Normative Nihilism
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 07. 2024
- According to normative nihilism, there is are no normative truths. So there are no reasons for actions and no reasons for belief. There is nothing you ought to do and nothing you ought to believe. This video outlines the "companions in guilt" argument from moral nihilism to normative nihilism.
I offer private tutoring in philosophy. For details please email me: kanebaker91@gmail.com
Support me on Patreon: / kanebaker91
Donate to my PayPal: paypal.me/kanebaker91
My Discord: / discord
0:00 - Introduction
0:44 - Moral nihilism
5:43 - Companions in guilt
8:42 - Hypothetical reasons
22:45 - Motivation vs normativity
24:43 - Why care about my own desires?
27:17 - "So what?"
32:22 - Reasons for belief
39:52 - Self defeat?
46:23 - Why is queerness sometimes hidden?
Moral error theory: czcams.com/video/MbTcXDMyFrA/video.html
Companions in guilt: czcams.com/video/7HHBNU_gXP0/video.html
Argument from self-defeat: czcams.com/video/mAc_Zczfww8/video.html
Wagering against nihilism: czcams.com/video/SCajDOmRU0o/video.html
The "so what?" problem: czcams.com/video/JWkcAwlql0s/video.html
this channel is a goldmine
This video has possibly the best example of a patreon plug ever. Really interesting topic as well.
Babe, wake up. Kane Baker just took a huge thoughtful dump on Normative Realists 😎
A lot of normative realists will find these sorts of arguments appealing. They'll just modus tollens where the nihilist wants to modus ponens, and say instead that since there obviously are hypothetical and epistemic reasons, there is nothing problematic about moral reasons either.
@@KaneBwell, I'd say to such 'normative realists' that if they prefer the modus tolens over modus ponens in this scenario, then they're not as strong of normative realists as they take themselves to be 😂
@commutativedivisionringThe last statement u gave makes it not a matchematical error theory, but rather a mathematical fictionalism, which is a totally plausible view tbh
@commutativedivisionring Yeah, but now you just made normative realist's "real" notion of normativity into a fictionalistic interpretation, which is not the original view you were initially vowing for in defense of normative realism.
I hope you got my point, because I may have butchered my formulation 😅
I think part of the solution is that desire is more complicated than it looks on the surface. For one there is a difference between what we feel the momentary urge to choose and what we think we should choose when being reflective. Everyone has desires that they think are best left ignored. On the other hand some desires we reflectively endorse and maybe this means nothing more than we would accept it as a reason for action, we would accept it in a language game of giving and asking for reasons. In the latter case the speaker couldn’t make a “so what” response without falling into contradiction.
Do you have a discord?
Kane B, my beloved finally with another banger
Great analysis. One of your best.
I think this is one of those things we may have all thought of briefly when we were first learning philosophy, but either we didn't know what to do with it or if we dared question our philosophy professor about the distinction between normative and ethical claims, we were met with a haphazard reply that claimed to justify it.
The word "reason", like many words and grammatical constructions, sets up an imaginary (or "fictive" - that's the standard term for this in Cognitive Linguistics) scenario. The scenario in this case is of a person, or a group of people, actively engaged in deliberation.
Within this scenario, there is nothing unusual about reasons of any kind. If I'm deliberating whether or not to take an umbrella with me, the fact that the weather forecast says it's going to rain is a relevant piece of information, as is the fact I desire to remain relatively dry. In my deliberation, they both, in conjunction with one another, count toward the option of taking the umbrella with me, which makes them _reasons_ to do so. The fact that carrying around an umbrella is inconvenient counts against taking it, which is the same as saying it's a _reason_ not to take it.
The same works for moral reasons: if I'm deliberating whether or not to do something, suffering caused to others or general principles pertaining to what's an acceptable kind of behaviour and what isn't, may count in favour of one course of action or another (and you'll need a separate argument if you think all such evidence should be disqualified).
Now, in fact we are not always actively engaged in deliberation, so, in most cases, calling something a "reason" amounts to using a kind of metaphor. But then almost all of our language is metaphorical anyway.
Nice video! Would be nice if you make a video about Dworkin’s anti metaethics argument in Justice for Hedgehogs or G.A. Cohen about fact and principles
I generally shy away from nihilistic accounts, since the fact that we use e.g. normative language suggests that said language is in some sense useful. That said, this was very compelling, especially the symmetry between hypothetical and categorical reasons. Thank you!
