Arkolon wrote:Conscentia wrote:the human conscience serves to benefit our survival as a species, so it [the existence of the human conscience] makes complete sense for an ethological standpoint.
We are good for our survival, therefore our being makes complete sense. [sic]
You're going to have to rewrite this, then, because you make no sense in it.
I make complete sense. I have no idea how you keep failing to understand.
What I wrote is not at all equal to the red.
Given that the human conscience helps the species to survive, it would make sense that evolution selects in favour of having a conscience.
Arkolon wrote:They'd take revenge because they feel that they've been wronged by my taking of something they value.
I value my friend's bike, but if it got stolen I wouldn't beat you up for stealing it. It's not mine. The bike is my friend's. It belongs to them. By stealing it you are doing wrong by taking what is not yours. It's as simple as that.
The bike is not inherently theirs. It's theirs within the law, and my actions would be illegal but that doesn't make the actions inherently "wrong". It could be mean, or unfair, or whatever, but that doesn't make it inherently "wrong". It just makes it upsetting - at least to those who even care.
Arkolon wrote:In the absence of law, that book is not theirs. They may physically possess it. They may be using it. They may value it for whatever reason. Doesn't mean it's inherently theirs. I could take it. Of-coarse, if they want it, they can retaliate to maintain access to it.
There is no such thing as the absence of law. There is the absence of a state, which you would call a "formal" legal institution, but there is never the absence of legal hierarchies and codes of conduct in any society.
If I am "in control" of my house when I am in it, and I leave to work and you appropriate ownership of my house by breaking in, is that just? Is that a justified acquisition? Why not? The house is inherently mine because I acquired it through the principles of justice in acquisition, or transfer, of holdings. If you steal it from me, that is inherently wrong. If you burn it to the ground without my permission, that is inherently wrong. If you kill me without my permission, that is inherently wrong.
There is such a thing as the absence of law. There was no law for approximately 99.99% of the universe's history.
Even humans can exist in the absence of law. Honour codes pre-date legal codes. And where events lead to a society's collapse, one can find anomie.
Arkolon wrote:On the contrary, by recognising what is artificial, I can judge their utility more objectively. That is very useful.
Nihilism is not about pretending that social constructs do not exist - it's about recognising that they are not inherent.
No, everyone recognises what is artificial and what is not. Social constructs don't exist in a vacuum. Social constructs exist in social environments. Conveniently, so do you. Nihilism is very much a rejection of social institutions in favour of apathy and egoism. He who can overcome their nihilist phase very much is the Surhomme. All ex-nihilists integrate what they saw into what they now see: artificiality, social constructs, objectivity vs. subjectivity, moral relativism, but have built on that to form an ethical base bigger than that. Nihilism is, figuratively, the foundations of a house.And you have to build over the foundations in order to live in the house.
Some people do not recognise what is artificial. They believe that purpose is inherent, or that things can be inherently immoral.
Nihilism does not inherently favour apathy or egoism. If you use nihilism to justify egoism or apathy, that speaks more about you than nihilism.
Nihilism is not inherently the rejection of social institutions. It is a philosophy of scepticism that holds that all values are baseless - that there are is nothing that has inherent, absolute, or objective value.
Why?