The simulation argument has the same issue with theism based upon faith. Any epistomological framework has to neccesarily presume all unfalsifiable statements to be false until proven otherwise, otherwise it collapses.

Our experience in a non-simulated world is equivalent to our experience in a simulated one.
Our experience in a world with no God is equivalent to our experience with one.
However, the God explanation and simulation explanation contradict eachother.

In fact, one can create any list of unfalsifiable statements and so each one has its own counter.
Hence, we have to presume all to be false until our experience is able to confirm it (at which point it's no longer unfalsifiable).

I recommend meds and a program of therapy. And that you wear a warning label. — tim wood

Calling people mentally abnormal because they enjoy surprise parties is quite ironic.

I dislike if a lie affects me negatively, otherwise I might not care or I may even like the lie. Value only has meaning when attached to a perspective, it doesnt exist independent of me. A surprise party is good, a cheating partner is bad, there is no contradiction.

I cannot think of any way to respect your comment. — tim wood

If you find my comment disrepectful, its not because of the way I worded it. You merely conflate "respect" with "agree", which we dont.

A society which values "truth" as the opposite of "post-truth", is fundamentally a society which forces conformity and crushes disagreement, and thus is a dogmatic society which is inevitably flawed and unable to change. A skeptical society where individuals learn to discern truth from lie, in their own lens, will always be healthier. Adversery breeds Strength.

The reason I ask why we care, is that the only reason you care is because people dont accept your conception of truth, and dont value you with their framework to be honest with you. This has nothing to do with society, you simply wish to force your idea of truth upon others and consider political violence a potentially viable tool to do so. You are the parasite.

Why should we care if people lie and are dishonest? This merely provides a challenge which will be adapted to. One should only trust what should be trusted. Its quite silly to say that the world should change to be entirely truthful, when in reality you need just change how gullible you are.

An entirely truthful world would only ignore the problem of irrationality and gullibility that prevades through humanity.

By "efilism", I mean action taking by you to move the human race towards extinction. I think most antinatalists realise that humans will not voluntarily stop having children, so its effectively the only strategy. Theres a number of ways it could be done, but the most effective would probably be to launch nukes to every country on earth. At the very least you'd probably save 10's of billions of people from coming into existance, and humanity would be set back so the population would remain low for probably thousands of years. This doesn't really apply to most people (seeing as it would require a will probably even greater than the suicide route). However, if one cares about others, the person with the will to commit suicide, should probably do this instead. It'd be pretty selfish to view the majority of humans as not understanding the suffering they are in, and yet decide to focus on your own salvation by suicide.

I agree with your argument though, I think any valuing of suffering above desire logically concludes in antinatalism. Although I see the flaw in the valuing of suffering as inherently bad, or not worth it to obtain desire.

Contra popular wisdom, social entanglements almost always lead to worse outcomes, despite the initial "highs" one gets from their initial engagement- in preventing the "lonely" feelings of the isolated individual. — schopenhauer1

I agree with the sentiment that relationships can and often do contain deeper hardships than the emotional highs they provide. However, I dont see any issue with this. I dont want a happy relationship, I want a deep and complex relationship which can provide me with a variety of experiences. I wouldnt want to live without my sadness, without my anger, without the progress that arises through the conflict, and the choices I make in order to experience even more.

I am an egoist, and a big part of my philosophy is that one should preserve and expand instances of their qualia. Purify the deepest and richest of ones experience, both the greatest highs and painful lows, and continue to search for even more purity. This can be as simple as building a collection of music you enjoy and purifing it over time with constant experimentation, whilst enjoying your current collection; or it can be as complex as a trip around the world to meet others and see different cultural customs and art. I believe that whilst all value derives from ones experience, that our experiences are too complex to simplfy them into the hedonistic principles. Afterall, at my core is not a dream of happiness, or a fear of pain, but an insatiable desire to satisy my ardent curiousity!

