Because it cannot answer the question, "Should there be existence?" in the negative without contradicting itself. — Philosophim

It only contradicts itself in one unique case, when the objective morality is referring to itself. We could modify the statement to be "Should (objects, humans, life, literally anything else) exist" or "should there be existence/should things exist outside of the moral sphere" and it could claim "no, that's not moral" with ease.
That would hardly be advocating for existence as a whole

If it should not exist, then it should not be followed. It contradicts itself. — Philosophim

Yes, I agree. Therefore, an objective morality must advocate that its existence is just. But I don't see how that proves that the broader, universal concept of existence itself is moral, or how it shows that our or anything else's existence is moral (excluding the objective moral system, whose morality is a logical fact).

I understand that, and I was a bit unclear in my wording. My point was that objective morality, which we presume is true, proves only that the existence of the system itself is moral and ought to exist (i.e. it would be immoral for there no such system, like if we were judging an alternate amoral universe by our universe's standards). I don't think your proposition proves that existence as a concept is moral, only that the existence of an objective moral system is moral (which is somewhat redundant and tautological). To conflate the existence of a moral system with the existence of an object or sentient being is a stretch, in my opinion. And since an objective morality is not dependent on sentient beings (or anything else, it exists as a universal truth) which has already been stipulated, our existence is not moral/immoral based on this argument.

An Image of Rome by Erich Gruen, 1969. From the library, compiles some great primary sources from ancient prose and poetry
Inferno by Dante Alighieri, John Ciardi translation. Beautiful, poetic, and informative.

f. But if it exists, then according to itself, it shouldn't exist.

g. If it shouldn't exist, then the answer "No" objectively shouldn't exist thus contradicting itself. — Philosophim

Then isn't your proposition only proving that objective morality itself should exist, i.e. is a moral end? I don't see why it would apply to any other forms of existence (whose existence wouldn't affect the existence of the objective morality)

Religion has to be "observed" for what it is, and this involves removing what is merely incidental, like the long robe ceremonies, the endless story telling, and on and on. These are the mere trappings of religion. But what IS it that is in the world that religion is about? This is the point. — Constance

I want to know the nature of something that is there to be observed, like natural condition is there for a natural scientist, PRIOR to it being taken up by cultures and their institutions and turned into an infinitely debatable construct. — Constance

But religion isn't a natural condition, nor did it exist "prior to it being taken up by cultures". It is part of our social system, the direct result of it, so to pluck it out of a culture and dissect it, probing for its "true nature" separated from the human flesh is absurd. If you want to examine religion outside of the social context, you ultimately find a primitive form of philosophy, a desire for understanding.

I don't think there's one "essence" to religion that can. Religion satisfies numerous social needs, which is why it is so pervasive. It bonds and unifies communities, helps us understand the world, preserves cultural traditions, inspires camraderie–I think it's impossible to narrow religion down to one fundamental cause. Because it contains a variety of social and individual benefits, it can (ideally) appeal to (nearly) everyone.
You might point out that I am considering practical effects much more than existential causes, but that's because religion, unlike philosophy, must adapt to survive in the social environment. Then again, I might be too analytical about this.

Religion rises out of the radical ethical indeterminacy of our existence — Constance

The moral function of religion generally didn't emerge until later, and was built on already existing religions. The first religions had no need to explain morality, because the stories were probably shared among close communities. Close communities hold their members accountable with social pressure. Originally, familiarity was enough to maintain cordiality. Once the group groes too large for personal connections to hold it together, or some start questioning rules (or appear likely to do so), only then is religion needed to justify morality. (See the progression from only somewhat didactic tales about animism and folkloric gods to the clear moral laws laid out by the Abrahamic religions.) Importantly, this will only work when modifying already established religious beliefs; otherwise, it will be dismissed as a fable.
That is all assuming that religion was created to perform the function of moral arbiter. However, i think it's more likely that religion, which was often used explain the unexplained or unctontrollable, merely expanded its domain to also explain why the group has morals in the first place. That way, morality is no longer culturally man-made, but god-given. In order to better understand morality, we relinquished our authority to the stories of the past, and religion finally explained all.

I agree, and I wasn't clear enough with my wording. I think those are examples of the outliers which don't illustrate society's values as a whole. However, they still exist and must be accounted for, which proves that society and individuals aren't perfect. The fact that there remains demand for the work of organ traffickers shows that some value survival or profit over ethics and others. While it's an extreme example, many other examples are more common and more accepted.

