Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[seer]

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.

It is meaningless Carp because you have no logical argument against the man who says that that he finds life meaningless. Neither of you is right, neither of you is wrong. How do we even proceed when there is no resolution between conflicting views?

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 that whole question is meaningless as you step on the ant or as an alien race harvest us for food. And just because we seek to survive does not endow us with meaning. Doesn't mean we have significance.

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.

See what you are doing? Because one can invent meaning, means that they actually have meaning. How is that not circular?

Just for you:

[carpedm9587]

It is meaningless Carp because you have no logical argument against the man who says that that he finds life meaningless. Neither of you is right, neither of you is wrong. How do we even proceed when there is no resolution between conflicting views?

Again - you cannot claim a thing is meaningful on one hand, and meaningless on the other. Your assumption is that I NEED a logical argument for the man who says that life is meaningless. I don't. If he finds no meaning in it, then to him it is meaningless. If I find meaning in it, then to me it is meaningful. We are both right - for ourselves. That is what subjective means.

You are, again, trying to assess a subjective point of view with a universal/absolute/eternal metric - and you are finding it wanting - for no other reason than it is not universal/absolute/eternal. So you declare it meaningless. But then you turn around and say, "of course people can invent meaning - and it is real." So you are continually contradicting yourself.

But that whole question is meaningless as you step on the ant or as an alien race harvest us for food. And just because we seek to survive does not endow us with meaning. Doesn't mean we have significance.

If I no longer exist, then I no longer have sentience to derive meaning, so meaning ends. That does not negate my meaning while I exist and have sentience to derive meaning. You are, again, doing what I said above.

See what you are doing? Because one can invent meaning, means that they actually have meaning. How is that not circular?

So now we're back to meaning that is not absolute/eternal/universal is not "real." Seer, you need to make up your mind. Either we can derive meaning, and that meaning is real, or we cannot derive meaning. To argue that we can derive meaning but that meaning is not real is a little ridicuous. Unless, of course, you are saying it is not "absolute/eternal/universal." In which case we are in agreement - subjective meaning is not absolute/universal/eternal. There is no surprise there - that is the meaning of "subjective," so you aren't actually saying anything, except to affirm the meaning of the words we are using.

Just for you:

What on earth does that have to do with anything? We are indeed "dust in the wind" once we have died. Until then, we are sentient, choosing, thinking, beings capable of deriving meaning, value and purpose - all of which is subjective to each of us.

Seer, you go round and round and round, but you don't get anywhere. This is the argument I am hearing:

Your moral code is subjective. It is derived by you. So it is meaningless. You cannot logically refute the moral position put forward by anyone else.

The first two sentences are absolutely true. The third is not, and you have acknowledged as much by noting that humans (sentient beings) can derive meaning. It is true that it is not universally, absolutely, eternally meaningful - but I never claimed it was. You have also not been able to show that your moral code/framework is any less subjective, except to claim that it is by fiat.

As for the last sentence, it is only partially true. It is true that, if another person does not value the same things I value (life, happiness, health, etc.), then it will be very hard to make a cogent case for a moral alignment. Without a common grounding in what we find to be of value, there is no way to align moral codes. At that point, I am likely to simply distance myself from that person. If we DO have things we value in common, then it is easier to show how action X compromises one or more of those things. The discussion is easily had, and perfectly logical. Fortunately, our common humanity and our common existence on this planet means we tend to have many things we value in common, so moral discussions are meaningful.

That is how moral codes work, and have worked since the dawn of humanity. The only thing religions do is codify these moral precepts, and then attribute them to a god to lend them authority. Secular communities codify them (formally or informally) and attribute them to the community. And secular communities will not tend to have moral codes that have to do with gods (e.g., taking the name of god profanely, etc.). Except for those two items, there is essentially no difference between how religious communities and secular communities moralize.

Your argument that subjective moral frameworks are simultaneously meaningful and meaningless is nonsense, with one possible exception: If you are using "meaningful" in two ways: that they are subjectively meaningful, but universally/absolutely/eternally meaningless. With that I have to agree - but then you aren't actually saying anything except that subjective moral frameworks are not absolute/eternal/universal. They are relative/temporal/individual. We already know that.

[seer]

Again - you cannot claim a thing is meaningful on one hand, and meaningless on the other. Your assumption is that I NEED a logical argument for the man who says that life is meaningless. I don't. If he finds no meaning in it, then to him it is meaningless. If I find meaning in it, then to me it is meaningful. We are both right - for ourselves. That is what subjective means.

