NationStates Jolt Archive

If morals are reletive (IE there is no such thing as a universal good or bad) then that basicly is equivelnt to nhileism. Here is why. If you accept that morals do not exist universally, then you must also accept that people like Hitler and Mother Teressa are moral equivlents. Although more people think Hitler was bad and Mother Teressa good, majority opinion counts for nothing in a world of reletivity. Thus it is easy to say that there is no such thing as a morally good action. Hence it is also easy to say that there is no such thing as a morally bad action. Thus no actions of any kind have any intrinsic value. Hence nothing we do at all matters. Hence life is meaningless, since nothing we do matters.

I don't agree with you.

Which makes opinions relative.

Morals are basically opinions.

So morals are relative.

If morals are reletive (IE there is no such thing as a universal good or bad) then that basicly is equivelnt to nhileism. Here is why. If you accept that morals do not exist universally, then you must also accept that people like Hitler and Mother Teressa are moral equivlents. Although more people think Hitler was bad and Mother Teressa good, majority opinion counts for nothing in a world of reletivity. Thus it is easy to say that there is no such thing as a morally good action. Hence it is also easy to say that there is no such thing as a morally bad action. Thus no actions of any kind have any intrinsic value. Hence nothing we do at all matters. Hence life is meaningless, since nothing we do matters.

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks?

I don't agree with you.

Which makes opinions relative.

Morals are basically opinions.

So morals are relative.

No. You may disagree with me, but that does not make morals reletive. The objective morality exists, but people do not always choose to obey it. What I am saying here is not part of the objective morality itself.

No. You may disagree with me, but that does not make morals reletive. The objective morality exists, but people do not always choose to obey it. What I am saying here is not part of the objective morality itself.

Relative. Really, this is getting annoying. You need to start spellchecking your posts. Dyslexia is not an excuse for laziness.

Relative. Really, this is getting annoying. You need to start spellchecking your posts. Dyslexia is not an excuse for laziness.

I've said it before and I will say it again. When you criticise on spelling, what you are generally saying is "I cant deal with the argument of the post so I'll work on a niggly little bit I can criticise"

No. You may disagree with me, but that does not make morals reletive. The objective morality exists, but people do not always choose to obey it. What I am saying here is not part of the objective morality itself.
So, basically, what it boils down to is "I'm right, and you're wrong no matter what you might think"?

So, basically, what it boils down to is "I'm right, and you're wrong no matter what you might think"?

Well I've explained why it cant be reletive. If you would like more I suggest you read the first chapter or so of "Mere Christianity" which explains it best.

I've said it before and I will say it again. When you criticise on spelling, what you are generally saying is "I cant deal with the argument of the post so I'll work on a niggly little bit I can criticise"
Yeah, but this is Fass. And we know that he can bitch and debate, etc.

I've said it before and I will say it again. When you criticise on spelling, what you are generally saying is "I cant deal with the argument of the post so I'll work on a niggly little bit I can criticise"

There is nothing to comment on in your post. What you're saying is "absolute morality exists because I say it exists because I wouldn't like it if it didn't because I like my religion." There is no commenting on such an ellipsis. What is however apparent in every post you make, every thread you start, and most of the titles, is that they are terribly misspelt, sometimes to such a degree that they are illegible. I suspect you are dyslexic, but as I said that does not excuse laziness - it just means you have to try harder.

Well I've explained why it cant be reletive.

No, you haven't. You've made assertions without backing them up. You may have attempted to, but you haven't explained anything.

If you would like more I suggest you read the first chapter or so of "Mere Christianity" which explains it best.
If I was a Christian that it might be of some relevance.

No, you haven't. You've made assertions without backing them up. You may have attempted to, but you haven't explained anything.

Moral reltivism would state that there is no such thing as an objective morality - Yes or no

Moral relitivism would state that universally speeking, the actions of mother Teressa and Hitler are morally equivlent and that the only diffrence between them is in other peoples perceptions. The actions are not univerally good or bad - Yes or no

If the answer to both those questions is yes, then my assertations are accurate. If the answer is no or some other answer, then I'd like to hear it.


If I was a Christian that it might be of some relevance.

Its not a book for Christians. Its a book explaining the Christian universe view, and why it holds true.

There is nothing to comment on in your post. What you're saying is "absolute morality exists because I say it exists because I wouldn't like it if it didn't because I like my religion." There is no commenting on such an ellipsis. What is however apparent in every post you make, every thread you start, and most of the titles, is that they are terribly misspelt, sometimes to such a degree that they are illegible. I suspect you are dyslexic, but as I said that does not excuse laziness - it just means you have to try harder.

Go home children- its over- nothing to see here anymore- go on... off with you...

If morals are reletive (IE there is no such thing as a universal good or bad) then that basicly is equivelnt to nhileism. Here is why. If you accept that morals do not exist universally, then you must also accept that people like Hitler and Mother Teressa are moral equivlents.

Or, rather, that on an objective level you cannot compare Mother Teresa and Hitler, because there is no standard for "morality" on the objective level.

Although more people think Hitler was bad and Mother Teressa good, majority opinion counts for nothing in a world of reletivity. Thus it is easy to say that there is no such thing as a morally good action.

Objectively.

Hence it is also easy to say that there is no such thing as a morally bad action.

Objectively.

Thus no actions of any kind have any intrinsic value.

True, though not proved by the premises.

Hence nothing we do at all matters. Hence life is meaningless, since nothing we do matters.

No. The fact that there is no objective system does not mean we cannot create our own system. Human beings are free; we can define ourselves and our values, and that provides its own meaning.

No. You may disagree with me, but that does not make morals reletive. The objective morality exists, but people do not always choose to obey it. What I am saying here is not part of the objective morality itself.
No it does not. Perhaps you don't know what "morality" ACTUALLY means.
For example, your charisma doesn't make an integral enough idea for me to obey you. Kind of depressing isn't it?

If morals are reletive (IE there is no such thing as a universal good or bad) then that basicly is equivelnt to nhileism. Here is why. If you accept that morals do not exist universally, then you must also accept that people like Hitler and Mother Teressa are moral equivlents. Although more people think Hitler was bad and Mother Teressa good, majority opinion counts for nothing in a world of reletivity. Thus it is easy to say that there is no such thing as a morally good action. Hence it is also easy to say that there is no such thing as a morally bad action. Thus no actions of any kind have any intrinsic value. Hence nothing we do at all matters. Hence life is meaningless, since nothing we do matters.

Moral Relativism doesn't mean you don't have your own morality. To you, Mother Teresa was good and Hitler was evil. According to you, there are morally good and bad actions. Thus things are good or bad to you under moral relativism.

Anyway, why does something have to be moral to matter? Plenty of cool things are immoral.

I've said it before and I will say it again. When you criticise on spelling, what you are generally saying is "I cant deal with the argument of the post so I'll work on a niggly little bit I can criticise"
Ah, so you are an unpolished creation expecting everyone else to believe you have the angle on a supreme mentality?
:rolleyes:

No. The fact that there is no objective system does not mean we cannot create our own system. Human beings are free; we can define ourselves and our values, and that provides its own meaning.

However what that means then is that no human has a right to pronounce judgement on any other human since the standards are all human created and if one human produces a diffrent standard, who is anyone else to criticise him for acting on it.

Moral reltivism would state that there is no such thing as an objective morality - Yes or no
Yes
Moral relitivism would state that universally speeking, the actions of mother Teressa and Hitler are morally equivlent and that the only diffrence between them is in other peoples perceptions. The actions are not univerally good or bad - Yes or no
Not exactly.
Moral relativism would state that in order to assign a moral value to the acts of Mother Teressa and Hitler within a particular moral order we would need to know the 'valuation system' of a particular moral order.
It is also posits that objectively the acts of both are amoral, that is objectively there is no moral value in the acts of either.

If the answer to both those questions is yes, then my assertations are accurate. If the answer is no or some other answer, then I'd like to hear it.
No, if it were a fact that the answer to both these questions were no, then it could still be true that morality (and morals) is (are) relative.
[/QUOTE]

I don't see how objective morality could be possible.

However what that means then is that no human has a right to pronounce judgement on any other human since the standards are all human created and if one human produces a diffrent standard, who is anyone else to criticise him for acting on it.

If your moral system demands that you criticize people, than that is a moral action from your point of view. If another's moral system allows what they're doing, then it is a moral action from their point of view. Moral Relativism still allows you to criticize them, as it is moral to you.

Moral reltivism would state that there is no such thing as an objective morality - Yes or no
Yes.

Moral relitivism would state that universally speeking, the actions of mother Teressa and Hitler are morally equivlent and that the only diffrence between them is in other peoples perceptions. The actions are not univerally good or bad - Yes or no
More or less, that's why some people approve of Hitler, and why some people disapprove of Mother Theresa.

If the answer to both those questions is yes, then my assertations are accurate.
How do they fulfill your assertion and explain "why it [morality] can't be relative"? Surely the fact that we disagree on this would in itself tilt the balance in favour of relativism?


Its not a book for Christians. Its a book explaining the Christian universe view, and why it holds true.
And I simply couldn't care, I've had enough people tell me why the Christian view "holds true".

However what that means then is that no human has a right to pronounce judgement on any other human since the standards are all human created and if one human produces a diffrent standard, who is anyone else to criticise him for acting on it.

No, it doesn't. The question of "right" is part of morality. If according to my ethics I can judge others, then there is no reason why I should not.

However what that means then is that no human has a right to pronounce judgement on any other human since the standards are all human created and if one human produces a diffrent standard, who is anyone else to criticise him for acting on it.

...and this creates philosophical problems how, exactly?

Morality, like spelling, is relative. The only objective truth you can be sure of is that you personally exist. Anything after that is opinion.

However what that means then is that no human has a right to pronounce judgement on any other human since the standards are all human created and if one human produces a diffrent standard, who is anyone else to criticise him for acting on it.
No it doesnt mean that at all.

Its not a book for Christians. Its a book explaining the Christian universe view, and why it holds true.
Good of you not to waste anyone's time, then. :rolleyes:
You're pretty much qualifying yourself through a couple of different threads with this post. Thanks.

...and this creates philosophical problems how, exactly?

The criminal justice system. What right does a judge or any police officer have to arrest someone or do something to someone else that they dont want to be done. Why should the states morality be enforced on everyone if morality is reletive.

No, it doesn't. The question of "right" is part of morality. If according to my ethics I can judge others, then there is no reason why I should not.

Why are your ethics superior to anyone elses. What if someone elses ethics say you should not judge them.

Actually what you are attempting to state is that life has no objective meaning, which is true. Life has no meaning applied to it from the outside, like morals, we have to create it ourselves.

The criminal justice system. What right does a judge or any police officer have to arrest someone or do something to someone else that they dont want to be done. Why should the states morality be enforced on everyone if morality is reletive.

Because by choosing to live in society, we agree upon a common moral code. It may not match our morality perfectly, but if we want to live in civilization, then we have to deal with it.

Why are your ethics superior to anyone elses. What if someone elses ethics say you should not judge them.

Then too bad. You don't get to apply your own personal morality upon anyone besides your own personal self.

The criminal justice system. What right does a judge or any police officer have to arrest someone or do something to someone else that they dont want to be done. Why should the states morality be enforced on everyone if morality is reletive.
It's called a society. They tend to have common rules for some reason. Makes things work. Different societies have different rules. Your point?

A self-created meaning is no meaning. Truth is objective because truth is defined to be objective. A self-created meaning is not objective and therefore is untrue and therefore is no meaning. Life without objective truths is meaningless.

The criminal justice system. What right does a judge or any police officer have to arrest someone or do something to someone else that they dont want to be done. Why should the states morality be enforced on everyone if morality is reletive.

That is not a problem within moral relativism: the possibility that no objective morality exists is not ruled out by the fact that its lack would cause a few wrinkles in our jurisprudence systems.

It seems to me that you are rejecting moral relativism solely on the grounds that you don't like the idea.


EDIT: No, scratch that, your argument against moral relativism is the existence of police forces. Now that is just plain ludicrous.

A self-created meaning is no meaning.

Pah. And what created meaning in the first place?

A self-created meaning is no meaning. Truth is objective because truth is defined to be objective. A self-created meaning is not objective and therefore is untrue and therefore is no meaning. Life without objective truths is meaningless.

But why would a Wookie live on Endor?

A self-created meaning is no meaning. Truth is objective because truth is defined to be objective. A self-created meaning is not objective and therefore is untrue and therefore is no meaning. Life without objective truths is meaningless.

Why does it need meaning?

A self-created meaning is no meaning. Truth is objective because truth is defined to be objective. A self-created meaning is not objective and therefore is untrue and therefore is no meaning. Life without objective truths is meaningless.
I wanna see how many times you can go around on that logic loop before getting dizzy... :p

A self-created meaning is no meaning. Truth is objective because truth is defined to be objective. A self-created meaning is not objective and therefore is untrue and therefore is no meaning. Life without objective truths is meaningless.

That's your opinion. I don't need the meaning of life spoonfed to me by a mythological creature. I can find plenty of meaning on my own.

Pah. And what created meaning in the first place?

How do you mean?

If morals are reletive (IE there is no such thing as a universal good or bad) then that basicly is equivelnt to nhileism. Here is why. If you accept that morals do not exist universally, then you must also accept that people like Hitler and Mother Teressa are moral equivlents.
The only thing that proves is that morals are not a good enough parameter to judge actions. There are others.

Think about that.

The criminal justice system. What right does a judge or any police officer have to arrest someone or do something to someone else that they dont want to be done.
A socially constructed one.
Why should the states morality be enforced on everyone if morality is reletive.
Who says that it should?
In fact 'should' as you appear to be using the word here is 'morality' in disguise. What you are asking is "how is it moral for the state to enforce morality on everyone?" How it is moral is of course relative.....that's the entire point.

But why would a Wookie live on Endor?
Lower taxes.

There is nothing to comment on in your post. What you're saying is "absolute morality exists because I say it exists because I wouldn't like it if it didn't because I like my religion." There is no commenting on such an ellipsis. What is however apparent in every post you make, every thread you start, and most of the titles, is that they are terribly misspelt, sometimes to such a degree that they are illegible. I suspect you are dyslexic, but as I said that does not excuse laziness - it just means you have to try harder.
but why are you a moral relativist but and objectivist when it comes to spelling and grammar. i maintain all langauge is merely idiom and arbitrarily imposed rules are generally classist attempts of an educated elite to monopolize proper discourse and devalue the contributions of the unlettered classes or in modern industrial society the semilettered classes. oh and i am dyslexic so i may be projecting just a teeny bit.

I never said that there was a mythological creature defining meaning. I said that it is either objective or nonexistant. I never even mentioned a mythological creature.

Meaning is typically considered important because people often want a "reason to live". Meaning is exactly that. Of course you can pick whatever deception you want but still... there is the possibility it is untrue no matter what you pick.

I don't know why a Wookie would live on Endor. You would either have to ask George Lucas or some Star Wars author that question. They imagined up that thing and they created the rules for it.... which brings up another source of meaning, nihilism, if you are the only being and this is your world then your truth must be the truth.

A self-created meaning is no meaning. Truth is objective because truth is defined to be objective. A self-created meaning is not objective and therefore is untrue and therefore is no meaning. Life without objective truths is meaningless.
What is the meaning of this post? I see nothing objective about it, i see subjectivity expressed for subjective reasons. That was your choice with your life. So what'd you get out of it?

How do you mean?

