That racism is objectionable is not like that I prefer vanilla. My preference has no impact on how I think you might act - I will not insist on your eating only vanilla. Ethical judgements do carry over to others. In such things I am the arbiter; no other option is viable. — Banno

Banno, I am representing these arguments as they are generally presented. My own views have not been included. The OP has not yet made a case that he can overcome them.

So what does it matter if your choices impact upon others? If you say there are no objective truths, you have to hold a presupposition that the wellbeing of others matters as a part of your worldview to get there. Or you might get there via what they used to call self-interested altruism.

Ethical positions set out how we want things to be, and hence what we ought to do. — Banno

Based on what though? How people want things to be includes racism, and all kinds of horrors, like eugenics. What makes your version of how you want things to be better than someone else's - someone who doesn't care for the wellbeing of others?

The mystery of existence is why does existence exist? Why does being exist? It defies the law of sufficient reason, of cause and effect. There is no before and no after. No right or wrong, good or evil. The biggest mystery of all is -- you. You didn't come INTO existence, you ARE existence. Without you, whoever you may be, there is no difference between existence and non-existence. The question comes down to who are you?

It's amazing to me that an invertebrate, related to clams, may have self-consciousness. — T Clark

It is amazing. It's also amazing that all the remarkable features that an octopus has are innate -- it doesn't have time enough to learn it's remarkable repertoire of behaviors. MY OCTOPUS TEACHER is a fine documentary on a particular octopus - on Netflix.

Based on what though? How people want things to be includes racism, and all kinds of horrors, like eugenics. — Tom Storm

Not people - you.

You decide what to do next. You can't make that decision for someone else. What makes your version of how you want things to be better than someone else's is that it is yours, and hence the one you will use to decide what to do next.

You decide what to do next. You can't make that decision for someone else. What makes your version of how you want things to be better than someone else's is that it is yours, and hence the one you will use to decide what to do next. — Banno

Sure - which is what I do. But it doesn't really matter what I choose does it, as long as it is the version I most want?

So what do you most want?

And that will tell us about you. So yes, what you choose is of the utmost import, since it will decide who you are.

“What do you mean, what do I mean?”

I agree with you. First of all I think objectively speaking nothing has any Value therefore racism cannot be bad or good (in a universal way). But it brings suffering to many people and that I see as wrong, even horrible and I will if I get the chance, do anything to stop it. You got me wrong with the purpose. Purpose itself is, as we both agree, created by thinking beings. A cause is NOT a purpose. And if we say that we've been created by let's say a god and he thought of a purpos for us then this isn't a universal purpose but the idea this god had for us.

But it brings suffering to many people and that I see as wrong, even horrible and I will if I get the chance, do anything to stop it. — SmartIdiot

Do you think you were socialised into thinking this is the right thing to do, or do you believe that the prevention of suffering forms the basis of a secular ethical system?

The greatest enemy mankind faces is being over analytical. The truth is existence is nothing more than a mirror of our true intentions. Our egos and arrogance blinds us from the truth and existence is just a reality check. “Stop BS yourself this is what you really are what are you going to do about?”

In other words existence is Dr. Phil telling you to get real and is time to get your shit straight. And we hate the truth, is a hard pill to swallow

Is easier cater to our egos or maybe our arrogance by asking the question because maybe subconsciously you want it to be meaningless. So you don’t have to take accountability

Is easier to dismiss something as undefined so we don’t have to take responsibility for our actions.

If you want a straight forward answer the purpose of existence is to make you face the truth by witnessing your peers.

"Does Existence have any objective/universal meaning?" — SmartIdiot

Experience is Craving; Craving is the Individual; The Individual is Existence; Existence is Man, and Man is Egoism. We are ontological Gods who seek Being and Experience in all possibilities, be they trivial and mundane, to the metaphysical and unreal.

Even with the finiteness and the limit, even what does not exist and it is pure idea will allow itself to be created by humanity, because we, through our nature, are doomed to this destiny: - The destiny of self-realization, be it consented or not.

First of all I think objectively speaking nothing has any Value ... — SmartIdiot

"Nothing has any Value" includes, and thereby refutes, itself. Objectively speaking.

... therefore racism cannot be bad or good (in a universal way).

This conclusion does not follow from the self-refuting "nothing has any Value". You're just babbling inanities.

Yep.

As you alluded, it should be apparent that even if we suppose there is a god, and said god wishes us to behave in a certain way, the choice to do so remains with us. That is, god does not decide what to do, we do.

This argument extends to any supposed source of objective morality; if, for instance, evolution dictated that we should act in a certain way, it would remain open for us to do otherwise.

It's remarkable how many otherwise self-critical folk fail to see this

But how do we know what to do if everything is uncertain? When we realize that feelings are just biochemical reactions and even our own conciousness is just a set of neurons. That is really depressing.

Do you think you were socialised into thinking this is the right thing to do, or do you believe that the prevention of suffering forms the basis of a secular ethical system? — Tom Storm

Will you act so as to reduce racism? Do you agree that suffering is worth eradicating?

