Joshs: One may "aim at continuous development of insights into the perspectives of others unlike ourselves" in the absence of moral facts.

Philosophim: In the document, I provide arguments for both moral nihilism and negative hedonism (the view that the best way to go about living well is to aim for peace of mind). Can you refute any of those arguments?

Outlander: Thank you for your kind words.

Philosophim: In fact, the first five pages of the document contain a number of arguments for my philosophical positions. I am looking for any constructive feedback, such as counterarguments, corrections, and enhancements.

What's the main takeaway? — Outlander

I just edited the OP to provide a brief summary.

But what then would the value be in discussing it with you? — mcdoodle

So that I may improve the document. Making improvements does not imply any sort of responsibility.

Thanks!

"To take one point: I hold you responsible for the document outlining your philosophy. Do you accept your own responsibility? How does 'ultimate responsibility' fit into this?"

If the regress argument for ultimate responsibility impossibilism is sound, then I cannot be ultimately responsible for creating the document.

"It's just that some of us aren't exactly "normal" when it comes to neurobiology"

If the problem is neurobiological, then medication may be needed.

"Easier said than done, unfortunately."

Which is why the document contains abundant advice on how to not worry and be happy.

"What is the shortest -- and most compelling -- way for you to describe your philosophy of life?"

Don't worry; be happy.

Darth: Yes, I have posted my philosophy on Reddit in the past.

Pierre: Thank you for the suggestion, but I would rather leave it open to the reader to discuss any part or parts of the document they wish. Also, as you note, the different parts of the document are integrated into a coherent whole.