See, you even knew that the good is not something which could be pointed to. Therefore I am justified in dismissing your question as an act of deception, and you, as the fool who thought that they could get away with such an obvious deception. — Metaphysician Undercover

I understand that you are refusing to engage with what you have obviously understood:

Your position makes no sense. Which is why that question is obviously absurd. You can't have cake and eat it too.

I've just been through a section of Parfit's Reasons and Persons which deals with exactly this issue - whether future reasons constitute 'now' reasons. Parfit feels that a bias toward the near, as he terms it, then means neglecting these reasons one will have - which means, overall, your life will go worse. An interesting position. — AmadeusD

And depending on your age, you will the more feel the bite of it. There are mountains near where I live. I I've climbed some, but would like to have climbed others, putting it off for some reason or other. Now I cannot. Or perhaps there was a girl you were too shy to ask out, not realizing - or being told - that the man you would grow up to be would want you to have asked her. And all of that possibility lost.

This sounds like regret, but I think if dug into even a little, we find a moral imperative to live a life of at least Aristotelian balance and means, not too little, not too much, but not too much of that either.

A metaphor that comes to mind is driving on a highway. If your car is in decent shape, then you're obliged to drive neither too slowly nor too fast. The short-term morality concerned with hazard and possible harm and damage. Long-term with acting in a manner consistent with a life well-lived.

For some people, it's no use at all. But for the majority of living things, it's the primal drive. It doesn't need a specific utility: it is the rock-bottom foundation of awareness and effort; the first cause by which all things needful, useful and beneficial are measured. — Vera Mont

But the term as "the rock bottom foundation of awareness" has no value in a discussion about ethics if there is nothing IN the term that is inherently ethical. I would argue that it is not the primal drive at all. This concept of survival is just general term for something more primordial, which is found only in the conditions of actual engagement. Take someone reaching to overcome in a case where survival is threatened. In the drive to survive there is the deeper analysis of caring and all of the affectivity in play in the desperate move that can see a possibility, and hope emerges, but is dashed and misery reasserts itself, a deepens as the physical pain or the the dread comes over one. Compared to this living reality, a term like survival is a mere abstraction, used in discussions about how traits in one species survived over others, or, as with your account, the primal drive that thrusts the organism into struggles to overcome. But there IS no such primal drive any more than there is the Freudian libido. This are theoretical terms that are constructed out of the living realities so we can talk about things.

Take General Motors, the car company. Does GM "exist"? Of course not. It is a pragmatic concept that we treat AS IF it existed so we can organize our affairs. One could argue that all of our cultural institutions are like this.

So the attempt here is to arrive at what does exist in ethics that makes it more than just a mere organizing principle, like GM. Existence in the "hard" sense of the term. Is there such a thing? Yes. It is found in the value dimension of our existence.

Pink herring, conflating a careless figure of speech with the primal instinct. The lawn chair was never alive. You might go out into the storm to save your neighbour or your dog, because life matters - fence-posts don't. — Vera Mont

But whatever I do, it is going to be a matter of importance to me. If this importance is absent, then all motivation is lost and the possibility of it as an ethical issue is lost. This is the point: ethics is "made of" value, and value has its essence in the actualities of our engagements.

That's backward. What makes anything ethical is its contribution to survival. — Vera Mont

Then show how survival qua survival does this. This is why I opened with the lounge chair. Survival AS SUCH has nothing of the analysis of what constitutes an ethical matter.

I don't think it needs to be exposed any more times than I've already done.
If you have a more convincing source for the concept, by all means, expose away! — Vera Mont

Done already.

we find a moral imperative — tim wood

What? Where are you getting that?

What? Where are you getting that? — AmadeusD

Same place they all come from.

I take this to be an avoidance. So, can you answer it with the 'where' rather than a reference to it?

Suppose a neighbor who gives you offense; why do you not dispatch him with an axe? Or late and in a hurry in a crowd, yet you do not knock people over in your rush: why not?

