Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[seer]

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.

Of course it is circular Carp, why does life have meaning, because you say so. But why do you say so? And yes, if there isn't a universal tie in then again there is no way to judge between different opinion on this matter. How is a claim significant or meaningful if there is no way to decide who or what is right? Is the man who finds meaning right or the man who sees life as meaningless right? You may find your belief in meaning significant, the nihilist would not. And neither would I.

[carpedm9587]

Of course it is circular Carp, why does life have meaning, because you say so. But why do you say so?

An assertion and a circular argument are not the same thing, Seer. By definition, subjective meanings are assertions by the individual. They are unique to each individual.

And yes, if there isn't a universal tie in then again there is no way to judge between different opinion on this matter.

This is not an objection, it is a restatement of what it means for something to be "subjective." You aren't doing any more than re-explaining the definition of the terms.

How is a claim significant or meaningful if there is no way to decide who or what is absolutely/universally/eternally right?

I took the liberty of inserting the words you left out. In a the world of subjective meaning, there IS no universal/absolute/eternal meaning. So your objection, apparently, to "subjective meaning" is to complain that it is not absolute/universal/eternal. This is still not an argument. Your re-stating the meaning of "subjective meaning" and making an argument out of "outrage." That's not an argument. No one ever claimed subjective meaning had universal/absolute/eternal meaning. No one expects it to. And you still have not made the case that absolute/eternal/universal meaning/purpose/value is somehow superior to subjective meaning/purpose/value.

Is the man who finds meaning right or the man who sees life as meaningless right?

Because each is expressing a subjective point of view, they can both be right without contradiction. I've answered this several times. You appear to not like, or perhaps not see, the answer.

You may find your belief in meaning significant, the nihilist would not. And neither would I.

Since you have your own subjective opinion on the matter, no one requires you to agree that my life has meaning. Somewhere along the line you apparently decided that only universal/absolute/eternal things have real meaning/purpose/value. You do not live that way, as I have noted, but you made this decision anyway. You are not even living your own philosophy. You also engage in subjective assessments/purposing/valuation and you treat them on a daily basis as if they have real meaning. Your inconsistency undermines your own assertions.

[seer]

I took the liberty of inserting the words you left out. In a the world of subjective meaning, there IS no universal/absolute/eternal meaning. So your objection, apparently, to "subjective meaning" is to complain that it is not absolute/universal/eternal. This is still not an argument. Your re-stating the meaning of "subjective meaning" and making an argument out of "outrage." That's not an argument. No one ever claimed subjective meaning had universal/absolute/eternal meaning. No one expects it to. And you still have not made the case that absolute/eternal/universal meaning/purpose/value is somehow superior to subjective meaning/purpose/value.

Because each is expressing a subjective point of view, they can both be right without contradiction. I've answered this several times. You appear to not like, or perhaps not see, the answer.

Since you have your own subjective opinion on the matter, no one requires you to agree that my life has meaning. Somewhere along the line you apparently decided that only universal/absolute/eternal things have real meaning/purpose/value. You do not live that way, as I have noted, but you made this decision anyway. You are not even living your own philosophy. You also engage in subjective assessments/purposing/valuation and you treat them on a daily basis as if they have real meaning. Your inconsistency undermines your own assertions.

Carp, I do not live inconsistently when it comes to meaning since I don't believe that we merely the accidental by product of the laws of nature, that we have purpose and meaning that is independent of what we subjectively believe or not.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, I do not live inconsistently when it comes to meaning since I don't believe that we merely the accidental by product of the laws of nature, that we have purpose and meaning that is independent of what we subjectively believe or not.

I know you believe that. But you also accept subjective meaning as "real" and meaningful as well (witness the fact that you are using language to write this post, whose meaning is entirely subjectively derived), yet you disparage it as "unreal" when it is suggested that it might apply to morality as well. You have never, Seer, made an argument for absolute/universal/eternal morality. What you do, over and over, is one or more of the following:

• Attempt to associate moral law with mathematical principles, with no justification for this beyond "it's even more important than math," and ignoring a much more apt association: moral principles and law.
• Attempt to disparage "subjective morality" by linking it to whimsical preferences like food, erroneously assuming that all preferences are equally trivial.
• Attempt to object on the basis of "it's not universal/eternal/absolute, which does nothing more than repeat a variation of the definition of "subjective."
• Attempt to claim that subjective meaning/value/purpose (including moral statements) are not "real" because they are not universal/eternal/absolute, but then turn around and treat subjective meaning/value/purpose as very real in your everyday life (I still don't have your bank codes, and you are still writing using English words).

