Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How could life have objective meaning?

Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2014 6:38:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
People get depressed at the thought that life has no intrinsic value or objective meaning, they talk about wanting life to have an objective purpose, but are these people searching for a nonsensical concept? I'm under the impression that meaning or purpose can only be subjective.

More clearly, the question I'm wondering about is: In what (hypothetical) conditions would life/existence have "objective meaning"?
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2014 6:51:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/11/2014 6:38:04 AM, Questionner wrote:
People get depressed at the thought that life has no intrinsic value or objective meaning, they talk about wanting life to have an objective purpose, but are these people searching for a nonsensical concept? I'm under the impression that meaning or purpose can only be subjective.

More clearly, the question I'm wondering about is: In what (hypothetical) conditions would life/existence have "objective meaning"?

I agree: "meaning" (in the sense meant by that question,) is by definition additive, so this search for 'intrinsic meaning' is simply playing opposed concepts against each other. We need to do no more than compare the state of something having no meaning at all, to one of something's only meaning being itself, to see that the two are obtusely reworded versions of the same concept. Chasing 'intrinsic meaning', one will necessarily destroy all actual meaning in the process.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 3:41:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/11/2014 6:38:04 AM, Questionner wrote:
People get depressed at the thought that life has no intrinsic value or objective meaning, they talk about wanting life to have an objective purpose, but are these people searching for a nonsensical concept? I'm under the impression that meaning or purpose can only be subjective.

More clearly, the question I'm wondering about is: In what (hypothetical) conditions would life/existence have "objective meaning"?

I think the only thing we can objectively say is that the meaning of life is subjective.
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 9:23:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/11/2014 6:38:04 AM, Questionner wrote:
People get depressed at the thought that life has no intrinsic value or objective meaning, they talk about wanting life to have an objective purpose, but are these people searching for a nonsensical concept? I'm under the impression that meaning or purpose can only be subjective.

More clearly, the question I'm wondering about is: In what (hypothetical) conditions would life/existence have "objective meaning"?

I think "objective meaning" is a contradiction in terms, can you explain what it would be?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 9:53:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/11/2014 6:38:04 AM, Questionner wrote:
People get depressed at the thought that life has no intrinsic value or objective meaning, they talk about wanting life to have an objective purpose, but are these people searching for a nonsensical concept? I'm under the impression that meaning or purpose can only be subjective.

More clearly, the question I'm wondering about is: In what (hypothetical) conditions would life/existence have "objective meaning"?

God existing would give us an objective meaning.
Jake0
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 11:04:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 9:53:57 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/11/2014 6:38:04 AM, Questionner wrote:
People get depressed at the thought that life has no intrinsic value or objective meaning, they talk about wanting life to have an objective purpose, but are these people searching for a nonsensical concept? I'm under the impression that meaning or purpose can only be subjective.

More clearly, the question I'm wondering about is: In what (hypothetical) conditions would life/existence have "objective meaning"?

God existing would give us an objective meaning.

No, it wouldn't. Even if God had a perfect understanding of math and pure logic (the only forms of true objectivity), then he would simply understand objectivity, he would not create or "give" us objectivity.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 11:08:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 11:04:23 PM, Jake0 wrote:
At 5/14/2014 9:53:57 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/11/2014 6:38:04 AM, Questionner wrote:
People get depressed at the thought that life has no intrinsic value or objective meaning, they talk about wanting life to have an objective purpose, but are these people searching for a nonsensical concept? I'm under the impression that meaning or purpose can only be subjective.

More clearly, the question I'm wondering about is: In what (hypothetical) conditions would life/existence have "objective meaning"?

God existing would give us an objective meaning.

No, it wouldn't. Even if God had a perfect understanding of math and pure logic (the only forms of true objectivity), then he would simply understand objectivity, he would not create or "give" us objectivity.

God simply does not have a understanding of objectivity - in many ways one could argue that he defines it. Nevertheless, God, as an all-powerful being, could certainly give us objective meaning due to his very nature. Many scriptures support this idea, giving reasons for why God created us (although, the reasons are admittedly unclear at times).
Jake0
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 12:30:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 11:08:04 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/15/2014 11:04:23 PM, Jake0 wrote:
At 5/14/2014 9:53:57 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/11/2014 6:38:04 AM, Questionner wrote:
People get depressed at the thought that life has no intrinsic value or objective meaning, they talk about wanting life to have an objective purpose, but are these people searching for a nonsensical concept? I'm under the impression that meaning or purpose can only be subjective.

More clearly, the question I'm wondering about is: In what (hypothetical) conditions would life/existence have "objective meaning"?

God existing would give us an objective meaning.

No, it wouldn't. Even if God had a perfect understanding of math and pure logic (the only forms of true objectivity), then he would simply understand objectivity, he would not create or "give" us objectivity.

