Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[seer]

I think we are at an impasse, Seer. I know you tend to be the one asking questions, and it gives you a degree of control over the conversation. But you consistently refuse to answer the questions that I am asking, and instead turn around and ask yet another question.

I'd like an answer to the question I have asked, about how you can support the claim that meaning/purpose/value do not exist unless the thing in question is eternal/absolute/universal, and how you square that with your everyday use of those exact same terms. You can use "law" as the example. Defend the proposition, which is an inevitable outgrowth of your position, that law has no meaning, value, or purpose because it is not universal/absolute/eternal.

If I can get that question answered, I'll be happy to respond to your question, you will find I am capable of doing so consistently with the rest of my worldview.

No Carp, you don't get to turn it around. I asked you from the get go if 2+2 would be a meaningful equation if the sums changed with cultural whims. You never gave a straight answer you just waved your hands and said math was not like ethics. So I tried with the preference between pears and apples - a distinction that you know is trivial. Then I tried with the Joe the nihilist, his opinion is that life is meaningless, all that he does is meaningless (dust in the wind). And there is the answer to your question - if meaning is not tied to universal or absolute truths then it can be no more than an assertion on the part of the one making the claim. And that claim is no more right or true than the nihilist who claims otherwise. I don't know how to make myself more clear.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, you don't get to turn it around. I asked you from the get go if 2+2 would be a meaningful equation if the sums changed with cultural whims. You never gave a straight answer you just waved your hands and said math was not like ethics. So I tried with the preference between pears and apples - a distinction that you know is trivial. Then I tried with the Joe the nihilist, his opinion is that life is meaningless, all that he does is meaningless (dust in the wind).

And I have not turned anything around, Seer. I am merely asking questions in turn. You are not answering my questions, but requiring that I answer yours. I have answered yours, at each turn. I pointed out the disconnect between ethics and math, which you dismissed as hand-waving. I even offered a much more apt analogy: ethics and law. I have, multiple times, noted the distinction between ethics and food preferences, which you dismiss as hand-waving. I gave you a full answer to the Joe/Ed in my last post.

And there is the answer to your question - if meaning is not tied to universal or absolute truths then it can be no more than an assertion on the part of the one making the claim. And that claim is no more right or true than the nihilist who claims otherwise. I don't know how to make myself more clear.

So given your claim here about meaning:

Please identify the "absolute truth" behind the meaning of the word "beautiful"
Please identify the "absolute truth" behind the law requiring us to obey a 65 MPH speed limit on the local highway.
Please identify the "absolute truth" behind purpose of my hammer.

We have meaning all around us, Seer, that are linked to nothing more than our common agreement that that is what that word means, that this law is important for the reason X, or that this tool was designed to serve the following purpose. Our lives are filled with meaning, purpose, and value that you simply hand-wave away (to use your term) as "actually" meaningless, purposeless, and valueless, when you and I both know you do not live that way. If your savings account is valueless because it is not linked to "absolute truth," then please private message me your account codes so I can transfer their valuelessness to my own accounts. If laws are meaningless because they are not linked to "absolute truths," then why do you obey them? Is it your habit to spend your time in subservience to "meaningless" things?

Yes, meaning, value, and purpose are asserted by the sentient mind that derives them. That's the way it works. The difference between my position and yours, Seer, is that mine fits with the world we see around us. It reflects reality. Laws have meaning because the society they govern agrees that they have meaning. The word "beautiful" means "pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically" because we English speakers use it that way, and agree to that basic definition. The money in my wallet has value because members of our society agree to use it to represent past and future trades - goods or services - we find valuable. These words and things will continue to have value, meaning, and purpose so long as people see value, meaning, and purpose in them, and not a moment longer. If the day comes when everything we need is a fully automated and no one needs to work so as to live, money may well cease to have value. If the day comes when we can communicate telepathically in images, words may cease to have meaning. If a person goes off and lives on an uncharted island by themselves, laws may cease to have meaning (for them).

You are arbitrarily asserting that "real meaning" MUST be linked to "absolute truths," with absolutely no defense. Meaning, value, and purpose are determined by the sentient mind that derives meaning, value, and purpose. You can hand-wave and claim that none of those are "real," but tomorrow you will live your life as if they are. You won't PM me your account codes because your account balances DO have value to you. It is not fake value - it is real value. You won't go out and defy any law you wish because those laws have a purpose you respect, and consequences you fear. They are real purposes, not "fake" purposes. They are real consequences, not "fake" consequences. And you will continue to write posts using English words that have agreed upon meaning. It's real meaning - not "fake" meaning.