Holyawesomeness claimed "A self-created meaning is no meaning."

Therefore, if we follow his argument we see that if meaning exists in the world, then it must have been created by something else.

If this something else either possesses meaning or does not possess meaning. If it does possess meaning, then it must have been created by something else, and we slip into an inifinte regress. If it does not possess meaning, then we see that meaningless things can create meanings.

Holyawesomeness is left with chosing between an inifinite regress, or allowing that meanings can be created.

No. You may disagree with me, but that does not make morals reletive. The objective morality exists, but people do not always choose to obey it. What I am saying here is not part of the objective morality itself.
Why because you want it to exist ... some of us don't NEED meaning like you seem to.

They imagined up that thing and they created the rules for it.... which brings up another source of meaning, nihilism, if you are the only being and this is your world then your truth must be the truth.

That's not nihilism, that's solipsism. Go buy a dictionary.

Why are your ethics superior to anyone elses.

Because they're mine. I act based on my ethics, and I eat food based on my tastes.

What if someone elses ethics say you should not judge them.

Then that's someone else's problem.

Why because you want it to exist ... some of us don't NEED meaning like you seem to.
I'd say that we all need meaning, or rather Truths in life, we just pick them ourselves though, they are not assigned.

Holyawesomeness claimed "A self-created meaning is no meaning."

Therefore, if we follow his argument we see that if meaning exists in the world, then it must have been created by something else.

If this something else either possesses meaning or does not possess meaning. If it does possess meaning, then it must have been created by something else, and we slip into an inifinte regress. If it does not possess meaning, then we see that meaningless things can create meanings.

Holyawesomeness is left with chosing between an inifinite regress, or allowing that meanings can be created.
...and it would appear we have a candidate for winner of thread.
*bows*

I'd say that we all need meaning, or rather Truths in life, we just pick them ourselves though, they are not assigned.
Good point ...

I never said that there was a mythological creature defining meaning. I said that it is either objective or nonexistant. I never even mentioned a mythological creature.

Great! Then I'll meet you halfway:

Objective morals exist.
They naturally evolved in humans because they enhanced our survival. The fossil record proves this is true.

Great! Then I'll meet you halfway:

Objective morals exist.
They naturally evolved in humans because they enhanced our survival. The fossil record proves this is true.
So survival creates objective morals?

Great! Then I'll meet you halfway:

Objective morals exist.
They naturally evolved in humans because they enhanced our survival. The fossil record proves this is true.
maybe flexible morals evolved in humans to allow them to adapt to changing circumstances and objective rigid moral codes lead to an evolutionary dead end like the dinosaurs.

So survival creates objective morals?

No. Objective morals are just part of the human "tool-bag" that slowly evolved over millions of years.

The criminal justice system. What right does a judge or any police officer have to arrest someone or do something to someone else that they dont want to be done. Why should the states morality be enforced on everyone if morality is reletive.

Moral right and wrong, wherever that morality comes from, has nothing to do with legal right and wrong. There are plenty of things I believe to be morally wrong that are legally right and vice-versa. Society's value systems are used to create laws and rules and people in those societies are punished when there is sufficient evidence for that society to conclude that a rule/law was violated. It is called "The Rule of Law" and doesn't use "morals" to determine guilt or innocence, it uses evidence to determine if a law/rule was breached without regard to morality.

If the criminal justice system was based on the idea we punish people for behaving in an immoral fashion your argument might have some tiny little feet to stand on here, but since morality has nothing to do with guilt or innocence you need to re-think this portion of the proof you offer to support your central hypthesis.

That's not nihilism, that's solipsism. Go buy a dictionary.
Sorry typo, I was thinking solipsism. I had already mentioned nihilism, the philosophy in a previous post saying that it is either objective truth or nihilism.

Holyawesomeness claimed "A self-created meaning is no meaning."

Therefore, if we follow his argument we see that if meaning exists in the world, then it must have been created by something else.

If this something else either possesses meaning or does not possess meaning. If it does possess meaning, then it must have been created by something else, and we slip into an inifinte regress. If it does not possess meaning, then we see that meaningless things can create meanings.

Holyawesomeness is left with chosing between an inifinite regress, or allowing that meanings can be created.
The possession of meaning does not mean that the meaning was necessarily created, only that it objectively exists. The universe exists, there is no disputing that, but whether or not there is a maker is a question.

I am left with inherent meaning(the argument of religious people) or none (the nihilistic choice).

Holyawesomeness claimed "A self-created meaning is no meaning."

Therefore, if we follow his argument we see that if meaning exists in the world, then it must have been created by something else.

If this something else either possesses meaning or does not possess meaning. If it does possess meaning, then it must have been created by something else, and we slip into an inifinte regress. If it does not possess meaning, then we see that meaningless things can create meanings.

Holyawesomeness is left with chosing between an inifinite regress, or allowing that meanings can be created.

Why must meaning be created at all? I would think meaning, if it is objective, would simply exist. That's the problem with religious "morality": it doesn't mean anything without an external moral basis.

The possession of meaning does not mean that the meaning was necessarily created, only that it objectively exists.

However, earlier you stated:

A self-created meaning is no meaning.

So, either the universe is meaningless, or it was created and given meaning by an entity (which itself must either have been meaningless or created and given meaning by another entity (which itself must either have been meaningless or created and given meaning by another entity (which itself must either have been meaningless or created and given meaning by another entity...)))?

However, earlier you stated:



So, either the universe is meaningless, or it was created and given meaning by an entity (which itself must either have been meaningless or created and given meaning by another entity (which itself must either have been meaningless or created and given meaning by another entity (which itself must either have been meaningless or created and given meaning by another entity...)))?
Tasty tautology ya got there.

Why does the universe need meaning? And how do morals make this meaning? Nihilism is also not the base philosophy that says life has no meaning. That is existentialism. Existentialism says "life has no meaning. Move on now". Nihilism says "life has no meaning. Now lets wallow in bitterness". Both arrive at the same conclusion, but react differently. A life without meaning is not always a bad thing.

It is possible for meaning to occur naturally. Scientists have discovered meaning-rich ores in southern New Jersey and central Canada.

No. Objective morals are just part of the human "tool-bag" that slowly evolved over millions of years.
Then is it truly objective?

However, earlier you stated:



So, either the universe is meaningless, or it was created and given meaning by an entity (which itself must either have been meaningless or created and given meaning by another entity (which itself must either have been meaningless or created and given meaning by another entity (which itself must either have been meaningless or created and given meaning by another entity...)))?
yeah the introduction of a divinity always just adds an unnecessary level of complexity to any scenerio, it fundimentally can't solved issues of meaning or creation. okay maybe that was kinda redundant...

Then is it truly objective?


Nah... even objective morals are still pretty relative.

However, earlier you stated:



So, either the universe is meaningless, or it was created and given meaning by an entity (which itself must either have been meaningless or created and given meaning by another entity (which itself must either have been meaningless or created and given meaning by another entity (which itself must either have been meaningless or created and given meaning by another entity...)))?
I never said that there had to be a creator only that it had to be objectively true. A self-created meaning cannot be objectively true of its own nature. I never said an entity had to give meaning. Ultimately, if you consider the idea of outside truth an impossibility for whatever reason then you can pick solipsism, you being the universe means that you decide what is objectively true but it requires an assumption that may not be true, or you can pick nihilism, there is no truth and therefore life is actually meaningless.

Why must meaning be created at all? I would think meaning, if it is objective, would simply exist.

If it 'simply exists' then it falls into Holyawesomeness category of a 'self-created meaning' ie. not a meaning at all.

weird
i just took the "fact" that life has no meaning for granted
looks like i need to get out more

I never said that there had to be a creator only that it had to be objectively true. A self-created meaning cannot be objectively true of its own nature. I never said an entity had to give meaning. Ultimately, if you consider the idea of outside truth an impossibility for whatever reason then you can pick solipsism, you being the universe means that you decide what is objectively true, or you can pick nihilism, there is no truth and therefore life is actually meaningless.

just because there is no ultimate meaning doesn't mean we individually or collectively can't impose meaning on the world, its just subjective meaning.

I never said that there had to be a creator only that it had to be objectively true. A self-created meaning cannot be objectively true of its own nature. I never said an entity had to give meaning. Ultimately, if you consider the idea of outside truth an impossibility for whatever reason then you can pick solipsism, you being the universe means that you decide what is objectively true, or you can pick nihilism, there is no truth and therefore life is actually meaningless.
without something higher dictating what is good and what is bad, how can there be a self-created objective meaning? It would inherently be relative.

I never said that there had to be a creator only that it had to be objectively true. A self-created meaning cannot be objectively true of its own nature. I never said an entity had to give meaning. Ultimately, if you consider the idea of outside truth an impossibility for whatever reason then you can pick solipsism, you being the universe means that you decide what is objectively true, or you can pick nihilism, there is no truth and therefore life is actually meaningless.

You reject self-created meanings as not being true, yes?

So how did an objective truth come into being? It either created itself ex nihilo, in which case it is a self-created meaning, and thus false, or it was created by some other thing or entity (which in order for it to have meaning must have been created by some other thing, ad nauseaum), or has always existed. So, you have the choice between either a contradiction or one of two infite regresses.

Yeah, most of the things that we take as meanings simply cannot be backed up anyway. That sucks, so either there is an objective meaning we don't know, we are the center of the universe but can never prove it, or the world has no truth and meaning but we can never know.

without something higher dictating what is good and what is bad, how can there be a self-created objective meaning? It would inherently be relative.
Which is my point. Only objective things can be true because the truth is objective. I really don't care about whether the objective thing is true or not, I have stated many times the various options and have not really stated that I believed in an objective truth or not, only that logically there can only be a few conclusions.

... or you can pick nihilism, there is no truth and therefore life is actually meaningless.

That's not nihilism, but philosophical cynicism. Nihilism is the self-contradictory position of rejecting the world and condemning it, as it doesn't match up to some preconceived notion of how the world should be. If anything nihilism can be viewed as the positing of a truth which has a higher status than the world, and then judging the world as falling short of that mark, and so despising it.

You reject self-created meanings as not being true, yes?

So how did an objective truth come into being? It either created itself ex nihilo, in which case it is a self-created meaning, and thus false, or it was created by some other thing or entity (which in order for it to have meaning must have been created by some other thing, ad nauseaum), or has always existed. So, you have the choice between either a contradiction or one of two infite regresses.
This furthers my suspicion about your candidacy.

You reject self-created meanings as not being true, yes?

So how did an objective truth come into being? It either created itself ex nihilo, in which case it is a self-created meaning, and thus false, or it was created by some other thing or entity (which in order for it to have meaning must have been created by some other thing, ad nauseaum), or has always existed. So, you have the choice between either a contradiction or one of two infite regresses.
Well, what created the universe?

I meant self-created in terms of individuals creating their own meaning. One individual cannot decide the nature of the universe because they are not the universe. Truth comes from what is objectively true, and its nature in the universe is something I cannot objectively determine.

Yeah, most of the things that we take as meanings simply cannot be backed up anyway. That sucks, so either there is an objective meaning we don't know, we are the center of the universe but can never prove it, or the world has no truth and meaning but we can never know.

And the way out of this bind? A transvaluation of all values (again).

Would Herr F. Nietzsche please report to reception? We have some unfinished business to which he should attend.

But why would a Wookie live on Endor?
wookies live on endor?

but i thought that ewoks lived on the MOON of endor

That's not nihilism, but philosophical cynicism. Nihilism is the self-contradictory position of rejecting the world and condemning it, as it doesn't match up to some preconceived notion of how the world should be. If anything nihilism can be viewed as the positing of a truth which has a higher status than the world, and then judging the world as falling short of that mark, and so despising it.
Sorry for misusing the term then. I just found this definition off of wikipedia and figured that my usage followed it.
"Nihilism as a philosophical position argues that the world, and especially human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

Well, what created the universe?

I meant self-created in terms of individuals creating their own meaning. One individual cannot decide the nature of the universe because they are not the universe.

Meaning is a relational quality not an absolute one. Ergo, the individual can create their own meaning.

The question at the heart of the matter is not 'what is the meaning of a snowflake?', but 'what is the meaning of a snowflake to me?'

Sorry for misusing the term then. I just found this definition off of wikipedia and figured that my usage followed it.
"Nihilism as a philosophical position argues that the world, and especially human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

Scan down a bit in that article and you'll find what I believe to be the most cogent description of nihilism:

"A nihilist is a man who judges of the world as it is that it ought not to be, and of the world as it ought to be that it does not exist. According to this view, our existence (action, suffering, willing, feeling) has no meaning: the pathos of 'in vain' is the nihilists' pathos—at the same time, as pathos, an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists."

The nihilist position presupposes that a higher standard must exist, but then condemns the world for lacking that higher value.

And the way out of this bind? A transvaluation of all values (again).

Would Herr F. Nietzsche please report to reception? We have some unfinished business to which he should attend.
I don't think that there is a way out of this bind. After all, anything that we come up with could not be determined to be true so therefore cannot be taken as true. If you want a falsehood then go for it, but this does not mean that life will actually have meaning. I mean, nobody can truly say what is true if there is nothing to tell anyone what is true.

wookies live on endor?

but i thought that ewoks lived on the MOON of endor
Wookies are from Kashyyyk. As mentioned, they just MOVE to Endor for lower taxes.

I don't think that there is a way out of this bind. After all, anything that we come up with could not be determined to be true so therefore cannot be taken as true. If you want a falsehood then go for it, but this does not mean that life will actually have meaning. I mean, nobody can truly say what is true if there is nothing to tell anyone what is true.

Ah, but we are able to make truths. If I say that my partner is the most beautiful person in the world to me who are you to say that I am lying?

Aside from which, seeing that we are in this bind we have the choice of whether to decide to make new values and meanings which are constructive or which are destructive to ourselves. By placing a criterion such as this in existence we are able to judge which things are true and which things are false. Epistemology has not been handed down to us on tablets of stone, instead it is a human construction which we can alter at will.

Scan down a bit in that article and you'll find what I believe to be the most cogent description of nihilism:

"A nihilist is a man who judges of the world as it is that it ought not to be, and of the world as it ought to be that it does not exist. According to this view, our existence (action, suffering, willing, feeling) has no meaning: the pathos of 'in vain' is the nihilists' pathos—at the same time, as pathos, an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists."

The nihilist position presupposes that a higher standard must exist, but then condemns the world for lacking that higher value.
Well, that is Nietzsche's definition, not the definition given. Nietzsche had his own beliefs which could be said to be unfounded. If there is no truth then there is nothing to back up any claim made about philosophy, including nietzsche's.

If morals are reletive (IE there is no such thing as a universal good or bad) then that basicly is equivelnt to nhileism. Here is why. If you accept that morals do not exist universally, then you must also accept that people like Hitler and Mother Teressa are moral equivlents. Although more people think Hitler was bad and Mother Teressa good, majority opinion counts for nothing in a world of reletivity. Thus it is easy to say that there is no such thing as a morally good action. Hence it is also easy to say that there is no such thing as a morally bad action. Thus no actions of any kind have any intrinsic value. Hence nothing we do at all matters. Hence life is meaningless, since nothing we do matters.