And the answers given to these and many similar possible questions will depend on who's answering. But a common ground for most will be a distinguishing between good and bad. Start doing that, sez I, and you begin to become human and to become a moral agent.

This, to me, is prevaricative poeticism. There's nothing in this statement. It is just empty concepts. Nothing gives me any reason to think Ethics exists, at all, outside of Human deliberation. — AmadeusD

No one said ethics exists outside of human deliberation. It is a matter of what human deliberation is grounded in. Any ethical rule, law, principle we DELIBERTATE about has its final meaning grounded in our existence in this world. This is essentially what has been said. Our existence, the conditions of our being in the world. There is nothing poetic about this. Purely descriptive: what is our existence in the world? This is easy. We love, hate, struggle, suffer, rejoice, celebrate, despair, etc., ABOUT the things we are attached to. All of these relations are value relations, the taste of fine wine, the love of a child, the revulsion of eating brussel sprouts. If one wants to talk about the nature of ethics, one MUST talk about this kind of thing. Period! It is analytic. You can only commit an ethical offense to me regarding brussel sprouts if I CARE about brussel sprouts. So what is this caring about? It is the palpable revulsion I have when I get within ten feet of them, that's what. Ethics is "made of" this existential counterpart to caring.

Not clear why this is not clear.

Because its clearly story-telling.

So what is this caring about? It is the palpable revulsion I have when I get within ten feet of them, that's what. Ethics is "made of" this existential counterpart to caring. — Astrophel

See? It's probable we're not disagreeing. But there's no way to ascertain some objective ethical consideration without arbitrarily deciding what is worth caring about. There's an inference that one can be ethically 'wrong' which begs the question as to what 'wrong' is.

But the term as "the rock bottom foundation of awareness" has no value in a discussion about ethics if there is nothing IN the term that is inherently ethical. — Astrophel

That's because it's been around a whole helluva lot longer than ethics; the concept of ethics comes long after animals with brains big enough to think of it. They couldn't have got there without surviving the evolutionary steps that precede it. Nor will you have children, wine and Brussels sprouts without having survived to get them. (Also, I fail to see the ethical component of Brussels sprouts, but that's just me. )

See? It's probable we're not disagreeing. But there's no way to ascertain some objective ethical consideration without arbitrarily deciding what is worth caring about. There's an inference that one can be ethically 'wrong' which begs the question as to what 'wrong' is. — AmadeusD

But this is philosophy. If we were talking about reason, we would move past that-which-is-reasoned-about and on to reason as such, or logical form as such. One can argue that reason is, say, an evolutionary phenomenon, and they would not be wrong in that context. But philosophy takes value as thematic, or it can do this.
The wrong and right will always be indeterminate. Because this refers to actions, and actions are entangled in facts. My sister loaned me her car. Fact. I dented the fender. Fact. I am obligated to tell her. Now wait a minute...She would get very angry and she just got divorced and maybe I should fix the dent myself and say nothing....But then, if she finds out...
But the engine that drives the whole affair is this caring about something, and the value in play. And this value is solidly IN the world. If I am enraged, or someone is pulling my fingernails out, this is real. I mean, what could be more real that this? And the moral obligation not to pull someone's fingernails out is grounded in just this dreadful reality.