The inconsistency between your worldview and how you actually live is something that is not present in my worldview.

[seer]

And I have not turned anything around, Seer. You are not answering my questions, but requiring that I answer yours. I have answered yours, at each turn. But it appears my trust was missplaced as you still refuse to answer the question I posed. I have to conclude you are not answering because you have no answer.

No you didn't answer mine Carp, not directly. Listen this is the bottom line. One man claims that life has meaning another man claims it doesn't. Who is right? You can not answer that, therefore if there are no absolute or universal truths pertaining to this question there can be no right answer. Just as if there were no universal mathematical truths there could be no correct sum for 2+2. Do you agree with that?

[seer]

Jewish law does not share the belief common among modern Evangelicals that life begins at conception, nor does it legally consider the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. Presumably, this accounts for why Jesus never talked about abortion.

No, science tells us that human life begins at conception. It is not a dog or a tree or a bird. It is a human (at every stage of development). And Jesus did not speak on every moral issue, I doubt that abortion was a big issue in His time and place. But again, if you don't know that killing a harmless human being is a wrong, your moral compass is not pointing to true north.

[JimL]

No you didn't answer mine Carp, not directly. Listen this is the bottom line. One man claims that life has meaning another man claims it doesn't. Who is right? You can not answer that, therefore if there are no absolute or universal truths pertaining to this question there can be no right answer. Just as if there were no universal mathematical truths there could be no correct sum for 2+2. Do you agree with that?

Just because we don't know the answer to a question with absolute certainty doesn't mean there is no answer. The empirical evidence concerning the answer points to there being no ultimate meaning for existence, thats why we believe there is no ultimate meaning.

[carpedm9587]

No you didn't answer mine Carp, not directly. Listen this is the bottom line. One man claims that life has meaning another man claims it doesn't. Who is right?

The man who feels his life has no (we'll call him Jim) meaning is right for his life (assuming his mental faculties are intact). The man who claims it does (we'll call him Ed) is right for his life (with the same assumption). Furthermore, if Jim feels Ed's life has no meaning, then to him, Ed's life has no meaning. If Jim feels Ed's life DOES have meaning, then for him, Ed's life has meaning. You have two sentient minds, so you can have two different perspectives and each is right for them. Jim, however, cannot simultaneoously believe his life has meaning and has no meaning. That would be a contradiction.

You can not answer that, therefore if there are no absolute or universal truths pertaining to this question there can be no right answer.

I just did answer it. You are demanding an "absolute" answer for a question that is subjective. You might as well ask for a numerical answer to the question "why does Congress pass laws?" There is no absolute answer to a subjective question. There are only subjective answers.

Just as if there were no universal mathematical truths there could be no correct sum for 2+2. Do you agree with that?

I agree that in mathematics, if 2+2 is not linked to an objective/universal reality (assuming we agree on the base numbering system), then the mathematical equation is meaningless. That is because mathematics is linked to universal absolutes. You have not made the case the ethics/morality is likewise linked, except to simply assert that there is equivalence here.

You persist with this flawed analogy, equating ethical "truths" with mathematical "truths" with no justification beyond "importance." Ethical truths are about human behavior. Mathematical truths are about the physical universe and how it operates. As I have noted, if you are going to make an equivalance, ethical truths are most like legal truths: both govern human behavior; both require interpretation for application. You have offered no justification for your equivalence except, "ethics is even more important than mathematics." First, you cannot even justify THAT statement, and second, you cannot explain how "importance" is a criteria that validly makes one thing like another. Your argument simply makes no sense.

[seer]

The man who feels his life has no meaning is right for his life (assuming his mental faculties are intact). The man who claims it does is right for his life (with the same assumption).

I just did answer it. You are demanding an "absolute" answer for a question that is subjective. You might as well ask for a numerical answer to the question "why does Congress pass laws?" There is no absolute answer to a subjective question. There are only subjective answers.

Right and that is the point Carp, in your worldview both men are right or wrong. There literally can not be a right answer in any universal sense. So when you claim meaning you are doing so on assumption alone. At the same time you were chiding me for assuming. A clear double standard.

I agree that in mathematics, if 2+2 is not linked to an objective/universal reality (assuming we agree on the base numbering system), then the mathematical equation is meaningless. That is because mathematics is linked to universal absolutes. You have not made the case the ethics/morality is likewise linked, except to simply assert that there is equivalence here.