You are, again, trying to assess a subjective point of view with a universal/absolute/eternal metric - and you are finding it wanting - for no other reason than it is not universal/absolute/eternal. So you declare it meaningless. But then you turn around and say, "of course people can invent meaning - and it is real." So you are continually contradicting yourself.

This is getting tedious. This is your basic argument. Man A invents meaning, therefore life has meaning. Man B does not find meaning in life, therefore life does not have meaning. Do I have that right?

[carpedm9587]

This is getting tedious. This is your basic argument. Man A invents meaning, therefore life has meaning. Man B does not find meaning in life, therefore life does not have meaning. Do I have that right?

No less tedious for me, my friend.

You're close. If Man A derives subjective meaning for his life, then that life has that subjective meaning for Man A. If Man B determines life HAS no subjective meaning, including the life of Man A, then, for Man B, Man A's life will have no subjective meaning. To Man A, Man A's life is meaningful. To Man B, Man A's life is meaningless. Both statements are true because they are subjective to the individual.

Your argument appears to be that this is meaningless because there is not a universal/eternal/absolute meaning to determine which of these two men is right. By doing so, you are attempting to evaluate a subjective assessment in absolute/eternal/universal terms. So you're changing the rules mid-game. When you say that the situation is "meaningless" what you are actually saying is that it lacks "absolute/universal/eternal" meaning. On that you will get no argument from me: it is a subjective framework, so it is subjectively meaningful.

This is what I mean by saying that your entire argument boils down to the objection, "but it's not universal/absolute/eternal!" To that I can only respond, "of course it's not - I never said it was." Your argument, in the end, does nothing more than assert the meaning of the terms universal/absolute/eternal and verify that something that is subjective is not universal/absolute/eternal. But you hide this obvious statement (which is true by definition of the terms - so is basically a tautology) by using the term "meaningless."

Subjective meaning is not meaningless; it's subjectively meaningful. What you're really saying is it's not universally/absolutely/eternally meaningful. We already knew that. That doesn't make it "meaningless."

[seer]

No less tedious for me, my friend.

You're close. If Man A derives subjective meaning for his life, then that life has that subjective meaning for Man A. If Man B determines life HAS no subjective meaning, including the life of Man A, then, for Man B, Man A's life will have no subjective meaning. To Man A, Man A's life is meaningful. To Man B, Man A's life is meaningless. Both statements are true because they are subjective to the individual.

So the question of meaning is based solely on assertion? There is no deductive justification.

Your argument appears to be that this is meaningless because there is not a universal/eternal/absolute meaning to determine which of these two men is right. By doing so, you are attempting to evaluate a subjective assessment in absolute/eternal/universal terms. So you're changing the rules mid-game. When you say that the situation is "meaningless" what you are actually saying is that it lacks "absolute/universal/eternal" meaning. On that you will get no argument from me: it is a subjective framework, so it is subjectively meaningful.

But whom should I believe? The man who says life as meaning or the one who doesn't?

[carpedm9587]

So the question of meaning is based solely on assertion? There is no deductive justification.

The question of subjective meaning is based on the assertion of the person expressing it. I added the word you left out. The deductive justification can only be made from the internal frame work of the person coming to that conclusion.

But whom should I believe? The man who says life as meaning or the one who doesn't?

Since they are speaking subjectively, you believe both. You keep wanting to run back to "absolute/universal/eternal." If you are in a subjective framework, there is (usually) no such thing.

[seer]

The question of subjective meaning is based on the assertion of the person expressing it. I added the word you left out. The deductive justification can only be made from the internal frame work of the person coming to that conclusion.

I have no problem with you making up meaning for yourself, but it reminds of this...

[carpedm9587]

I have no problem with you making up meaning for yourself, but it reminds of this...

I'm not sure how the conversation devolved to that. You again appear to be mocking subjective meaning on the sole basis that it's not absolute/universal/eternal. Yet tomorrow you will continue to use the subjectively derived English language, as if it actually has meaning. You will express why you find this or that book "meaningful," as if it actually has meaning. You will find meaning in an expression of hope or fear or joy from someone in your family, as if it were real. You will explain how Person X meant Y when they said Z, as if that meaning were real.

Then you will return here and insist that subjective meaning is meaningless because it's not absolute/universal/eternal.

I thought, for a sec, that you were finally seeing the tautological and inconsistent nature of your argument, but I guess not.