But the engine that drives the whole affair is this caring about something, and the value in play. And this value is solidly IN the world. If I am enraged, or someone is pulling my fingernails out, this is real. I mean, what could be more real that this? And the moral obligation not to pull someone's fingernails out is grounded in just this dreadful reality. — Astrophel

I say: No, what hte hell, Its literally in the mind of the actor. There is no value 'in the world'. Value is a function of cognitive judgments. I agree, this is philosophy, and if yuo want to settle for one free miracle, that's fine. My point is this is not acknowledged

I say: No, what hte hell, Its literally in the mind of the actor. There is no value 'in the world'. Value is a function of cognitive judgments. I agree, this is philosophy, and if you want to settle for one free miracle, that's fine. My point is this is not acknowledged — AmadeusD

I think this is disingenuous. The pain in my sprained ankle IS in the world. Where else? And referring to a miracle, well, this is just strawman arguing, construing the argument in blatantly indefensible terms, and announcing that this is where it fails. No one but you is talking about miracles. UNLESS, that is you can show, that is argue, how what I am saying can be rightly construed as miracle mongering. If you can't do this, then you are simply being, as I said, disingenuous.

That's because it's been around a whole helluva lot longer than ethics; the concept of ethics comes long after animals with brains big enough to think of it. They couldn't have got there without surviving the evolutionary steps that precede it. Nor will you have children, wine and Brussels sprouts without having survived to get them. (Also, I fail to see the ethical component of Brussels sprouts, but that's just me. ) — Vera Mont

But you are not arguing the case put before you. As to the brussel sprouts...really?

But you are not arguing the case put before you. — Astrophel

Sorry; I see no case to answer.
If you have made a case for something or against something, I can't follow what it is. I sincerely do not believe that your taste in wine, or concern for your lawn-chair is the basis of an ethical system.

Could you give some examples of benevolent visionaries who made national policy or church doctrine? — Vera Mont

In ancient times we could begin with Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas. And since these three were greatly influenced by Plato, we could designate him as having a secondary role. In more modern times we might consider philosophers like Hobbes, Locke, and even Marx.

I understand that you are refusing to engage with what you have obviously understood: — AmadeusD

Sorry Amadeus, I have no idea what your talking about. All you have done is made incorrect assertions. First you said that my supposition is erroneous, so I corrected you on that. It is not erroneous, but debatable, as suppositions often are. Now you are simply asserting that my position makes not sense.

Well, of course my position makes no sense to you. You dismiss my supposition as erroneous, without bothering to debate it. So be it, continue to live in your narrow-minded world.

In ancient times we could begin with Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas. And since these three were greatly influenced by Plato, we could designate him as having a secondary role. In more modern times we might consider philosophers like Hobbes, Locke, and even Marx. — Metaphysician Undercover

They all may well have influenced people, even long after they were dead, but in their lifetime, they changed not one dot or iota of public policy or prevailing morality or general standards of behaviour.

Sorry Amadeus, I have no idea what your talking about. — Metaphysician Undercover

I would think that the case, so all good.

Sorry Amadeus, I have no idea what your talking about. All you have done is made incorrect assertions. First you said that my supposition is erroneous, so I corrected you on that. It is not erroneous, but debatable, as suppositions often are. Now you are simply asserting that my position makes not sense.

Well, of course my position makes no sense to you. You dismiss my supposition as erroneous, without bothering to debate it. So be it, continue to live in your narrow-minded world. — Metaphysician Undercover

You accepted my position immediately after rejecting it. You also agreed it was debatable If it was erroneous. And you're just asserting it both isn't, and that I dismissed your position. You are flat-the-heck-out wrong.

I don't know how to deal with people who are dishonest, and then push that on others. The fact that you felt the need to attempt to insult my intellect is just icing on that cake. You just ignored my question. You didn't do what was asked. And now you seem to think that's on me. Could you perhaps explain how any of this makes anything close to sense?

Where else? — Astrophel

It is literally, figuratively and metaphorically in your mind. It is not in your c-Fibres. It is not in your ankle bone. It is not anywhere outside of your body. It exists solely in your mind.

If you reject this, I don't know what to say. That's an empirical claim, not a philosophical one. You could then make the Philosophical move of saying "I am a strict physicalist" and we could move forward.

No one but you is talking about miracles. — Astrophel

You all require miracles and pretend you don't. I have actually been very clear about this. The fact that no one is mentioning it supports my claim about their positions.