I've addressed each of these points over and over and over again, but you continue to return to them as if they have never been responded to. At the end of the day, they are the essence of your argument, except that none of them actually refute anything and most of them are not even sound arguments.

I also set a challenge that you have completely ignored: show how "subjective morality" fails WITHOUT resorting to some variation on the obvious statement that it's not universal/eternal/absolute.

That is where I see the discussion currently sitting.

[seer]

I know you believe that. But you also accept subjective meaning as "real" and meaningful as well (witness the fact that you are using language to write this post, whose meaning is entirely subjectively derived), yet you disparage it as "unreal" when it is suggested that it might apply to morality as well. You have never, Seer, made an argument for absolute/universal/eternal morality. What you do, over and over, is one or more of the following:

• Attempt to associate moral law with mathematical principles, with no justification for this beyond "it's even more important than math," and ignoring a much more apt association: moral principles and law.
• Attempt to disparage "subjective morality" by linking it to whimsical preferences like food, erroneously assuming that all preferences are equally trivial.
• Attempt to object on the basis of "it's not universal/eternal/absolute, which does nothing more than repeat a variation of the definition of "subjective."
• Attempt to claim that subjective meaning/value/purpose (including moral statements) are not "real" because they are not universal/eternal/absolute, but then turn around and treat subjective meaning/value/purpose as very real in your everyday life (I still don't have your bank codes, and you are still writing using English words).

Nonsense Carp, here again I never claimed that all subjectively was useless. But we are speaking of a specific subject. The meaning of life, and there subjectivity just pulls the rug out. If meaning is completely subjective then it is completely malleable with no objective grounding. Hitler's meaning is just as correct, or not, as Gandhi's. And I never said that they were not real, you may really believe that you are Napoleon. That is a real belief. But they are trivial, as are our moral musings, since in the big picture, we are trivial. In an evolutionary sense we are no more significant than a common housefly, even if you make up meaning for yourself that fact does not change.

[carpedm9587]

Nonsense Carp, here again I never claimed that all subjectively was useless. But we are speaking of a specific subject. The meaning of life, and there subjectivity just pulls the rug out.

That it does for you is clear. Frankly, it did for me too when I first realized I had no argument for these points. It does not necessarily do so, as I have learned since. Life having a subjective meaning has not, in any way, diminished my life or worldview.

If meaning is completely subjective then it is completely malleable with no objective grounding.

You have just (again) repeated the definition of "subjective." You haven't actually made an argument, except one out of some sort of "outrage" or "incredulity." That's not an argument.

Hitler's meaning is just as correct, or not, as Gandhi's.

Yes - Hitler's subjective meaning for his life was one thing to him, Gandhi's for his life was another to him. Again, you are merely repeating what it means to be "subjective."

And I never said that they were not real,

Actually, Seer, go back and read your posts. You have said and/or implied this many many times. Or you have said/implied they are ultimately valueless. Or ultimately meaningless. I've lost track of the number of times I've "inserted the word you left out" when you made this "meaningless" claim. This has been, many times, the heart of your argument. The assumption is, when push comes to shove, because they are not universal/absolute/eternal, they lack substance/reality/value/etc.

you may really believe that you are Napoleon. That is a real belief. But they are trivial, as are our moral musings, since in the big picture, we are trivial.

And now we have a new one: "in the big picture" is a euphemism for "universal." Once again, you seem to be complaining that subjective meaning/value/purpose are inadequate because they are not universal/absolute/eternal. You simply cannot help yourself, Seer. This IS your argument and, as I have pointed out multiple times, it's not an argument. It's a restatement of the definition of what it means to be subjective, and then incredulousness/outrage that anyone would find them useful/meaningful - "in the big picture."

In an evolutionary sense we are no more significant than a common housefly, even if you make up meaning for yourself that fact does not change.