Well I'm glad we agree on something.

You persist with this flawed analogy, equating ethical "truths" with mathematical "truths" with no justification beyond "importance." Ethical truths are about human behavior. Mathematical truths are about the physical universe and how it operates. As I have noted, if you are going to make an equivalance, ethical truths are most like legal truths: both govern human behavior; both require interpretation for application. You have offered no justification for your equivalence except, "ethics is even more important than mathematics." First, you cannot even justify THAT statement, and second, you cannot explain how "importance" is a criteria that validly makes one thing like another. Your argument simply makes no sense.

Except in my worldview ethical truths are just as universal as mathematical truths. Both are universal and proceed from the same Mind.

[carpedm9587]

Right and that is the point Carp, in your worldview both men are right or wrong. There literally can not be a right answer in any universal sense.

If you ask a subjective question, you're going to get a subjective answer...

So when you claim meaning you are doing so on assumption alone. At the same time you were chiding me for assuming. A clear double standard.

The double standard, Seer, is yours. You STILL cling to an equivalence you have not justified, avoid an equivalence that is more apt, and demand that things have "absolute" meaning/purpose/value or it is not "real" when you do not actually live according to those terms. You have not addressed any of these things. You simply skip over them and keep coming back to the fact that my worldview is subjective. I've never said it was anything else. Your primary objection is simply that it's not "real" because it's not "universal/absolute/eternal." But you have not made the case for any of this.

Well I'm glad we agree on something.

If we're agreeing that you have not justified your equivalence, then we are indeed making progress!

Except in my worldview ethical truths are just as universal as mathematical truths. Both are universal and proceed from the same Mind.

Because you have claimed/asserted that they are so, Seer, not because you have shown that they are so. You have not even shown that they HAVE to be so. Indeed, you have not even addressed the inconsistency in your own position. You have repeatedly asserted that purpose/value/meaning are not real unless they are linked to absolutes, but you and I both know you do not live that way. You repeatedly gloss over this issue/point with no response, even when I point out that you are ignoring a key point and not responding.

I think you and I both know, at some level, it is because you have no response. You are at the same impasse I was at 30 years ago when confronted with the same inconsistency in my own worldview. I have to admit, it took me years to face it and acknowledge the problem. It is unreasonable for me to expect someone as immersed in your faith as you are to do it any faster, or even at all.

[JimL]

Right and that is the point Carp, in your worldview both men are right or wrong. There literally can not be a right answer in any universal sense. So when you claim meaning you are doing so on assumption alone. At the same time you were chiding me for assuming. A clear double standard.






Well I'm glad we agree on something.



Except in my worldview ethical truths are just as universal as mathematical truths. Both are universal and proceed from the same Mind.

There is a difference between meaning and ultimate meaning seer. There is no empirical evidence that existence has any ultimate meaning. Same as purpose, or ultimate purpose. There is purpose behind the things you do in life, even if there is no ultimate purpose for your existence.

[seer]

If you ask a subjective question, you're going to get a subjective answer...

But my point still stands Carp, the claim of meaning relies solely on assumption. So don't chide me when it comes to assuming.

The double standard, Seer, is yours. You STILL cling to an equivalence you have not justified, avoid an equivalence that is more apt, and demand that things have "absolute" meaning/purpose/value or it is not "real" when you do not actually live according to those terms. You have not addressed any of these things. You simply skip over them and keep coming back to the fact that my worldview is subjective. I've never said it was anything else. Your primary objection is simply that it's not "real" because it's not "universal/absolute/eternal." But you have not made the case for any of this.

No Carp, I never once said a man could not invent his own meaning or decide that there isn't any meaning. But as far as I'm concerned this, in a godless universe, that is no more significant than preferring pears over apples. How could it be?

Because you have claimed/asserted that they are so, Seer, not because you have shown that they are so. You have not even shown that they HAVE to be so. Indeed, you have not even addressed the inconsistency in your own position. You have repeatedly asserted that purpose/value/meaning are not real unless they are linked to absolutes, but you and I both know you do not live that way. You repeatedly gloss over this issue/point with no response, even when I point out that you are ignoring a key point and not responding.

Again, you can not even tell me which man is right, yet you claim the logical high ground?

I think you and I both know, at some level, it is because you have no response. You are at the same impasse I was at 30 years ago when confronted with the same inconsistency in my own worldview. I have to admit, it took me years to face it and acknowledge the problem. It is unreasonable for me to expect someone as immersed in your faith as you are to do it any faster, or even at all.