I agree, there is not much separating Hitler and Mother Teresa apart from relative morals. Both are humans, both are selfish, and both lived and died. Some may interpret hitler as evil (I know of a lot of people who don't), and some may interpet Mother Teresa as evil (say anti-theists, or those opposed to the catholic church). Your analogy is correct. Life IS meaningless, and nothing we do matters to anyone except ourselves. Their is no higher purpose to our actions, to think so is self-important wishful thinking. Even if there was a god (which I sincerely refute), why would he care about our tiny little planet, in our tiny solar system, rotating around our tiny star, situated in our tiny little galaxy of whic the are countless more lof the same elsewhere in the vast expanse of the universe? More so, should he even acknowledge us do you think he would be so inclined as to write us a book telling us what is moral and what isn't? The idea is perposterous. Furthermore, why did he wait until 2000 years ago to enlighten us on this code of morality, after 10's of 1000's of years of prior 'incorrect' religions based on other moral codes?

I know theist don't enjoy doing this, but;

Think about it...:rolleyes:

Wookies are from Kashyyyk. As mentioned, they just MOVE to Endor for lower taxes.
oohhhh i see

is endor a pit because its raw materials were used to make a death star?

I mean, nobody can truly say what is true if there is nothing to tell anyone what is true.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Live your life of proof. You like a mystery, there's lots of them. More spiritually fulfilling than any arbitrary bilge referencing a bunch of third-person oral traditions.

Meaning is a relational quality not an absolute one. Ergo, the individual can create their own meaning.

The question at the heart of the matter is not 'what is the meaning of a snowflake?', but 'what is the meaning of a snowflake to me?'
Well, where do the relations come from without a way to define the difference? Absoluteness to some extent is necessary for difference, even if the exact terms of difference cannot be determined. I cannot determine whether white is darker than grey without the absolute truth of shade as defined in terms of light and dark.

Well, your meaning is meaningless and only a construct for your own satisfaction with existence because there is no proof of truth. A construct bereft of truth is a lie. Therefore, the snowflake's meaning to you is unimportant because it is the relation of something to a lie.

...and some may interpet Mother Teresa as evil (say anti-theists, or those opposed to the catholic church).

*Raises hand.*

Personally I consider leaving people to die in great physical pain on cold concrete floors, while believing that their suffering matters not a jot because their souls have been saved, to lie on TEH EVIL side of the scales.

A construct bereft of truth is a lie.


And what if that construct contains only internal consistencies and no contradictions, is it a lie?

oohhhh i see

is endor a pit because its raw materials were used to make a death star?Good question.

http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/endor/
Endor was the secret construction site for the second Death Star. Code-named the Sanctuary Moon, Endor was a green jewel that stood out against the dark reaches of space. Rivers wind through the thick canopy of ancient trees, and the forests extend high over the dark floors and the low mountains of the world.
--

Good question.

http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/endor/
Endor was the secret construction site for the second Death Star. Code-named the Sanctuary Moon, Endor was a green jewel that stood out against the dark reaches of space. Rivers wind through the thick canopy of ancient trees, and the forests extend high over the dark floors and the low mountains of the world.
--

Wasn't it ravaged by the debris from the space battle that was fought above it, and plunged into ecological catastrophe?

Well, your meaning is meaningless and only a construct for your own satisfaction with existence because there is no proof of truth. A construct bereft of truth is a lie. Therefore, the snowflake's meaning to you is unimportant because it is the relation of something to a lie.
It's funny how these are only mental constructs that are reinforcing mental courses of determination. If you want proof of truth, climb OUT of your head and instigate, and deal with consequences.

Wasn't it ravaged by the debris from the space battle that was fought above it, and plunged into ecological catastrophe?
I think two of the books said that.

Ah, but we are able to make truths. If I say that my partner is the most beautiful person in the world to me who are you to say that I am lying?

Aside from which, seeing that we are in this bind we have the choice of whether to decide to make new values and meanings which are constructive or which are destructive to ourselves. By placing a criterion such as this in existence we are able to judge which things are true and which things are false. Epistemology has not been handed down to us on tablets of stone, instead it is a human construction which we can alter at will.
If you think that your partner is the most beautiful person to you then that is what you think, it has truth is the strict parameters of what is given so long as it is true according to your brain. It has nothing to do with the meaning of life though and cannot lead to a meaning of life because what you think of life has no impact on what life actually means.

New values and judgements may or may not be true based on how close they get to truth which cannot be determined. Constructs are just that, constructs, they do not have any bearing to greater truth or meaning. Meanings provided by the self are not necessarily objectively true and therefore are not true because we like to think they are.

And what if that construct contains only internal consistencies and no contradictions, is it a lie?
I can design lies that do not contradict themselves. Anyone could, in fact, it would be an awful lie if it did contradict itself and was inconsistent.

It has nothing to do with the meaning of life though and cannot lead to a meaning of life because what you think of life has no impact on what life actually means.

Klang! Hidden assumption! Why must life have an inherent meaning?

I can design lies that do not contradict themselves. Anyone could, in fact, it would be an awful lie if it did contradict itself and was inconsistent.

So, you are now claiming that axiomatic systems are lies?

If you think that your partner is the most beautiful person to you then that is what you think, it has truth is the strict parameters of what is given so long as it is true according to your brain. It has nothing to do with the meaning of life though and cannot lead to a meaning of life because what you think of life has no impact on what life actually means.I can't agree with this idea since there's plenty of people who have been bereaved of someone they'd held in great value, and that conversely reassigned a different value to their own life. Besides, you want "meaning of life" you need to start understanding what it is that distinguishes it, in parameters of definition, to the degree of also knowing what it isn't. Failing in that, we're talking best guesses here.

Meanings provided by the self are not necessarily objectively true and therefore are not true because we like to think they are.So how about meanings provided by a bunch of people who are reinforcing heralded selfs because they are too weak or loyal to maintain integrity within their own experience and judgment?

*Raises hand.*

Personally I consider leaving people to die in great physical pain on cold concrete floors, while believing that their suffering matters not a jot because their souls have been saved, to lie on TEH EVIL side of the scales.

Exactly, now the question for the OPer is "Is BWO wrong?". If so, on what authority? Is the neo nazi wrong about Hitler? Or are his views just unpopular and conflicting with the mainstream norm? It seems there are two fallacies in play here and 'appeal to authority' (I'm right because the bible says so) and the good ol' 'Ad populum' fallacy (To the people= I'm right because this many people agree with me). The fact is that there are equally as 'holy' books which contradict the bible, and at different places and in different times the mainstream populace has had many extremely varied ideas on what is moral. To argue that one mainstream interpretation of morality is more 'correct' than others is as ludicrous as argueing your holy book is holier than someone elses.

Klang! Hidden assumption! Why must life have an inherent meaning?
Life doesn't have to have an inherent meaning, however if there is a meaning then it is objectively true and is dissimilar to an opinion on how your woman looks. Your opinion is your opinion and has no bearing on the nature of the universe. I have already stated my argument on the nature of life's meaning.

So, you are now claiming that axiomatic systems are lies?
I am claiming that systems that have no objective proof backing them are not necessarily true unless it is within the confines of a system that states that they must be true. Life, due to its nature that spans all of existence, has a nature defined by some attribute of the universe. All living things have life and life's meaning is in question.

I am claiming that systems that have no objective proof backing them are not necessarily true unless it is within the confines of a system that states that they must be true. Life, due to its nature that spans all of existence, has a nature defined by some attribute of the universe. All living things have life and life's meaning is in question.

You just said that Truth is true because it is true.

Life doesn't have to have an inherent meaning, however if there is a meaning then it is objectively true and is dissimilar to an opinion on how your woman looks.

1. And what if the 'meaning' of life is for individuals to create their own meanings?

2. What makes you think my partner is a woman?

I am claiming that systems that have no objective proof backing them are not necessarily true unless it is within the confines of a system that states that they must be true. Life, due to its nature that spans all of existence, has a nature defined by some attribute of the universe. All living things have life and life's meaning is in question.

Rather than focus on metaphysical babble, it might be more useful to simply say that some values are upheld universally by humans, such as the desire for happiness. All human action, even action like suicide, is based around a desire for at a minimum avoiding misery, and ideally toward happiness. If so, then it indicates that for humans, there is a natural end to our actions, and that action is based not on perceptions, but on the way humans are.

I can't agree with this idea since there's plenty of people who have been bereaved of someone they'd held in great value, and that conversely reassigned a different value to their own life. Besides, you want "meaning of life" you need to start understanding what it is that distinguishes it, in parameters of definition, to the degree of also knowing what it isn't. Failing in that, we're talking best guesses here.

So how about meanings provided by a bunch of people who are reinforcing heralded selfs because they are too weak or loyal to maintain integrity within their own experience and judgment?
Well, a partner can mean a lot to you but he/she has no effect on the universal nature of life that could be determined becaust there are thousands of partners and thousands of partnerless people. Well, more than that but still. The meaning of life is something that applies to all life and if the meaning of life is not inherent then it cannot be described as necessarily true. A meaning that is not necessarily true could easily be false. Given all of the possible meanings it has a high probability of falsehood. Meaning, being an aspect of truth which by its nature must be universal must also be universal.

Meanings provided by others could be false.

Rather than focus on metaphysical babble...

Nah. Let us press the issue and ask those who are arguing here for the existence of an objective meaning to life to describe its ontological basis.

You just said that Truth is true because it is true.
!
What if we're all deceived? What if .... oh wait ... something's coming to me ...

"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe — I believe what I believe is right." —Rome, Italy, July 22, 2001

No, wait, not that ...

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." —Washington, D.C. June 18, 2002

Oh! There it is! Are we deceived? Who would do such a thing??
Oh wait, there's more ...

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." —to a group of Amish in PA, July 9, 2004
...

"Never did I dream we'd get the trifecta."

*cameo by George W. "Shrubya" Bush*

Evidence seemingly available to us:

Humans desire meaning.

The cosmos as a whole does not.

Well, a partner can mean a lot to you but he/she has no effect on the universal nature of life that could be determined becaust there are thousands of partners and thousands of partnerless people.
The reason i brought up bereavement is that many people do themselves in afterwards, therefore DIRECTLY correspondant (in a fashion) to the nature of life, obviously.
Well, more than that but still. The meaning of life is something that applies to all life and if the meaning of life is not inherent then it cannot be described as necessarily true.
Indeed, which BY THAT NATURE, requires that a person determining "truth" in said fashion would also require empirical evidence. Something for which the vast majority of religions lack as for their qualifications.
A meaning that is not necessarily true could easily be false. Given all of the possible meanings it has a high probability of falsehood."True", so by which measure does one prove out the difference between true and false GIVEN PROBABILITY? Trial & error.
Meaning, being an aspect of truth which by its nature must be universal must also be universal.Pervasive, existent upon evidence and not assumption.

Meanings provided by others could be false.
Truer words ever spoken? ;)

1. And what if the 'meaning' of life is for individuals to create their own meanings?

2. What makes you think my partner is a woman?
You can't prove it is true so therefore it may or may not be true but has as much proof as the meaning of life being unmitigated flatulence.

I am sorry for such an assumption. I should not make assumptions and I assure you that the assumption was an accident formed by fast typing and possibly my own sexual nature in terms of my desire for females.

Evidence seemingly available to us:

Humans desire meaning.

The cosmos as a whole does not.
Yep, can you really make much out of it. All I know is that people want meaning but cannot agree on it and for the most part cannot think of things that are necessarily true. How you want to react to this is your problem, and mine as well really. The only thing is that meaning cannot be determined without an extra condition which as the original poster could be in the form of objective morality. If we knew of a moral code that was objectively true then the meaning of life would probably be more solvable because the moral code would hopefully lead to truth and at least bring us closer. However, we don't know this moral code and are therefore left with 2 things and neither of them offer much.

You just said that Truth is true because it is true.
truth (trooth)n.pl. truths (troothz, trooths). 1. Conformity to fact or actuality

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Facts and actualities are true. So therefore according to the dictionary the truth is defined to be true.

The reason i brought up bereavement is that many people do themselves in afterwards, therefore DIRECTLY correspondant (in a fashion) to the nature of life, obviously.

Indeed, which BY THAT NATURE, requires that a person determining "truth" in said fashion would also require empirical evidence. Something for which the vast majority of religions lack as for their qualifications.
"True", so by which measure does one prove out the difference between true and false GIVEN PROBABILITY? Trial & error.

Oh, the nature of love might have something to do with truth but it might not. It affects people's lives but so does food. We can live longer without love than we can without food, however, a meaning of life based on food does not typically satisfy.

Trial and error would not work because it cannot give us information. If it could then we probably wouldn't be having this debate because a clear path would not drive people to dispute. There are many many different opinions on the meaning of life that exist, all of them have followers who have lived their lives and tried many different things. They cannot all be true despite being backed by their followers experiences.

... So therefore according to the dictionary the truth is defined to be true.

But the dictionary lies within our closed system! Or is this "Dictionary" some external cosmic entity that confers meaning?

Oh, the nature of love might have something to do with truth but it might not. It affects people's lives but so does food. We can live longer without love than we can without food, however, a meaning of life based on food does not typically satisfy.And there you are making a "quality" assertion. Perhaps you're arguing a variable standard after all. I could easily base it on sex and have enough experience to doubt myself at times and reinforce it at other times, and still be "correct" due the *truth* of the experience all the way through, couldn't i?

Trial and error would not work because it cannot give us information.Wrong. That is PRECISELY the function of trial and error, providing information. Indeed, for example, the "christian" faith REQUIRES what they call "transfiguration" on the cross. Yet, CLEARLY and EMPIRICALLY, there isn't a lot of evidence to support that kind of assertion whatsoever.
If it could then we probably wouldn't be having this debate because a clear path would not drive people to dispute. There are many many different opinions on the meaning of life that exist, all of them have followers who have lived their lives and tried many different things. They cannot all be true despite being backed by their followers experiences.They can all be true, as qualified by their experiences AND HOW THEY LIVED THEM. So what was the same, the control? They lived, they had *SUBJECTIVE* interpretations and questions, and they died with the consequences of a corollary mindset. There will be more, i'm reasonably sure.

But the dictionary lies within our closed system! Or is this "Dictionary" some external cosmic entity that confers meaning?
:D

But the dictionary lies within our closed system! Or is this "Dictionary" some external cosmic entity that confers meaning?
True is a word that we have defined to have a meaning. Whether truth really exists or not does not matter because it is a word we have said to have the meaning. The meaning of the word is absolute because words are defined by us to exist and only exist as our construct. Just as a person's belief in their partner being beautiful can be absolute so can our words. We try to make our words all corespond to the same dictionary definition because without a standard our words become useless in terms of expressing ideas.

This entire debate is on words, it would make no sense without a definition for the term "life", "meaning", or "relative". If those did not have our own special defined meanings then there would be no meaning to this at all but whether or not these words have any meaning has no bearing to the concepts that we have them represent. The word fits the concept the concept is not shaped to fit the word.

The only thing is that meaning cannot be determined without an extra condition which as the original poster could be in the form of objective morality.

Explain to me what you mean by 'meaning' here: is it something teleological or ethical or epistemological? (ie. for example, to make babies, to be good to each other or to know the beauty of the world)

You people are distracting us from a very important discussion.

Now, there was that cartoon series about the ewoks, which showed Endor (or was it the moon?) in pristine condition. Now, is the cartoon considered canon, or did the cartoon occur before ROTJ?

And as a Wookie, I choose to live on Endor for tax reasons and because I'm attracted to midgets.

True is a word that we have defined to have a meaning. Whether truth really exists or not does not matter because it is a word we have said to have the meaning. The meaning of the word is absolute because words are defined by us to exist and only exist as our construct. Just as a person's belief in their partner being beautiful can be absolute so can our words.