Your answer tells us about you.

I suspect that @SmartIdiot is here rejecting the notion of objective value altogether. It might have been better expressed as rejecting both objective and subjective notions of value while maintaining that one ought act to reduce suffering.

In the exchange between Tom Storm and Banno, Banno asked three questions of Tom, none of which Tom has yet answered. Tom asked four questions of Banno, none of which Banno has yet answered.

I'd love a bit of software that could analyse discourse to pick out stats like that.

I'd love a bit of software that could analyse discourse to pick out stats like that. — bert1

...and yet you still are not be able to follow the conversation.

It's remarkable how many otherwise self-critical folk fail to see this — Banno

I made a similar point on one of the religious morality threads.

"Nothing has any Value" includes, and thereby refutes, itself. Objectively speaking. — 180 Proof

Yep, an oldie but a goodie. Using reason to justify the use of reason seems similarly fraught.

Will you act so as to reduce racism? Do you agree that suffering is worth eradicating?

Your answer tells us about you. — Banno

I can answer yes to both the above. So?

Is the issue of others relevant? Who is the us?

How do you get to the idea that suffering is worth eradicating?

But it brings suffering to many people and that I see as wrong, even horrible and I will if I get the chance, do anything to stop it.
— SmartIdiot

Do you think you were socialised into thinking this is the right thing to do, or do you believe that the prevention of suffering forms the basis of a secular ethical system? — Tom Storm

I'm not trying to trap you. I can answer the question for me. I think I was largely socialised to believe that suffering is wrong (but whose suffering matters to society is the interesting question for me - it's not a level playing field) and now I hold a view that the wellbeing of others is a reasonable presupposition to build a basic ethical framework on.

MY OCTOPUS TEACHER is a fine documentary on a particular octopus - on Netflix. — Bitter Crank

I've been thinking about watching that.

I can answer yes to both the above. So? — Tom Storm

So what more is needed here? We agree that suffering is worth eradicating. What more do we need? Why ask "How do you get to the idea that suffering is worth eradicating?" when you already have the answer?

So what more is needed here? We agree that suffering is worth eradicating. What more do we need? Why ask "How do you get to the idea that suffering is worth eradicating?" when you already have the answer? — Banno

I thought you might say that.

So all we have in public discourse are declarations of personal value judgements. Which is pretty much where I've always been.

The person who says suffering is necessary for human growth and poor people should die out because they are inferior, is also just providing us with their personal values.

There is no mechanism to determine whose view should predominate in social policy.

There is no mechanism to determine whose view should predominate in social policy. — Tom Storm

That's quite right - no mechanism, no algorithm. you decide the truth of ethical propositions. Is the person who says suffering is necessary for human growth and poor people should die out because they are inferior right? No. You agree. That's all there is to it.

How fragile, but how important!

think I was largely socialised to believe that suffering is wrong — Tom Storm

Sounds like a truism. Kind of like being socialized to believe that pain is unpleasant. You might say ‘of course I believe MY pain is unpleasant , but I may not necessarily believe someone else’s is unpleasant’, or at least. not unpleasant for me. Unless of course I identify with that other person. Hmm, perhaps the ability to relate to and empathize with the Other is the key to whether we believe their suffering is wrong. Is that empathy a matter of socialization, or is the ability to understand other persons
and groups from their own vantage and moral justifications more akin to the grasping g of a scientific paradigm? Or is the understanding of a scientific theory a matter of socialization?

That's quite right - no mechanism, no algorithm. you decide the truth of ethical propositions. — Banno

Sounds like the understanding of scientific theories.

Is that empathy a matter of socialization, or is the ability to understand other persons and groups from their own vantage and moral justifications more akin to the grasping g of a scientific paradigm? Or is the understanding of a scientific theory a matter of socialization? — Joshs

I can't possibly say. Chasing my tail makes me dizzy, so I generally chase other people's. But I do know that there appear to be a lot of people with no or marginal empathy. For some of the cod-social-Darwinists and Christian fundamentalists - this may be seen and as an evolutionary or theological advantage.

Ethical statements have a direction of fit that is the reverse of scientific statements. . In science you change the theory to match what you see in the world. You are able to triangulate your beliefs with mine and with the world around us. With ethical statements the world is changes to fit the statement. You at least seek to change the world so that suffering is minimised. The triangulation here is fraught with disagreement as to the outcome.

In science you change the theory to match what you see in the world. You are able to triangulate your beliefs with mine and with the world around us. — Banno

Not according to Kuhn or cultural theories of science. You may change the theory ‘to march what you see in the world, but what you see i the world is already theory and thus value- laden, which makes science the cousin of ethics and politics. The world around us only appears to us through ideology.

Sure. The juxtaposition is not so clean. But see Davidson's "On the very idea of a conceptual scheme" for an excellent critique of Kuhn. The upshot is, even though the description is theory laden it can be wrong. Hence, relativism is bullshit.

That argument will work in ethics, too.