One desire we can't step back from and critically reflect upon is the desire to step back from our desires and critically reflect upon them. If you do step back, you do what the desire motivates you to do and thus you are not taking a critical stance. If you don't, you are not acting upon your desire to step back from it and once again you are not taking a critical stance. Either way you can't ask the "so what?" question genuinely. Furthermore , since asking the "so what?" question about the desire to ask such questions betrays a desire to ask it, in doing so one would inevitably express a pragmatic contradiction. If you are a normative realist this might be a good place to start.
I have something of pragmatic bent. What would global normative abolitionism (in the manner of moral abolitionism) look like?
What do you think about transcendental argument? Are you familiar with Jay Dyer?
I know this is probably outside the scope of this video but would the notion of 'preferred games' make for a good extension here?
Regarding slavery; a sociopath might claim from their own statistically analysed observations that the master-slave relationship is an unavoidable consequence of a heirarchical universe, but it could be argued that such a person might prefer the outcomes of centralising alternative paradigms, perhaps? I've always been curious about the possibility of normative ethics being closely related to an implicit meta-game-theoretic calculous for statisticaly prevalent "rules of thumb" for maximizing cross-game-compatibility with exceptions. Tit-for-tat+forgiveness for example provides us with a "provably true" maximal trans-game "ethic" with exceptions, maximizing cooperation increases short & mid term agent continuity (darwinism\anthropic principle).
The related notion of singular vs continuous or repeated games & correlations with improved score among cooperative agents may inform us in other areas, such as globalization & free movement migration within capitalism allowing for individual agents to benefit more from noncontinuous singular games or "scams" but that's a whole other thing 🤔
I'm no moral "Objectivist" but this mildly parallel thread of thought still draws my curiosity even though my inclinations tend away from any form of absolute prescription.
I'm less theoretically concerned with the various flavours of 'Aughts' than the 'Is-es' or 'Wills & Won'ts'.
I feel like grander extensions of morality above these basal constructions are more just a kind of ~'memetic inertia' (karma?) of a given biomass (possibly modelable as a multiphasic n-dimensional hyperfluid 🤷)
didn't you make a video about error theory (and a seperate companions in guilt video) already?
Yeah. I've linked them in the pinned comment. Now I've made another video about them.
Isn't this Hume's is/ought argument revisited?
Everything we observe is from a subjective lens that being our physical sensations/observations any claims of objective fact are either using the word objective in a sense that does not mean independent of mind because we cannot prove that anything independent of our mind truly exists and so all observations of reality or objective facts we claim to have of reality could be false if solipsism or simulation theory etc Is true.
Solipsism and simulation theory don't even have to factor in. The gods eye view is a social construct.
Nice
I don't have any reason to watch this video
That's the spirit!
The normative nihilist axiom : "There are no reasons for action or beliefs."
Does not preclude us from maintain other axioms. Such as " I ought believe what is true."
Isn't it just the same like that you can only get an ought from another ought?
And isn't that just language games then? Like, sure you may not "ought" to do what you desire. But you will still do it as you desire it... So it doesn't really matter if it actually is an ought or just something you want, if you do it anyways...
This is my take as well.
You are going to act in accordance with whatever desires compel you the most. Whether any ought can be derived from the facts is irrelevant to whether or not you will act. If a sequence of objective oughts could be derived from the facts, then that might change what one desires and how they would act, but ultimately, it's still a matter of inescapably acting in accordance with desires.
The Age of Enlightenment really opened up a can of worms. Even cultural relativism seems nihilistic. Maybe we can start by making the distinction between 'morals' and 'ethics'.
