjust.

"It benefits us all", applies to every individual while they're thinking that they are happy for their own security.

Quote from: Soze on August 15, 2009, 09:52:03 PM

If you prefer social stability over the notion of random murder and no personal security, it will become important to you how society acts. An unstable society will collapse as the members eat each other alive, while a stable community will develop empathy and grow to produce more empathetic members. Kind of like: survival of the fittest society. Piranhas do not each each other because it is benefits them all to refrain from such action. Any population that did eat each other didn't have a good chance to sustain itself, and thus there are no subsequent generations or immoral fish.

This does not contradict my argument. You need to read the thread. I subscribe to the contractarian idea that we agree with each other because it benefits us all and prevents us from going back to the State of Nature.

I find both notions of social stability, and pursuit of self interest, to fit hand in hand.

Quote from: Soze on August 15, 2009, 09:52:03 PM

I think most of us don't want to be tortured.

Right, and?

Subjectivity dependent on universal human constants of self interest don't vary very much, so I would think that there are limits to the variation of morals derived from those points of self interest.

"It benefits us all", applies to every individual while they're thinking that they are happy for their own security.

That answers "why be moral", not "why is it immoral".

I find both notions of social stability, and pursuit of self interest, to fit hand in hand.

It is, but that is not what I am talking about right now.

Subjectivity dependent on universal human constants of self interest don't vary very much, so I would think that there are limits to the variation of morals derived from those points of self interest.

...

And?

I do not understand what you are talking about.

Which part?

Innocent people getting raped and tortured have nothing to do with my self-interest, yet I still find these actions to be immoral and unjust.

Believing you have correct and satisfactory morals does play into your self-interest, as you assume to appear as a sensitive and just human being to others. And that's only one aspect. The other part is that you've developed this sense of morals based on whatever values you were taught or assigned, showcasing subjective placement.

Right, but we do not simply say the action is right or acceptable for the perpetrator, which means ethical relativism is not so true.

Clearly those who commit said actions find it acceptable. And given crime rates across the world, there is a healthy number that find "immoral" behavior acceptable.

Jack, can I ask a question? Are you arguing that morality has its foundation in the collective interest of a community? Or are you arguing that actions can be inherently right or wrong?

Which part?

Perhaps you can clarify for that paragraph.

Believing you have correct and satisfactory morals does play into your self-interest, as you assume to appear as a sensitive and just human being to others. And that's only one aspect. The other part is that you've developed this sense of morals based on whatever values you were taught or assigned, showcasing subjective placement.

I see it is wrong and unjust not because it contradicts my personal morals/values nor because I assume I am just to others. Justice must be blind from self-interest, partiality, or subjectivity.

Clearly those who commit said actions find it acceptable. And given crime rates across the world, there is a healthy number that find "immoral" behavior acceptable.

And that is why I no longer subscribe to the theory. According to ethical relativism, I have no choice but to accept the fact that the perpetrator has done the right thing. If ethical relativism is true in our world, everything is permissible, and nothing is considered immoral or unethical. It would then be right for members to spam child pornography in the forums.

Are you arguing that morality has its foundation in the collective interest of a community? Or are you arguing that actions can be inherently right or wrong?

I argued that the reason why we act morally is that we fear of punishments, and that morality is a human invention created by agreements or contracts. Yet, I believe certain acts are inherently right or wrong: I stand by the argument that we clearly have a sense of right and wrong independent of our desires, personal preference, or self-interest. In addition, I believe we sometimes do the right thing because we ought to do it from our duty (e.g. taking care of our family), not because we desire to do it for some selfish consequences. Do the right thing for the right reason.

Perhaps you can clarify for that paragraph.

There isn't much to clarify. We, as humans, do not have a choice over our likes or dislikes. For instance, I like the colors blue and silver, but I do not know the reasons why; no one does. I, or anyone, can consciously make up rational reasons for it, but none that would ever truly indicate the real reason.

The same applies to TV shows, movies, actions, novels.

I see it is wrong and unjust not because it contradicts my personal morals/values nor because I assume I am just to others. Justice must be blind from self-interest, partiality, or subjectivity.

You're imposing your values and subjectivity onto the very justice you think shouldn't involve it.

And that is why I no longer subscribe to the theory. According to ethical relativism, I have no choice but to accept the fact that the perpetrator has done the right thing.

No, they have not done the right thing. They have acted in the way they feel is right, and that is right for them. There is nothing objective to prove it otherwise.

As I've stated in the past, there is no such thing as right and wrong. Right, wrong, good, and evil are social constructs, brought about to feed our societal self-interest which commonly seems to center around the prolongation of life among other things. Over time, that has adapted into more specificity and other shifts, but it still remains the same.

If ethical relativism is true in our world, everything is permissible, and nothing is considered immoral or unethical. It would then be right for members to spam child pornography in the forums.

Precisely. An action is simply, an action. Right, wrong, good and bad are classifications of those actions based on perspective. In other words, subjective and relative.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore

Are you arguing that morality has its foundation in the collective interest of a community? Or are you arguing that actions can be inherently right or wrong?

I argued that the reason why we act morally is that we fear of punishments, and that morality is a human invention created by agreements or contracts. Yet, I believe certain acts are inherently right or wrong: I stand by the argument that we clearly have a sense of right and wrong independent of our desires, personal preference, or self-interest. In addition, I believe we sometimes do the right thing because we ought to do it from our duty (e.g. taking care of our family), not because we desire to do it for some selfish consequences. Do the right thing for the right reason.