God simply does not have a understanding of objectivity - in many ways one could argue that he defines it. Nevertheless, God, as an all-powerful being, could certainly give us objective meaning due to his very nature. Many scriptures support this idea, giving reasons for why God created us (although, the reasons are admittedly unclear at times).

No, one could not argue that he defines it. Can he define 1+1 as equal to 3? Can he correctly conclude that if all A are B, and all B are C, then all A are not C? Math and logic are truly objective, you see, whether God exists or not. And I don't care what scripture says, as it was written by flawed, subjective human beings.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 10:59:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 12:30:09 AM, Jake0 wrote:
At 5/15/2014 11:08:04 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/15/2014 11:04:23 PM, Jake0 wrote:
At 5/14/2014 9:53:57 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/11/2014 6:38:04 AM, Questionner wrote:
People get depressed at the thought that life has no intrinsic value or objective meaning, they talk about wanting life to have an objective purpose, but are these people searching for a nonsensical concept? I'm under the impression that meaning or purpose can only be subjective.

More clearly, the question I'm wondering about is: In what (hypothetical) conditions would life/existence have "objective meaning"?

God existing would give us an objective meaning.

No, it wouldn't. Even if God had a perfect understanding of math and pure logic (the only forms of true objectivity), then he would simply understand objectivity, he would not create or "give" us objectivity.

God simply does not have a understanding of objectivity - in many ways one could argue that he defines it. Nevertheless, God, as an all-powerful being, could certainly give us objective meaning due to his very nature. Many scriptures support this idea, giving reasons for why God created us (although, the reasons are admittedly unclear at times).

No, one could not argue that he defines it. Can he define 1+1 as equal to 3? Can he correctly conclude that if all A are B, and all B are C, then all A are not C? Math and logic are truly objective, you see, whether God exists or not. And I don't care what scripture says, as it was written by flawed, subjective human beings.

Yes, he does define it, for he is all powerful. An all powerful being can define 1 + 1 = 3, for he would've created such laws to begin with should he exist.

I don't think you fully understand God's nature.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 2:11:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
How could life not?

Human beings have intrinsic worth. If we see a baby dying on the side of the road, we'll rescue it for no reason. People give to charity without the expectation of being reimbursed in any way, shape, or form. The controversy surrounding abortion centers on whether or not a fetus is a human being because we recognize that once something is human it has intrinsic value. The way we maximize this well-being is different but the goal is always the same. Our morality is objectively based on maximizing well-being through expressions of love. Murder without cause or rape against someone's will is universally wrong regardless of culture, nation, religion, and always has been since any lawful record of human existence has been established.

So how could life not have any objective meaning given that we have objective moral truths? The way we observe our morality empirically, intuitively, logically, shows that objective morality is explanatorily superior to all morality being subjective. Given objective morality, this necessitates a purpose. Since our objective morality is based on expressions of love, it follows that our objective meaning or purpose is to love. It also logically follows that if an omni-benevolent God created mankind in his likeness, we would have his moral values instilled within us. With the theory that God is real and humans have free will, it makes sense why objective moral values exist, why our conscience exists, and why love in particular is so vital and important to our purpose. If God is omnibenevolent, then God is love itself.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 2:15:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 2:11:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How could life not?

Human beings have intrinsic worth. If we see a baby dying on the side of the road, we'll rescue it for no reason. People give to charity without the expectation of being reimbursed in any way, shape, or form. The controversy surrounding abortion centers on whether or not a fetus is a human being because we recognize that once something is human it has intrinsic value. The way we maximize this well-being is different but the goal is always the same. Our morality is objectively based on maximizing well-being through expressions of love. Murder without cause or rape against someone's will is universally wrong regardless of culture, nation, religion, and always has been since any lawful record of human existence has been established.

So how could life not have any objective meaning given that we have objective moral truths? The way we observe our morality empirically, intuitively, logically, shows that objective morality is explanatorily superior to all morality being subjective. Given objective morality, this necessitates a purpose. Since our objective morality is based on expressions of love, it follows that our objective meaning or purpose is to love. It also logically follows that if an omni-benevolent God created mankind in his likeness, we would have his moral values instilled within us. With the theory that God is real and humans have free will, it makes sense why objective moral values exist, why our conscience exists, and why love in particular is so vital and important to our purpose. If God is omnibenevolent, then God is love itself.

Your post is what might be ideal, but it's not true.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 2:32:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/11/2014 6:38:04 AM, Questionner wrote:
People get depressed at the thought that life has no intrinsic value or objective meaning, they talk about wanting life to have an objective purpose, but are these people searching for a nonsensical concept? I'm under the impression that meaning or purpose can only be subjective.

