Nihilism

[theVOID]

Uh, I was stating that there are other methods for dealing with conflict between values other than confrontation, is that not true?

I think that's debatable depending on one's semantic and practical understanding of confrontation. I would still like an explanation of how your statements relate to my quote.

Is praising someone when they do something good confrontation? I wouldn't think it possible to rule that as confrontation.

You said that if we have a destructive person the way to deal with them is confrontation. It's one thing, but not the only thing.

Here's the proof:

1. All values exist as a relationship between desires and states of affairs and/or objects.
2. Desires are the only objects of evaluation that exist regarding value.
3. That which is good for an individual is that which fulfils the most/strongest desires from their competing sets of desires.
4. Morality is a subset of value dealing with shared values (good for us).
5. The values in question when it comes to making moral evaluation are all other desires (competing values)
6. Therefore, that which is morally good (good for us) is a desire that tends to fulfil the most and/or strongest desires from competing sets of desires.

If you spot any flaws feel free to point them out.

I don't understand your argument. I'm unconvinced that moral propositions are true or false depending on objective features of the universe. Perhaps you would have better success if you presented an example of a moral proposition, and then proved it true or false using some objective features of the universe.

Relational measurements are objective - There is a true or false answer. The distance to the sun form the earth is a relational measurement and there is a true or false answer at any given time. I am saying that because all values are relationships between desires and states of affairs and/or objects, and because shared values are relationships between competing sets of desires, we can objectively determine whether a desire is good or bad, and thus determine whether a value is good or bad, relative to it's ability to have the most utility for the most people (which necessarily has the most value if the premise about values being desires is true).

There are two categories of value here.

1. Individual value that deals with the individual's internal competing sets of desires.
2. Shared value that deals with competing sets of desires when they overlap.

If what is good for an individual is fulfilling the most and/or strongest desires from their internal competing sets of desires, then what is good for society is that which fulfils the most and/or strongest desires from their competing sets of desires.

This is necessarily true if the premise "All values exist as a relationship between desires and states of affairs or objects" is true.

Examples:

Suffering is not necessarily morally wrong, if a person enjoys suffering then a desire that tends to cause suffering is good for them and any situation where their desires are the only ones in question a desire to inflict suffering is a good desire for all involved. This desire however is bad for the most people - It tends to thwart more and stronger desires than it fulfils, thus people have a reason for action to condemn the desire to inflict suffering.

Rape is morally wrong because it is not possible to desire to be raped (by definition), thus rape is a desire that if was in a population would thwart more and stronger desires than it promoted. Even someone who desires to rape others necessarily does not desire to be raped.

Euthanasia is amoral as it is a desire to end the life of someone who does not desire to live. A desire not to live is a desire that in the case of the person wishing to die is stronger than all of their conflicting desires, thus it is not morally wrong to end their lives.