Nope: language exists in a constant state of flux. It is not a concrete bunker but instead an ocean.

We try to make our words all corespond to the same dictionary definition because without a standard our words become useless in terms of expressing ideas.

Nah: meaning is defined by use, not the other way round. Witness how dictionaries are compiled: by observing how words are used and recording them, not by laying down a set of proscriptions as to how they should be used

So, after reading through this thread, I am left with three questions, and it seems that the answers ARE going to be relativistic in nature, but here goes...

1)What is the meaning of life?

2)Can you point to a specific "objective truth"?

3)Can you point to a specific example of an "objective moral"?


What I am looking for is not more rhetoric about the meaning of the words involved, but actual, clear cut examples... along the lines of "this is an apple".

True is a word that we have defined to have a meaning. Whether truth really exists or not does not matter because it is a word we have said to have the meaning. The meaning of the word is absolute because words are defined by us to exist and only exist as our construct. Just as a person's belief in their partner being beautiful can be absolute so can our words. We try to make our words all corespond to the same dictionary definition because without a standard our words become useless in terms of expressing ideas.

This entire debate is on words, it would make no sense without a definition for the term "life", "meaning", or "relative". If those did not have our own special defined meanings then there would be no meaning to this at all but whether or not these words have any meaning has no bearing to the concepts that we have them represent. The word fits the concept the concept is not shaped to fit the word.

Since you admit here that humans can attach meaning to any number of things, why not life?

1)What is the meaning of life?

2)Can you point to a specific "objective truth"?

3)Can you point to a specific example of an "objective moral"?

1. Don't know.

2. There is thought.

3. No.

And there you are making a "quality" assertion. Perhaps you're arguing a variable standard after all. I could easily base it on sex and have enough experience to doubt myself at times and reinforce it at other times, and still be "correct" due the *truth* of the experience all the way through, couldn't i?

Wrong. That is PRECISELY the function of trial and error, providing information. Indeed, for example, the "christian" faith REQUIRES what they call "transfiguration" on the cross. Yet, CLEARLY and EMPIRICALLY, there isn't a lot of evidence to support that kind of assertion whatsoever.
They can all be true, as qualified by their experiences AND HOW THEY LIVED THEM. So what was the same, the control? They lived, they had *SUBJECTIVE* interpretations and questions, and they died with the consequences of a corollary mindset. There will be more, i'm reasonably sure.
Satisfy could simply mean that it cannot be proven one way or another and does not satisfy as truth. Satisfy in that term is not a variable other than maybe a boolean(yes or no) and that variable has already been established. Truth or not truth.

Experiences are not truth. Experiences are a product of the mind and your experience can be the net product of outside manipulations and drug use and the experiences of people can be totally contradictory. One person could fly and another could fall. They do not provide insight into a universal concept, a meaning of life. You are right, the christian faith is not backed by hard evidence and really, there are plenty of people out there that would say it is wrong, however, in order for it to be right all other truths would be wrong as the existence of God means that other truths consequently do not exist as the Christian God has a clearly defined belief system of some form that contradicts individual beliefs of others. I cannot prove this existence one way or another. Experience is nothing but how the world chose to react to you, it has no bearing on ultimate nature of anything whatsoever and if we has experiences that told us anything that could be defined then we could use them as evidence.

1. Don't know.

2. There is thought.

3. No.
Thought is not an objective truth as it cannot be proven to be much more than a brain function. We cannot prove the brain exists because we cannot prove the existence of reality. We cannot prove thought exists because all we could be doing is just going through motions. I honestly cannot tell whether I am thinking or just merely reacting very complexly to a deterministic process. If that is all you want thought to be then it ends up being almost nothing at all.

Since you admit here that humans can attach meaning to any number of things, why not life?
Ok, here you go.

life (lif)n.pl. lives (livz). 1. Biology. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. The characteristic state or condition of a living organism. 2. Living organisms considered as a group: plant life; marine life. 3. A living being, especially a person: an earthquake that claimed hundreds of lives. 4. The physical, mental, and spiritual experiences that constitute existence: the artistic life of a writer. 5. The interval of time between birth and death: She led a good, long life. The interval of time between one's birth and the present: has had hay fever all his life. A particular segment of one's life: my adolescent life. The period from an occurrence until death: elected for life; paralyzed for life. Slang. A sentence of imprisonment lasting till death. 6. The time for which something exists or functions: the useful life of a car. 7. A spiritual state regarded as a transcending of corporeal death. 8. An account of a person's life; a biography. 9. Human existence, relationships, or activity in general: real life; everyday life. 10. A manner of living: led a hard life. A specific, characteristic manner of existence. Used of inanimate objects: "Great institutions seem to have a life of their own, independent of those who run them" (New Republic). The activities and interests of a particular area or realm: musical life in New York. 11. A source of vitality; an animating force: She's the life of the show. Liveliness or vitality; animation: a face that is full of life. 12. Something that actually exists regarded as a subject for an artist: painted from life. Actual environment or reality; nature. 13. Christian Science. God. --idiom. as big as life. 14. Life-size. 15. Actually present. bring to life. 16. To cause to regain consciousness. 17. To put spirit into; to animate. 18. To make lifelike. come to life. To become animated; grow excited. for dear life. Desperately or urgently: I ran for dear life when I saw the tiger. for life. Till the end of one's life. for the life of (one). Though trying hard: For the life of me I couldn't remember his name. not on your life. Informal. Absolutely not; not for any reason whatsoever. take (one's) life. To commit suicide. take (someone's) life. To commit murder. the good life. A wealthy, luxurious way of living. the life of Riley. Informal. An easy life. the life of the party. Informal. An animated, amusing person who is the center of attention at a social gathering. to save (one's) life. No matter how hard one tries: He can't ski to save his life. true to life. Conforming to reality.[Middle English, from Old English lif. See leip-.]

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Viola, the meaning of life. Does this work?

Experiences are not truth. Experiences are a product of the mind and your experience can be the net product of outside manipulations and drug use and the experiences of people can be totally contradictory. One person could fly and another could fall. They do not provide insight into a universal concept, a meaning of life.

So you claim that the empirical road is unable to grant us any information concerning either the meaning of life or objective morality: which leaves rationalism as the only road open to us, yes? How are we to come to know the objective morality through rationalism?

1. Don't know.

2. There is thought.

3. No.



Good answers. I had a different answer myself for number 2. I had answered it "I am", but that is not terribly far away from your answer.

I wonder if the folks with the belief in objective morality have any other answers?

Ok, here you go.

life (lif)n.pl. lives (livz). 1. Biology. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. The characteristic state or condition of a living organism. 2. Living organisms considered as a group: plant life; marine life. 3. A living being, especially a person: an earthquake that claimed hundreds of lives. 4. The physical, mental, and spiritual experiences that constitute existence: the artistic life of a writer. 5. The interval of time between birth and death: She led a good, long life. The interval of time between one's birth and the present: has had hay fever all his life. A particular segment of one's life: my adolescent life. The period from an occurrence until death: elected for life; paralyzed for life. Slang. A sentence of imprisonment lasting till death. 6. The time for which something exists or functions: the useful life of a car. 7. A spiritual state regarded as a transcending of corporeal death. 8. An account of a person's life; a biography. 9. Human existence, relationships, or activity in general: real life; everyday life. 10. A manner of living: led a hard life. A specific, characteristic manner of existence. Used of inanimate objects: "Great institutions seem to have a life of their own, independent of those who run them" (New Republic). The activities and interests of a particular area or realm: musical life in New York. 11. A source of vitality; an animating force: She's the life of the show. Liveliness or vitality; animation: a face that is full of life. 12. Something that actually exists regarded as a subject for an artist: painted from life. Actual environment or reality; nature. 13. Christian Science. God. --idiom. as big as life. 14. Life-size. 15. Actually present. bring to life. 16. To cause to regain consciousness. 17. To put spirit into; to animate. 18. To make lifelike. come to life. To become animated; grow excited. for dear life. Desperately or urgently: I ran for dear life when I saw the tiger. for life. Till the end of one's life. for the life of (one). Though trying hard: For the life of me I couldn't remember his name. not on your life. Informal. Absolutely not; not for any reason whatsoever. take (one's) life. To commit suicide. take (someone's) life. To commit murder. the good life. A wealthy, luxurious way of living. the life of Riley. Informal. An easy life. the life of the party. Informal. An animated, amusing person who is the center of attention at a social gathering. to save (one's) life. No matter how hard one tries: He can't ski to save his life. true to life. Conforming to reality.[Middle English, from Old English lif. See leip-.]

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Viola, the meaning of life. Does this work?

You seem to have just punted.

Thought is not an objective truth as it cannot be proven to be much more than a brain function. We cannot prove the brain exists because we cannot prove the existence of reality. We cannot prove thought exists because all we could be doing is just going through motions. I honestly cannot tell whether I am thinking or just merely reacting very complexly to a deterministic process. If that is all you want thought to be then it ends up being almost nothing at all.

You are missing the fact that we experience thinking, and that very experiencing is itself thought. We cannot go as far as Descartes tried to go in error and claim that we exist, and that we are thinking things, but we can state that 'there is thinking'. To make an assumption that thinking requires an agent is to step beyond the bounds of acceptable method.

You admit as much yourself, when you state that 'I honestly cannot tell' - the doubt is thought.

So, after reading through this thread, I am left with three questions, and it seems that the answers ARE going to be relativistic in nature, but here goes...

1)What is the meaning of life?

2)Can you point to a specific "objective truth"?

3)Can you point to a specific example of an "objective moral"?


What I am looking for is not more rhetoric about the meaning of the words involved, but actual, clear cut examples... along the lines of "this is an apple".
1) Don't know really. I can give you the dictionary definition but it is typically not what we mean by the "meaning of life" as we typically mean a deeper philosophical question that goes along "why do we live"
2) No... well... maybe. Something that is objectively true can be something that you have defined for yourself to think to be true. I could say that it is objectively true that I call my dog "Rover" and within the confines of the system we could say that it is true that you call your dog Rover, this is given the assumption reality is real.
3)No. Nobody agrees on morality.

I had answered it "I am", but that is not terribly far away from your answer.

Shaky. Very shaky. You're falling into the same trap as Descartes and Augustine, and assuming that because doubt exists it must have an agent.

You are missing the fact that we experience thinking, and that very experiencing is itself thought. We cannot go as far as Descartes tried to go in error and claim that we exist, and that we are thinking things, but we can state that 'there is thinking'. To make an assumption that thinking requires an agent is to step beyond the bounds of acceptable method.
I suppose that is acceptable. There is an action occuring that we do experience and constantly experience until we cease experiencing it. I have just started trying to logically deny everything, probably just taking the argument of no provable meanings to its extremes is all ;) .

So you claim that the empirical road is unable to grant us any information concerning either the meaning of life or objective morality: which leaves rationalism as the only road open to us, yes? How are we to come to know the objective morality through rationalism?

It is not possible to know objective morality. The only way to view the world is through the lenses of one's eyes. The lenses of one's eyes distort one's view, but without them, one would see nothing.

The same would apply to objective reality. Any thoughts of it would be colored by one's own thoughts, so the only way to know it would be by having no thoughts at all, which would prevent one from perceiving it.

Satisfy could simply mean that it cannot be proven one way or another and does not satisfy as truth. Satisfy in that term is not a variable other than maybe a boolean(yes or no) and that variable has already been established. Truth or not truth.Well, to be fair, this isn't dissimilar from a logic-class discussion.
I would go further to say that definitions here need to be more specific as to their application. Instead of "could", you know.

Experiences are not truth. Experiences are a product of the mind and your experience can be the net product of outside manipulations and drug use and the experiences of people can be totally contradictory.Explain then my birth and the myriad of other circumstances for which there are no cognizant involvement AS WELL AS no drug-induced haze of mentality. I indeed have experiences that have, indeed, results and consequences, that aren't a matter of my mental spin, unless you are again invoking solipsism.
One person could fly and another could fall. They do not provide insight into a universal concept, a meaning of life. You are right, the christian faith is not backed by hard evidence and really, there are plenty of people out there that would say it is wrong, however, in order for it to be right all other truths would be wrong as the existence of God means that other truths consequently do not exist as the Christian God has a clearly defined belief system of some form that contradicts individual beliefs of others. I cannot prove this existence one way or another. Experience is nothing but how the world chose to react to you, it has no bearing on ultimate nature of anything whatsoever and if we has experiences that told us anything that could be defined then we could use them as evidence.
Well, this thread isn't specifically about bashing "christians" as far as it doesn't need to be, but usually the argument for religious "salvation" requires a certain act of willfull ignorance/delusion otherwise known as faith, not qualified by any proof of anything.

I suppose that is acceptable. There is an action occuring that we do experience and constantly experience until we cease experiencing it. I have just started trying to logically deny everything, probably just taking the argument of no provable meanings to its extremes is all ;) .

The Churchlands went further and ended up with a very torturous formulation 'You don't think, you only think you do'. A tangled web.

1) Don't know really. I can give you the dictionary definition but it is typically not what we mean by the "meaning of life" as we typically mean a deeper philosophical question that goes along "why do we live"
2) No... well... maybe. Something that is objectively true can be something that you have defined for yourself to think to be true. I could say that it is objectively true that I call my dog "Rover" and within the confines of the system we could say that it is true that you call your dog Rover, this is given the assumption reality is real.
3)No. Nobody agrees on morality.

OK... so no to meaning of life, no to objective truth (based in the assumption that we can't prove reality is real), and no to objective morality.

What you seem to be suggesting is not solipsism (that YOU are the only thing that exists) but rather... well, I don't even know what the word is for the idea that NOTHING really exists. What is that? My understanding of nihilism is that it means nothing really matters... which is not the same at all.

It is not possible to know objective morality. The only way to view the world is through the lenses of one's eyes. The lenses of one's eyes distort one's view, but without them, one would see nothing.


The eye itself being the only object which can never be within its own field of vision, of course.

Nope: language exists in a constant state of flux. It is not a concrete bunker but instead an ocean.

Nah: meaning is defined by use, not the other way round. Witness how dictionaries are compiled: by observing how words are used and recording them, not by laying down a set of proscriptions as to how they should be used
True, meanings do change but we are assuming that they are constant for this discussion, are we not? 200 years from now we might have to reword our arguments but still, we are simply using these words as our bunkers for now because an ocean would leave us without any thing hard to fight with as an argument would need. If the word change was redefined everytime it was used then it would be useless to our exchange and we would use some other method. Money is ocean like too but in barter it is also held to be relatively constant.

The use defines the meaning which allows us to use it effectively. Slang redefines language, logical discussion does not so much unless it is to invent new terminology for a concept that could not be expressed before. Using the dictionary as a prescription allows for better debate because we want our words to be held as constant in order to let our thoughts flow without worry about the shifts. The dictionary is used in order to keep everyone on the same page and within what is currently considered acceptable. Dictionaries have more authority than people when it comes to words and if we were poets we could use the poetic license but core to my argument is logic and therefore I need solid words in order to build solid structures, ideas can not be built on shifting words.

Shaky. Very shaky. You're falling into the same trap as Descartes and Augustine, and assuming that because doubt exists it must have an agent.

