I'm still leery of PDFs.

What's the main takeaway? Live and let live, don't try to change the unchangeable, stop and smell the roses, that sort of thing?

What's the main takeaway? — Outlander

I just edited the OP to provide a brief summary.

There is a brief summary at the link provided in the OP. — Philo Sofer

Thanks, will definitely check it out. Just noticed you're a nearly decade long veteran here with only a few posts. It'd be nice if you posted more. A shame to think what we've been deprived of all these years. Looks solid. Best of luck whatever it is you decide. This world certainly needs more thinkers.

It was a nice little read. It was more of a, "This is how I live my life" sort of paper than really much of an argument for anything. And that's perfectly fine. I'm of the mindset that people live their lives however they want. Did you want any feedback on anything in particular? Some aspect you were looking to have challenged or have a deeper discussion on?

Outlander: Thank you for your kind words.

Philosophim: In fact, the first five pages of the document contain a number of arguments for my philosophical positions. I am looking for any constructive feedback, such as counterarguments, corrections, and enhancements.

Philosophim: In fact, the first five pages of the document contain a number of arguments for my philosophical positions. I am looking for any constructive feedback, such as counterarguments, corrections, and enhancements. — Philo Sofer

I do understand and did read it. Its more of a "This is what worked for me," summary then a "This is logically why you should do this." I personally disagree with moral nihilism, but then you are also acknowledging that your approach is not factual, but personal. Since there is no moral way to live, you can live however you want. Moral nihilism is a removal of oneself from the stress of discussion, because there can be no right or wrong way to live. So, you have some nice thoughts, life seems to be working for you, and I hope it continues to be so!

If there was anything you doubted, wanted another take on, or were looking for some other alternative answer, feel free to post it. Otherwise who am I to tell a person who's living a good and satisfying life with their world view? I personally could not be happy living in moral nihilism or the removal of politics and managing a house. For me, peace of mind is not the most important thing, living a life where I can challenge myself is. But what works for me does not necessarily work for you. All good. :)

Philosophim: In the document, I provide arguments for both moral nihilism and negative hedonism (the view that the best way to go about living well is to aim for peace of mind). Can you refute any of those arguments?

Constructive feedback is welcome — Philo Sofer

I am sympathetic to your moral nihilism stance, but what would you think of a position that rejects a morality based on blame and culpability, but leaves intact a morality that aims at continuous development of insights into the perspectives of others unlike our selves? The o better explain. what I mean , your goal of peace of mind forces on emotions and feelings, but does t seem to connect those feelings to what is most responsible for the disruption of peace of mind; namely, our failure to relate to the behaviors of others. The sorts of day to day negative emotions that ruin peace of mind, such as anger and guilt, are bound up with our struggles to understand why others we care about let us down, violate our expectations or standards, or why we do the same to others. It seems to me, the , that the o my remains me way to achieve the kinds of emotions and feelings that promote peace of mind is via a stance of moral
nihilism with regard to blame and culpability, but a positive morality aimed at optimal perspective shifting.

Joshs: One may "aim at continuous development of insights into the perspectives of others unlike ourselves" in the absence of moral facts.

Joshs: One may "aim at continuous development of insights into the perspectives of others unlike ourselves" in the absence of moral facts. — Philo Sofer

Absolutely, that’s what I meant. A morality without blame is precisely one which recognizes the relativity of perspective and strives for mutual insight rather than conformity to rules principles, assumptions about correctness of thought or action. I believe that actions by others that we judge as evil or immoral are by believed to be ethically righteous from their own perspective, and our task isn’t to convince the other that they are evil, but to find a way to bridge the difference between perspectives.

I'm very sympathetic to this view. Nicely put.

Hello, Philo Sofer. It is a nice paper, thanks for sharing it with us.
There are a lot of interesting topics, but I would like to highlight specific points that I want to exchange with you. :smile:

Moral nihilism.

I agree that the absence of a notion of what is 'good' and 'bad' is the core of moral nihilism. You explain this using an 'objective' view in your paper, but I personally missed the existentialist crisis for a nihilistic person when he has to face moral dilemmas. I mean, although a moral nihilistic should not care about distinguishing what is 'good' and 'bad', he still experiences moral, Christian or religious dilemmas. Nihilism kicks in because he loses every sense of respecting authority, but he suffers from his own existentialism anyway. The lack of following an authority leads people to feel lost.

On the other hand, I miss some Russian writers in 'further reading'. Brothers Karamazov could be a nice work regarding this topic!

**

Moral nihilism precludes dismay, disgust, frustration and anxiety...

I don't know if I could agree with this. A moral nihilistic still experiences those negative feelings, but he just gives up on caring for a solution. Furthermore, a moral nihilistic can suffer from frustration precisely because it is not possible for him to distinguish between 'good' and 'bad'.