Have you considered the possibility that such actions, carried out because of an innate sense of 'right & wrong', are simply inherited dispositions or instincts, and that such instincts are based on what has proved beneficial for humans in the past? I don't believe people only do things out of individual self-interest, but I do believe morality as we know it emerges from collective self-interest.

We, as humans, do not have a choice over our likes or dislikes. For instance, I like the colors blue and silver, but I do not know the reasons why; no one does I, or anyone, can consciously make up rational reasons for it, but none that would ever truly indicate the real reason.

Why? What other reasons do you want? I like blue and yellow because I am attracted to them and because I feel comfortable looking at them. I am assuming that you are looking for an infinite regress. Never mind.

You're imposing your values and subjectivity onto the very justice you think shouldn't involve it.

I meant that justice must be applied independent of my view or other irrelevant impartialities. Thus, justice cannot be based on subjectivity or self-interest.

No, they have not done the right thing. They have acted in the way they feel is right, and that is right for them. There is nothing objective to prove it otherwise.

Look, the very definiton of moral relativism is this: since different people have different moral beliefs, no person can objectively judge the moral practices of another person. Thus, I have to accept that they have done the right thing, because I cannot judge their action and because that is how they feel when they acted. How do you know they have not done the right thing if you believe in ethical relativism?

As I've stated in the past, there is no such thing as right and wrong. Right, wrong, good, and evil are social constructs, brought about to feed our societal self-interest which commonly seems to center around the prolongation of life among other things. Over time, that has adapted into more specificity and other shifts, but it still remains the same.

No, you are not arguing about morality at all. Morality is supposed to help us resolve conflicts of interest and should be applied to everyone at all times regardless of their interest, for the sake of justice and fairness. If right and wrong is solely derived to feed our own interest or selfishness, then what I am doing is wrong if it goes against another's self-interest. This means authorities cannot apply just punishments upon those who do the wrong thing, because it goes against interests of the pepretrators. You are just spouting whims for anarchy.

If something is right because it goes according to my self-interest, then I shall kill Ben because I hate him. However, killing Ben goes against his self-interest (it is in his interest to avoid being killed), so it is wrong for me to kill. Thus, it is both right and wrong for me to kill, which is a complete contradiction.

Precisely. An action is simply, an action. Right, wrong, good and bad are classifications of those actions based on perspective. In other words, subjective and relative.

Yeah yeah, according to you, there is no such thing as right, wrong, good, and bad. Why bother classifying them then?

Have you considered the possibility that such actions, carried out because of an innate sense of 'right & wrong', are simply inherited dispositions or instincts, and that such instincts are based on what has proved beneficial for humans in the past? I don't believe people only do things out of individual self-interest, but I do believe morality as we know it emerges from collective self-interest.

Yes, but morality cannot be solely based on self-interest and personal preferences.

But do you agree that it emerges from collective self-interest? As I understand it, that is not incompatible with your position. It's not personal self-interest, but rather instinctive action based on an inherited disposition towards what is in the collective interest.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on August 10, 2009, 08:15:01 PM

Everyone has morals to an extent, just as much as everybody has emotions. A logician may not recognize emotion as being intrinsically meaningful in a debate, yet he still recognizes that it exists. Denying higher meaning doesn't mean denying assigned meaning. It would seem you misunderstand nihilism.

No, it would seem that you misunderstand nihilism.

Intrinsic value and value are different things.

Value for the nihilist is falsely invented.

What on Earth makes it a false invention?

Morality is therefore a delusion, yet you still choose to assign meaning regardless.

Subjective values cannot be delusional.  

I don't steal things because I fear of being caught by the police. How am I being greedy? What am I gaining?

Uhmmm....wh...whatever you're...stealing? I don't know!?

Read my quote one more time, slowly.

It's not just purely due to our own greed or self-interest. According to Hobbes, we uphold moral standards due to fear. For example, people don't kill each other not because they feel greedy, but because they fear of getting caught and prosecuted by authorities.

Also, morality is not completely subjective and relative, as most philosophers would agree. There are flaws to moral relativism and subjectivism.

I think John Locke is a much better philosopher to follow... Hobbes is pretty insane. People don't murder because it is in their best interest to have a stable society.

I think John Locke is a much better philosopher to follow... Hobbes is pretty insane.

I don't necessarily follow their beliefs because they allow power inequalities in the contract. For example, the strongest group will choose principles of justice that serve their own interest and are fair only to them. This leads to bias in the contract. I believe that no one is above moral rules; morality shouldn't play favorites.

People don't murder because it is in their best interest to have a stable society.

Well, I don't disagree with that theoretically, as it was one of my premises in this thread. However, I do question about this statement. In practice, do we actually feel that way when we see a man on the street? For me, I don't murder because I just feel a sense of duty not to harm other people and I fear of getting caught.

Also, this statement doesn't seem to deal with morality; things that are considered immoral may turn out to be moral if morality is decided solely by the society (e.g. torturing an innocent being is right as long as it promotes the interest of all, for the sake of social stability).

I think John Locke is a much better philosopher to follow.

Just don't tell him what he can't do.