Evolution is not a sentient process/person, so it has no mechanism for measuring significance. Ergo, the sentence, "in an evolutionary sense we are no more significant" is a bit of a nonsequitor. Significance is measured by sentient beings. We, the sentient beings, look at the product of the evolutionary process and see/assign significance. I experience myself as more significant than a housefly. Does the universe? No. Does god? There is no such being. Is my self-assessment as "more significant than a housefly" false? Nope. I can quantify it in many dimensions: intellect, strength, etc. That classification is real - it is meaningful - and it governs (in part) how I make choices. Do I need a god to define my significance? I don't see why.

You just keep coming back to the same mantra, Seer. It's all you have: it can't be subjective because then it's not universal/absolute/eternal, coupled with an argument from outrage/incredulity. You have not even begun to make the case that "universal/absolute/eternal" is definitively better than subjective.

For the record, I don't think you are ignoring my challenge; I think it is not possible for you to respond to it. If you can, I will seriously have to rethink my worldview. A great deal of why I have it is linked to my realization that there was no response to the question.

Edited to Add: I'm not sure if there is value to continuing, Seer. You appear to be resolute in believing you are saying something, and I have shown, from all four directions your argument tends to proceed, how what you are saying isn't really an argument. If you recall, I said this when we first started out. I have never encountered anyone arguing for "absolute/universal/eternal morality" that wasn't simply engaging in a tautological argument. I'm not sure there is any new ground to be covered here, unless you have a different approach to try. The one you are continually using simply does not work - for the reasons I've outlined.

[seer]

That it does for you is clear. Frankly, it did for me too when I first realized I had no argument for these points. It does not necessarily do so, as I have learned since. Life having a subjective meaning has not, in any way, diminished my life or worldview.

Right, you make up your own meaning, and that makes you happy. I get it.

You have just (again) repeated the definition of "subjective." You haven't actually made an argument, except one out of some sort of "outrage" or "incredulity." That's not an argument.

Yes - Hitler's subjective meaning for his life was one thing to him, Gandhi's for his life was another to him. Again, you are merely repeating what it means to be "subjective."

And my point has not changed, and my point logically follows. Without an independent standard there is no right answer.

Actually, Seer, go back and read your posts. You have said and/or implied this many many times. Or you have said/implied they are ultimately valueless. Or ultimately meaningless. This has been, many times, the heart of your argument. The assumption is, when push comes to shove, because they are not universal/absolute/eternal, they lack substance/reality/value/etc.

I did not use the word real. Meaningless, yes, and I still hold to that. I believe that a man can really believe he is Napoleon. That is a real belief. You make up meaning for your life, I believe that belief is real.

And now we have a new one: "in the big picture" is a euphemism for "universal." Once again, you seem to be complaining that subjective meaning/value/purpose are inadequate because they are not universal/absolute/eternal. You simply cannot help yourself, Seer. This IS your argument and, as I have pointed out multiple times, it's not an argument. It's a restatement of the definition of what it means to be subjective, and then incredulousness/outrage that anyone would find them useful/meaningful - "in the big picture."

Well of course Carp, I am a Christian, so it is a big picture argument, just as my math example works perfectly from my worldview.

Evolution is not a sentient process/person, so it has no mechanism for measuring significance. Ergo, the sentence, "in an evolutionary sense we are no more significant" is a bit of a nonsequitor. Significance is measured by sentient beings. We, the sentient beings, look at the product of the evolutionary process and see/assign significance. I experience myself as more significant than a housefly. Does the universe? No. Does god? There is no such being. Is my self-assessment as "more signifiant than a housefly" false? Nope. I can quantify it in many dimensions: intellect, strength, etc. That classification is real - it is meaningful - and it governs (in part) how I make choices.

Yet your criterion is arbitrary. In an evolutionary sense survival is the main consideration, and that being case bacteria have a greater significance than us. I mean really I don't mind you pretending that you are more significant, though some people would call that speciesism.

I don' tthink you are ignoring my challenge - I think it is not possible for you to respond to it. If you can, I will seriously have to rethink my worldview. A great deal of why I have it is linked to my realization that there was no response to the question.

What challenge?

[carpedm9587]

Right, you make up your own meaning, and that makes you happy. I get it.