Eh, withdrawal can also be from what you describe your avocation/vocation which you pursue. If it brings you joy, cool. Suppose the code was deleted mistakenly, and all your hard work was wiped out? Suppose your boss/owner rejected your code as insufficient, inelegant, and trash? Suppose they rejected every attempt, even if you are convinced it is genius? Anyways, strife can be found anywhere, just as much as joy. Pursuits of joy are temporary. That's the point of Schopenhauer makes of goal-seeking, attachments, and all of it. — schopenhauer1

I have a general hatred for humanity, I see the vast majority of humans as being unintelligent, and even when they are intelligent they are so occupied by their emotion that they become irrational. I see how the emotion of disgust turns people in animals advocating death, and how this mechanism of reaction is so similar between people that it makes them look like machines. Im autistic, and I would easily identify with the label "misanthrope".

However, there exists people who I can enjoy hanging out with, and there are people who can actually understand the perspectives I hold and are willing to hear it. It doesnt matter if we have endless fights, I will always want a friend in a world that that rejects me. The mere knowledge of others existance can create a loneliness that dwarfs the benign issues found within relationships.

And yet, I do not wish for a world where I was ignorant of this. I am okay with holding onto suffering, because it means something to me. I dont want to fall into ignorant but happy compliance with the world, I want a gory and painful fight, and I want to come on top.

Social engagement leads to more attachments, and more conflicts, and more frustrations, litigations, manifestations, allegations, contortions,
and complications, in short, drama and disappointments, all of which serve only to entangle the individual further in the suffering. — schopenhauer1

Generally this seems to be a buddist type argument.
P1. Desire breeds suffering
P2. Suffering is bad and ought to be reduced
C. Therefore, we ought to eliminate our desire
Not an entirely invalid argument, but alot of people reject the 2nd premise, including me.

However, there doesnt seem to be any reason for why suicide isn't the conclusion here, since non-experience will always have less suffering compared to the little in withdrawl. If you factor in the value of others, then it implies efilism (action towards human extinction). The fact you dont come to these conclusions suggests to me that you either dont realise this is the logical conclusion, or that you do have some value for desire aswell, although I dont know how that factors into your belief that withdrawl is still positive (seeing as that seems to imply suffering is valued more than desire).

However, I think the western, liberal principles of tolerance and inclusiveness, although to some degree are perfectly warranted, have gone too far: there is such a thing as having an inferior culture (e.g., the Nazis), and there is such a thing as having a view which should not be tolerated (e.g., a supporter of sex offenses). — Bob Ross

The success of liberalism lies in it's individualistic approach to values, and the formation of a government which doesn't force a set of values upon its population. Any belief that a set of values should be forced onto the population is an extremist and anti-liberal belief. The extremity of the ones value is of no regards to such a society, as long as the individual acts within the lawful framework, they should be free from any unnecessary government action. The liberal government enforces neutrality in actions, not in minds or communication.

We are still in a jungle: the in-group is more important than the out-group—even though no Westerner likes to say that anymore (although they will still act like it when push comes to shove). — Bob Ross

The in-group is the individual, their friends and, their family. If an individual was to extend their care to all factors that effect them, then you wouldn't get nationalism, you'd get globalism (since countries are no longer distinct, not even in culture). I think you are confusing conservative values for classically liberal values. A conservative wants a common culture, a classical liberal wants a government that allows him to be left to his own values. Individualism is a primary goal of liberalism, it is antithetical to this conservative goal.

------------

However, I agree that liberalism should be spread and enforced globally. Individuals should have rights and freedoms everywhere.

Thats only a problem if you believe value derives from evolution, a proposition you presented but which I dont hold. You even mentioned social and cultural factors yourself, but then you immediately overule them with the gene propagation idea.

I already presented why I think people hold these values, and its mostly a case of religious philosophy, not some innate emotional reaction that derives from their biology.

And a repeat of the mistake of suggesting that values must be justified. — Banno

Values dont *have* to be justfied. However, you cant expect anyone to understand your perspective without an explanation of that perspective. It seems rather silly to sit in a forum and say that people are making such a "mistake", when the point of the forum is to discuss ideas in the first place. Its equivalent to bringing up solipsisim when talking about charity, its completely irrelevent to the level of conversation occuring.

implied conclusion that if you value it then it ought not be aborted. — Banno

Your correct here that valuing a zygote doesnt mean someone neccesarily believes it ought not to be aborted. Afterall, I can value human life and still believe in self-defence. However, you somehow got an implication that didnt exist at all.

