Why is nihilism associated with apathy ?

[Ben_JS]

I agree, liber8 - well said.

As to what you ought be called, not certain - but existentialism seems close, which was spawned out of existential nihilism.

@Wikipedia

Existential nihilism is the philosophical theory that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. With respect to the universe, existential nihilism posits that a single human or even the entire human species is insignificant, without purpose and unlikely to change in the totality of existence.

@Wikipedia

In existentialism, the individual’s starting point is characterised by what has been called “the existential attitude”, or a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.
[…]
Søren Kierkegaard is generally considered to have been the first existentialist philosopher, though he did not use the term existentialism. He proposed that each individual—not society or religion—is solely responsible for giving meaning to life and living it passionately and sincerely (“authentically”).

My stance, which I think is aligned with yours:

@Ben JS

@iambiguous

Is there a way in which to encompass – theoretically and for all practical purposes – an objective morality? Is there a way in which rational men and women are obligated to behave if they wish to be thought of as rational men and women?

To act towards achieving and maintaining one’s ideal state, regardless of what they be.

To engage and respond to one’s environment, in a way that would result in the highest net positive - according to one’s values / priorities.

For example, one may think it’s positive to avoid pain, so avoiding pain without any other consequences, would be a net positive. It could thereby be said, if this same person put themselves into a position where they were subjected to pain, without any other consequences, this would be a net negative.

Thus, if someone acts in a way that causes more net negative, when they’ve got better alternatives - causing, if nothing else, less net negative - then they could be said to be acting unwisely, since they’re acting in a way that needlessly undermines them.

=

To this I would add, one’s values need not only reflect narrow self interest. For example, a parent may prioritize the welfare of their child of themselves, in which case, to act in a way that would as a consequence hurt their child, even if it had positive results, would likely be a net negative.

EDIT:

Also, if someone’s confident they’re going to shortly be tortured to death - It may be a lesser net negative, to commit suicide, thus avoiding a potentially greater net negative.

@Ben JS

@iambiguous

How is “positive” and “negative” to be construed when what is clearly positive for the woman choosing an abortion is just as clearly construed to be negative by the father who wants the child to be born? And certainly negative for those who claim to speak for the dead fetus.

First off, I’d say it isn’t clearly positive for a woman to have an abortion in this circumstance, and it isn’t clearly negative for the father if the abortion happens.

Even within individuals there’s an array of conflicting interests, let alone between people.

Explanation:
[tab]In the case of the woman, she may love the father, and not want to hurt him. It may risk causing a breakdown in the relationship, not only with her partner, but with family - To avoid this risk is a partial positive. She may dislike the idea of abortion, but considers it due to fear. Having an abortion could potentially haunt her in later life - she may regret it.

Perhaps she doesn’t appreciate how much joy a child could bring into her life. Perhaps a child could completely change the way she lives her life, and sees the world - giving her a platform to connect to others in a way she previously lacked. Perhaps having a child could fulfill her in a way she didn’t even notice she wanted. Perhaps this pregnancy was her last opportunity to have children.

These are just a few things that could internally be conflicting for the woman in the decision to have an abortion. I would say it’s clearly a positive for the woman to have the abortion, despite wanting it.

For the father,

Persuading the mother to go through with pregnancy could damage the relationship, and hurt the mother. Having a child may be too stressful for the father, he may inevitably find it too much. Perhaps he isn’t in a position to give the child all it’s needs due to the father’s prior commitments. Having a child may inhibit him from pursuing other passions in his life.

etc. etc. etc.[/tab]

==

As for how positive/negative is to be arrived it:

One must declare a yardstick - a standard. Then positive / negative is judged in relation to that.

Mine:
[tab]I take a utilitarian approach, as said:

To engage and respond to one’s environment, in a way that would result in the highest net positive - according to one’s values / priorities - given the circumstances, and potential to succeed.

In this context, the best course of action would be arrived at by factoring in all relevant values / priorities / goals, weighting them according to their degree of concern to the individual, i.e. weighting the consequences of what happens to your child higher than, for example, the consequences of what happens to an ant on the other side of the planet.

After all consequences have been considered, one should rationally choose the one with the highest net positive, even if that means only minimizing negatives, such as in the case of suicide.

That’s roughly my standard.

It’s rational, and can be assessed beyond opinion. Regardless of where that path leads.[/tab]

@iambiguous

when someone argues that such and such a behavior is or is not moral, how is she able to establish this objectively

[tab]Morality is differentiation between good and bad. Based on whatever standard.

To say something’s moral, is to say to it’s good - to say it’s not moral, is to say it’s bad.

One can argue that there’s sufficient reason to adopt a certain standard, but until one does, morality simply isn’t applicable. Furthermore, as said earlier, we’re not born obligated to any standard. If you want to reason without someone without any objective, values, priorities - you’re shit out of luck. At that point, it becomes a matter of asserting force.

=

However, as soon as a person adopts a standard, that’s when they can be held to account. That’s when their actions can be objectively assessed.

Just like in a court of law. We’re forced to adhere to a set of standards / laws, and our actions can be assessed in accordance with these standards / laws. A court can declare objectively that one has done wrong, in relation to their standard.[/tab]
Define the objective / standard, then get the other to agree to it.

As soon as there’s an agreement on the standard, good and bad can be established in relation to that.