There is no inconsistency in my worldview, you however can only assume meaning.

[carpedm9587]

But my point still stands Carp, the claim of meaning relies solely on assumption. So don't chide me when it comes to assuming.

My chiding is not based on assuming. It is based on your continuous assertion of something you are simply not providing a defense for, and something you actually don't live. The subjective framework is all about people's decisions, which I have said from the beginning. It is entirely subjective - and I have outlined how it maps to what happens every day, even within your declared "universal" framework.

No Carp, I never once said a man could not invent his own meaning or decide that there isn't any meaning. But as far as I'm concerned this, in a godless universe, that is no more significant than preferring pears over apples. How could it be?

This is a common tactic I find used by theists: associate something like morality with a whimsical preference and then claim a point has been made. On several posts, I have outlined how moral frameworks are derived, and that explanation does not look at all like "food preferences" or "movie preferences." It's a cute trick, but it's just a verbal trick designed to make you feel better about your position. "Your morality is useless because it's like choosing which socks you wear." It's actually not. Every human being intrinsically sorts behaviours into ought and ought-not. It's a function of the human mind. The basis for how that sorting is done begins to be ingrained in childhood, primarily by family. Throughout adolescent years, it is influenced by society, community, religious groups, etc. By the time a person is a young adult, their moral framework is fairly well established. At that point, it takes a significant paradigm shift for that moral code to change. Comparing it to food preferences is just an underhanded way of mischaracterizing what is a fairly solid, but not immune to change, part of the human psyche so that you can continue to hold your "it has to be absolute or it's meaningless" position.

So moral codes are indeed more significant than "pears or apples," because "pears or apples" governs a food choice; moral codes govern behavioral choices across the human spectrum. They are not even comparable. It's like comparing the choice of a college, a career, or a life mate with the decision about whether a man sits or stands when peeing. Anyone can see that, while they are both choices, they are different in import, different in how the choice is made, and different in purpose/value/meaning for the individual. If you go down that road, then you have to acknowlege that your choice of a wife is about as meaningful as your decision whether to pee standing up. Somehow, I doubt you think in those terms.

Again, you can not even tell me which man is right, yet you claim the logical high ground?

There is no inconsistency in my worldview, you however can only assume meaning.

The answer to these is the same: yes, I claim the logical high ground in this discussion. My worldview and my actions match one another. Yours do not. Your continued refrain is "if it is not linked to a universal/absolute/eternal, then it is meaningless/purposeless/valueless." You cannot budge an inch off that ground, or your argument collapses. If people can make choices and those choices can be meaningful, purposeful, and valuable, then they can likewise make moral choices and those choices can be meaningful, purposeful, and valuable. But if you even START down that path, you are forced to accept the possibility, and validity, of a subjective moral framework.

Yet you live day-to-day as if the choices you make ARE meaningful, purposeful, and valuable. You use language, with every post you write, that suggests you find words meaningful. You have not provided me with your account numbers and passcodes, which suggests you find your bank account actually valuable. Your claim that value/purpose/meaning are only "real" if they are linked to absolutes, but you do not live that way in the least. This is the inconsistency I had to confront 30 years ago - and resisted confronting it for several years. Eventually, I had to acknowledge I had no answer for the conundrum.

[seer]

My chiding is not based on assuming. It is based on your continuous assertion of something you are simply not providing a defense for, and something you actually don't live. The subjective framework is all about people's decisions, which I have said from the beginning. It is entirely subjective - and I have outlined how it maps to what happens every day, even within your declared "universal" framework.

Nonsense Carp, you did accuse me of assuming, I can find if if you would like. And it doesn't matter how I live, I may be hypocritical, that does not change the logic.

This is a common tactic I find used by theists: associate something like morality with a whimsical preference and then claim a point has been made. On several posts, I have outlined how moral frameworks are derived, and that explanation does not look at all like "food preferences" or "movie preferences." It's a cute trick, but it's just a verbal trick designed to make you feel better about your position. "Your morality is useless because it's like choosing which socks you wear." It's actually not. Every human being intrinsically sorts behaviours into ought and ought-not. It's a function of the human mind. The basis for how that sorting is done begins to be ingrained in childhood, primarily by family. Throughout adolescent years, it is influenced by society, community, religious groups, etc. By the time a person is a young adult, their moral framework is fairly well established. At that point, it takes a significant paradigm shift for that moral code to change. Comparing it to food preferences is just an underhanded way of mischaracterizing what is a fairly solid, but not immune to change, part of the human psyche so that you can continue to hold your "it has to be absolute or it's meaningless" position.