Pimps and organ traffickers too? — Lionino

Yes, it doesn't have to be a good or legal reason. Excluding certain outliers, the overwhelming majority of jobs are necessary to support our current society, which reflects what we value.

your mother said 'Don't be a push-over' - I don't see how that's any different to 'have a little hardness to you.' — Barkon

By hardness, do you mean Firmness? Resolve? Constitution? Principle? I certainly think the last three are all admirable qualities, but before you go any further, let's figure out what "hardness" means.

A nation of farmers would live a lot longer than a nation of comparative literature majors, I'm sure you agree. The trades are "real work." Tradesmen built the college buildings, they operate the plumbing and the electricity and haul the trash. Without them, the lotus eaters would not be able to function at all. — fishfry

I must object to your phrasing. Nearly all work should be considered "real work". Every job that exists exists for a reason: modern society demands it. There is no reason to be classist, insulting people's occupations, because each performs a function considered necessary in some way. To think that tradesmen alone could recreate our civilization without academics or white-collar workers or even the creative types is absurd. Without further specialization of labor, they will only stumble upon new technology, not invent it. They will haphazardly pantomime, not coordinate. And without a culture to enjoy, how will they live?

An occupation's value to society is roughly related to its economic price, and the number of workers in that field. So while tradesmen are undoubtedly essential, they only make up a segment. I do agree that, based on this principle, there should be far fewer "comparative literature" majors, if that is the type of job they are seeking. However, there are far better ways to prove your point than demeaning ordinary people or idolizing one sect at another's expense.

Religious discourse is a special type of discourse. It's meant to instruct the people in religious themes, praise the religious doctrine and the religious figures, proselytize to outsiders. It's not meant to encourage critical thinking as critical thinking is understood in secular academia. — baker

Just as religions must conflict if each claims to be the only correct ideology, science and religion must conflict when their domains overlap if either wants to be seen as legitimate. Religion's static dogma contradicts science's logical and dynamic nature. Scientists know their place – they rarely ever touch philosophy, unless it is directly relevant to them. Any scientist sincerely claiming to have solved the meaning of life would be laughed out of the field.

On the other hand, many old-world religions constantly encroach on science's legitimate territory, promoting preposterous and destructive claims. When this occurs, science has a responsibility to disprove religion and put it in its place. That is the only way for the two to coexist. And if they cannot, science will inevitably win, because it is adaptive and produces tangible results that benefit all of society.

Time is just a product of human perception, which is mental in nature. If one is put into a room with no windows, but just 4 walls, floor and ceiling, and he has been kept in the space for few days, he will never have a single clue on the amount of time passed while he was in captivity in the space, because there was no events, changes or movements at all around him for his perception to realise the time durations happened in that space. — Corvus

But wouldn't he still feel as if time passed? He would be able to estimate how much time passed based on his awareness of his own thoughts, creating an internal clock. His sucessive sequence of thoughts also creates the perception of time.

I didn't bring that up; you did — Vera Mont

Sorry then, I misunderstood your previous response (hence the coma digression).

You can't experience nothing. Which is probably why, in a coma, people don't experience or remember anything. That's because they are unconscious. See? — Vera Mont

Then I guess we reached an impasse. I would argue that in the absence of any stimulus, while still being conscious (aware of the nothingness), perception would turn inwards to the self's existence, creating thoughts.

You can't experience nothing. — Vera Mont

At least we agree with this, albeit for different reasons. The conscious self cannot experience nothing, because one can always perceive the self's existence and consciousness (awareness).

Logically inconsistent with what? You have this uncaused, unembodied, dimensionless consciousness counting nothing and philosophizing about nothing. In nothing, there is literally nothing to perceive, chronologize or think about. The idea is wholly self-contradictory. — Vera Mont

A being surrounded by nothing physical, including its own body (disregarding the science, it's a thought experiment) would still be aware of its own existence, perceiving itself, the definition of sentience. And if you emphasize addressing the hard-problem of consciousness (even though that is not necessary for our purposes, we are purposefully suspending it), perhaps this is a person in a coma, completely unaware of the physical, with no prior memories influencing them, blanker than a blank state, absolutely nothing but the ability to perceive and think. Avicenna, and later Descartes, both believed that there are certain things one can deduce. That one exists. That one is one being. That another being exactly like themself would be a second being. etc.
I would better understand your objection if you told me how it's self contradicting. The uncaused part is irrelevant. Being unembodied is less important than existing, (even though it's not actually possible). The being can perceive themself and chronologize those perceptions. With a process of perception, thought and memory, a sensation of time would necessarily follow

Before we can do that, please explain how any of those hypothetical events could take place in a universe full of nothing. — Vera Mont

Whether it is possible is beside the point, so long as it's not logically inconsistent. We are imagining something almost identically similar to Avicenna's floating man argument. The question is not whether this can be accomplished (no), but if, under these starting conditions, time exists or is perceived. Does the existence of an observer, even if there is nothing to be observed, affect the perception or existence of time?