And my point has not changed, and my point logically follows. Without an independent standard there is no right answer.

I'm beginning to think that you really do not see the tautological nature of your argument, Seer. You keep coming back to it post after post after post, repeating the same mantra, and simply not seeing that you aren't actually making an argument.

I did not use the word real. Meaningless, yes, and I still hold to that. I believe that a man can really believe he is Napoleon. That is a real belief. You make up meaning for your life, I believe that belief is real.

We'll let go of "real." I understand you see there is a reality (an existence) to subjective beliefs. But you continue to hold to "meaningless," as you note. Yet you continue to use subjectively meaningful things throughout your everyday life, and treat them as if they actually have meaning. So you SAY "meaningless' and you "DO" meaningful. That inconsistency informs me.

Well of course Carp, I am a Christian, so it is a big picture argument, just as my math example works perfectly from my worldview.

Of COURSE it works perfectly in your worldview. You cling to it BECAUSE it affirms your worldview. And you are willing to do so despite the number of times it has been shown to be an arbitrary association, and you reject what has been shown to be a far better analogy because it will take you somewhere you do not want to go. I've already addressed this several times. You are not choosing the math analogy because it has a logical relationship to morality/ethics; you are choosing it because mathematics IS based on universal/absolute/eternal concepts, and you want to be able to say ethics/morality is too. To see this, just try the following experiment: ask yourself "how are mathematical principles like moral principles, OTHER than the claim that they are both based on absolute/eternal/universal conditions. I have shown you two ways that ethics/moral principles are like legal ones. Can you show me two ways mathematical principles are like moral ones?

If you can't, then I submit to you that you have chosen math specifically because of the conclusion you want to reach - universal/absolute/eternal. It is the only thing they have in common. I further submit that we should use the ethics/legal analogy because it is clearly and demonstrably the better fit.

Yet your criterion is arbitrary. In an evolutionary sense survival is the main consideration, and that being case bacteria have a greater significance than us. I mean really I don't mind you pretending that you are more significant, though some people would call that speciesism.

Argumentation by disparagement/ridicule: labeling things as arbitrary or using the term "pretending." Are you pretending to love your family, Seer? Are you pretending to find value in your bank account? Are you pretending that the words on this page have meaning? Neither am I "pretending" to have significance. As for arbitrary, it means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." Hardly. We can chose multiple metrics, and on each of them assess our relative significance. Strength. Ability to think. Ability to fly. Ability to walk. Ability to manipulate the environment. For some of these, we will assess "better" or "more significant" than another being, on others we will assess less. However, when you look at the impact the human species has had on this planet as a whole, it is not arbitrary to note that we have more significance than pretty much any other species. Widen that scope to the universe, and we are not much more or less significant than any other species. Change the context - change the significance.

What challenge?

I asked you, several posts ago and several times, if it was possible for you to make the case why a subjective moral/ethical worldview fails WITHOUT resorting to simply pointing out that it is subjective. You typically do that by noting that it is NOT universal/absolute/eternal - which is essentially the same thing. If we were talking about about cars, and you were trying to argue that a chevy is a failed automobile, your argument would look like this:

Question - "Why is a chevy a failed automobile?"
Answer - "Because it's a chevy"
Response - "Um, that's not really saying anything."
New Answer - "Because it's not a car other than a chevy."
Response - "You just gave me the same answer in different words - it's still not an answer."
New Answer - "I'm telling you the other car is the successful one. Think of it like this - a horse is a successful animal, so a Mercedes is a successful car."
Response - "Wait a sec. Horses and cars don't have anything to do with each other - you're not saying anything.
New Answer - "Yes I am. A Chevy is a failed car because it's not a Mercedes (or any other kind of car).

Now look at the parallel -

Question - "Why is a subjective moral framework a failed framework?"
Answer - "Because it's subjective"
Response - "Um, that's not really saying anything."
New Answer - "Because it's not universal/absolute/eternal, so it's meaningless"
Response - "You just gave me the same answer in different words - it's still not an answer."
New Answer - "I'm telling you the universal/absolute/eternal moral framework is the successful one. Think of it like this - math depends on universal/absolute/eternal principles or its meaningless, so a universal/absolute/eternal moral framework is like mathematical principles."
Response - "Wait a sec. Mathematical principles and moral principles don't have anything to do with each other - you're not saying anything.
New Answer - "Yes I am. A subjective moral framework is a failed one because it's not universal/absolute/eternal.

