Devil's advocate for why ontology is meaningless and vacuous.

[Jenny A]

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 may be fuzzy , premise 1 doesn't make sense to me. Ontology is the study of what is existent. So the statement seems redundant. All you've said is subjectivity is objectively extent. Is that all you mean?

Premise 2 is also fuzzy. Moral values subjective in that there is no agreed upon moral standard. But some proposed standards are objective so morals are not wholly subjectve.

As per premise 3 subjective values are objectively found to reside in people's brains.

Premise 4 merely means just because all humans objectively have moral standards doesn't mean they have the same moral standards.

Premise 5 makes no sense to me either. Extant objectivity is valueless or meaningless because there is no difference between existing objective and subjective morals?

Regardless, you premises don't lead to the conclusion that existence is a meaningless term.