If you can't do this, then you are simply being, as I said, disingenuous. — Astrophel

I've done it multiple times (including specifically in that post, where i mentioned it). That you're not engaging with it isn't up to me *shrug*.

Examples of what I mean by things that aren’t immoral but you shouldn’t want to be the kind of person that does them include living your life in a drugged stupor like the lotus eaters of Greek mythology or someone who wants to do nothing in life but cover themselves in filth and watch Salo on repeat.

They all may well have influenced people, even long after they were dead, but in their lifetime, they changed not one dot or iota of public policy or prevailing morality or general standards of behaviour. — Vera Mont

I think you are wrong, and these people did effect changes within their lifetimes. However that little disagreement is irrelevant because the condition of "in their lifetime" has been arbitrarily added by you anyway

You just ignored my question. You didn't do what was asked. — AmadeusD

I explained to you why your question was ridiculous and unanswerable because it was based on the false premise. You asked me to point to a good, when goods are not the type of things which can be pointed to. You, yourself, even affirmed that the premise of your question was false, later in your post when you, stated that a good doesn't come into contact with anything but a human mind. Therefore it was already clear to you that you were asking me a question which assumed a falsity, and your question was nothing but trickery.

And if you are thinking that because goods come into contact with human minds, they must come into contact with a human mind, to be a good, then this is faulty logic. That would imply that goods are only created through contact with human minds.

Examples of what I mean by things that aren’t immoral but you shouldn’t want to be the kind of person that does them include living your life in a drugged stupor like the lotus eaters of Greek mythology or someone who wants to do nothing in life but cover themselves in filth and watch Salo on repeat. — Captain Homicide

I think that any time you state a general rule such as "you shouldn't want to be the kind of person that does... (X)", this statement represents a moral judgement. Anything represented by (X) here is judged as bad in some way. Therefore it is a moral judgement, because to judge a type of activity as bad, is a moral judgement.

If, on the other hand, you were to state "I would not want to be the kind of person that does...(X)", in full respect that others may want to be the kind of person that does... (X), and there is no problem with that, then you simply state a matter of personal preference. It is when you say "you shouldn't want to...", imposing your personal preference upon others, that you turn the statement into a moral statement.

I think you are wrong, and these people did effect changes within their lifetimes. However that little disagreement is irrelevant because the condition of "in their lifetime" has been arbitrarily added by you anyway — Metaphysician Undercover

Not arbitrarily, but to fill in an oversight. I had neglected to point out earlier that people make national policy and religious doctrine while they are alive.
You eventually returned with a list of men who wrote books, that may later have influenced the thinking of men who made policy and revolution. None of the resulting policies and actions, AFAIK, yielded the outcome envisioned by the writers.

Could you give some examples of benevolent visionaries who made national policy or church doctrine? — Vera Mont

In ancient times we could begin with Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas. And since these three were greatly influenced by Plato, we could designate him as having a secondary role. In more modern times we might consider philosophers like Hobbes, Locke, and even Marx. — Metaphysician Undercover

You all require miracles and pretend you don't. I have actually been very clear about this. The fact that no one is mentioning it supports my claim about their positions. — AmadeusD

Buthow is what I require is miracles? This is the question. And what about the idea that ethics is analytically bound to value? This was the major thesis! But you never mention it. Look, I wrote quite a bit that you had nothing to say about. I think you should at least say something like, here is where you go wrong. Here is a brief exchange:

Showing that these are part of the essence of ethics, I mean, it is analytically true the ethics IS what ethics is about.
— Astrophel

YOU: Sure. But it gives us no reason to care, other than our own discomfort.

And such things are not invented.
— Astrophel

YOU: They are. You're giving me states of affairs. Morality is not states of affairs.