Well, perhaps... although I was not claiming to be a thinking creature (after the day I've had, my brain is slowly leaking out of my ears, so rational thought is, at best, unlikely). I was simply pointing to the one thing I perceive to be absolutely true... the fact that I exist. I cannot hope to prove it to anyone else, but in my reality, it is the one truth that does not change. YOU may not exist (now we get back into solipsism) but I do.

Dictionaries have more authority than people when it comes to words...

Ha! And where do these dictionaries come from? Are they dropped from the heavens?

OK... so no to meaning of life, no to objective truth (based in the assumption that we can't prove reality is real), and no to objective morality.

What you seem to be suggesting is not solipsism (that YOU are the only thing that exists) but rather... well, I don't even know what the word is for the idea that NOTHING really exists. What is that? My understanding of nihilism is that it means nothing really matters... which is not the same at all.
I think that nihilism works for nothing existing.

ni-hil-ism (ni-lizm, ne-)n. 1. Philosophy. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

I was simply pointing to the one thing I perceive to be absolutely true... the fact that I exist.

There could be error in the perception of your existence, but the fact that perception is taking place is doubtless - in other words 'there is thinking'.

I think that nihilism works for nothing existing.

ni-hil-ism (ni-lizm, ne-)n. 1. Philosophy. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Fair enough, thank you!

You people are distracting us from a very important discussion.

Now, there was that cartoon series about the ewoks, which showed Endor (or was it the moon?) in pristine condition. Now, is the cartoon considered canon, or did the cartoon occur before ROTJ?

And as a Wookie, I choose to live on Endor for tax reasons and because I'm attracted to midgets.
Moon. I recall the show but i don't recall specifics. Too long ago, i'm afraid.
I would wager not canon, though.

Ha! And where do these dictionaries come from? Are they dropped from the heavens?
No, they come from people who define the words. The definition of a word only defines how we use it. Not the concept behind it. The concepts defined by words lock together to form a definite meaning. We are debating concepts that are defined using the words that we set to be constant according to the dictionary in order to maintain a common tongue. The dictionary has authority because its standard definitions are necessary for transaction of ideas just as a common monetary system is necessary for transaction of goods.

There could be error in the perception of your existence, but the fact that perception is taking place is doubtless - in other words 'there is thinking'.

I could be mistaken about the FORM of my existence, true... but the fact of my existence? If I don't actually exist (in some form) who is doing the thinking that is happening?

Thought is not an objective truth as it cannot be proven to be much more than a brain function. We cannot prove the brain exists because we cannot prove the existence of reality. We cannot prove thought exists because all we could be doing is just going through motions. I honestly cannot tell whether I am thinking or just merely reacting very complexly to a deterministic process. If that is all you want thought to be then it ends up being almost nothing at all.
Nonetheless, you respond, you rationalize, you interpret, you think, you extrapolate, you judge, you *might* remember and correlate and you act. So what else is a cognizant being supposed to do?

I could be mistaken about the FORM of my existance, true... but the fact of my existance? If I don't actually exist (in some form) who is doing the thinking that is happening?

Why must there be an agent (a who) that is doing the thinking? What firm evidence do we have to show that thinking must always be performed by an entity?

The evidence available at present is that there is perception/doubt/thought. We have no proof that there must be something which is a perceiving/doubting/thinking thing.

Dictionaries have more authority than people when it comes to words.

No, they come from people who define the words.

So what grants the dictionary greater authority than the people who compile it? What is the secret INGREDIENT X?

The definition of a word only defines how we use it. Not the concept behind it.

That makes no sense to me.

The definition of the word 'shoe' is identical to the definition of the concept 'shoe' (although, neither of those definitions may be perfect in any dictionary). Similarly for the hard questions - the definition of the word/concept 'soul', 'love', 'beauty', 'justice', usw.

Why must there be an agent (a who) that is doing the thinking? What firm evidence do we have to show that thinking must always be performed by an entity?

The evidence available at present is that there is perception/doubt/thought. We have no proof that there must be something which is a perceiving/doubting/thinking thing.

I am not entirely sure I follow that... so I have to ask what is the evidence that shows thought is capable of existing without an agent?

Well, to be fair, this isn't dissimilar from a logic-class discussion.
I would go further to say that definitions here need to be more specific as to their application. Instead of "could", you know.

Explain then my birth and the myriad of other circumstances for which there are no cognizant involvement AS WELL AS no drug-induced haze of mentality. I indeed have experiences that have, indeed, results and consequences, that aren't a matter of my mental spin, unless you are again invoking solipsism.

Well, this thread isn't specifically about bashing "christians" as far as it doesn't need to be, but usually the argument for religious "salvation" requires a certain act of willfull ignorance/delusion otherwise known as faith, not qualified by any proof of anything.
Could holds because I don't know what I was thinking of at the moment. I just know that the ideas offered after could would be fit my argument and would satisfy the nature of the word satisfy as we are currently using it. I could look up the word satisfy for clarity but I think we are satisfied with satisfy. I did rush through the argument without proof reading it.

I do say that your entire life could be a fantasy on a massive scale. I could even claim that your mind does not exist too and cannot be proven to exist. I definitely would claim that no experience can be proven to exist because memory is inconsistent and memory is the only proof of experience. Memory frequently can be disrupted.

Well, I am not saying anything negatively about the Christians either... I think. I can't remember all of the details of my last argument but I know that their beliefs cannot be proven. They have every right to delude themselves into a truth that they cannot prove, at the very least I have neither the power nor the inclination to stop them but still they have no proof and proof is necessary to knowing anything about the nature of something. At least in real world terms the Christian delusion is one of the healthier ones around, real world being beyond this philosophical babbling.

I am not entirely sure I follow that... so I have to ask what is the evidence that shows thought is capable of existing without an agent?

There is none, but it is philosophically safer and more rigorous than stating that it requires an agent, as it makes no ungrounded assumption.

So you claim that the empirical road is unable to grant us any information concerning either the meaning of life or objective morality: which leaves rationalism as the only road open to us, yes? How are we to come to know the objective morality through rationalism?
Ka-Pow! :sniper:

I definitely would claim that no experience can be proven to exist because memory is inconsistent and memory is the only proof of experience. Memory frequently can be disrupted.

Ah, but what of the instantaneous experience of remembering, even if that memory is false, is it not indisputible that some experience is taking place?

At least in real world terms the Christian delusion is one of the healthier ones around, real world being beyond this philosophical babbling.

The claim that the whole world as we experience it is just a shade of true reality, and that all apparent injustices are in fact justices, and all suffering is actually a blessing is one of the healthier worldviews around? Fuck me, I'd hate to see what you consider to be an unhealthy one.

There is none, but it is philosophically safer and more rigorous than stating that it requires an agent, as it makes no ungrounded assumption.

On that happy note, and before we start chasing around the philosophical equivalent of the chicken or the egg, I have to go be unconscious for about 7 hours. Hopefully I will continue to exist during that time, but if I don't... this has been a very interesting discussion, thank you!

Could holds because I don't know what I was thinking of at the moment. I just know that the ideas offered after could would be fit my argument and would satisfy the nature of the word satisfy as we are currently using it. I could look up the word satisfy for clarity but I think we are satisfied with satisfy. I did rush through the argument without proof reading it.
Well, the argument tends to flow better when we're on the same page.

I do say that your entire life could be a fantasy on a massive scale. I could even claim that your mind does not exist too and cannot be proven to exist. I definitely would claim that no experience can be proven to exist because memory is inconsistent and memory is the only proof of experience. Memory frequently can be disrupted.Agreed, i'm not particularly convinced of any one over the other in that sense; nonetheless, IT IS WHAT I HAVE and my sovereignty. And with a good 30 + years of making sh*tloads of mistakes and a few successes, i would stand to say that's exactly as it should be. Now, with another poster, i would have already delved into behaving as though i were actually just a figment of your imagination, and you would have "caught yourself trying to fool yourself".
Or is that statement itself a ruse?
Remember, when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares into you.

Well, I am not saying anything negatively about the Christians either... I think. I can't remember all of the details of my last argument but I know that their beliefs cannot be proven. They have every right to delude themselves into a truth that they cannot prove, at the very least I have neither the power nor the inclination to stop them but still they have no proof and proof is necessary to knowing anything about the nature of something. At least in real world terms the Christian delusion is one of the healthier ones around, real world being beyond this philosophical babbling.Fair 'nuff. Of course, their attributions of "truth" to a life value isn't all-pervasive, for indeed some of them won't be happy until they actually die. Some of them don't want to live with the weight of their own consciences. I guess painting a rosier picture of an end they strive for makes them try harder in some respect.

So what grants the dictionary greater authority than the people who compile it? What is the secret INGREDIENT X?

That makes no sense to me.

The definition of the word 'shoe' is identical to the definition of the concept 'shoe' (although, neither of those definitions may be perfect in any dictionary). Similarly for the hard questions - the definition of the word/concept 'soul', 'love', 'beauty', 'justice', usw.
The authority is only a matter of necessity. I could define the word 'the' to mean elation but that would screw everybody up in this entire conversation. If we are to have a discussion on one thing then we must hold all others to be equal. The dictionary allows us to do that because it can typically be agreed to be a neutral source for a discussion, it has all of the definitions we might need, and it offers definitions that are very usuable. There is no secret other than necessity. What gives money value? Money is worthless paper with funny pictures on it but without it we have nothing.

Yeah, actually that doesn't. Shoe defines the thing we wear on our feet. Ok, I do screw up on my posts occasionally, I do not proofread as much as I should. Words are defined to mean a concept and these words represent these concepts. The dictionary allows us to have each word mean the same respective concept without any confusion about it. The stability and specificness of words is a necessity. Heck, to some extent lawyers spend a lot of time interpreting words and the entire legal system is about these words and what they mean.

The authority is only a matter of necessity. I could define the word 'the' to mean elation but that would screw everybody up in this entire conversation.

That would not be a problem if we all formed a linguistic community that all used the word 'the' to mean elation. Sure, it might take newcomers a while to catch on, but just so long as we all used the term in a similar way there would be no major problems.

If we are to have a discussion on one thing then we must hold all others to be equal. The dictionary allows us to do that because it can typically be agreed to be a neutral source for a discussion, it has all of the definitions we might need, and it offers definitions that are very usuable. There is no secret other than necessity.

You are missing my point: you claim that dictionaries have greater authority than people, yet it is people who create dictionaries. Where does the added authority come from in the dictionary (which is the work of human hands)?

On that happy note, and before we start chasing around the philosophical equivalent of the chicken or the egg, I have to go be unconscious for about 7 hours. Hopefully I will continue to exist during that time, but if I don't... this has been a very interesting discussion, thank you!
This has to be one of the coolest rubs i've ever seen. *bows*
:D

The claim that the whole world as we experience it is just a shade of true reality, and that all apparent injustices are in fact justices, and all suffering is actually a blessing is one of the healthier worldviews around? Fuck me, I'd hate to see what you consider to be an unhealthy one.
Well, unhealthier ones destroy the individuals that live with those worldviews, most Christians are not destroyed or even really harmed by their worldview and therefore that is why I would consider it a relatively good worldview. I would hate to see what I would consider to be an unhealthy worldview too. However, I have met some christians and they seem to be cool people. Not saying that Buddhism or Judaism or Hindu or any philosophy is better or worse but many Christians are functional human beings, of course some aren't but still, there are people out there who are worse than the average Christian.

That would not be a problem if we all formed a linguistic community that all used the word 'the' to mean elation. Sure, it might take newcomers a while to catch on, but just so long as we all used the term in a similar way there would be no major problems.

You are missing my point: you claim that dictionaries have greater authority than people, yet it is people who create dictionaries. Where does the added authority come from in the dictionary (which is the work of human hands)?
You are right, it would not be a problem if we formed that community. However, I do not want to waste the effort.

The added authroity comes in because of freaking utility. Money has authority because of its utility too. If the dictionary was not very usable then it would be useless. The authority comes from the ability to satisfy practical demands. No higher power mandated that we use the dictionary, no threat forces us to use the dictionary, heck, if we wanted to waste the time we could even create our own dictionary and our own language to go with it. The only thing though is all of those ideas are impractical. The dictionary is the perfect way to make sure that things work. We need something with all of the qualities that are provided to us by the dictionary so therefore we use the dictionary. Technically we could stop using money too. In fact, if money were not useful we would stop using it. However, money is useful and provides us with all of the things that we need for an economic system, therefore we use it.

Thus no actions of any kind have any intrinsic value. Hence nothing we do at all matters.
I think most of your post is probably close to the truth, albeit an extreme case manufactured to make it look more absurd than it is.

This here relationship however is a bit of a non-sequitur, don't you think?

The added authroity comes in because of freaking utility.

You are still missing the point.

What gives the Oxford English Dictionary greater authority than its compilers who work for the Oxford University Press?

You are still missing the point.

What gives the Oxford English Dictionary greater authority than its compilers who work for the Oxford University Press?
If i may ...
is the inference that the absolute function of utility is what gives something authority - and by extension, the nature of truth and whatever is the emic of the "universe" the same way (and also objective in the sense that it has no personality qualms other than function, competence, and efficiency?
Perhaps - the Borg are authority?
;)

If i may ...
is the inference that the absolute function of utility is what gives something authority - and by extension, the nature of truth and whatever is the emic of the "universe" the same way (and also objective in the sense that it has no personality qualms other than function, competence, and efficiency?
Perhaps - the Borg are authority?
;)

Ah, but you forget the paradox of utility: the better something is at doing its job, the less call there is for it to actually carry out its role. Thus if we ascribe the supposed authority of the dictionary to its utility, then we can see that that authority is slowly eroded each and every time it is used.

Well, the argument tends to flow better when we're on the same page.

Agreed, i'm not particularly convinced of any one over the other in that sense; nonetheless, IT IS WHAT I HAVE and my sovereignty. And with a good 30 + years of making sh*tloads of mistakes and a few successes, i would stand to say that's exactly as it should be. Now, with another poster, i would have already delved into behaving as though i were actually just a figment of your imagination, and you would have "caught yourself trying to fool yourself".
Or is that statement itself a ruse?
Remember, when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares into you.

Fair 'nuff. Of course, their attributions of "truth" to a life value isn't all-pervasive, for indeed some of them won't be happy until they actually die. Some of them don't want to live with the weight of their own consciences. I guess painting a rosier picture of an end they strive for makes them try harder in some respect.
Arguments do flow better if we are on the same page. Therefore, if we get off of the same page one of us has to correct the other in order to change things. It obviously was not my purpose to do this because it was an easy thing to fix(not me trying to get out of an argument) and because I eagerly fixed it when I was notified and offered rational explanation.

Right, well I have my life and I would like a meaning to it. I have every incentive to create a lie for this. Am I doing that or am I trying to maintain integrity? I have lived and I have experiences, the only thing is that on a universal scale I cannot say that any experience of mine really means anything or that it really exists. Of course I will act like my experience does, I am a rational being and realize that it is better to act as if life has a meaning and that the simple explanation of my experiences existing because they happened because of Occam's Razor when it somes to such things and because I have nothing to lose, however we cannot base a solid belief on a probabilistic assumption. I encourage everyone here to follow their beliefs but this is an argument, meant to explore possibilities and to refute them. Obviously, no experience can be proven but it is logical in a real world context to assume but in a philosophical context it is preferable to go with the absolute truth. Besides, I would not believe the whole solipsist thing anyway, I am as rational as you are. I am relatively certain that you and I are not the same despite the fact that there is a possibility. Besides, if I designed the universe then why on earth didn't I make myself smarter and stronger? That just be stupid on my part.

