Devil's advocating for some premises:

Premise 1. Subjectivity is ontologically objectively existent.

Premise 2. Moral values are purely and wholely epistemlogically subjective.

Premise 3. Those wholly epistemolgically subjective moral values reside ontologically objectively existent within all human brains.

Premise 4. Those ontologically objectively existent moral values residing in human brains are just as capable of disageeing with one another as if they were not ontologically objective.

Premise 5. Ontological objectivity is both entirely meaningless and valueless and there is no difference whatsoever between ontologically objective moral values and fully subjective moral values.

In summary I'd conclude that ontology is meaningless. 'Being' is indefinable and therefore no different to 'nothingness' because nothingness can't be anything anyway because it's nothing. There is no nothing.

My brain is too smushy for this one, turtlepants.

Thanks for dropping on the thread to say "hi" though

I will admit.... this is too much deep thinking for me to even understand all that.

Funnily enough I was just thinking about doing a video about how objective morality is a useless concept. If I remember right, you used to try and block me on that. Have you come over to the dark side?

People tend to get around it by just positing their own value system, and telling anyone who disagrees that their value system is "not morality". No True Scotsman fallacy.

Well since the universe built Man, is there anything in natural law that would lend itself to a moral compass? Like a magnetic reaction for every electric action? Is there uprightness in polarity?

(September 6, 2016 at 10:10 am)robvalue Wrote: Funnily enough I was just thinking about doing a video about how objective morality is a useless concept. If I remember right, you used to try and block me on that. Have you come over to the dark side?

I'm half dark.

I'll elaborate if you like.

(September 6, 2016 at 9:49 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

---

Devil's advocating for some premises:

Premise 1. Subjectivity is ontologically objectively existent.

Premise 2. Moral values are purely and wholely epistemlogically subjective.

Premise 3. Those wholly epistemolgically subjective moral values reside ontologically objectively existent within all human brains.

Premise 4.  Those ontologically objectively existent moral values residing in human brains are just as capable of disageeing with one another as if they were not ontologically objective.

Premise 5. Ontological objectivity is both entirely meaningless and valueless and there is no difference whatsoever between ontologically objective moral values and fully subjective moral values.

In summary I'd conclude that ontology is meaningless. 'Being' is indefinable and therefore no different to 'nothingness' because nothingness can't be anything anyway because it's nothing. There is no nothing.

---

I wanted to bump this thread; so I can comment later. But in the mean time, I wanted to see if you could clarify what you mean in premise 2: "Moral values are purely and wholely epistemlogically subjective".

(September 6, 2016 at 10:45 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I wanted to bump this thread; so I can comment later.  But in the mean time, I wanted to see if you could clarify what you mean in premise 2:  "Moral values are purely and wholely epistemlogically subjective".

Sure. I mean that our own values are objectively unknowable.

(September 6, 2016 at 10:23 am)Arkilogue Wrote: Well since the universe built Man, is there anything in natural law that would lend itself to a moral compass? Like a magnetic reaction for every electric action? Is there uprightness in polarity?

Nope.

Morality is essentially arbitrary. Sure, you could pick some natural something or other and follow it, but that choice is subjective. And pretty pointless, really. Why would you try and emulate nature rather than thinking for yourself?