You didnt provide an argument for why you have a value, but a vague and blanket scientific explanation for why values exist at all. If your entire position is without any rational thought and is simply driven directly by your genes, then Im not sure how you would defend it or even justify it to yourself. It also is a false scientific explanation, since zygotes are a part of modern knowledge that couldnt have evolved into our psyches, which you can see by the vast majority of humanity having no emotional issue with zygote termination. Typically its instead driven by a philosophical grounding in "humanness" which you commonly find in religious thought that tries to map the concept of souls and divinity onto this scientific understanding of human development.

Im confused by this response. I am asking you why you value zygotes because I dont understand why you see them as valuable, and so I wish to evaluate your reasoning and see if I can provide a counter to it. Not sure why you require a meta-analysis here, its generally an assumed state of affairs on a forum like this.

5. Minds have no perceivable structure of their own.
6. Thus, minds cannot be perceived or perceive themselves (from (4) and (5)). — Brenner T

I am not equated with Berkeley's theory, but within this theory couldn't a mind be equated to the perceptions it holds? If all that exists is qualia, then the mind must *be* the totality of such qualia, right? It side-steps the issue with assuming they are seperate and that both must precede the other. (I think your argument works well against the seperated position though).

lol, I see. Well, why do you value zygotes?

Wasnt trying to make a point but asking a question to understand your moral system better. However, I thought you were saying that you value newborns but dont value zygotes. From what you just said, I'm assuming I was wrong and that you value life from conception?

I already explained because I recognize it as such. — praxis

Im assuming that you value the newborn but not the zygote because of their difference in personhood. This simply pushes the moral question back, does it not? You recognise a newborn baby as a person, but why should we value persons?

I exist therefore I exist.

checks out.

A test for benevolence is to see how much a person has sacrificed for you. As Jesus says, there is no greater love than laying down one's life for one's friends. In less extreme examples, if someone is devoting their time, money, and energy to you in a way that clearly imposes a cost on themselves, that is a clear sign that they value you. — Brendan Golledge

I dont think benevolence, or love should be confused with relationship. Relationships exists within our experience as interactions with another which provide some form of value. Stronger relationships provide more value and so this justifies more sacrifice in order to maintain them. However, sacrifice of ones life is a sacrifice which can never be repaid, so it has no such rational justification. Therefore, its either motivated by an emotional connection so strong that someone cant bear to live without them (at which point it's effectively suicide), or its that they are subjugated to an idea (it may be benevolence, loyalty, bravery, obligation etc.). At no point is this sacrifice motivated by a valuing of the relationship, as one cannot experience the relationship when dead. One can sacrifice themselves for an idea, but they cannot sacrifice themselves for a relationship. Ofc, you could claim you value the idea of their experience, but then you'd need to somehow justify that without connecting it back to the relationship.

True loyalty lies in the rejection of these ideas and emotions in favour of recognising someone for the value they provide you via your experience, not via some principle or rejection of life without them.

Anyone can value whatever they want, but if one lives inside a system which cannot provide that value to them, then having the value is meaningless. I can act to maximise my own values, but unfortunately I can do less when I only have access to myself, and this is the case for most humans.

Collaboration within society allows an individual to maximise their values more, with specialisation and collective advancement of technology. Rights are meaningful because they provide certain values as a baseline for members of a society, where humans who wish to go against the established law are punished so that the system can be maintained. Without a governing body to instantiate rights with force, they will be left unfufilled.

For example, the right to own property is a prerequisite for a successful capitalist system. Without a governing body to enforce rules, people would have to provide their own protection (this would inevitably increase costs to run a business, and would provide a massive drain on the economy as a whole).

Regardless, the biggest issue with anarchy is that it inevitably collapses into another type of state, as power vaccums are ripe with opportunistic and violent actors who strive for control.

What's the point of being on a philosophy forum if you're just going to deny positions which disagree with you? It seems completely irrational.



Rights *arent* just values. It seems you havent understood my post. Rights are values instantiated in the world through physical force. I can value anything I wish, but I do not have the power to enforce my own values in the world.

In your conception, what does it mean to be entitled to something? and why should anyone care for if your entitled to certain "rights"? Also, how do you differentiate rights from values?