But if it is not grounded in a state of affairs, it is nothing! You just said that the pain of a toothache (I think it was) is invented! I mean, it is impossible to hold such a monumentally absurd idea. There you are, stricken with plague, you fingers black with gangrene, vomiting endlessly, writhing in a a dark corner begging for death! And you reasoning steps in, "well, not to bother so much. It is after all, all in your head." Do you realize the patent stupidity of such a position?; not that you, dear Amadeus, are stupid. Nothing personal. But the "position" is wildly off the charts ridiculous!

And the argument that shows without a speck of doubt that IF, in a given ethical situation, this value dimension is withdrawn, THEN the ethicality vanishes!. THIS remains untouched in your thinking so far. You have to deal with this. The essence of something is that such that the thing is no longer what it is if this were to be removed.

SAYING you are a physicalist says nothing. Anyone can do this. Deals with nothing the argument raises. I am a flat-earther--- So there.

I mean, look at this argument. Air tight!

Sorry; I see no case to answer.
If you have made a case for something or against something, I can't follow what it is. I sincerely do not believe that your taste in wine, or concern for your lawn-chair is the basis of an ethical system. — Vera Mont

Those are simply examples, the wine and the chairs. This was clear, I thought. The lounge chair, an example of how the term 'survival' is of no help in explaining ethics. It is a term with no ethical dimension to it. Things survive, don't survive. Qua survival, it matters not. This is the point. Clear, I think.

Taste, or some appetitive indulgence, taste being one of many. This, too, I thought clear. When one seeks an understanding of the nature of ethics, one must look to things like this in order to understand how it is even possible for, say, the ethical issue of taking another's wine (who values it for its taste and other qualities--it's just an example, and not about my love of wine. You see this, right? Nothing to do with my personal distaste for brussel sprouts, either. These illustrate a point) has any meaning at all.

I am frankly a bit at a loss, here. The reasoning seems without argument. A person loves wine, cares about this bottle, and this creates the material basis for the defeasible moral prohibition against stealing it. Of course, it is only a prime facie obligation not to steal it, and I am guessing you know what this means; it is not absolute, but subject to being defeated by a conflicting obligation (perhaps the wine is stolen to protect the other owner from her alcoholism, or the like. You get the idea).

All I am saying is that the concrete ground for there to be an ethical situation at all, for it to even be possible, regarding this example regarding the wine, is for there to be caring and valuing in place. No valuing, no ethics. Something so transparently obvious I hardly see the need for clarification. So all analytic eyes turn to this actuality, this love of something, adoration of something, interest, repugnance, revulsion, and so on. And terms like this take us directly to episodic affairs: the actual experiences of the revulsion, and the rest. This ties ethical obligation to actuality, and the strongest way possible: analytically! How? NO value; therefore, NO ethics!

Now, I don't think it is possible that, as you say, you "can't follow what it is." There simply is no ambiguity.
Unless, of course, you see an ambiguity. I would like to hear this. It would philosophically interesting.

Those are simply examples, the wine and the chairs. This was clear, I thought. — Astrophel

They were two irrelevancies among many. Ethics isn't about your preference or what you happen to value at any given moment. It's about interpersonal transactions conducted in such manner as to promote the cohesion of a social unit.

It [survival] is a term with no ethical dimension to it. — Astrophel

It doesn't need an 'ethical dimension' - whatever an ethical dimension is - because the will to survive is the root cause of the need for social systems, moral codes, ethical and legal frameworks.
All other desires, lusts, adorations etc. can only follow if the basic requirements of survival have been met. And they can not be met by solitary humans; therefore humans need a family and community in order to thrive and they can't thrive unless their survival is assured.

Whether you value something or not is irrelevant to the prohibition against stealing. It's just as unethical to steal a cow from a rancher who's lost count of his stock as from a farmer with only one cow. (It's less immoral, but equally illegal; the ethical issue is the theft, not the cow or whether anyone loves her.) The point of the prohibition is that if people take stuff without the owner's permission, it causes strife within the community.
Even so with every other breach of ethics. If a supplier of meat uses a dishonest scale, that impoverishes members of the community. If a soldier skives off for an assignation while on guard duty, he puts his comerades in danger. If a carrier of disease breaks quarantine, he endangers everyone he meets. If a man seduces his colleague's daughter, that causes conflict in the workplace.
It's not about how you feel about your things - it's about the welfare of the polity.