Eh... Christianity is better than nihilism. I think we can all agree to that.

If you accept that morals do not exist universally, then you must also accept that people like Hitler and Mother Teressa are moral equivlents.

No. What part of "relativism" did you apparently not get? Hitler is relatively worse than Mother Theresa. You're acting as if you think "moral relativism" means "moral equality," which is total horseshit.

Although more people think Hitler was bad and Mother Teressa good, majority opinion counts for nothing in a world of reletivity. Thus it is easy to say that there is no such thing as a morally good action.

Okay, now what part of "moral" relativism did you apparently not get? Just because I don't believe there is "absolute" morality, doesn't mean I think there is NO morality.

You seem to be alternating between misunderstanding both parts of what it is you're attacking here.

Hence it is also easy to say that there is no such thing as a morally bad action. Thus no actions of any kind have any intrinsic value.

Nonsense. Your second statement doesn't logically follow from the first. Value is assigned, not non-existent. Again, you don't seem to understand what it is you're debating.


Hence nothing we do at all matters. Hence life is meaningless, since nothing we do matters.

Meaning is assigned, not non-existent. See above.

You seem to think that if something is subjective, it is non-existent. Be advised that your own ignorance is no basis for a coherent argument.

Ah, but you forget the paradox of utility: the better something is at doing its job, the less call there is for it to actually carry out its role.
Wouldn't that actually depend on necessity? If there are a number of different *organs* for different functions that, as an organism, comprise a whole, then it would make sense that there would be functional friction. Of course, for whatever issues that the second rule of thermodynamics can be applied, this seems to be a favourable one.
Thus if we ascribe the supposed authority of the dictionary to its utility, then we can see that that authority is slowly eroded each and every time it is used.Well, reminds me of a hard drive ...
But it would infer a non-static interaction and the fluidity is adjustment. I suppose there's a few cosmological arguments in this manner as well, but i'll prefer not inducing them (yet). Wouldn't capacity still imply authority, even if it is because it's a matter of being "most capable"/"most experienced"?

You are still missing the point.

What gives the Oxford English Dictionary greater authority than its compilers who work for the Oxford University Press?
The compilers are nowhere near as useful. That is my point, my point is utility, that is why I made reference to money, another thing that really is not backed by any great authority(we could claim the country in question does but they do not control their money, they typically do not set its value, mostly they just try to keep it stable, just like the dictionary does with words). The compilers alone are nowhere near as valuable to us as the dictionary. They don't have all the words memorized, they don't have all or even most of the qualities that I have defined before. The dollar also has greater authority than its creators, if I had enough cash I could probably bribe somebody to kill the creators of the dollar. I don't but still. The utility of these systems makes them appealing and useful, the fact that we find them useful is why we use them plus they don't conflict with what we tend to believe. I don't think you have an alternative to the Oxford people's dictionary and therefore in order to have a neutral word source and definer we use the dictionary. If we had infinite knowledge over english words and knew them entirely then we would need no dictionary because we would know the limits of every word and know how they are defined and everything.

Eh... Christianity is better than nihilism. I think we can all agree to that.

Ideally, yes.

Practically, not so much.

Arguments do flow better if we are on the same page. Therefore, if we get off of the same page one of us has to correct the other in order to change things. It obviously was not my purpose to do this because it was an easy thing to fix(not me trying to get out of an argument) and because I eagerly fixed it when I was notified and offered rational explanation.Righto.

Right, well I have my life and I would like a meaning to it. I have every incentive to create a lie for this. Am I doing that or am I trying to maintain integrity? I have lived and I have experiences, the only thing is that on a universal scale I cannot say that any experience of mine really means anything or that it really exists. Of course I will act like my experience does, I am a rational being and realize that it is better to act as if life has a meaning and that the simple explanation of my experiences existing because they happened because of Occam's Razor when it somes to such things and because I have nothing to lose, however we cannot base a solid belief on a probabilistic assumption.Well, you do indeed have something to lose, or at least, misplace.
Also, all belief requires an amount of assumption, some of it is probabilistic in nature.
I encourage everyone here to follow their beliefs but this is an argument, meant to explore possibilities and to refute them. Obviously, no experience can be proven but it is logical in a real world context to assume but in a philosophical context it is preferable to go with the absolute truth. Besides, I would not believe the whole solipsist thing anyway, I am as rational as you are. I am relatively certain that you and I are not the same despite the fact that there is a possibility. Besides, if I designed the universe then why on earth didn't I make myself smarter and stronger? That just be stupid on my part.You're saying that you're the LAST ONE you'd suspect? ;) Of course! I'd never think to look there! (see Fight Club):

Narrator:The demolitions committee of Project Mayhem wrapped the foundation columns of a dozen buildings with blasting gelatin. In two minutes, primary charges will blow base charges and a few square blocks will be reduced to smoldering rubble. I know this, because Tyler knows this.
..
Narrator: You're making a big mistake, fellas.
Police Officer 1: You said you'd say that.
Narrator: I'm not Tyler Durden!
Police Officer 2: You told us you'd say that, too.
Narrator: All right, I am Tyler Durden. Listen to me, I'm giving you a direct order: we're aborting this mission right now.
Police Officer 1: You said you would definitely say that.
..
Tyler Durden:Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God?
Narrator: No, no, no . . . I don't . . .
Tyler Durden: Listen to me . . . you have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you.

---
Eh... Christianity is better than nihilism. I think we can all agree to that.All things in good measure. I would agree to that quicker.

If we had infinite knowledge over english words and knew them entirely then we would need no dictionary because we would know the limits of every word and know how they are defined and everything.
There's a problem. "Infinite" is, by definition, without defining parameters.
Therefore useless as a measure as anything other than a random factor, and even that is low. Yes, i am aware of what i'm saying, btw.

The compilers are nowhere near as useful.

Utility is not the same thing as authority.

You grant the dictionary authoity above people, but at the same time allow that we could all form a linguistic community that used the word 'the' to mean elation. A contradiction there, no?

To cut to the quick - people redraft and update dictionaries, not the other way around: therefore people have greater authority than dictionaries.

No. What part of "relativism" did you apparently not get? Hitler is relatively worse than Mother Theresa. You're acting as if you think "moral relativism" means "moral equality," which is total horseshit.

Okay, now what part of "moral" relativism did you apparently not get? Just because I don't believe there is "absolute" morality, doesn't mean I think there is NO morality.

You seem to be alternating between misunderstanding both parts of what it is you're attacking here.

Nonsense. Your second statement doesn't logically follow from the first. Value is assigned, not non-existent. Again, you don't seem to understand what it is you're debating.

Meaning is assigned, not non-existent. See above.

You seem to think that if something is subjective, it is non-existent. Be advised that your own ignorance is no basis for a coherent argument.
Relativism is the opposite of objectivism and it means that there is no absolute morality and therefore says that they are relative to the people that hold the belief. Hitler is not necessarily worse than Mother Theresa. White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis would say that Hitler was better, most people would side with Mother Theresa though. However, relativism means that objectively wa cannot say one is better than the other.

Relativists believe that morality differs from being to being. Therefore, they cannot claim that Hitler is absolutely worse than Mother Theresa, they can believe it but they recognize that the claims of others are equally valid which is part of the philosophy.

Value being assigned by individuals means that innately there is no value. The lack of innate value is part of the idea that there is no meaning of life. Innate value can be seen as a necessity to life having meaning because of the fact that life is something attributed to many different beings and an absolute meaning for it cannot be defined under a system that says that there is nothing absolute. Meaning being a broad thing to cover all of existence and being set equal to truth means that there is only one meaning because there can only be one truth because truth is an objective thing. Truth is not subjective.

If the value of something is subjective then it might as well be non-existent. There would be no difference. The actual value of something can be seen as an absolute because if we hold value to be a constant there can only be one value. Subjectively value can be anything but if we equate value to meaning with meaning being the same as truth then there can only be one value based on the objective nature of things, this value would be 0 if there was no objective nature.

Utility is not the same thing as authority.

You grant the dictionary authoity above people, but at the same time allow that we could all form a linguistic community that used the word 'the' to mean elation. A contradiction there, no?

To cut to the quick - people redraft and update dictionaries, not the other way around: therefore people have greater authority than dictionaries.

I think we are finally getting closer to the Truth here. It has something to do with either the paper or the printing process. External and absolute authority is created when things get published. That's what makes "Mere Christianity" so persuasive. Once the the ink is dry, the word is coexistant both within and outside of closed reality systems. It is as clear to me now as a summer's day.

Utility is not the same thing as authority.

You grant the dictionary authoity above people, but at the same time allow that we could all form a linguistic community that used the word 'the' to mean elation. A contradiction there, no?

To cut to the quick - people redraft and update dictionaries, not the other way around: therefore people have greater authority than dictionaries.
I suppose that we could argue that people have greater authority than dictionaries but not that one person does and like it was said earlier language is fluid anyway. The dictionary is however perceived to be a neutral source of words to use which is why I would stick to it.

Utility can grant power to something, money has utility and this utility gives it its power. We can all agree that generally money has power despite being a worthless scrap of paper. The power of money comes from its utility and I have stated that before. Can you think of anything else that gives money its power other than utility? Governments don't force people to use money. Money is not a good on its own. Money's only quality is its utility and money does have power.

Value being assigned by individuals means that innately there is no value. The lack of innate value is part of the idea that there is no meaning of life.

That idea stems from the ignorant belief that the only things that are real or meaningful are those that are absolute.

Innate value can be seen as a necessity to life having meaning because of the fact that life is something attributed to many different beings and an absolute meaning for it cannot be defined under a system that says that there is nothing absolute. Meaning being a broad thing to cover all of existence and being set equal to truth means that there is only one meaning because there can only be one truth because truth is an objective thing. Truth is not subjective.

There is only one meaning? Truth is not subjective?

This is why I hate arguing with philosophy students. You always pull these quaint little rules out of your ass. Like this:

If the value of something is subjective then it might as well be non-existent. There would be no difference.

I value a car at $5,000. You value it at $4,999.99.

Therefore the value is subjective.

Therefore the car has no value. I take it from you for free.

The actual value of something can be seen as an absolute because if we hold value to be a constant there can only be one value. Subjectively value can be anything but if we equate value to meaning with meaning being the same as truth then there can only be one value based on the objective nature of things, this value would be 0 if there was no objective nature.

Yeah, IF we equate value and IF we equate value to meaning and IF we equate meaning with truth and IF we equate truth with being absolute and not subjective, then your statement is correct.

Hey guess what, not everyone agrees with all those IFs.

I suppose that we could argue that people have greater authority than dictionaries but not that one person does and like it was said earlier language is fluid anyway. The dictionary is however perceived to be a neutral source of words to use which is why I would stick to it.
Actually, that's the argument for agreed arbitration, and the authority then would, again, not be absolute, but a matter of convenience.

Utility can grant power to something, money has utility and this utility gives it its power. We can all agree that generally money has power despite being a worthless scrap of paper. The power of money comes from its utility and I have stated that before. Can you think of anything else that gives money its power other than utility? Governments don't force people to use money. Actually, and this is admittedly nitpicky, governments DO kind of force people to use money. And then, consider Black Tuesday in '29 and how that all transpired.
Money is not a good on its own. Money's only quality is its utility and money does have power.Well, jt can be revoked, and of its own accord can do nothing.

There's a problem. "Infinite" is, by definition, without defining parameters.
Therefore useless as a measure as anything other than a random factor, and even that is low. Yes, i am aware of what i'm saying, btw.
Infinite is only an example. It is unlikely that we would have that extreme amount of knowledge. Infinite is just an extreme example that is used to show that the dictionary is useful. I don't really get the point of your argument. I said that if we knew the English language perfectly that we wouldn't need a dictionary. Where does infinity pop in other than I used it in exchange for perfect? If I misused the word then it is probably because I have a math background and something that is done infinitely is theoretically a perfect approximation of what is desired.

Actually, that's the argument for agreed arbitration, and the authority then would, again, not be absolute, but a matter of convenience.

Actually, and this is admittedly nitpicky, governments DO kind of force people to use money. And then, consider Black Tuesday in '29 and how that all transpired.
Well, jt can be revoked, and of its own accord can do nothing.
Governments do not force people to use money unless there is absolute economic collapse in which case they intervene. I could pay all of my friends and merchants in donkey droppings if they would only accept them. Also, money even though it can be denied is still accepted and it still does have authority for the most part. If you offer your friend a 100 dollar bill for doing something he will listen to you where as before he wouldn't. I am operating under the assumption that the money in question works, just like I am operating under the assumption that for the dictionary that the dictionary works.

The authority is a matter of convenience and for convenience it is usually best to give it great power. I am defending the dictionary as a force for a standard. I think that a standard for things is necessary for most arguments, simply to enforce a common ground. This is why we appeal to things that are generally considered to be objective to make arguments. Our emotions and opinions can easily be rejected without concern too. Logic and the like is pretty objective, it is harder to reject because rejecting logic leaves most people unable to coherently argue. The whole thing is that we need standards.

I suppose that we could argue that people have greater authority than dictionaries but not that one person does and like it was said earlier language is fluid anyway.

Then why have you repeatedly been claiming the opposite?

Utility can grant power to something, money has utility and this utility gives it its power. We can all agree that generally money has power despite being a worthless scrap of paper. The power of money comes from its utility and I have stated that before. Can you think of anything else that gives money its power other than utility? Governments don't force people to use money. Money is not a good on its own. Money's only quality is its utility and money does have power.

Power != authority.

Infinite is only an example. It is unlikely that we would have that extreme amount of knowledge. Infinite is just an extreme example that is used to show that the dictionary is useful. I don't really get the point of your argument. I said that if we knew the English language perfectly that we wouldn't need a dictionary. Where does infinity pop in other than I used it in exchange for perfect? If I misused the word then it is probably because I have a math background and something that is done infinitely is theoretically a perfect approximation of what is desired.
Well, since we're arguing about the nature of absolutism, it's pretty much required that the terms that are used to quantify/qualify things aren't just offhand flexibilities or logical fallacies. They won't work in absolutes, by their vary nature.

Governments do not force people to use money unless there is absolute economic collapse in which case they intervene.

One word to counter your assertions: taxes.

If the value of something is subjective then it might as well be non-existent.

What is the value of a glass of water to:

1.) a drowning man?
2.) a man dying of thirst?

This claim that subjective values 'might as well be non-existent' shows a complete failure to understand capitalist society. The entire global economy, for good or ill, is based on the central notion that all values are subjective.

Then why have you repeatedly been claiming the opposite?

Power != authority.
I thought I agreed with you once that language was fluid, only that we needed a standard for it such as the dictionary. For the argument we set language to be a non-factor. We want stable language for an argument.

Power = authority for all things that involve people. If power did not equal authority then why does all authority have power? Ok, you could say that your mother has authority but still she has less after she started losing her power. Pretty much authority comes from power because a being without much power cannot command much authority.

What is the value of a glass of water to:

1.) a drowning man?
2.) a man dying of thirst?

This claim that subjective values 'might as well be non-existent' shows a complete failure to understand capitalist society. The entire global economy, for good or ill, is based on the central notion that all values are subjective.
Right sorry, ok I am getting tired. Value is based upon conditions. It is just that meaning isn't. Anyway, I am leaving this argument. It is past midnight over here and I need my sleep really badly. Good bye, farewell.

This is the linchpin of the entire argument:

If the value of something is subjective then it might as well be non-existent. There would be no difference.