22:19 the real argument against normative nihilism
What in the world could give me a reason independent of my interests? The invisible hand of the state (leviathan) that would cause any interests not aligned to its interests to have negative consequence for my future standard of living and quality of life. The strong arm of democracy or authoritarianism places limits on individual desire (ambition) and so forcing the individual to be a prototypical social identity that at minimum conforms to its (the state) hypothetical reasons which as a system it (the state) are true qua power of enforcement. So by rejection of global norms (nation state as global for the citizen, so not international norms set by UN convention which influences nation states) this causes harms as a form of guilt to a individual whose alignment deviates into desires not sanctioned by the state which have consequences for the good life, all things equal for that individual. The individual may be a moral nihilist but within the state is forced in public to hold their hypothetical nihilism from deviance or delinquency such as going into debt. The individual can however had epistemic nihilism for scientific norms and advocate on a soap box for the end of the world is nigh so pray for forgiveness now. So such an individual could hedge their bets through a form of epistemic nihilism allowing a leverage of false positives consequences ( instrumental from a social point of self evaluation maintained qua the state) of carrying out an agenda such as acquiring slaves (wage slavery by setting up a corporation in the developing world so to build wealth for future generations (family empire) but hold that moral nihilism is absolutely abhorrent though advocate for free speech as epistemic nihilism and have faith in belief that contradicts scientific belief. Although top down normatively sets a political limit (family empire rivals the state qua building an army) on any in group becoming the leviathan or setting up a state within the state which already in place as the political structure implicit in the state. The queerness of reasons on this account lies directly within the state that seems to generate reasons (take the COVID lock downs) that are invisible but become visible through manifestos that emerge through sectors like the health sector (norms for health care) or agricultural sector (norms for animal husbandry) materials sector (norms for extraction) communications (norms for technology) energy (norms for infrastructure) and so on. The individual hypothetical and epistemic nihilism is insignificant against the might of these sectors so long as the individual conforms publicly to these sectors hypothetical and epistemic hegemony which are embedded in the state that require moral nihilism to be sectored in the research and development zone of education which is sanctioned through philosophy. So an individual may favour forms of animal welfare and try to expose suffering of animals as card carrying activists. Though the livestock sector has its reasons independent of the individual and can if effect prevent any individual from harming its interests which leaves the individual to take a minimalist rationale or else become entangled in the justice system. Smoking was widely advocated 40 years ago but is taboo in 2023 and so the smoker is deemed as a social outcaste which can be attributed not to the individual but the health sector as a stake holder leviathan within the state. The reason relation over desire has a new evaluation for the self that can only be maintained by alignment with the state and so changes desires from emerging based on norms set up by reasons implicit within sectors embedded in the state. If I self evaluate with a peer who smokes that is significantly in debt and another non smoking peer who is winning marathons and financially fine then I may have a reason not to start up smoking buy not break the habit which also aligns with the health sector that has now stopped smokers from lighting up in public spaces. The smoker can't release themselves from moral prohibitions without a penalty such as to be ostracised by the community. If the smoker reacts as in a non caring way officials may push back and impose penalties. This forces normative nihilism at least the hypothetical variety to conform with the desires of the state. This is a form of present social instrumentalism which calls for the sanatorium where smokers could heal in the open air as those back in the day did when afflicted with lung infections whilst enjoying the social esteem of a fine cigar. So reasons within an enclave like a sanatorium generate a correlation between reason and desire based on the simulation of a new model of self evaluation within the paradigm of a micro system of normative nihilism also found in movements like the new age movement. Normative nihilism is most evident as the individual gains powers to simulate the state political systems. The problem for outliers is they inhabit a liminal moral domain which gets push back from forces greater than their resources can muster unless such persons are billionaires which allows the purchase of social media corporations.
First Normative Nihilist
What papers/book did you use for this? Very interested in the literature about it.
Matthew Bedke, "Might all normativity be queer?" is an excellent presentation of the companions in guilt argument. Bart Streumer's book "Unbelievable Errors" and Brendan Cline's article "The tale of a moderate normative skeptic" defend the normative nihilist position.
@@KaneB Thank you!
Kane, could you include these references as a matter of course?
@@mark110292 I do say the names of these articles in the video itself. I kinda hate writing out reference lists though which is why I don't usually bother unless people ask. It's just more work, and I'm very lazy.
That you bothered to reply and you continue to produce valuable content belies the plea of laziness, Dr. Modest. In future though we'll either ask (sorry!) or sus it out . Happy New Year, Dr. Baker!
The kind of moral nihilism that I've ended up at is I think similar to the queerness argument, but coming from the perspective of how morality becomes enacted in the world.