No it is not a trick, all law comes down to personal or collective preference. That is why I spoke of my preference for pears being codified into law. Because according to your reasoning then it becomes significant. You can lay out all those reason why/how we codify these things into law, but that does not change the basic point about preference. My preference for pears is not more significant in nature after it becomes a legal requirement.

So moral codes are indeed more significant than "pears or apples," because "pears or apples" governs a food choice; moral codes govern behavioral choices across the human spectrum. They are not even comparable. It's like comparing the choice of a college, a career, or a life mate with the decision about whether a man sits or stands when peeing. Anyone can see that, while they are both choices, they are different in import, different in how the choice is made, and different in purpose/value/meaning for the individual. If you go down that road, then you have to acknowlege that your choice of a wife is about as meaningful as your decision whether to pee standing up. Somehow, I doubt you think in those terms.

But that is merely an opinion, one that may not be held by the nihilist - whom you have no argument against. You like apples he likes pears...

The answer to these is the same: yes, I claim the logical high ground in this discussion. My worldview and my actions match one another. Yours do not. Your continued refrain is "if it is not linked to a universal/absolute/eternal, then it is meaningless/purposeless/valueless." You cannot budge an inch off that ground, or your argument collapses. If people can make choices and those choices can be meaningful, purposeful, and valuable, then they can likewise make moral choices and those choices can be meaningful, purposeful, and valuable. But if you even START down that path, you are forced to accept the possibility, and validity, of a subjective moral framework.

Nonsense, you are again arguing against nothing I said, I never argued that a man could not invent his own meaning, personally or collectively. But what about the man who finds no meaning in the world? You can not even say that he is wrong.

Yet you live day-to-day as if the choices you make ARE meaningful, purposeful, and valuable. You use language, with every post you write, that suggests you find words meaningful. You have not provided me with your account numbers and passcodes, which suggests you find your bank account actually valuable. Your claim that value/purpose/meaning are only "real" if they are linked to absolutes, but you do not live that way in the least. This is the inconsistency I had to confront 30 years ago - and resisted confronting it for several years. Eventually, I had to acknowledge I had no answer for the conundrum.

That makes no sense... I agree that you can make up your own meaning, as did Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc... What is your point?

[carpedm9587]

Nonsense Carp, you did accuse me of assuming, I can find if if you would like. And it doesn't matter how I live, I may be hypocritical, that does not change the logic.

Feel free to find the post, Seer. I have been speaking about unsupported assertions from the outset. As for the second sentence, you have not MADE a logical argument, so I'm not sure how it can be changed.

No it is not a trick, all law comes down to personal or collective preference. That is why I spoke of my preference for pears being codified into law. Because according to your reasoning then it becomes significant. You can lay out all those reason why/how we codify these things into law, but that does not change the basic point about preference. My preference for pears is not more significant in nature after it becomes a legal requirement.

"Preference" convers a wide range of human activities. We have a preference for "being safe." We have a preference for "existence." We have a preference for the safety of our loved ones. We also have moral preferences. To speak of these as equivalent to preferences to pears over apples is, at best, disengenouous. It aligns a critical thing with a casual, superfluous thing. You know it - and I know it. Unless you are actually comfortable with your choice of a life mate being essentially equivalent to the choice of peeing standing up or sitting down? You might want to run that by her.

Furthermore, I have never suggested that moral choices are NOT a form of preference. They are not like in kind/import to "pears vs. apples," but they are a human preference based on upbringing, social influence, and other factors. That is perfectly consistent with my worldview. But you have asserted that they are "meaningless" unless they are "universal/absolute/eternal." Therein lies your conundrum: you cannot support/sustain that position. You attempt to by equating morality with mathematics and (presumably) logical constructs. Both of those CAN be linked to universal/absolute concepts by noting the contradiction if they are not. You assert an equivalence of moral law to mathematics (and presumably logical constructs), but you cannot show, as can be shown for mathematics and logical principles, that this assertion has substance. So far your only supporting argument is "it's even more important than math," a statement you cannot show to be true or even explain how "importance" translates to "equivalence."

But that is merely an opinion, one that may not be held by the nihilist - whom you have no argument against. You like apples he likes pears...