And round and round and round we go....

[seer]

We'll let go of "real." I understand you see there is a reality (an existence) to subjective beliefs. But you continue to hold to "meaningless," as you note. Yet you continue to use subjectively meaningful things throughout your everyday life, and treat them as if they actually have meaning. So you SAY "meaningless' and you "DO" meaningful. That inconsistency informs me.

Carp, how may times to I have to say this. Even if I was somewhat hypocritical in my behavior that does not bear on the question. I man can try to survive and even provide for his family but still believe it is all meaningless. And some people just blow their brains out

Of COURSE it works perfectly in your worldview. You cling to it BECAUSE it affirms your worldview. And you are willing to do so despite the number of times it has been shown to be an arbitrary association, and you reject what has been shown to be a far better analogy because it will take you somewhere you do not want to go. I've already addressed this several times. You are not choosing the math analogy because it has a logical relationship to morality/ethics; you are choosing it because mathematics IS based on universal/absolute/eternal concepts, and you want to be able to say ethics/morality is too. To see this, just try the following experiment: ask yourself "how are mathematical principles like moral principles, OTHER than the claim that they are both based on absolute/eternal/universal conditions. I have shown you two ways that ethics/moral principles are like legal ones. Can you show me two ways mathematical principles are like moral ones?

I already told you why, you can not now demand something "other." Both are universal. And I would include legal principles too since the law of God is also universal. Since I am a Christian these things are backed into my worldview.

If you can't, then I submit to you that you have chosen math specifically because of the conclusion you want to reach - universal/absolute/eternal. It is the only thing they have in common. I further submit that we should use the ethics/legal analogy because it is clearly and demonstrably the better fit.

Except I don't believe that law is any less universal

Argumentation by disparagement/ridicule: labeling things as arbitrary or using the term "pretending." Are you pretending to love your family, Seer? Are you pretending to find value in your bank account? Are you pretending that the words on this page have meaning? Neither am I "pretending" to have significance. As for arbitrary, it means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." Hardly. We can chose multiple metrics, and on each of them assess our relative significance. Strength. Ability to think. Ability to fly. Ability to walk. Ability to manipulate the environment. For some of these, we will assess "better" or "more significant" than another being, on others we will assess less. However, when you look at the impact the human species has had on this planet as a whole, it is not arbitrary to note that we have more significance than pretty much any other species. Widen that scope to the universe, and we are not much more or less significant than any other species. Change the context - change the significance.

No, I don't pretend to love my family but again, I never said that all subjectivity was useless. You keep moving off the subject of meaning. That if I find a certain meaning in my back account, it must translate to generally finding meaning with life. That does not follow. And your criterion is still arbitrary, especially in light of the most important consideration - survival.

I asked you, several posts ago and several times, if it was possible for you to make the case why a subjective moral/ethical worldview fails WITHOUT resorting to simply pointing out that it is subjective. You typically do that by noting that it is NOT universal/absolute/eternal - which is essentially the same thing. If we were talking about about cars, and you were trying to argue that a chevy is a failed automobile, your argument would look like this:

And I will repeat my point, you have a nihilist who thinks life is meaningless, all he has, all he does, all he loves will die and turn to dust. Another man believes otherwise. You can not even say who is right. Why should I consider your claim to meaning to be any more significant than the man who believes he is Napoleon. Both are held as true beliefs.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, how may times to I have to say this. Even if I was somewhat hypocritical in my behavior that does not bear on the question. I man can try to survive and even provide for his family but still believe it is all meaningless. And some people just blow their brains out.

I understand you do not believe it bears on the question. I believe it does. That you cannot live your life without depending on "subjective meaning" tells me that subjective meaning is not "meaningless." It is meaningful. It is subjectively meaningful, just as absolute/universal/eternal concepts have a meaning that is absolute/universal/eternal. Both types of meaning have their place in how we live and how we function. Your selective dismissal of subjective meaning as "meaningless" is simply false - because you are not even capable of living out that philosophy. It's not about your hypocrisy - it's about your inability to actually live as if these things are meaningless. You aren't just failing to live up to an ideal; you are espousing an ideal it is not possible to live up to.