I've never tried to put in it explicit terms before but the argument would go like such: That for any meaningful sense of objective morality, there still needs to be some kind of persuasion for that morality to become meaningful in the world. If person A responds to an appeal to objective morality by person B with "I don't care", any attempts to get person A to act within the "objective" morality of person B will require an appeal to something that person A *does* care about (personal safety, a sense of altruism, material reward, etc). Under this logic person B can replace the appeal to objective morality "doing X is morally correct" with "I want you to do X" and the mechanism will be identical, person B appealing to some thing that person A already cares about.
If in the end the mechanism is the same, why have the extra mental construct to appeal to an objective morality?
It's incomplete but I think the holes can be filled by descriptive arguments about the behavior of people who explicitly subscribe to an objective sense of morality.
Because, for many, it isn't the mechanism that induces the act, but the rationale behind the act that matters most. Many people not only want others to behave as they behave, but, more importantly, to behave as they behave for the same reasons as they do because their reasons/rationales are all they have to justify their behavior.
@@John-ir4id It was a rhetorical question, and there we have a descriptive argument of the kind I mentioned, that's definitely part of it, though I honestly think most failures of meta-ethics is because meta ethics is nerd shit that most people don't have time for/aren't interested in.
Though I think there's some really interesting discussion to be had about what sort of assumptions people have about the purpose of morality and ethics in the first place, and how that influences people's meta-ethics. For people does ethics work to answer "am I good?" or does it answer "how do I do good?" or does it answer "How do I make good happen?" or any number of different starting points.
Haven't finished the video. Seems to me like for the umbrella example and the like, there is simply an implicit assumption that if you want something, you should act on making it more likely to happen, ie if its raining and you want to stay dry and [you should get things you want if possible] then you should take an umbrella. This assumption is actually basically a moral statement and not based on anything, why should you try to get what you want?
Anyway it doesn't really mean anything if something is "objective" or not does it? either way you just operate on how you see the world personally, same as morals. But of course being a moral reletivist/nihilist vs objectivist could give you a different view on how you see other people/cultures moral systems, and how you see changing your own system. Same thing for a normative nihilist.
Ramble time:
I wonder if most people think there is objective truth/morals or not, I grew up assuming that thee wasI think, since it was tough for me when I philosophized that there wasn't, idk where this assumption came from though. but nowadays I'm always hearing people say stuff such as that they respect other religions besides their own, which seems like a contradiction if they believe in the concept of objective truth (why would you respect a belief system thats not true, actually I guess you could actually for many reasons, but most people would still view it as below their "true" belief system I would assume). It feels like people know it's not really true, but maybe it seems that way because that's what I think (This discussion so far is about normative/moral truth not factual truth, and religions often make factual claims not just moral claims, so you could say they are actually wrong. But maybe the moral and normative systems can be valuable still. (that's why i like some versions of budhism and stuff, because some versions don't make any factual claims, only normative claims and nonsense claims such as "you are love" which can't be disproven, which is a good thing because you either believe them or not and both options are arbitrary right, anyways I've just been rambling))
consider that not caring about the suffering of others is the result of owning slaves or the desire to own slaves and not the other way around. you've devalued your own humanity and ability to form reciprocal bonds with others, by valuing others only according to utility, you've devalued life in general, wages for free laborers, the mutual trust at the heart of a functional society. now you need protection because you sleep now surrounded by enemies and rivals. you must now corrupt your thinking as well, believing there is a fundamental difference between you which makes it right they're a slave and wrong for you to be one, or that the situation could just as rightly be reversed, or you refuse to address the contradiction at all giving rise to cognitive dissonance. you must now protect yourself, you must walk the line of finding enforcers powerful enough to impose your will, but not enough to resist you, people you rely on who'd rather have your position. now they too must be convinced of your righteousness and/or superiority or be remunerated well enough to overlook its absence, now you need a means of disseminating propaganda or even greater security expenditures thereby necessitating the accumulation of more wealth. your need to exert control has infiltrated every aspect of your life. you neglect your family to oversee these tasks. your inabilty to empathize has alienated them, infecting them with entitlement, vanity, hedonism, cruelty, nihilism or an utter rejection of you and everything you stand for. they love your riches, for which they resent every breath you draw, delaying their acquisition. nothing about slavery is fundamentally wrong if none of that other stuff is, and as long as lives, feelings, equity or a functional society don't matter at all. otherwise....