Edited to add: The bottom line, Seer, is this. Every argument I have ever heard about the non-viability of a subjective moral framework always reduce to the same thing: it's not absolute/universal/eternal. That is not actually an argument - it's a restatement of (part of) the definition of a subjective moral framework. It doesn't actually say anything.

[seer]

I'm not sure how the conversation devolved to that. You again appear to be mocking subjective meaning on the sole basis that it's not absolute/universal/eternal. Yet tomorrow you will continue to use the subjectively derived English language, as if it actually has meaning. You will express why you find this or that book "meaningful," as if it actually has meaning. You will find meaning in an expression of hope or fear or joy from someone in your family, as if it were real. You will explain how Person X meant Y when they said Z, as if that meaning were real.

Then you will return here and insist that subjective meaning is meaningless because it's not absolute/universal/eternal.

I thought, for a sec, that you were finally seeing the tautological and inconsistent nature of your argument, but I guess not.

Edited to add: The bottom line, Seer, is this. Every argument I have ever heard about the non-viability of a subjective moral framework always reduce to the same thing: it's not absolute/universal/eternal. That is not actually an argument - it's a restatement of (part of) the definition of a subjective moral framework. It doesn't actually say anything.

I thought the Smalley thing was pretty funny. And no Carp, all you are left with are assertions. As if that is an argument! I mean talk about not actually saying anything. Why does your life have meaning? Because you say it has meaning... That is vicious circle.

[carpedm9587]

I thought the Smalley thing was pretty funny. And no Carp, all you are left with are assertions. As if that is an argument! I mean talk about not actually saying anything. Why does your life have meaning? Because you say it has meaning... That is vicious circle.

I'm afraid I do not see "circularity." I do see that subjective meaning is exactly that, subjectively derived. There is no circularity there, there is merely a definition of what "subjective meaning" (and "subjective morality," and "subjective <insert item here>" is). Definitions are, by their very nature, subjective assertions. I make no bones about the fact that each person asserts their own meaning, and morality, and purpose, and identifies the things they value. You have yet to show that there is a problem with that.

What you have done, repeatedly, is point out that subjective morality/meaning/purpose is not absolute/universal/eternal. So far, that is ALL you have done. As I have noted, that's not an argument - it's simply a restatement of what I've already said. And you have repeatedly found ways to disparage or discount subjective meaning, yet you continue to use subjective meaning each and every day as if it is real. So your two problems, which you have yet to address, is that you have not made an argument for morality/meaning needing to be universal/eternal/absolute, and you are disparaging/discounting something you do and accept each and every day. Indeed, you do it each time you post - since the meaning of language is likewise subjectively derived. So the very thing you discount, you then actually use.

You're not being consistent, my friend, and you're not making a case for your position.

So see if you can do this: explain why subjective morality fails WITHOUT simply noting that it is not universal/absolute/eternal. I do not think it is possible for you to do that. That is what I discovered 30 years ago, when similarly challenged.

[Tassman]

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).

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...origins-107133

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.

It is reasonable to assume that Jesus, as a Jew, accepted the Jewish tradition that a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth.

Jesus DID

[Tassman]

This is getting tedious. This is your basic argument. Man A invents meaning, therefore life has meaning. Man B does not find meaning in life, therefore life does not have meaning. Do I have that right?

[carpedm9587]

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.

I completely missed this post. I think, Seer, you will find that science tells us it is life the moment the egg and the sperm are formed. Both are living. It is human life at the moment of conception. Only then does it have the 46 chromosomes of a human being. Science cannot fully tell us when it is a human person. That is a part science and part philosophy. I believe it is a human person at time of implantation.

[seer]

I completely missed this post. I think, Seer, you will find that science tells us it is life the moment the egg and the sperm are formed. Both are living. It is human life at the moment of conception. Only then does it have the 46 chromosomes of a human being. Science cannot fully tell us when it is a human person. That is a part science and part philosophy. I believe it is a human person at time of implantation.

Carp, I said human life at the moment of conception, Tass was speaking of human life. Personhood is an arbitrary and subjective consideration and useless...

[seer]

I really don't care what the Jews thought, and that varied. It does not change the fact that that is a human being at the moment of conception. And what is considered a "full person" is completely arbitrary and useless. There are a number of academics, and even our own Starlight, who don't think born children are full persons deserving of rights.

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/201...cs-2011-100411

Because he is better than a baby killer and is putting conservative judges on the federal courts, who may one day end this holocaust?