This has been responded to more than adequately, at this point. Repeating it serves no further purpose, since you essentially ignore the response and comntinually go back to apples/pears. At this point, if we were in the same room, I would be hard pressed not to be rolling my eyes, I have to admit.

Nonsense, you are again arguing against nothing I said, I never argued that a man could not invent his own meaning, personally or collectively. But what about the man who finds no meaning in the world? You can not even say that he is wrong.

You HAVE argued that invented meaning/purpose/value are just that - invented, and therefore not "real" or "actual." So are you now saying that invented meaning/purpose/value are real and actual?

That makes no sense... I agree that you can make up your own meaning, as did Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc... What is your point?

I am asking you to verify that you are acknowledging that invented meaning/purpose/value have reality - are actual. Are real.

[seer]

Feel free to find the post, Seer. I have been speaking about unsupported assertions from the outset. As for the second sentence, you have not MADE a logical argument, so I'm not sure how it can be changed.

Sheesh, that is the point! You asserting that life has meaning is too unsupported! You are merely offering an opinion. That is the logic...

"Preference" convers a wide range of human activities. We have a preference for "being safe." We have a preference for "existence." We have a preference for the safety of our loved ones. We also have moral preferences. To speak of these as equivalent to preferences to pears over apples is, at best, disengenouous. It aligns a critical thing with a casual, superfluous thing. You know it - and I know it. Unless you are actually comfortable with your choice of a life mate being essentially equivalent to the choice of peeing standing up or sitting down? You might want to run that by her.

Right - we are finally getting to the meat. So things that touch existence are more meaningful, but you can not make a logical argument for why our existence is meaningful in the first place! Apart from a bald faced assertion! I'm sure that if an ant could reason he would think his life has meaning right before you step on him.

You HAVE argued that invented meaning/purpose/value are just that - invented, and therefore not "real" or "actual." So are you now saying that invented meaning/purpose/value are real and actual?

Where did I say they weren't real? I'm sure Hitler felt his meaning was real.

I am asking you to verify that you are acknowledging that invented meaning/purpose/value have reality - are actual. Are real.

Of course they are real, they are just as trivial or insignificant as we as a species are.

[carpedm9587]

Sheesh, that is the point! You asserting that life has meaning is too unsupported! You are merely offering an opinion. That is the logic...

Then I repeat, you have no logic. You cannot on one hand assert that meaning can be invented by individuals, and then assert that such an invention is "meaningless." Your defeating your own argument.

Right - we are finally getting to the meat. So things that touch existence are more meaningful, but you can not make a logical argument for why our existence is meaningful in the first place! Apart from a bald faced assertion! I'm sure that if an ant could reason he would think his life has meaning right before you step on him.

I have had this discussion with you before. Some things are simply a priori true. If "a priori" and "assertion" as synonymous to you, then the a priori mathematical law of identity (1 = 1) and the logical law of non contradiction (a thing cannot be and not be in the same place, same say and at the same time) are also "merely assertions." That each thing seeks/sees its own existence as a good is one of those truths, and for the same reason the law of non contradiction is: its negation is simply logically inconsistent, since seeking non existence eliminates all possibility of goodness or ill. Similarly, each sentient being seeks its own happiness. This is, again, apriori true by the very definition of the words. It is practically a tautology. For you to deny these things is for you to assert that you can see your own nonexistence as a "good" (which is absurd on its face), and that you can see unhappiness as a good, which is (again) absurd on its face.

But even if we ignore all of that, and individuals are merely deriving moral codes on the basis of upbringing, social/cultural norms, and reasoning to outcomes, those moral codes still are real, actual, and have value. The fact that a person can choose meaning for their life does not change because someone can end that life, unless you again back yourself into the corner of asserting that invented meaning/purpose/value are not "real" or "actual."

Where did I say they weren't real? I'm sure Hitler felt his meaning was real.

Of course they are real, they are just as trivial or insignificant as we as a species are.

This has been your argument from the outset, Seer. Every time we discuss subjective morality, your claim is that it is not real - it is not meaningful - because it is not universal/absolute/eternal. You have even attempted to associate it with mathematics to try to make your case, without ever successfully defending that association. If you have now reversed all of that, then your argument that morality that is subjective is meaningless fails. If humans can invent meaning, can choose purpose, can derive value, then subjective morality is rooted in reality, is actual, and has meaning. It is not universal, absolute, or eternal, nor does it need to be. It is a form of preference, but different in kind/import than food preferences. It is not whimscal, it is considered, grounded, and rational.