6:58
How well does denying the parity work?
I think there are prima facie plausible options here. For a defense of denying moral/epistemic parity, see Richard Joyce, "The moral and the epistemic", Chris Heathwood, "Moral and epistemic open question arguments", and Silvan Wittwer, "Moral error theory, explanatory dispensability, and the limits of guilt". For a defense of denying moral/prudential parity, see Francois Jacquet, "Prudential parity objections to the moral error theory".
@@KaneB Thanks for the tip bro!
I am not sure what this argument adds to the (fairly obvious) point that ultimately our perspective is inherently subjective. Although it is a fair point to make it is extremely limiting (to the point of solipsism).
This does not make it pointless, because in order to reach for an objective (or more objective) account it is important to be awareness of our inherent limitations. Nonetheless, there is no point in denying the astonishing success of the extent of the endeavour to achieve a comprehensive, objective explanation for states and events of the universe. In effect this attempt has embraced the queerness argument to reach the opposite conclusion to the one explained in this video and has embraced the beliefs that consistent, objective (quasi-objective, if you like) explanations for events and states of affairs of the universe are available.
My view is that having taken on board the queerness argument, there is no reason to exclude the phenomena of value judgements from the scope of objective explanation. Value judgements are events that are as susceptible to explanation as any other events.
But we have no reason not to support you through patreon and whatnot either!
Isn’t deductive logic a normative discipline, such that the normative nihilist would have to give up the kind of logical principles that they have to presuppose to formulate even basic arguments against normativity? It seems kind of self-refuting. Unless they want to distinguish between different kinds of normative concepts, some of which are legitimate, whereas others aren't. I may have missed you talking about logic so this could have been covered, but it seems like the kind of thing that you can't really be sceptical about. As Nagel says (I'm paraphrasing); you can't stand outside of logic and occupy a position from which to be sceptical about it, because it represents a transcendental constraint on structured thought itself.
This is a common view of logic, but it isn't universal. An alternative view is that logical principles concern patterns of truth preservation; they do not tell us anything about what we ought to believe, or how we ought to make inferences. So it is a law of logic that the truth of "P" and the truth of "if P then Q" guarantees the truth of "Q"; it is not a law of logic that if you believe that "P", and you believe that "if P then Q", then you ought to believe "Q". I discuss the arguments concerning the normativity of logic in this video: czcams.com/video/s98itopHGiY/video.html
If the non-normative view of logic can't work, then yeah, the normative nihilist is in trouble. Or at least, normative nihilism will entail a much more radical skeptical position. (Not by their own lights, of course. If logic is normative and there is no normativity, then nothing entails anything.)
@@KaneB fair enough. Very interesting video. I'm pretty sceptical of normativity in general, but logic has always seemed water tight. I'll check out some of the other resources you've attached in the comments. I have a feeling I'll be letting go of some other fundamental beliefs I have lol
Kane B flat Earther confirmed
You dont want to harm yourself.
You never dont harm yourself, when you harm Others.
You dont want to harm others.
You should not harm Others, for you dont want to harm yourself.
It is as 'simple' as that.
Know yourself and know the good.
PS;
Concerning possible Questions to each step:
Why wouldnt i want to harm myself but benefit myself? If you are wanting at all, the Question is meaningless.
Why would i harm, but not benefit myself, If i do so to Others?
If you know yourself, the Question is meaningless.
Why wouldnt i want to harm, but benefit Others?
Because you dont want to harm, but benefit yourself.
Why should i therefore not harm, but benefit Others?
Absurd Question!
PPS;
Concerning further Questions about the answers:
What is beneficial and harmfull, ergo what is good and Bad?
What serves us to be Happy is good, what not is bad, and what does neither is neither.
The settled mind is good, the unsettled one Bad.
Its virtue is wisdom and its fruits are all virtues like Justice and temparence.
Its vice is ignorance and its fruits are all vices like Injustice and intemperance.
The way to wisdom is the Love for it. Its path is that of Logic. Its Drive is that of doubt. Its aim that of Truth.
Therefore, seek wisdom, be good and be Happy.
But god tho
I get the impression that you think that human agency results from the rational considerations of individuals and that those considerations are the preeminent factor in the resulting actions.