As for the concept of a right, what you say there is again just plainly false. By your logic, the Nazis did not violate the rights of Jews, but instead made it the case that they had none. And thus by your logic the Nazis - and indeed, any and all governments that are in power - are incapable of violating the rights of those whom they govern, as they are the arbiters of rights. — Clearbury

They didn't have rights, hence the violence against them. A rights violation occurs in comparison to a legal code. A state or individual can violate anothers rights when an act is illegal under the laws of that nation. However, it seemingly makes no sense outside of that definition. If you wished to say that someone *should* have rights, then why not just say that?

Defining a value as a right does not suddenly imbue it with some objective foundation by which you can force or convince others to recognise your claim. If I can simply deny your "right" then it's nothing but a value, an idea you hold within your mind. However, if I cant deny your right without some threat of material consequence to myself, then its not just a value anymore, its been instantiated through physical force. Of course you could privatise such force, but you'd still be requiring an external organisation to protect your rights by giving them money (recreating a government, albeit smaller and with an elite in-group).

An idea which has no basis in the physical is fated to fade, for regardless of how elegant it may appear to you, it holds no bearing on anyone who doesn't percieve it the same. To put it another way, a thief does not care for words.

1. There is no such thing as entitlement, the universe does not have an inherent karmic system. No one is entitled to anything.
2. The concept of "rights" only makes sense in the context of a governing body which can establish and protect those rights against negative actors. Otherwise its simply a value you hold, which has no bearing on anyone else but yourself.

The state exists to act as a mediator between people and their values. It protects people against the threat of a "might makes right" system. Any power vaccum without a state will inevitably be filled by some ruling system, and typically the rulers are under no obligation to care for such cultural concepts as "liberty", "property", "rights" etc. The state is justified in its monopoly on violence because of the reality that would ensue if the state did not have such a monopoly.

Imagine that someone constructs a bomb that will explode unless someone dismantles it. If a person dismantles their bomb, they have damaged the property of the bomb creator. The creator might respond with "How dare you destroy my property, it hasnt caused any harm!", and under your argument against state collapse as a valid rejection of anarchism, this is a justifed reason to allow the bomb to tick down. It should be self-evident that the right to own property does not exceed the right for innocents to live, and that pre-emptive action is justified in the protection of higher rights, even when it may override lesser rights.

To lose any aspect of myself would be to become less than what I was. Every forgotten memory, bad relationship, failed project, every single aspect lost is a reduction of who you were. There is no core, there is simply an experience that changes. The notion that any aspect is more central than another is a valuing you place upon those aspects, not evidence of a metaphysical reality.

The self is a pattern of value, not substance. If you replaced me with a perfect replica, this would not be me, because I value the un-ending and dynamic pattern. I am myself now, because I was myself a second ago, and my experience links the past and future into a chain.

I feel that P2 is incorrect because I deny the *idea* behind P1.

A baby does not have value within itself, it only has value within the context that it will eventually become valuable and there exists no distinct line by which to seperate those states. As a baby develops, it becomes valuable as it turns into a person with personality, desires, ideas, etc. However, a baby at birth is nothing but an animal, and its conciousness is no more complex than one.

Theres no moral difference between an internal and external baby, but theres a big pratical difference.

I dont believe there is any moral issue with taking the life of something that does not understand life. Others simply project their emotional state and values upon the baby, or act as if their future values should be considered in the now in some strange retrocausal argument about valuing "potentiality". However, the fundamental remains that a baby cannot understand their life, and so cannot value their life, and I care not for those who wish to impose their values upon others.

One can choose to say that they value consciousness outright, but then they'd have to become vegan and be supportive of animal rights aswell. Otherwise their position would be hypocritical. Such people should see abortion and animal farming as equally morally bad processes. Of which theres no argument but to simply disagree on that value and question why consciousness is to be valued.

I believe the only thing that certainly exists is experience itself. All categories and identities have to be carved out from experience (ie. we subjectively decide upon them, consciously or not). When you view a table, you see it as a "thing", not just a meaningless plot of data as you might see with sand or any grainy texture; you have "carved" it out of your experience into its own category. Obviously if identity itself is a carved out property of the subjective mind, then principles have no fundamental basis outside of what we decide, and hence anti-principles are always equally valid.

However, we dont need to use principles. Experience is known, regardless of any other factor; and experience has value built into it. Humans are not blank slates, we are born with patterns which give us perspective and value from which to work from. This inital state is the solution to the issue of an arbitrary moral foundation. For example, touching a hot iron is almost always seen as a negative experience, and no foundational moral principle is required to understand that touching the iron is bad.