How many thoughts can it have about nothing and how could it tell in which order those nothing thoughts occurred? — Vera Mont

There are probably some things he could conjure a priori, mainly math, some philosophy. Either way, the hypothetical helps us better understand the concept of time.

But then this consciousness wouldn’t be nothing as events or more precisely thoughts are happening in it. Yet it’s all happening without any dimensions being present, would time be more tangible in this scenario or would it still present an illusion to this mind for if past thought was a fabrication of the present state of mind then there would be no linearity but merely the illusion of it unless grounded in concrete stuff which would still somewhat present the same limitation from an idealistic (idealism) perspective? — simplyG

Great point, you articulated what I couldn't. If something (namely consciousness in a nonphysical form) could exist outside of the 3 dimensions, I do agree that there would be a perception of time. But we still need to clearly define the difference between time itself and time as an illusion (if there is one) to make any hard progress in this thought experiment.

Who cares? — NOS4A2

Anybody who desires a functional government acting in good faith

Time is a way of explaining change. If nothing changed, and everything was a static state, it would seem as if no time passed, and the idea of time would be useless. I think time requires an observer to experience the change, whether within the system or without. Otherwise, the system would change, but without a record of what happened, it would seem as if the system were always modified like that. And when an observer is placed in a static system, they experience time because observing requires the ability to detect change (its whole purpose), which in turn requires adaptive and changing observations, creating the feeling of time passing. So, if nothing existed, the idea of time just wouldn't make sense.

What is meant by "mean"?

Road signs have meanings, very rigid and objective ones.

Words (like "meaning") have meanings, slightly mushier than road signs. — hypericin

The fact that we are thinking and feeling beings means that everything has some sort of meaning, because we associate physical stimuli with our memories and ideas. That gives all objects some importance beyond their physical stimuli. As for ideas, they must have meaning, because they are not physical by nature. When we ask what life means, we are seeking any answer beyond the surface, beyond what actually exists, that explains or develops the concept of existence.

To prove me wrong, you would have to do the following:
1. Live forever without consuming any oxygen, fluids, and food.
2. Do things other organisms e.g. tardigrades, dolphins, chameleons, etc. can do.
3. Be able to teleport everywhere and everywhen.
4. Prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.
5. Make all living things (including the dead ones and the never born ones) forever happy.
6. Be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.

Once you have done the above tasks, I will be convinced that you have free will. If I had free will I would have already done the above tasks. — Truth Seeker

Just because one is unable to accomplish certain actions does not mean they lack free will. Free will means that they have the knowing ability to choose to attempt these actions, not that they succeed. Hence it is called free will, not free action, i.e. omnipotence.

Slave plantations worked. Some treated their slaves better than others. But none of that eliminates the immorality of the plantation system. — NOS4A2

Which was the sole result of economics. It was profitable, it was immoral, and it was done. This is exactly what would happen without the protection of the government. Yes, governments can worsen crises if they also behave immorally, like the European governments who encouraged the slave trade. But at least the government (in its democratic form) is accountable, while individuals are not if a proper justice system doesn't exist.

No state has ever began with any sort of voluntary social contract or disinterested view of promoting justice and order — NOS4A2

This may be true, but at least citizens can modify the contract via voting. Because of this, the nature of government has changed drastically in the past two centuries, with an increased emphasis on social welfare.

States are imposed in order to protect power and exploit those under its dominion, enabling a small class of beneficiaries to satisfy themselves through various confiscations, like the taxing powers and legal system. — NOS4A2

Does that not occur economically? I'd much rather a government, which I help elect, take 20% of my paycheck than have rampant monopolies price-gouge the consumer with poverty wages, or literally sell my life to make ends meet. And at least that 20% funds the livelihoods of millions of government employees and the unemployed, and provides me with essential services that would otherwise be monopolized, rather than feeding the incessant greed of a few thousand robber barons.

