I like the idea of nihlism, but not necissarily as a rule to live by. A nihlist belives that values are falsely invented. To clarify, a nihlist believes that we ourselves place values onto our conceptions. This view brings about many ideas on what would be considered to be attributed to a meaningful life. One of which, and one that I consider the most important is morality.
A nihilistic moralist would view the world as many people would commonly view as being immoral. The nihlistic moralistic would take everything for themselves and refuse to think that anything is immoral on the grounds that morality is something that we have defined. You can not be immoral on the grounds that there is no real morality.
I don't look at morallity as something that is really defined, but more of a feeling and a compromise between people. I used this example in a paper that I wrote for a class, but lets say you are travelling down the highway and some old cotton top lady cuts you off. A morallist would likely react in at worst just yelling profannities through the confines of their car. This doesn't cause any harm to anyone, adn even improves the situation because you are able to vent your anger. Another way to react is to go ahead and ram the lady to run her off the road causing her to die in the ditch. This is hugely gratifying and this cotton top fugly biatch deserved to die. There is something about this that seems wrong. This feeling closely lies with our moral standards or our conceptions of what is moral. Lets take morality as an abstraction.
What morality seems to be is a definition of common ground between people. If there were no trusts at all between people then we would constantly have to live with our backs against the wall. A cornered tiger is forced to destroy while a cornered mouse is doomed for destruction. Humans can take place of the mouse and the lion both at the same time or disjointly. Now if each person is equal then they deserve the same rights to life and opportunity for existance. In the scenario before this seems to be violated because by killing the old lady we are taking away her potential to living.
How far should morality stretch. Should it only be limited to the confines of our body or to exentions outwardly. Should that T.V. be considered to be mine or is it really have any belonging to me. It seems that if you put in the effort to work towards owning a place to put it, enough food to sustain your self, and something to watch on it, it should be something that I can guarantee to entertain myself with as I please. So along with the metaphysical obligation to a valuable life we also have extensions of our thought to the physical world onto things that we work and invest our time for. It seems more beneficial to be able to not see the purchase of a tv as a risk of having to get stolen. Nowadays its all but dissappeared.
No comments:
Post a Comment