In my opinion, human agency does not depend on the rational analysis (interpreting something according to the distinguished rules of reality) produced by our brains.
The motivation to carry out this analysis cannot come from the analysis itself.
The system that produces our agency predates the development of the sectors of our brain that are responsible for those tasks in our species.
In the universe, there is nothing that is more important than anything else. The universe does not analyze patterns, it does not take sides or have criteria.
Humans are biologically structured to survive and reproduce. They analyze patterns and prefer things according to their criteria. But it is not something projected by the universe nor a quality that permeates them.
Humans have a physiology that makes them experience comfort and discomfort. That is the reason for your agency.
That is the criterion.
Could you say more about the connection between positive and negative experiences and agency, as you see it?
@@harrymalone6637 The answer is a bit long and complex with a lot of concepts that I will try to simplify and synthesize here. You feel free to be very critical in what you find objectionable. :) This is just part of my interpretation of this topic. Other parts are more complex and difficult to summarize in a comment.
Human agency depends on the production of certain neurotransmitters.
The production of these neurotransmitters depends on our nervous system distinguishing certain patterns in the information it receives from reality.
"Humans do not determine their agency by their rational analyzes of reality" is a misleading phrase.
If one makes an idealistic interpretation of the situation, where a conscious entity with free will makes a logical consideration of a circumstance of reality and then acts according to what its intelligence dictates, that does not correspond to the reality of human agency (IMHO ).
But, if rational is the synthesis of the rules that we distinguish in the behavior of reality. If by conscious entity we understand a biological being with a nervous system, sensors to receive internal and external information and the ability to synthesize patterns in the phenomena of reality. So, it is true that an individual processes the information of a circumstance (within rational parameters), synthesizes a pattern that he can recognize and relate to his experience and then produces the neurotransmitters that his nervous system dictates, thus generating his agency. His nervous system also analyzes the individual's own behavior and assigns it a pattern that is part of the extensive understanding of that circumstance. One knows that one is walking and it happens continuously, in real time.
But why are we so different from animals? Even to the higher species? :)
The reason is that in individuals of different species with agency, that agency extends across a spectrum of influence, between reactive agency, according to inflexible non-modifiable behavioral patterns, and flexible agency, where that agency results from a mixture of instinctive reactions. (the least) and learned reactions (the majority) at the age at which the individual is considered an autonomous agent.
In the first case, a macro of behaviors is triggered by the recognition of a certain pattern.
In the second case, individuals of each species vary the basis of their agency from instinctive to learned.
A problem that our evolution has solved is that an individual without a precise chain of behaviors that corresponds to a pattern has no reason to act, when all that has been preserved are a few basic instincts. A human forms these empty niches of behavior by extracting them from his interaction with reality. First through those who raise him and then, when he is autonomous, he completes it by himself.
My impression is that such a transition, to a flexible agency, occurred gradually in the different species and that ours is the most flexible.
In this context, the distinguished patterns of internal and external information, sometimes, according to their importance from the point of view of evolution, correspond not only to behavioral macros but also to physiological reactions that produce discomfort or well-being in the individual. The smell of putrefied organic matter distinguishable as belonging to an individual of one's own species produces complex agency. One moves his body in a rejection position, stops breathing, tightens his lips, reduces blood flow from the skin to a minimum, cancels digestion, etc.
But one also feels pain when realizing that a potential sexual partner who gave us a plethora of positive, pleasant and comforting sensations has decided to cut off relations with us. Distinguishing this circumstance will trigger a number of acts that correspond to a pattern classified as important by our evolution but whose reactions fall into the territory of learned agency. The reason for the subsequent actions is the pain that our physiology generated because it considered that this pattern of loss is important and yet the actions will be chosen from the repertoire of our experience.
If reality leads us to distinguish a pattern that results in physiological pleasure, we will continue doing that thing. If this changes to a negative experience, we will stop doing such a thing and sometimes also add reflex behaviors.
(Consider that English is not my native language!) :)
If this view was taken serious humans wouldn’t have made it very long.
Does that mean it can't be accurate?
That doesn't make this view less "true" or "correct". It just *might* make it less practically and instrumentally plausible, and that's a totally separate question
My primary goal with this channel is to bring about the extinction of the human race.
@@KaneB 🤣
@@KaneB and you say you don’t like Nietzsche lol