I already told you why, you can not now demand something "other." Both are universal. And I would include legal principles too since the law of God is also universal. Since I am a Christian these things are backed into my worldview.

You haven't, Seer, but I dont think you see it. And I don't think you see the damage that does to your argument. Here is how an analogy works, Seer. You take Thing A that has demonstrable similarities to Thing B. You then you use those similarities to make a point abou some characteristic X. What you are doing is taking Thing A, which has NO similarity to Thing B, and then claiming that because Thing A has characteristic X, so too must Thing B. It just doesn't work. Mathematics shares nothing in common with moral principles. Ergo you cannot say that, because mathematical principles are rooted in universal/eternal/absolutes, so too are moral principles. The argument fails before it even starts.

On the other hand, we can note that moral/ethical principles and legal principles have two major things in common: they both govern human behavior, they both require intepretation to apply them to particular actions in particular circumstances. They share a great deal in common. And we can see that the idea of a legal system is clearly functional, given that every government on the planet has implemented one. We have thousands of functional examples of a subjective, behavior-guiding, interpreted code being used to successfully govern human activity. Ergo the argument that "moral/ethical principles fail because they are subjective" cannot even get off the ground.

Except I don't believe that law is any less universal

Really? So human legal systems - universal? How about the laws of physics? We don't even know they are universal at all quantum levels, never mind at the very start of the universe, or in other possible universes. Mathematical and logical principles are the only two "laws" or "principles" I know of that are not conditioned on context. You want to add moral principles to the list, but with absolutely no successful argument for doing so, except to simply claim "it must be so."

No, I don't pretend to love my family but again, I never said that all subjectivity was useless. You keep moving off the subject of meaning. That if I find a certain meaning in my back account, it must translate to generally finding meaning with life. That does not follow. And your criterion is still arbitrary, especially in light of the most important consideration - survival.

Who says "survival" is the most important consideration? Isn't that somewhat arbitrary of you? Why is survival the sine qua non. And do you mean individual survival? Species survival? Genus survival? What is your context?

And your statement about meaning does not seem to address what I have repeatedly pointed out: subjective meaning is subjectively meaningful; universal/absolute/eternal truths are universally/absolutely/eternally meaningful. You have not made a case the morality MUST be in the latter set, but have continually insisted it is "meaningless" in the former set. Why? Because it's subjective. But we have already agreed that subjective meaning is still meaningful - it's just not universally/eternally/absolutely meaningful. So your objection is that subjective morality fails because it's not universally/eternally/absolutely meaningful, but all that is doing is repeating the definition of "subjective." Yo haven't actually SAID anything. You haven't made an argument. And you haven't shown my moral principles have any more need to be universal/absolute/eternal than legal ones, with which they share a great deal in common, and are pretty widely seen as meaningful - subjectively meaningful - which we agree is a valid form of meaning.

And I will repeat my point, you have a nihilist who thinks life is meaningless, all he has, all he does, all he loves will die and turn to dust. Another man believes otherwise. You can not even say who is right. Why should I consider your claim to meaning to be any more significant than the man who believes he is Napoleon. Both are held as true beliefs.

Yes I can. Again, you left out the word "universal/absolute/eternal." I cannot "absolutely/eternally/universally" say who is right, because the two men are making subjective statements about the meaning of their life. So the nihilist is right, for him, about his life. The other man is right about his life. You are trying to assess subjective assessment by absolute/eternal/universal metrics, but without justifying doing so. We're back to "the chevy fails because it's not a mercedes."

As for the man who believe he is Napoleon, there are beliefs about meaning, and there are beliefs about identity. It is fairly easy to show if a man is NOT Napoleon. I'm not sure why you even inserted that.

Seer, at this point, I am finding myself repeating the same thing over and over, and you come back to the same arguments over and over. I understand that you are uncomfortable with subjective morality because you need there to be "an answer," the "right answer." You are uncomfortable with a man deriving meaning for his own life because you need that to be externally defined, eternal, and absolute, or it's just "dust in the wind." Without a god, life is purposeless, life is meaningless, all is for naught. Without a fixed moral framework, anyone can do anything anywhere and morally justify and nobody can say different. I understand you associated moral principles with mathematical principles, and that tells you they both have to be linked to universal/absolute/eternal roots.