You are trying to give as granted that we cannot live without state intervention, despite that even most of the cases this operation ends up terribly. — javi2541997

While we can live in smaller communities (which tend to have their own, if small, form of government), the fact that the state persists throughout history shows its necessity, originally a defense against the outsiders, and more recently, a protection of the citizen. Of course, the state also exists to defend itself, which can be achieved through violence or tolerance. You say that in most cases, this "ends up terribly". In what way do you think that is true?

One of the main points is that most of the governments, in the long term, become useless and they will not work to make the things altogether. — javi2541997

Most things in the long term become useless. For governments, that could take centuries. After that, a new government almost inevitably takes the old one's place. The important thing is what occurs while the government is still effective (does it defend the people's interests), whether it is sustainable for a decent amount of time, and whether the transition of power to the next government is successful.

But this is usually caused by governments and not citizens who try to live individually and they cannot do so, because the state (or local government) forces you to have "ideologies" to be part of a "community". — javi2541997

Again, humans naturally form communities as an inherently social species. Even apes form tribes, and without a discernible form of government, they still participate in warfare (and sometimes, genocide). To say that this is solely the state's fault is to forget human nature. That does not mean that a government is not complicit or responsible for doing terrible things; only that individuals are, too.

If you like government so much, maybe you’d like Somalia better when they had one. It had all the regular stuff: totalitarianism, corruption, political oppression, and of course they turned their weapons on their own citizens and committed genocide. I guess they got their tax dollar’s worth. — NOS4A2

Just because some governments fail (and actively hurt their people), that doesn't mean government in general won't work. That situation wasn't caused by the inherently negative effects of government, but rather the poor hand the nation was dealt (economically, historically, and socially). And as if there wouldn't be oppression, mass murder, and exploitation without the government, which generally minimizes chaos. The problem is indicative of deeper social divisions and an unstable, dysfunctional political environment.

Freedom's maybe just another word for responsibility. Even if determinism quietly prevails, it arguably the project of our lives to defy it and strive toward godlike autonomy. — green flag

Amazingly put. This is a neat balance between existentialism and determinism.

The first, most basic responsibility is that of the self. Not for its preservation, but the understanding that it alone is responsible for its actions and, more importantly, its essence. But what of the external world? Does that not shape us and our actions more than our own decisions? Why, yes, that may be true. But still, these choices, even under total duress, serve to solidify the identity.

It would seem like if existentialism was correct, either person could choose to reaction and act differently at any moment. That not doing so is bad faith. However, personality theory would indicate no, these tendencies, for whatever causal reasons, are relatively fixed habits for these people — schopenhauer1

It certainly depends upon the extent to which one believes that personality and dispositions affect our actions. And if I am reading this correctly, it honestly boils down to whether existentialism is compatible with (a form of) determinism. The interesting twist, however, is that these dispositions and the actions which result from them are what (arguably) define us. So are we, in a way, slaves to "ourselves"?

But do I really understand myself? Or am I a mere passenger on a ship passing through the fog, asking why the captain turns this way or that, and wondering what he knows that I don’t? - Finarfin

Saying it has value because we give it such sounds...well like lying. — Darkneos

Well, value is an inherently subjective thing, so is it an objective fact that something is valuable? No, but it is a fact that it is valuable to us, which is ultimately what we mean when we say something is "valuable". That doesn't mean that we are lying, it is just a subjective observation. There are many reasons why something is valuable to us, but frankly, that is irrelevant for this argument, simply because it is valuable to us. The reasons for value are based on our experience of reality and the subsequent desires/emotions we feel or logical conclusions we make. So, value doesn't exist because we say so, but because we genuinely feel and think so. And outside of that, absolutely nothing has value. But frankly, what more value do we need?

This follows the logic of science. Of course we can believe that a singing banana is the creator despite science. But we must then explain how a banana can give rise to consciousness, science, logic and tie itself into the paradigm of understanding of reality to prove it as the fundamental origin of being. — Benj96

So long as it doesn't contradict itself, logic, or science, the aesthetics really don't matter, though some assumptions would certainly be more likely (than the flying spaghetti monster, as an example). And of course, there are ways of sidestepping the problems that arise when god is brought into the equation, which requires some assumptions of its own. Hence why science has managed to explain so much through intelligent inquiry whereas many conventional religions will inevitably fail.

For example "God is a floating banana with red hair that sings karaoke at midnight every 63,000 years" is a definition for god that hopefully all of us can confidently reject for the myriad illogical/irrational reasons in the statement".