You mention how any abstraction of experience neccesarily creates a principle, and you're correct. However, this has no issue. Principles are not invalid within themselves, they are simply baseless within themselves. A principle has the special property of being able to hold other principles up, but requiring principles to hold itself up. Experience acts as the foundation from which to build these principles.


I dont think the personality idea is all that relevent, but I am an INTP.

His argument is valid because, whether he realises it or not, its based upon some assumed values. If you value everyone equally then his argument is pretty good (outside of the faults I already mentioned). However, if you dont have that value then his argument simply doesnt apply to you. Values are perspective based, and so the conclusions of moral arguments are aswell. This is true whether or not he personally thinks of his argument this way, I dont know his position nor care.

To preface, I agree with the fundamental idea that if you believe that everyone is equally valuable, then to spend *needlessly* on you or your loved ones is immoral, if the money could be better spent elsewhere.

I should also say that I am an ethical egoist, I do not believe everyone is equally morally valuable and so his conclusions dont apply to me. One must remember that all the arguments presented come from a ulititarian foundation and so only apply to that moral framework.

However, heres 2 arguments that allow one to spend money on themselves whilst still being a utilitarian.

Bigger moral choices

The more you invest in yourself, the more you have the ability to make wider and more consequential moral choices. For example, you could choose to not buy meat yourself because you are against animal suffering, but that changes nothing. True change can only come about through the progression of society as a whole, ie. creating meat that doesn't involve the suffering of an animal or outlawing meat eating.

If one has good reason to think that they are capable enough to make good moral choices on such large scales, then it is moral to build up a position capable of committing to such choices.

Progression

If one doesn't invest in entertainment, children, career, business, or any other long term interest of theirs, then while they are "more efficient" at saving lives in the present; they give up the progression that could allow more lives to be saved in the future, and they essentially commit to a world of no improvement in quality of life.

Sure, you could save a large swath of people by simply donating all your money away. However, investing in an education that will allow one to create better technology or ideas by which to solve global issues, will save even more lives in the long term.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well the whole point of the article is to show that you (and I) are indeed responsible for things happening very far away. Or at least these are crimes by omission, or complicity. — LFranc

I saw this point you made and wanted to clarify something to you. Just because we are responsible for the misfortune of others (either by omission or not), does not make such an action immoral. The issue you are facing is one of presuming equal value to all individuals. If one values themselves above others, then clearly the arguments dont apply.

Where does it do that? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Electrons, chairs, tables, humans, donkeys. These are words. His argument is that by saying such words, one is referencing universals. His entire argument is that its contradictory to not believe in such universals and yet refer to them when making an argument against them. Hence, one saying "All chairs are quite different" is contradictory.

If you have a different interpretation of his argument then please present it, but I think your response here is merely semantics surrounding "word".

Presumably it has something to do with them since you're able to refer to them with words right here. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You took this statement out of its context within an argument. Language has nothing to do with universals because its purpose is communication, not metaphysical truth. Communication is flawed and based upon prediction by others, it cannot be 100% precise and so cannot refer to a universal, just as one is unable to describe colour to the blind. There are limitations to language.

I am not sure how this is supposed to be taken. If there is "no truth in language," am I supposed to take it that nothing you have just expressed (in language) is true? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Again, this is semantics. When I am referencing truth, I am describing the non-static and arbitrary nature of signs and definitions. If I define X as Y, it doesn't mean it is the "true" definition, in fact there is no such thing. Language is entirely relational, you can swap out anything and it doesn't become "false" for doing so. Hence, any term such as "chair" will never be able to have a single agreed upon definition. Everyone will have a different conception of how X is defined.

Someone is able to refer to the concept of a chair knowing this, that they are referring to a broadly understood but vague notion, which can nevertheless illicit the idea they wish to impose on other minds.

If I make up the world ishblaqwer and say it refers to dressers that have been painted green is this now an English word? Is it a Chinese word? Can I make up new Chinese words even though I don't speak Chinese? — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is entirely semantic. The simplist answer is that it doesnt matter to my argument or the broader question of nominalism.

His argument against H.G.Wells is that if you can refer to the concept of chairs, well then clearly there is some non-arbitrary similarity between them all, and thus the idea there is no category of chair is ludicrous.