I value a car at $5,000. You value it at $4,999.99.

Therefore the value is subjective.

Therefore the car has no value. I take it from you for free.


I believe that is game-over. The linchpin dissolves, the argument falls. Subjective value does not equal "no value". So... life has relative meaning to those who take the time to percieve or create it for themselves.

One word to counter your assertions: taxes.
Taxes are based on monetary income. Make no income and have no taxes.

Power = authority for all things that involve people. If power did not equal authority then why does all authority have power? Ok, you could say that your mother has authority but still she has less after she started losing her power. Pretty much authority comes from power because a being without much power cannot command much authority.


Power is a mere exercise of force, authority is rightful* dominion.

If I have the power to poke you repeatedly with a stick does that mean I have the authority to do so? If I have the authority to sentence you to death in absentia, does that mean that I, or my agents, have the power to bring you to justice and carry out the sentence?


* the exact nature of that right being an entirely different debate.

Taxes are based on monetary income. Make no income and have no taxes.

Poll taxes being the exception. Property taxes, rates, whatever the equivalent in your country are also exceptions.

Right sorry, ok I am getting tired. Value is based upon conditions. It is just that meaning isn't.

So the meaning of me shouting 'fire!' is exactly the same whether I am in command of a firing squad or discover that your bedroom is ablaze and wish to warn you? The meaning of one of your hairs is identical whether it be found on you comb in your bathroom or caught beneath the fingernails of my brutally murdered corpse?

Right sorry, ok I am getting tired. Value is based upon conditions. It is just that meaning isn't. Anyway, I am leaving this argument. It is past midnight over here and I need my sleep really badly. Good bye, farewell.
Damn, this person helped make a pretty interesting thread. Oh well, fare well y'self.


Bodies Without Organs ... how does one go about getting a thread rating on this? I don't appear to have that capacity. :(

God I hate when people use the word "basically." It's effing pedantic, tell ya what.

Relativism in a simple form is the idea that good and bad are dependent upon circumstance. Even seemingly absolute moralists practice it, evidenced by Crusades, Inquisitions, and Jihads despite a very clear and simple commandment:

Thou Shalt not Kill.

Thou Shalt not Kill. Actually, the bible says "Thou Shalt not Murder." Quite a bit different but still open to subjective interpretation.

Actually, the bible says "Thou Shalt not Murder." Quite a bit different but still open to subjective interpretation.

I still think Moses screwed up by not taking his lawyer up on that mountain. It would have been nice to straighten out that stuff before G-D engraved it on those stones. Of course, I can still appreciate the ambiguity of coveting my neighbor's ass.

Of course, I can still appreciate the ambiguity of coveting my neighbor's ass.
Ah, sagacious. *nods*

No. What part of "relativism" did you apparently not get? Hitler is relatively worse than Mother Theresa. You're acting as if you think "moral relativism" means "moral equality," which is total horseshit.

Well speeking in universal terms it does. Moraltiy is given to Mother Teressa and Hitlers actions but ultimately in universal terms, there morality is equal



Okay, now what part of "moral" relativism did you apparently not get? Just because I don't believe there is "absolute" morality, doesn't mean I think there is NO morality.

You seem to be alternating between misunderstanding both parts of what it is you're attacking here.

I dont misunderstand at all. There is no objective morality. There is however morality applied by individuals but there is a great problem with that. It is that there is no arguement that states that one persons morality can be above any other. Hence by that logic the only right the state has for imposing on us the criminal justice system it does is because it has the power to do so


Nonsense. Your second statement doesn't logically follow from the first. Value is assigned, not non-existent. Again, you don't seem to understand what it is you're debating.

Exactly. That is the problem. Morality in the reletivists book is assigned, it does not exist of itself.


You seem to think that if something is subjective, it is non-existent. Be advised that your own ignorance is no basis for a coherent argument.

No. I think the idea of morality being subjective has some serious flaws.

Well, is is opening the ribcage of a bound enemy with an obsidian knife or an axe and ripping his heart out while he still lives bad or good?

Today we might agree its a tad immoral. 3000 years ago not doing so would have been considered immoral for an aztec priest and affronting the almighty sungod, creator of the universe and base for all morality.

Well, is is opening the ribcage of a bound enemy with an obsidian knife or an axe and ripping his heart out while he still lives bad or good?

Today we might agree its a tad immoral. 3000 years ago not doing so would have been considered immoral for an aztec priest and affronting the almighty sungod, creator of the universe and base for all morality.

Listen heathen, that was Satan they were worshipping. The One True God™ only accepts sacrifices in the form of cash or credit card.

If morals are reletive (IE there is no such thing as a universal good or bad) then that basicly is equivelnt to nhileism. Here is why. If you accept that morals do not exist universally, then you must also accept that people like Hitler and Mother Teressa are moral equivlents. Although more people think Hitler was bad and Mother Teressa good, majority opinion counts for nothing in a world of reletivity. Thus it is easy to say that there is no such thing as a morally good action. Hence it is also easy to say that there is no such thing as a morally bad action. Thus no actions of any kind have any intrinsic value. Hence nothing we do at all matters. Hence life is meaningless, since nothing we do matters.
People like Hitler and Mother Teressa are not moral equivalents --no one is the moral equivalent of another, since we each have our own unique set of moral values.

A morally good value is not determined by what we want, or what we deem to be "good for me".

A morally good value is not determined by what we want, or what we deem to be "good for me".

So by what is it determined?

Today we might agree its a tad immoral. 3000 years ago not doing so would have been considered immoral for an aztec priest and affronting the almighty sungod, creator of the universe and base for all morality.

...unlikely, given that Aztec culture only really came into being after the first millenium AD.

Actually, the bible says "Thou Shalt not Murder." Quite a bit different but still open to subjective interpretation.
Well mine clearly says Thou shalt not kill. (in Dutch)

A morally good value is not determined by what we want, or what we deem to be "good for me".
So by what is it determined?
I don't know.

Moral as an adjective describes things by a distinction between what is right and what is wrong. We each have a set of moral values, the things we have decided are "right for me" or "wrong for me" and which apply towards others ("right for us", "wrong for us"). And we conduct ourselves accordingly.

A moral, as a noun, is simply that decision of right or wrong expressed as principle in our words and deeds.

One thing I do know, something isn't right just because we want it to be right. We know something is right by comparing what society or experience teaches us is right to something inside of us, and "feeling it out". That means that something exists before we make our decision.

For the record, I am not a proponent of objective morality. I am a proponent of objective "right and wrong".

I don't know.

Then what evidence do you have for such a thing existing?


We know something is right by comparing what society or experience teaches us is right to something inside of us, and "feeling it out". That means that something exists before we make our decision.

Surely this just states that we have inculcated certain values from our upbringing, society and experiences, and has little to do with objective matters?

For the record, I am not a proponent of objective morality. I am a proponent of objective "right and wrong".

Forgive me, I'm obviously being slow today, but the difference between "right and wrong" and "morality" is what?

Then what evidence do you have for such a thing existing?
I make moral choices.

Forgive me, I'm obviously being slow today, but the difference between "right and wrong" and "morality" is what?
Morality is behavior that utilizes the distinction between right and wrong. It is something we do, both the behavior and the distinguishing; we who have the discriminating conscious mind.

Surely this just states that we have inculcated certain values from our upbringing, society and experiences...
Can indicate that, yes.

...and has little to do with objective matters?Our upbringing, society and experiences are objective matters.

Well mine clearly says Thou shalt not kill. (in Dutch)

As far as I know, the original Hebrew texts say "Thou shalt not murder".

EDIT:

"You shall not murder"

The Hebrew word ratsach, used in this commandment, is close to the word murder; kill is a mistranslation, but it does not translate directly to the word murder. While most uses of the word ratsach are in passages describing murder, in Proverbs 22:13 a lion ratsach a man to death, many argue since a lion cannot murder anyone, murder is a flawed translation as well. Also in Joshua 20:3, ratsach is used to describe death by negligence. A closer translation would be to kill in the manner of a predatory animal. Some Jews take offense at translations which state "Thou shall not kill", which they hold to be a flawed interpretation, for there are circumstances in which one is required to kill, such as if killing is the only way to prevent one person from murdering another, or killing in self-defense.
Many Protestant and most Catholic Christians hold that this verse forbids abortion; Judaism does not dogmatically regard abortion as murder (c.f Ex. 21:22-23, and Rashi thereon), although Orthodox Judaism prohibits abortion in most circumstances based on several other prohibitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_commandments

No. I think the idea of morality being subjective has some serious flaws.

Like what?

Well speeking in universal terms it does. Moraltiy is given to Mother Teressa and Hitlers actions but ultimately in universal terms, there morality is equal


In "universal" terms, i.e, objective or absolute. So what you're saying is only, "moral relativism makes life meaningless, when speaking in terms of objective or absolute morality."

Your argument is meaningless.

You people are distracting us from a very important discussion.

Now, there was that cartoon series about the ewoks, which showed Endor (or was it the moon?) in pristine condition. Now, is the cartoon considered canon, or did the cartoon occur before ROTJ?

And as a Wookie, I choose to live on Endor for tax reasons and because I'm attracted to midgets.
im pretty sure that the cartoon series came after rotj. it would have ruined the surprise to have it beforehand plus the cartoon series probably increased the sales of the ewoks toys.

so do you live on the endor that was controlled by the empire as it was building the 2nd death star or are you living on the liberated endor as it is after the fall of the empire?

and did the tax rate go up or down when the new republic came in?

Morals may be relative, but does that make your relatives moral? I don't think so! :D

I make moral choices.

You make choices, we can allow that for the moment, how do you know that they actually matter with regard to some concept of morality, for which we have no evidence of existence?

Our upbringing, society and experiences are objective matters.

They are givens, but if we accept your position then the morality taught to the Hitler Youth were as morally correct as that taught to anyone else.

why are we arguing deep philosophy on a topic that doesnt require any?

moral relativism already exists and life is not meaningless. (well OK it is meaningless but not because of moral relativism)

there is no objective morality that exists for all people. it varies by culture, by history, by family, from person to person. to suggest that the moral code propopsed by some midwestern american fundamentalist christian group is THE MORAL CODE for all humanity is silly at best and almost certainly represents several grave sins.

to claim that one moral code is essential for the happiness of every person on earth is as foolish as claiming that the US constitution should be the basis for all governments on earth.

Morals may be relative, but does that make your relatives moral? I don't think so! :D
i dont think that any of MY relatives follow closely any moral code they may have, so i guess youre right.

...unlikely, given that Aztec culture only really came into being after the first millenium AD.
Oops, my bad. Make that Maya. The argument still stands.

You make choices, we can allow that for the moment, how do you know that they actually matter with regard to some concept of morality, for which we have no evidence of existence?
We do have evidence that concepts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept) exist. We utilize them everyday in countless ways. We couldn't utilize them if they didn't exist.

The only place "mattering" figures into morality is that the things I do matter to me and they might matter to you (and you and him and her... and to us, and to them). I know my decisions matter to me.

Does that answer your question?

If morals are reletive (IE there is no such thing as a universal good or bad) then that basicly is equivelnt to nhileism. Here is why. If you accept that morals do not exist universally, then you must also accept that people like Hitler and Mother Teressa are moral equivlents. Although more people think Hitler was bad and Mother Teressa good, majority opinion counts for nothing in a world of reletivity. Thus it is easy to say that there is no such thing as a morally good action. Hence it is also easy to say that there is no such thing as a morally bad action. Thus no actions of any kind have any intrinsic value. Hence nothing we do at all matters. Hence life is meaningless, since nothing we do matters.

Let me ask you a question.

If it were not against a 'moral' code.... would you, now, commit suicide?

My suspicion is that you have enough of a sense of 'self-preservation' that even if it were not an 'immoral' action from your perspective, you'd probably avoid being dead if you could help it... right?

That is because we are PRAGMATIC creatures. We 'make the best'... on a small scale (in our everyday lives) and on a grand scale (as a world filled with 'everyday lives').

And there is your answer.

That is why there is no instant assumption of 'nihilism' the minute you throw moral relativism into the mix.

Mother Theresa... 'good' person? Pragmatically - yes, she helped a lot more people than she harmed, I believe.

Hitler... 'bad' person? Pragmatically - yes, he caused untold pain, suffering and collective harm, I believe.


So - with or without your religion, there is still capacity for 'morals'... and those morals can happily be 'relative'... purely based on pragmatism.

They are givens, but if we accept your position then the morality taught to the Hitler Youth were as morally correct as that taught to anyone else.
Morality is behavior that utilizes the distinction between right and wrong. Regardless of what Hilter Youth were taught, they made decisions that included certain actions based on their set of moral values. Some of them acted believing what they did was right, or for a greater good. Some of them may have acted believing that what they did was wrong. These are both "moral choices" (choices made utilizing a distinction between right and wrong). There is no universal morality that says that what they did was incorrect; there is only your morality that says that (and mine).

It is including the concepts of right and wrong in the action that makes something moral. Doing the same actions with no reference to right or wrong takes away the "morality" from the act. For instance, if a machine arrived on earth at the end of the Second World War and slaughtered many people, it would not be behaving morally. The people who decided to send the machine, if any, would have been behaving morally.

Talk about missing the point.

Moral relativism holds that there is no universal good or evil, and that the moral value of something is in the eye of the beholder, varying from person to person. Thus moral relativism does not imply that a genocidal maniac and a charity worker are the same - merely that their relative positions on the continuum of morality will be perceived differently by different observers.

So you can equate Hitler with anyone you wish - that is your perception, but not necessarily someone else's. Moral relativism only states that everyone has a different perception, it gives no information as to what that perception will be.

Talk about missing the point.

Moral relativism holds that there is no universal good or evil, and that the moral value of something is in the eye of the beholder, varying from person to person. Thus moral relativism does not imply that a genocidal maniac and a charity worker are the same - merely that their relative positions on the continuum of morality will be perceived differently by different observers.

So you can equate Hitler with anyone you wish - that is your perception, but not necessarily someone else's. Moral relativism only states that everyone has a different perception, it gives no information as to what that perception will be.
Well said.

Indeed. And it seems to me that if we are creatures of free will, then OBJECTIVE morality would negate the meaning of our lives.

With free will, we decide what is right, what is meaningful and what is important. If the universe were dictating those things, our individuality would be meaningless.

1)What is the meaning of life?

2)Can you point to a specific "objective truth"?

3)Can you point to a specific example of an "objective moral"?1. Life in itself has no meaning. Nothing within the scope of this existance has any meaning in itself. Life (and other things) may, however, have been given meaning by something outside of the scope of this existance. There are two things you must know in order to answer the question: 1. Is there anything outside of this existance? 2. If so, does it give any meaning to life? As this remains uncertain, so does the anwer to your question.

2. Something exists.

3. Nope. The closest you can get to objective morals is to establish a goal and then think of what goes towards it and what goes against it. Those things, however, still aren't "right" or "wrong", except within the specific scope of reaching that goal.

If morals are reletive (IE there is no such thing as a universal good or bad) then that basicly is equivelnt to nhileism. Here is why. If you accept that morals do not exist universally, then you must also accept that people like Hitler and Mother Teressa are moral equivlents. Although more people think Hitler was bad and Mother Teressa good, majority opinion counts for nothing in a world of reletivity. Thus it is easy to say that there is no such thing as a morally good action. Hence it is also easy to say that there is no such thing as a morally bad action. Thus no actions of any kind have any intrinsic value. Hence nothing we do at all matters. Hence life is meaningless, since nothing we do matters.