No valuing, no ethics. — Astrophel

Possibly. But the basic valuing is not of the material possession, but of the survival of individuals, which are dependent on the survival of the social unit. The secondary value is adding to the welfare of the community, and thus promoting the welfare of each member. Under secondary-value ethics, we could include assisting the elderly, protecting the very young, cutting down noxious weeds, setting a good example for children, and ordinary everyday courtesy.

This is why a certain level of corruption - which is simply, an abandonment of ethical behaviours and standards by a large enough percent of a population - can lead to the utter collapse of the nation. Abandonment of common courtesy, respect and regard for one's fellow citizens is a less notable component of corruption. Primary and secondary values.
The emotional ones come far down the priority scale, and fall entirely outside the purview of ethics.

They were two irrelevancies among many. Ethics isn't about your preference or what you happen to value at any given moment. It's about interpersonal transactions conducted in such manner as to promote the cohesion of a social unit. — Vera Mont

Yes, but you see, this begs the question: what is this social cohesion all about, essentially? We are a cohesion that has its ethical cement, if you will, in this feature of our existence referred to by the general term 'value'. So, philosophy wants to inquire as to the nature of value. It may be that pain and bliss as such and the like have no analysis (as I hold), that they are irreducible (Wittgenstein, notably). But then, this has to be acknowledged, and if this is true, it has strong implications for metaethical theory.

It doesn't need an 'ethical dimension' - whatever an ethical dimension is - because survival is the root cause of the need for social systems, moral codes, ethical and legal frameworks.
Whether you value something or not is irrelevant to the prohibition against stealing. The point of a prohibition is that if people take one another's stuff without the owner's permission, it causes strife within the community. If a supplier of meat sells tainted meat, it hurts the members of the community. If a soldier skives off for an assignation while on guard duty, he puts his comerades in danger. If a carrier of disease breaks quarantine, he endangers everyone he meets. If a man seduces his colleague's daughter, that causes conflict in the workplace.
It's not about how you feel about your things - it's about the welfare of the polity. — Vera Mont

MY feelings?? I thought this clear. These are just examples. And when you say "Whether you value something or not is irrelevant to the prohibition against stealing" you stand in contradiction, for one cannot even conceive of a moral prohibition without conceiving value."

To see this, you have to have an interest that goes to a more basic level of inquiry. Philosophy deals with the most basic sense, so if questions are begged, here is where analysis begins. I mean, if I say NO value, NO ethics, this is serious. It's like saying no language, no speaking; or, no logic, no reasoning. It is not a historical proposition determined by what people have done in organizing themselves (unless you are Heidegger and hold that language is innately historical. But this is a different matter), or a cultural anthropological statement that notes how the species creates institutions of survival. All of the things you mention are true! But the philosophical question remains: In all of the ethical dealings with "strife" and the rest, what is the underlying basis that makes this discussion even possible? Like asking in all the talking and language use we deploy in living our everyday lives, what is it that provides the structure for things to be at all intelligible? So, Kant steps of (in the heels of Aristotle and others) and does an analysis of pure reason. You don't have to agree with him, but at least see the point: To talk requires structure. To structure, no talking. Because in our talk is evidenced a non arbitrary disclosure.

You could turn to Kant and give, say, an evolutionary account or language, or reduce language use to basic biology or physics (Quine thought ALL things re reducible to physics), and, had he known of such things, would say no problem! He is not talking about these alternative fields of inquiry. He is talking about the phenomenological analysis of judgment.

Same here, only it is value, not reason. All you say is not wrong at all. It is simply not philosophy.