However, this fails because language is based upon prediction. We cannot read each others minds and so the transfer of ideas and thus what words mean, will be different between everyone. If you asked everyone to classify a set of objects into chairs and not chairs, there would be disagreements precisely for this reason. "chair" has no single definition and so refering to it is not referring to a universal.

He presumes language refers to universals, when it doesnt, in fact it cannot.

If you can make up a definition for it, is it arbitrary? Does it not exist in relation to other words, which refer to things in the world? — Lionino

If a definition has no particular reason to apply to a word, then by definition its arbitrary. Practicality of language does not negate its arbitrary nature.

Also, be careful not to make a circular argument for universals. If there are no universals then there are no "things" in the world, but simply the world exists and we recieve information from it. These "things" are simply patterns our minds have formed and structured their understanding of the world on.

The quoted argument assumes that all words are universals, which is a ludicrous idea. Language has nothing to do with univerals. There is no truth in language; anyone can make a word and an arbitrary definition for it.

Language is also not an adequate system for universals to exist in. Uttering "chair" will not confer the same image in all minds. An idea cannot be perfectly transmitted because it requires language, which requires itself and so forth. Language comes about because humans have brains capable of prediction. Through such prediction we can allow the adequate but not perfect transmission of ideas.

Jacques Derrida introduced the concept of deconstruction, which is an interesting idea opposing these ideas if your interested and havent heard about it.

Im not versed in logic at all but I'll give my thoughts.

If A is defined specifically (ie. no coin flipping or randomness involved in its definition) and we're assuming "implies" means "neccesitates" and not "can lead to", then it is contradictory.

If B and not B are different, then if A neccesary leads to one, it cannot lead to the other definitionally.

Ofc, if not B and B are the same, then theres no contradiction; and if A can be unspecific then it can lead to both (flipping a coin can get heads or not heads).

Thats a pretty big simplfication of my reasoning. I think fundamentally theres a flaw with your epistomology if you're trying to get me to prove a negative.

Alas, your free to leave at any time but I hope you'll think my ideas over. Goodbye.

I responded to your question in my 2nd and 3rd paragraph. Im not sure why you think I havent responded.

Free will is not just the ability to make choices. If thats how you define it then even computers have free will, as choices are made by machines all the time, we program them to do so via algorithms or even with AI models we cant understand.

The ability to choose is will. *Free* will is the ability to choose without influence from any other thing. However, the problem you face is that such a process is impossible. The form and function of an entity which can choose is dependent upon factors it did not decide. Computers can make choices, but they did not program themselves, they have no choice but to do as they decide from their very nature.

Now we are not programmed, but our existence is nevertheless influenced by factors outside of our control, since we did not bring ourselves into existence. Our personality, preferences, economic environment, social environment, and health, are factors we do not decide and yet are the foundation of our choices. Hence, while we have will, it is not free. A person who shoplifts chooses to steal, but they did not choose to want to steal.

If you are coming to ethics with a collectivist mindset then you most likely have different issues you think ethics concerns. However, anything outside of individual action is quite meaningless to me. I don't care about some social harmony, that has nothing to do with the issues I think ethics should be concerned with, aka action and values.

In regards to the difference between moral and aesthetic values, there are people who define them different, I don't disagree. However, anyone can make a differentiation between any two ideas they like, but it doesn't make that differentiation substantive towards any end. Differentiation exists precisely to treat two concepts separately, however you need more than just different definitions to achieve this. Instead you have to apply an argument for how their difference is cause for the separate treatment. I don't know how you want me to explain that there is no difference, the burden is on you to suggest it. I cannot prove a negative.

If your distinction is purely semantic and leads to no difference in regards to ethics, then it doesn't exist to me and the conversation is pointless. You have to make an argument substantiating the difference (which is not just defining it, otherwise I'll just go "I disagree" and we're on equal ground in regards to rationality).

I'm not going to be providing any papers, you didn't ask me to prove any specific claim so anything I give you will seem random and you cant convince people by throwing random papers at them. If you want to gain an understanding, look into the predictive coding model in neuroscience (which seems to most plausible explanation to me) or provide a model which is backed by scientists which doesn't have indirect realism as its base to counter my belief. This is a discussion, not a lecture.