What I do not think you are seeing is that, while you hold all of these positions (assuming I have captured them correctly), you do not have a rational basis for any of them. You are arguing out of incredulity, you are making tautological statements, and (I think) your argument is strongly flavored by that feeling of discomfort. After all, if that framework doesn't exist, what on earth do you do?

I can tell you that I've made that journey. I eventually saw the problem with my position and its lack of actual substance - of grounding - and its complete mismatch with how I lived my every day life. The kind of absolute moral framework you are trying to cling to simply doesn't exist, and it doesn't need to exist. And I have found it much more coherent to align my moral framework with what I see transpiring around and within me every day.

And with that - it is entirely possible we have exhausted our quivers. I can't think of anything to say I haven't already said, and I'm not sure you yet understand it. At least, I've never seen you reflect it back to me accurately. I do think I understand yours, but you are better positioned to tell me if I have accurately reflect your position back to you.

[seer]

Seer, at this point, I am finding myself repeating the same thing over and over, and you come back to the same arguments over and over. I understand that you are uncomfortable with subjective morality because you need there to be "an answer," the "right answer." You are uncomfortable with a man deriving meaning for his own life because you need that to be externally defined, eternal, and absolute, or it's just "dust in the wind." Without a god, life is purposeless, life is meaningless, all is for naught. Without a fixed moral framework, anyone can do anything anywhere and morally justify and nobody can say different. I understand you associated moral principles with mathematical principles, and that tells you they both have to be linked to universal/absolute/eternal roots.

No Carp, I have no problem with you inventing meaning for yourself, I understand the emotional need.

Yes I can. Again, you left out the word "universal/absolute/eternal." I cannot "absolutely/eternally/universally" say who is right, because the two men are making subjective statements about the meaning of their life. So the nihilist is right, for him, about his life. The other man is right about his life. You are trying to assess subjective assessment by absolute/eternal/universal metrics, but without justifying doing so. We're back to "the chevy fails because it's not a mercedes."

And we are back to the beginning. If the nihilist believes life is meaningless, he is right. If a man doesn't believe that life is meaningless he is right. Two contradictory positions are right.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, I have no problem with you inventing meaning for yourself, I understand the emotional need.

You are consistent - I'll give you that.

And we are back to the beginning. If the nihilist believes life is meaningless, he is right. If a man doesn't believe that life is meaningless he is right. Two contradictory positions are right.

Yes they are - because they are subjective positions. Just as one man can say, "That tree is beautiful" and another can look at the same tree and say "That tree is ugly." Since beauty is a subjective measure, whether or not the tree is beautiful will be a function of what characteristics each man values as "beauty." If one values symmetry, and the other values wild, eratic growth, they can hold opposing positions about the same tree with no contradiction.

You still are not saying anything, Seer. But I have the feeling you think you are.

[seer]

You are consistent - I'll give you that.

Well of course, a man wants to believe his life is significant despite the facts.

[carpedm9587]

Well of course, a man wants to believe his life is significant despite the facts.

I'm not sure I agree. I don't want to "believe my life has significance." I want to make my life have significance. For me, significance is not about what I believe, it's about what I choose to do. So I can spend my day watching TV, playing video games, and reading comic books - which I would not find to be very significant - or I can work to feed my family, support various charities, gather with friends, tackle social justice issues, and do other things that I find to be "significant." Then I don't have to work very hard to "believe" my life has significance - I am making it significant.

[seer]

I'm not sure I agree. I don't want to "believe my life has significance." I want to make my life have significance. For me, significance is not about what I believe, it's about what I choose to do. So I can spend my day watching TV, playing video games, and reading comic books - which I would not find to be very significant - or I can work to feed my family, support various charities, gather with friends, tackle social justice issues, and do other things that I find to be "significant." Then I don't have to work very hard to "believe" my life has significance - I am making it significant.

Yes, but you are still subjectively deciding what things constitute significance, then when you act on them you are significant. It would be like me saying that drowning cute little kittens is a moral good, then declaring myself a moral man when I do it...