Hitler and Mother Theresa WERE moral equivalents!

You never heard of the evil, nun run gas chambers of Calcutta? God, the educational system today!

Talk about missing the point.

Moral relativism holds that there is no universal good or evil, and that the moral value of something is in the eye of the beholder, varying from person to person. Thus moral relativism does not imply that a genocidal maniac and a charity worker are the same - merely that their relative positions on the continuum of morality will be perceived differently by different observers.

So you can equate Hitler with anyone you wish - that is your perception, but not necessarily someone else's. Moral relativism only states that everyone has a different perception, it gives no information as to what that perception will be.

You'd have to go further to be completely accurate: no perception is any more or less accurate than another, because there is no one set way in which the world is. If so, then I can see how nihilism follows.

Thing is, though, I do think most of the relativists here are simply engaging in a non sequitur. They seem to be arguing a skeptical claim about our understanding of the world and whether or not it is possible to know what determinate good and evil are. However, they then seem to be drawing an inference that simply does not follow: that because we can't know what determinate good and evil are, good and evil don't exist or are purely perceptive in character. That doesn't follow because it is entirely possible that, even if it were true that it is impossible to determine what is good and evil in the world (a point I'm still not sold on, but no matter), that there still might be a good and evil in the world that we simply don't know about.

Let me ask you a question.

If it were not against a 'moral' code.... would you, now, commit suicide?

My suspicion is that you have enough of a sense of 'self-preservation' that even if it were not an 'immoral' action from your perspective, you'd probably avoid being dead if you could help it... right?

That is because we are PRAGMATIC creatures. We 'make the best'... on a small scale (in our everyday lives) and on a grand scale (as a world filled with 'everyday lives').

And there is your answer.

That is why there is no instant assumption of 'nihilism' the minute you throw moral relativism into the mix.

Mother Theresa... 'good' person? Pragmatically - yes, she helped a lot more people than she harmed, I believe.

Hitler... 'bad' person? Pragmatically - yes, he caused untold pain, suffering and collective harm, I believe.


So - with or without your religion, there is still capacity for 'morals'... and those morals can happily be 'relative'... purely based on pragmatism.
Grave!

I was wondering if you'd frequent the thread. WooT!

Christianity makes moral objectivism worthless as well.

If there is a perfect morality, then it can only be discovered through our rational examination of the world around us. By entering a supreme being with constant interaction, you completely remove the ability of anyone to rationally come to conclusions with the evidence given.

You'd have to go further to be completely accurate: no perception is any more or less accurate than another, because there is no one set way in which the world is. If so, then I can see how nihilism follows.

Thing is, though, I do think most of the relativists here are simply engaging in a non sequitur. They seem to be arguing a skeptical claim about our understanding of the world and whether or not it is possible to know what determinate good and evil are. However, they then seem to be drawing an inference that simply does not follow: that because we can't know what determinate good and evil are, good and evil don't exist or are purely perceptive in character. That doesn't follow because it is entirely possible that, even if it were true that it is impossible to determine what is good and evil in the world (a point I'm still not sold on, but no matter), that there still might be a good and evil in the world that we simply don't know about.
i feel quite capable of deciding good and evil to my own satisfaction (even if not to grave n idle's satisfaction)

its just that my definitions may not match up with yours and have little chance of being exactly the same as those of someone born and raised in a hindu family in india.

the only way to claim an ultimate Good and Evil is to have it be directly from the mouth of the one true god spoken in your own language in great detail

when that happens, ill be happy to discuss it with you.

Christianity makes moral objectivism worthless as well.

If there is a perfect morality, then it can only be discovered through our rational examination of the world around us. By entering a supreme being with constant interaction, you completely remove the ability of anyone to rationally come to conclusions with the evidence given.
Agreed. *bows*

Does that answer your question?

I had misinterpreted an earlier comment by you to mean that you did believe in objective morality, and had been reading your posts in line with that assumption. It appears we have an incident of friendly fire on our hands here: I had been pointing out and leading towardfs apparent contradictions in your posts, but was in error. Mea culpa.

There may or may not be absolute truth or absolute right and wrong. It's a question that no one is prepared to even attempt to answer with any kind of reasonable arguement.

If the decision is made that there is no absolute truth then I can certainly see a strong connection to nihlism. However, if the position is taken that there is an absolute truth, then the problem becomes much more complicated.

The decision faced by anyone who believes in absolute truth is whether or not that truth is knowable or unknowable. If the decsion is made that it is knowable then there is no possibility of moral relativism. However, if it is decided that an unattainable truth exists then moral relativism and a driven purposeful life are compatable.

The fact is that no one has any means of producing compelling evidence regarding the absolute truth of any particular moral code. So everyone defines their own morality. Even those who follow a religious code have defined their own morality in an exceptionally lazy way.

To look at the world from the standpoint that there is no way to know who is right and who is wrong makes everyones opinion equally vaild. However it is possible to hold opinions and beliefs and hope that they resemble the ultimate truth more closely then the views held by your enemy.

So were Hitler and Mother Teresa moral equals? I have no real grounds to say they weren't. But I'd like to believe that devoting your life to charity is in some way better than exterminating millions of innocent people. I could be wrong, but I sustain myself with hope, hope in my own personal morality.

The most important thing is to find or create a system of moralty that you are completly comfortable with, because personally I'd be happier burning in hell for not hating homosexuals, than I would be lounging in a heaven that excluded them.

Hitler and Mother Theresa WERE moral equivalents!

You never heard of the evil, nun run gas chambers of Calcutta? God, the educational system today!

Those camps were destroyed before they could be liberated, the legacy of Mother Theresa's right hand man, Hermann Goeringpeemapetalon.

As to the OP, I think its a bit of a non-sequitur to say that acknowledging relativity in moral judgement automatically equates Hitler and Mother Theresa.

If I see two points relating to eachother in some way, and somebody riding by sees them in a different way, it doesn't make those points the same. The view of their relationship is simply different from a different reference point.

There doesn't have to be a universal reference frame for that to be the case.

Those camps were destroyed before they could be liberated, the legacy of Mother Theresa's right hand man, Hermann Goeringpeemapetalon.

As to the OP, I think its a bit of a non-sequitur to say that acknowledging relativity in moral judgement automatically equates Hitler and Mother Theresa.

If I see two points relating to eachother in some way, and somebody riding by sees them in a different way, it doesn't make those points the same. The view of their relationship is simply different from a different reference point.

There doesn't have to be a universal reference frame for that to be the case.

Saint Curie is like Doppler Radar for the soul.

Saint Curie is like Doppler Radar for the soul.
More like the Doppler Effect of the soul. *nods*

Moral reltivism would state that there is no such thing as an objective morality - Yes or no

Moral relitivism would state that universally speeking, the actions of mother Teressa and Hitler are morally equivlent and that the only diffrence between them is in other peoples perceptions. The actions are not univerally good or bad - Yes or no

If the answer to both those questions is yes, then my assertations are accurate. If the answer is no or some other answer, then I'd like to hear it.



Its not a book for Christians. Its a book explaining the Christian universe view, and why it holds true.

But it still sounds like bullshit. Unless you're just explaining it badly it rests on an incorrect premise. Just because things are relative, does not mean that they are equivalent. Hot and cold are relative, it does not mean they are the same. Water may boil in the cold of space, or condense to 102 C degree water if it's under enough pressure, but heat and cold have definite effects on it dependent on its relative heat or cold relative to it's pressure.

0 C degrees or 100 C degrees are relative to 50 C degrees, but they're not the same.

By the same token, good and bad may be relative without being equivalent. An action may be good or bad dependent both upon the intent of the person (temperature) or his circumstances (the pressure).

e.g. It's impossible to be couragous when you're sitting at a desk doing your job in an office. It doesn't mean you're a coward, just that there's nothing couragous to be done. It doesn't mean that in another situation, like seeing a child in front of a speeding bus, you wouldn't be couragous. It's relative to your situation.

By the same token, good and bad may be relative without being equivalent. An action may be good or bad dependent both upon the intent of the person (temperature) or his circumstances (the pressure).

And if the matter is as simple as this how do you propose that we measure the morality of an action? ...and how are we to tell whether this measurement reflects something objective in the universe or is just a descriptive form which we have invented as human beings without reference to anything else of import?

Hence life is meaningless, since nothing we do matters.

exactly.

end of discussion. now go and try to have some fun, life is short.

But it still sounds like bullshit. Unless you're just explaining it badly it rests on an incorrect premise. Just because things are relative, does not mean that they are equivalent. Hot and cold are relative, it does not mean they are the same. Water may boil in the cold of space, or condense to 102 C degree water if it's under enough pressure, but heat and cold have definite effects on it dependent on its relative heat or cold relative to it's pressure.

You still dont understand what I am getting at. If things are reletive and there is no universal disticntion for right and wrong then universally speeking they are the same. Thus morality is just a function of human perspective. And if morality is just a function on human perspective, it is inherantly flawed. Here's why

Matt: I don't believe that all points of view are equally valid.
Jan: Why not?
Matt: Because it doesn't make sense that everything is relative. That wouldn't be logical.
Jan: Ah, you see? That is your problem. You are using logic to refute relativism and you cannot do that. Relativism isn't based upon logic. It isn't the same thing. So you can't use logic to refute relativism.
Matt: If you say I cannot use logic to refute relativism, then you are using logic to say this since you give me the logical statement and conclusion that I cannot use logic to refute relativism because relativism isn't based on logic. I hope you can see that you made a logical case here for not using logic. If that is so, then your complaint is self contradictory and invalid. Would you want me to follow a system of thought that is self contradictory?
Jan: I can see why they call you slick. But, the point is that relativism is true within itself and logic is not a necessary property of relativism. It can be used within relativism, but it is not superior to relativism.
Matt: To say that relativism is true within itself is an absolute statement. Don't you see that you can't do that if relativism is true? You would have to say something like, "Relativism is true some of the time."
Jan: You are playing word games here.
Matt: I do not see how. I am simply responding to what you said. I think what you are doing is simply making assertions without proof. You are saying that it is true because it is true. In essence, you are telling me an absolute truth that relativism is its own self-existing truth. This is an absolute statement which again refutes the notion that relativism is true. Furthermore, if relativism is true then relativism itself is relative. In other words, if relativism is true, then relativism may or may not be true in and of itself. If that is true, then relativism can be false. If relativism can be false, then relativism can't be true.
Jan: There you go using logic again. Logic is not the whole means by which truth is determined. Relativism goes beyond logic to truths that logic cannot prove.
Matt: Okay, then without using logic, can you tell why relativism is true?
Jan: It is true because it is true that people believe different things and that people have different perceptions of reality and what is right for them.
Matt: I agree that people believe different things, but does believing different things make them true because they are believed?
Jan: No, of course not. But you must understand that we perceive things differently, and that these different perceptions are true for different people.
Matt: I can agree with that, but I am not speaking about things that really are relative like which side of the bed you should get out of in the morning. I'm talking about things like lying, cheating, stealing, etc. If relativism is true and all points of view are equally valid, then someone's view that it is okay to steal, is valid.
Jan: Technically, it would be, depending on the circumstances. For example, if it meant feeding your family or helping someone.
Matt: I see. Okay, give me your money right now. I want to steal it from you. If I had a gun, I'd point it at you and rob you. Is that okay?
Jan: Of course not.
Matt: Why not? My view is that in order to win the argument, I must rob from you to demonstrate the absurdity of your position. Therefore, it is right for me. You should approve.
Jan: But I cannot, because it isn't right for me that you steal from me.
Matt: Oh, so relativism has boundaries? It is true only for the individual, no one else?
Jan: In that case yes.
Matt: Then relativism isn't a universal truth is it? If it is only true for individuals on an individual basis, it may or may not be true or false or right or wrong or whatever. It is just a kind of "whatever you want to do and feel" philosophy.
Jan: Sort of, but you can't harm anyone else.
Matt: Are you saying that it is an absolute that you are not to harm anyone else?
Jan: There you go again turning this into an argument on absolutes.
Matt: But I am only following your lead. You're the one who said that relativism is true because it is true. Correct?
Jan: Yes, I said that, but you have to understand that it is relative to the individual.
Matt: If relativism is true because it is true, then can I say that it is false because it is false?
Jan: You could if you wanted to.
Matt: Then would it be false or not?
Jan: It would be false for you.
Matt: But that isn't what I said. I said it was false.... "because it is false." I didn't say it was false for me. I said that it is by nature false. Don't you see? You said it was true "because it is true." You spoke of it as being true "by nature." You implied an absolute quality to relativism as a real truth. If I can do the same thing in the opposite direction, then how does my assertion become different in nature than yours? In other words, "by nature" it is true and "by nature" it is false. Both cannot be true. Therefore relativism doesn't work.
Jan: What you are doing is using logic again. Relativism and logic are different things. You cannot use one thing to judge another.
Matt: But you just did. You made a statement and drew a conclusion. You said that relativism and logic are different. Then you said that I cannot use one to judge the other. In other words, you made a statement and drew a logical conclusion. Look. If you want to validate relativism using relativism, then why do you keep using logic to do it?
Jan: You keep going back to these logic games. You have to understand that they are simply different.
Matt: So then, what you are saying is that I am not allowed to examine relativism in a logical manner. Correct?
Jan: Correct.
Matt: You want truth, right?
Jan: Of course.
Matt: But, if I must accept that relativism is simply true, how can I possibly know if it is ever false? What you are saying is that it is never false. If it is never false, then it is always true. If it is always true, then it isn't relative, is it?
Jan: There you go using logic again.
Matt: I'm trying to ask questions. But, it seems that you want me to avoid thinking and just accept relativism as true. If I were to say that relativism is true, then it is absolutely true that relativism is true which would mean that the opposing view that relativism is false, could not be true...which would mean that relativism is not true since it states that all views are true. It seems to me that the only way relativism is true, is if you stop thinking logically and just accept it on blind faith that it is true.
Jan: This is the problem with the western, Aristotelian logic system. It teaches you that there are absolutes when there are not.
Matt: But to say there are not absolutes is an absolute statement, which is self refuting. Again, it seems that the only way to accept relativism is to not think logically. You have to believe it on faith.
Jan: The nature of relativism is that it is not subject to logic. No logical reasons are necessary to establish this. Relativism, by its nature, is not of logic, but beyond logic. The essence of relativism is that relativism itself, is true.
Matt: Then you are simply stating that relativism is true without proving it. In other words, you can't prove it. You just say it is true and that's it.
Jan: We are getting no where.
Matt: I disagree. I think we are making great progress.
Jan: See? It is how you perceive it, isn't it?
Matt: Then, is it valid that we have made progress? After all, relativism says that all points of view are equally valid.
Jan: Its valid for you, not for me.
Matt: Here we go again...

And if morality is just a function on human perspective, it is inherantly flawed.
And that has anything to do with how I live my life because...?

Here's why
Why is relativism not logical?

Why is relativism not logical?

Because it is self refuting. It says "all things are relative" but that in itself is an absolute statement. Thus it is self refuting. Thus it is more logical to say that somethings are reletive, and others absolute.

Because it is self refuting. It says "all things are relative" but that in itself is an absolute statement. Thus it is self refuting. Thus it is more logical to say that somethings are reletive, and others absolute.

It doesn't say "all things are relative". It says "morals are relative". Since this is not a moral statement, it is not self refuting.