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

[RoadRunner79]

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.

I would think, that you can know your own values, as well; you could know the values of another (if they tell you) objectively; even if they are by nature subjective.  

I also wanted to see if you agree with the following statements in regards to the discussion:

When talking about ontologically objective; you are saying that the nature of the object is based on something outside of and independent of the subject (as opposed to relative to the subject).  
When talking about epistemically objective; you are speaking of facts or knowledge, which are independent of the subject. For example how we know that X is true or justified.  This would be opposed to a subjective interpretation or opinion of what those facts mean or in light of the unknown..

[Edwardo Piet]

I would think, that you can know your own values, as well; you could know the values of another (if they tell you) objectively; even if they are by nature subjective.

The former is untrue because of the nature of human irrationality, human infallibility and human inability to fully understand and know themselves.

The later is untrue for the more obvious reason that when someone tells you something there's no way you can know for sure that they're telling you the truth or a truth. They may be lying or honestly mistaken.

And if you can't know for sure how can you know for sure that you even know a little. And how can you know a little that you even know a little? It's rather self-collapsing and self-invalidating.

There is logical proof, there is mathematical proof and there is self-referential proof (I must exist and be experiencing this whatever the nature of "I" is and regardless of what the "this" that I am experiencing is). Other than that there is no knowledge unless you define knowledge differently.

[JuliaL]

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.

Premise 1:  OK-----I think I'm here.
Premise 2:  Unwarranted assumption: Absolute morals may or may not exist outside me, I have only my experiences to judge.
Premise 3:  Unwarranted assumption: Experiential, subjective evidence only suggests other consciousnesses and their similarity to me.
Premise 4:  Rejected as being subordinate to premise 3.
Premise 5:  Rejected as being subordinate to premise 3.

Aaaaand we're back at solipsism.

My model and explanation of moral frameworks is that they are emergent properties of persistent and replicating structures of information.  Common normative values in human societies consist of those which enable and improve the ability of that society to expand and replicate, to prosper.  e.g. Don't kill your neighbor (but killing the tribe member next door is OK.) Don't breed with your sister.  The societies which incorporate such rules prosper more and supplant those who don't.
To show objectivity in a moral imperative, you'd have to look at it from some other perspective.  For example, if human life were truly sacred, then momma bear would sacrifice her cub rather than killing the hunter.  What is observed is that she will sacrifice the hunter or perhaps herself to save her offspring, the perpetuation of her replicating structure.  I cannot observe her conscious reality as I cannot directly observe any other than my own, but I speculate that she sees the death of the hunter as "good."

[RoadRunner79]

I would think, that you can know your own values, as well; you could know the values of another (if they tell you) objectively; even if they are by nature subjective.

The former is untrue because of the nature of human irrationality, human infallibility and human inability to fully understand and know themselves.

The later is untrue for the more obvious reason that when someone tells you something there's no way you can know for sure that they're telling you the truth or a truth. They may be lying or honestly mistaken.

And if you can't know for sure how can you know for sure that you even know a little. And how can you know a little that you even know a little? It's rather self-collapsing and self-invalidating.

There is logical proof, there is mathematical proof and there is self-referential proof (I must exist and be experiencing this whatever the nature of "I" is and regardless of what the "this" that I am experiencing is). Other than that there is no knowledge unless you define knowledge differently.

It sounds as if you are saying, that there is no objective or subjective knowledge... There is only you, and you cannot even know what "you" is or holds to, accept for this one caveat.

I would agree, that it is self-collapsing and self-invalidating. And I don't think that we are on the same page concerning knowledge.

[Edwardo Piet]

Premise 2:  Unwarranted assumption: Absolute morals may or may not exist outside me, I have only my experiences to judge.

You're speaking of moral ontology which was already covered in premise 1.

Premise 3:  Unwarranted assumption: Experiential, subjective evidence only suggests other consciousnesses and their similarity to me.

Then you're not with premise 1. Premise 3 is not proven but it's reasonable to assume that what applies to one's own mind applies to others. We all have different values but we all have values in our minds. Not proven... but reasonable...yes?

[RoadRunner79]

Premise 2:  Unwarranted assumption: Absolute morals may or may not exist outside me, I have only my experiences to judge.

You're speaking of moral ontology which was already covered in premise 1.

I think that you left a word out or something. Your first premise doesn't mention morallity at all; and given the title, I didn't see any reason to assume as much.

[Edwardo Piet]

Okay I'll help you out. Or try to.

Okay here we go:

Subjectivity is ontologically objectively existent.

You accept this premise. So... this is the thing... we have subjective moral values. You accept that we have ontologically objectively existent subjectivity. Our subjective moral values reside within our subjectivity ontologically objectively speaking.

ETA: I did leave the word out. It was implicit. As a friend would say.

[Arkilogue]

 For example, if human life were truly sacred, then momma bear would sacrifice her cub rather than killing the hunter.  What is observed is that she will sacrifice the hunter or perhaps herself to save her offspring, the perpetuation of her replicating structure.  I cannot observe her conscious reality as I cannot directly observe any other than my own, but I speculate that she sees the death of the hunter as "good."

Interesting example but I think you took it one step too far. The hunter represents a threat to her and her offspring. I don't think that she sees the death of the hunter as good, persay, but the life of the hunter as bad. Like she wouldn't neccesarily be "happy" if she ran across a dead hunter randomly...unless she was hungry. While I'm not really sure what happy bear looks like, I do know what angry bear looks like.

[RoadRunner79]

Okay I'll help you out. Or try to.

Okay here we go:

Subjectivity is ontologically objectively existent.

You accept this premise. So... this is the thing... we have subjective moral values. You accept that we have ontologically objectively existent subjectivity. Our subjective moral values reside within our subjectivity ontologically objectively speaking.

ETA: I did leave the word out. It was implicit. As a friend would say.

Just to note... I think that you may be confusing my posts with Julia. I did reply to a post, in reference to her, because I believe there was some confusion.

I didn't read it as implicit. You didn't mention morality until premise 2, in which if I went back, I may have implied it, but I took it to mean what it said, without going back.

I could agree with what it says (i think).... I wouldn't agree morality is subjective in nature (if that is what you are saying).

[Edwardo Piet]

Oh shit sorry if I confused you two. I was only responding to what was said and not to who said it.