Also to be clearer, indirect realism doesn't necessary mean no mind-independent objects exist, but that we don't experience them directly. Aka, indirect realism isn't incompatible with moral or aesthetic realism. I don't know your position on whether morals are mind independent or not, but I thought I should make that clear.

Im making no claim about the existence of other beings, but about perspective. I believe the universe exists outside of yourself, however you only have access to your interpretation of the universe, and your perspective. This idea is called indirect realism, has been confirmed in neuroscience in how the human brain operates, and so is currently the scientific concensus in regards to perception.

For example, platos forms would be an idea against this viewpoint, but generally those ideas are quite old and lack evidence.

I completely disagree.

First I have to state my belief that all values are equivalent, there is no difference between a moral or aesthetic value. From the dislike of murder to the love of orange juice, these concern the same type of preference known as a value.

As such, all actions are driven by values, you cannot be devoid of them by the very nature of your existence. Morals do not matter to collectives as collectives do not exist, only individuals exist, and only individuals act.

Im not sure what you mean by natural conditions. However, I will attempt to flesh out my belief further.

All labels are an attempt to categorise the world into discrete units. However, the world has no such units. This isnt an exaggeration. From states, to chairs, to electrons, these categories do not exist outside of our minds, regardless of there being something outside of our minds we can interpret as having the same effects as these labelled objects.

Morals and Aesthetics consist of categories of "good" and "bad", except there is no such thing. All values are fundamentally subjective, just as all other categories.

Theres a nice quote by nietzsche stating this:

"Against that positivism which stops before phenomena, saying "there are only facts," I should say: no, it is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations..." - Friedrich Nietzsche

In regards to objective or collective morals, none. In regards to individual action, everything.

All actions are committed by indviduals. There is no such thing as a "collective" outside of the individuals that compose it. Remove the individuals and the collective vanishs. As such, I dont care about such a pointless goal as "collective realisation". I have my values and you have yours, imagining a universe where we can act according to some doctrine and magically have all our values fuffilled is childish. There are tradeoffs in life, sometimes you have to hurt others to benefit yourself. Therefore, any doctrine must neccesarily designate some peoples values as more important than others. However, those who are left out have no reason to follow it or not create their own doctrines in turn.

In terms of what we can accomplish? We can create a framework for individuals to build a system that guides their action by designating what is within the realm of ethics.

Just because Im a moral anti-realist does not mean I have no values. I have values that I will defend equally as a moral realists will defend theres. However, the moral realist's view of morality is simply untrue and can only lead to bad decisions or deluded action based on some emotion of righteousness or disgust. As long as humans can come together under similar values, egoism will exist to act as a framework for the construction of a doctrine promoting values that truely match with their goals, not surface level emotionalism.

Experience is valued on a scale of preference. There is no reduction to principles but instead value is imbued within each experience by the individual, not by some rational process but simply by a product of their being.

There is no precise "measurement" but instead a process of thought that one undergoes to commit to action that benefits them. There is no defined process of thought because this will change between each individual depending on their values.

An experience that is stable and works for an individual across a longer timescale is valued higher than others. What Im suggesting is not that we act on impulse but that we reject the values of others. If you believe that suggesting the individual should do what they value most instead of following the values of others is a simple statement, then you already partly agree with the foundation of what I believe in. However, regardless of its simplicity, this doesnt change its opposition to common moralities held today.

I suppose that your caught up on the word "guide". Ethics exists to guide the action of the individual, it concerns the creation of psychotechnologies that lead to preferred experiences. However, Im not offering any psychotechnologies here, since those are incredibly individual pursuits due to the individual nature of value. I cannot tell you how to best achieve a goal that I do not hold and have never thought about. The only claim Im making here is that ethics surrounds the individual, their value, and their action. However, I can create a model of ethics that can give some insights into what concerns it. Or to be a bit more neutral, Im questioning the relation of value and action and where that leads, and Im calling this ethics.

Egoism cannot give specific advice to people, since everyone holds seperate values. However, egoism can be used as a model to further the creation of ones own advice, and defines what ethics is actually about.

Also, your criticism was a bit vague so idk if your suggesting guiding action is impossible due to moral realism or what not. If thats the case then the above wont really matter to your argument and I'll need to provide something else in response.