Not "to structure" in the above; rather "NO structure." No structure, No talking (talking understood as having the logical form familiar language use has. Dogs and cats don't "talk" in this.....or do they?).

Yes, but you see, this begs the question: what is this social cohesion all about, essentially? — Astrophel

For the - what? Fifth? - time: it's about SURVIVAL. I'm reasonably sure you'll let your bottle of wine and deck furniture be taken rather than your life.

So, philosophy wants to inquire as to the nature of value. — Astrophel

So, let Philosophy inquire to its tiny heart's content, it won't find anything deeper than survival as a basis of basic values. Once you're dead, you stop asking questions.

for one cannot even conceive of a moral prohibition without conceiving value. — Astrophel

By the 'one' who can't conceive, I have to assume you mean yourself. The value of things is tertiary. The value of civic responsibility is secondary; the value of social cohesion is primary. The value of keeping peace in the community - whether through the protection of property or of institutions or of traffic laws or of civil deneanour - is far more important than how anybody feels about their stuff.

All you say is not wrong at all. It is simply not philosophy. — Astrophel

That's as may be. I'm not the one who ate all those textbooks. But it's enough for a derail that's nowhere close to answering the OP.

what is the underlying basis that makes this discussion even possible? — Astrophel

The internet.
But I think it's had more than a fair run.

I explained to you why your question was ridiculous and unanswerable because it was based on the false premise. — Metaphysician Undercover

Unfortunately, thee question was based on your premise to show why your position was absurd. I noted this. The reason the question is absurd (it is, I have agreed twice with that position) is because of your claimed position. It's really hard to not just sort of chuckle and leave this here. I am not really that interested in relitigating that. I am happy to leave this as a disagreement we're not yet ready (as a pair) to nut-out.

And if you are thinking that because goods come into contact with human minds, they must come into contact with a human mind, to be a good, then this is faulty logic. That would imply that goods are only created through contact with human minds. — Metaphysician Undercover

They clearly are. Not by contact with human minds. That is incoherent. 'Good's are literally an invention of human minds. You have not presented anything that remotely borders a reasonable argument otherwise. You have asserted that these Goods live somewhere else. Yet, there is no suggestion as to where. Just sort of poetic dancing talking about functional aims of particular aspects of the world.
They are states of affairs and give us nothing toward an ought, unless you take up the free miracle i offered: That 'The Good' consists in achieving certain, necessarily arbitrary, aims, which are valued by the S carrying them out. There is nothing more to this, on the information you and I have put across. Nothing you've put forward indicates, even sparsely or weakly, any other source. So, that's where I am.

But if it is not grounded in a state of affairs, it is nothing! — Astrophel

This isn't an objection. It's just a possible outcome of the discussion. One which I think holds.

Getting from a state of affairs to a claim about what action ought follow from that isn't something you've established here. You've merely asserted there's a grounding in states of affairs, and then popped off to shop around your ethical values without establishing any move from one to the other. I have merely rejected that you've done the above. Which you have not. You have indicated that your view of ethics is not in line with your own reasoning.

You just said that the pain of a toothache (I think it was) is invented! — Astrophel

I did not do so. This is a rather extreme misinterpretation I find it hard to understand. I have put forward the empirical fact that the pain exists in your mind, and no where else. You don't deny this, but still for maintain the positions which it precludes.
Pain has a causal relationship with your physical body. Nothing in this suggests the 'toothache' is invented, other than the language... More below, in some sense..

"well, not to bother so much. It is after all, all in your head." Do you realize the patent stupidity of such a position? — Astrophel

Hmm.. I don't think my position and reasoning says any such thing. The pain, in your scenario exists in the person's head. That is a fact, not an inference or a 'position' that I hold uniquely somehow. It is a basic, clear reading of the facts of how pain works (again, unless you are a strict physicalist and claim that pain IS the firing of c-fibres in response to overstimulation - So your final two lines of this post are likely because you haven't grasped what I'm saying clearly). Further, I can't ascertain what your case would show. That someone is insensitive? Sure. Feeling pain sucks. Doesn't mean it exists anywhere but the mind. Mental anguish is the same. Where does that live?