Other definitions are harder to reject absolutely like "God is a wholesome and benevolent ideal manifested in conscious awareness of the universe, that asks that we be kind to eachother". Here we have a lot of moral/ethical reasons/ imperatives to believe its credibility. — Benj96

Why should we reject the first god you proposed but accept the second? You say that it is irrational or illogical, but provide no evidence for that claim except that it counters our intuition and doesn't align with our assumption of what a god "should" be. Both seem around equally probable if we accept the general deifying ideas of god that they both share.

How does a newborn come into the world with values and principles? — NOS4A2

And even so, does it matter if the subject in question has certain values at all? If we accept the principles mentioned, it seems that the newborn can still be "violated" regardless of the future values it may accept as an adult. The retroactive application of values unnecessarily convolutes the argument.

Religion was once fluid changing with the times and the spoken word which is in keeping with the nature of the world, for the only thing assured in life is change. — boagie

Exactly. Even if we disregard the truth of our beliefs, it is clear that science is far more likely to survive from a rational perspective. Science acknowledges both our ignorance and our growing knowledge. It knows where its boundaries are, where it can confidently assert the truth. Religion, on the other hand, is fundamentally based on tradition. It asserts that thousand-year-old doctrines are unequivocably true. Thus, it cannot adapt to changes in our environment or knowledge without contradiction. If yesterday the minister completely altered "God's Creed" because they were outdated, whose to say that won't happen tomorrow? (interestingly, this seems to make folk religions more compatible with science due to their decentralized nature). It should be an inherently unstable system, but why hasn't it collapsed yet? Every day religion is forced to yield more and more territory to science; eventually, it will pass a point of no return.

And I want to live in a compassionate society that helps people as long as they can be helped, then lets them go when they decide it's time for them to go. I do not believe in the abstract "value of human life". Life has value to the one [not exclusively humans] living it and the ones who are affected by it. I do believe in the autonomy an dignity of individuals. — Vera Mont

Reminds me of a quote by Montesquieu
"Life was given to me as a favor, so I may abandon it when it is one no longer."

It is certainly seen as being where all roads begin, and like God, is not in need of, or lend itself to, further explanation. — Janus

It seems any explanation for a fundamental statement on which everything relies would fail to be complete. If one uses God or the Big Bang or any other hypothesis, it is always possible to ask why that is the case.
"Why does God or the Big Bang exist, why is it fundamental to our ultimate understanding, why does it explain everything?"
It just brings us further down the never-ending rabbit hole. We can continue with our theories, venturing further into the darkness, or admit that we cannot fully understand the universe (because we are part of it?).
As for God being an all-encompassing truth that explains itself, you cannot use the existence of God to prove its existence, causes, or necessity. It just begs the question.

The question is, can I choose the thought which chooses between them? If not, do I have any control over what I choose? — Paul Michael

While I am slightly inclined to disagree with your premise, that is a very good point. Suppose it is the case that all our decisions stem from uncontrollable thoughts. Wouldn't those subconscious thoughts be an integral part of our identity? We would essentially be forced to acccept those actions, because that is what the decision-making thought entails. It would lead our blind conscious, which thinks it is in control. And while this may seem like coersion, wouldn't those subconscious thoughts constitute who we truly are? My entire life and self would be centered around the subconscious. If our conscious is not in control, but just pretends to be, I would really be the hidden underlying functions. And since those functions which I essentially am are in control, I myself am in control. To the conscious, which pretends to be the self, it would seem like lack of freedom, but to the true self, the subconscious, of which the conscious is unaware, it is actually freedom. I don't really know what to make of these thoughts, so take from it what you wish.

That’s why it is a double evil because not only is his free speech violated but so is our right to hear it. — NOS4A2

That is an interesting way of thinking about it! And because the speaker and the listener both benefit from free speech, they both have a responsibility to use it wisely: the speaker (to not violate rules of respect and decency) and the listener (to be careful and judicious with the media they consume).

But we’ve tried developing moral behavior with coercion, censorship, ostracism and the results are nothing to be proud of. — NOS4A2

I think censorship and ostracism can be used responsibly when counteracting speech that is downright hateful, violent, or utterly false. However, their use should be limited. While relying on the speaker, listener, and community to police themselves is not a very satisfying approach, that is probably the safest method. We as a society should put more emphasis on the responsibility that comes with free speech. The problem is when some individuals blatantly disregard the "rules", and how society should cope with them.

S's belief that I was not born in Germany is true because I was born in England. — Michael

I think creativesoul is including the justification for belief in the truth statement. The belief qualifies as knowledge if both the justification and the belief were true.