Existentialist values.

[jps]

One major criticism of many existentialist philosophers is that they claim objective moral values do not exist, and then seemingly contradict themselves by implying that certain ways of living are better than others.

Nietzsche clearly implied that the "Master morality" was superior to the "slave morality"

Heidegger spoke of "authentic and inauthentic Dasein"

Sartre spoke of people "living in bad faith"

Camus advocated living in "revolt against the absurd"

All of these philsophers also stated that moral values do not exist.
Is this contradictory?

 

[fadingCaptain]

No it is not.

Just because there is not an absolute morality does not mean that all morals are equal. Some morals can still be better than other morals.

 

[jps]

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
No it is not.

Just because there is not an absolute morality does not mean that all morals are equal. Some morals can still be better than other morals.

How? What makes one set of moral values better than another if there are no objective moral values?

 

[fadingCaptain]

How? What makes one set of moral values better than another if there are no objective moral values?

Hmmm this is hard to explain. Nothing 'makes' a set of values better than another other than each person individually...they are simply 'subjectively' better. The lack of an objective or absolute morality does not preclude an individual from determining which value system best fits their thinking.

I hope I made some sense...

 

[jps]

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
Hmmm this is hard to explain. Nothing 'makes' a set of values better than another other than each person individually...they are simply 'subjectively' better. The lack of an objective or absolute morality does not preclude an individual from determining which value system best fits their thinking.

I hope I made some sense...

I agree that people can prefer one set of values to another, but that is only an individual aesthetic preference, there is no justification behind those values besides one's personal preference.
The contradiction in what the philosophers I mentioned wrote is that they say there are no objective values and then explain why people should live in a certain way. If moral values are a matter of personal preference then one set cannot be judged objectively against another.

 

[fadingCaptain]

If moral values are a matter of personal preference then one set cannot be judged objectively against another.

They cannot be judged objectively, but they can still be judged.

Sarte would say that what is good for humanity is good morality. This is a subjective preference but that doesn't diminish its value.

Nietzche valued honesty. He believed master morality was more honest. Again, subjective judgement.

Eh, I won't touch Heidegger.

Anyway, my point is that one can make judgments and assert one's will without an 'objective' basis for that assertion. I know fully well my beliefs are subjective, but that does not lead me to thinking - "What is the point of arguing as everyone has their own subjective belief?"

Nihilism is avoided by placing value in your own opinions.

 

[notme2000]

All morals are is a set of rules determining how you act. So from on outside "perspective" there are no morals. We can agree people act differently, right? This is perfect evidence that there is no objective morals.

 

[jps]

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
They cannot be judged objectively, but they can still be judged.

I agree that they can be judged, but not as anything more than aesthetic preferences. No reason can be provided for them aside from personal affinity for them.

Sarte would say that what is good for humanity is good morality. This is a subjective preference but that doesn't diminish its value.

It doesn't diminish its value to him, but as he holds that there is no such thing as absolute good then it is contradictory for him defend this opinion of his as anything other than an unsupported opinion.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Nietzche valued honesty. He believed master morality was more honest. Again, subjective judgement.

Again, same problem, he says that he values these things, but he also denys the existence of any set moral values. Therefore his preference for one set of morals over another, and even his preference for honesty cannot be supported.

Eh, I won't touch Heidegger.

I don't blame you.

Anyway, my point is that one can make judgments and assert one's will without an 'objective' basis for that assertion. I know fully well my beliefs are subjective, but that does not lead me to thinking - "What is the point of arguing as everyone has their own subjective belief?"

I agree. Arguing is fun and thought provoking, however any argument on the subject of morals that denies the existance of objective morality will end in a stalemate as there is no way of supporting ones subjective morality to another.

Nihilism is avoided by placing value in your own opinions.

Absolutely

 

[Clockwood]

When I die and talk to god (provided there is one and I can talk with him at that time) I am afraid the ethics he would hold might be so different that I would be horified.

When you have to choose between evils every instant of ones life, see the actual worth of human life, and do horrible things to stop even worse ones, I could imagine a very cold and calcutlating way of perception.