And the argument that shows without a speck of doubt that IF, in a given ethical situation, this value dimension is withdrawn, THEN the ethicality vanishes!. THIS remains untouched in your thinking so far. You have to deal with this. The essence of something is that such that the thing is no longer what it is if this were to be removed. — Astrophel

This doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. What i can glean from this is that you have not adequately read much of what I've said, I don't think. I have tried above to clarify what I see are two points of serious misunderstanding:

1. Pain is a mental phenomenon - this doesn't seem debatable, whether caused physically or not; and
2. I am not suggesting injuries exist in the mind. These are two separate things you seem to be conflating.

Regarding the apparent loss of ethics, on my view, I have dealt with this multiple times. There is no ethicality unless a Subject arbitrarily decides to invoke their values as a motivator for action. And that is a totally fine thing to do, given we have nothing to say it isn't.
In that case, there are clear ways to act in in-line with one's values. But that initial move from 'is' to 'ought' is entirely arbitrary. There is nothing outside the mind of the person thats what should be done, without that mind understanding and agreeing to some aim.

Dogs and cats don't "talk" in this.....or do they? — Astrophel

They communicate, and there is a structure to their language, just as there is to ours. The language of dogs consists of sounds, body stance, gestures of head, paws and tail, facial expressions, ear and hair erection. They are quite capable of reprimanding one another for rule breaking, status offenses and breaches of etiquette - and of responding appropriately to such a reprimand.

For the - what? Fifth? - time: it's about SURVIVAL. I'm reasonably sure you'll let your bottle of wine and deck furniture be taken rather than your life. — Vera Mont

But for the fifth time, survival is question begging. To survive as such has no ethical meaning. One survives FOR or motivated BY, but never in itself. In itself survival serves NO purpose at the level of basic questions.

So, let Philosophy inquire to its tiny heart's content, it won't find anything deeper than survival as a basis of basic values. Once you're dead, you stop asking questions. — Vera Mont

Well, if the issue is about doubting the point of asking philosophical questions, then you have other issues entirely. Odd you would be in a "philosophy" club, though.

By the 'one' who can't conceive, I have to assume you mean yourself. The value of things is tertiary. The value of civic responsibility is secondary; the value of social cohesion is primary. The value of keeping peace in the community - whether through the protection of property or of institutions or of traffic laws or of civil deneanour - is far more important than how anybody feels about their stuff. — Vera Mont

So be it, if by important you mean simply attending to pragmatic challenges in society and the like. Philosophy is more about understanding the questions that underlie such things, so that before one steps into action she has understood the full depth of the issue. One has to have a curious nature for basic questions.
Something being important entirely depends on the context of the discussion.

The internet.
But I think it's had more than a fair run. — Vera Mont

I think you question the value of philosophy, which is understandable given that anglo american analytic thinking has turned serious foundational ideas into nihilistic dead ends. But consider that, as a practical function of critical thinking at the basic level, philosophy serves to disabuse society of it's misguided religious absurdities.

Asking questions about the nature of ethics, tha t is, metaethics, is to ask about the metaphysics of value, and this is important because as long as popular religions rule the minds of people, the more inclined people are to be held in the sway of dogmatic thinking in ethics, and this leads to policy making that is not grounded in well reasoned thought. Foundational issues like this go to the basic rationality of the things you rightly take to be important. Religion deals with the basic indeterminacy of our existence, and the ethical indeterminacy especially, that is, people really don't have a grasp of why we are all born to suffer and die. This is an ETHICAL problem in the metaphysics of our existence. Sound thinking here can make the difference between a holy war and policies of equality and acceptance.