More clearly, the question I'm wondering about is: In what (hypothetical) conditions would life/existence have "objective meaning"?

By the mere merit of its existence. Everything that tangibly exists is meaningful to an extent, particularly in reference to the larger system in which its a part.

Seems to me that people who worry about the meaning of life simply don't care about existence in general, and need something they consider titillating to replace that meaning.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 2:52:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 2:15:59 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:11:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How could life not?

Human beings have intrinsic worth. If we see a baby dying on the side of the road, we'll rescue it for no reason. People give to charity without the expectation of being reimbursed in any way, shape, or form. The controversy surrounding abortion centers on whether or not a fetus is a human being because we recognize that once something is human it has intrinsic value. The way we maximize this well-being is different but the goal is always the same. Our morality is objectively based on maximizing well-being through expressions of love. Murder without cause or rape against someone's will is universally wrong regardless of culture, nation, religion, and always has been since any lawful record of human existence has been established.

So how could life not have any objective meaning given that we have objective moral truths? The way we observe our morality empirically, intuitively, logically, shows that objective morality is explanatorily superior to all morality being subjective. Given objective morality, this necessitates a purpose. Since our objective morality is based on expressions of love, it follows that our objective meaning or purpose is to love. It also logically follows that if an omni-benevolent God created mankind in his likeness, we would have his moral values instilled within us. With the theory that God is real and humans have free will, it makes sense why objective moral values exist, why our conscience exists, and why love in particular is so vital and important to our purpose. If God is omnibenevolent, then God is love itself.

Your post is what might be ideal, but it's not true.

By asserting it's idealness you've helped prove my point. There is no "ideal" with an objectively purposeless existence.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 3:14:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/11/2014 6:38:04 AM, Questionner wrote:
People get depressed at the thought that life has no intrinsic value or objective meaning, they talk about wanting life to have an objective purpose, but are these people searching for a nonsensical concept? I'm under the impression that meaning or purpose can only be subjective.

Agreed. However, objective can refer to a non-metaphysical "lay" concept, which I think has legitimate linguistic meaning. It is the idea that something is "objective-ish," that there is something bigger than oneself that is justified in a way that is not personally made up.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 3:19:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 2:52:45 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:15:59 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:11:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How could life not?

Human beings have intrinsic worth. If we see a baby dying on the side of the road, we'll rescue it for no reason. People give to charity without the expectation of being reimbursed in any way, shape, or form. The controversy surrounding abortion centers on whether or not a fetus is a human being because we recognize that once something is human it has intrinsic value. The way we maximize this well-being is different but the goal is always the same. Our morality is objectively based on maximizing well-being through expressions of love. Murder without cause or rape against someone's will is universally wrong regardless of culture, nation, religion, and always has been since any lawful record of human existence has been established.

So how could life not have any objective meaning given that we have objective moral truths? The way we observe our morality empirically, intuitively, logically, shows that objective morality is explanatorily superior to all morality being subjective. Given objective morality, this necessitates a purpose. Since our objective morality is based on expressions of love, it follows that our objective meaning or purpose is to love. It also logically follows that if an omni-benevolent God created mankind in his likeness, we would have his moral values instilled within us. With the theory that God is real and humans have free will, it makes sense why objective moral values exist, why our conscience exists, and why love in particular is so vital and important to our purpose. If God is omnibenevolent, then God is love itself.

Your post is what might be ideal, but it's not true.

By asserting it's idealness you've helped prove my point. There is no "ideal" with an objectively purposeless existence.

Now that's a ridiculous claim to make. I can easily imagine my subjective pleasures and work to maximize them. That does not make then objective.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 3:22:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 3:19:15 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:52:45 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:15:59 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:11:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How could life not?

Human beings have intrinsic worth. If we see a baby dying on the side of the road, we'll rescue it for no reason. People give to charity without the expectation of being reimbursed in any way, shape, or form. The controversy surrounding abortion centers on whether or not a fetus is a human being because we recognize that once something is human it has intrinsic value. The way we maximize this well-being is different but the goal is always the same. Our morality is objectively based on maximizing well-being through expressions of love. Murder without cause or rape against someone's will is universally wrong regardless of culture, nation, religion, and always has been since any lawful record of human existence has been established.

So how could life not have any objective meaning given that we have objective moral truths? The way we observe our morality empirically, intuitively, logically, shows that objective morality is explanatorily superior to all morality being subjective. Given objective morality, this necessitates a purpose. Since our objective morality is based on expressions of love, it follows that our objective meaning or purpose is to love. It also logically follows that if an omni-benevolent God created mankind in his likeness, we would have his moral values instilled within us. With the theory that God is real and humans have free will, it makes sense why objective moral values exist, why our conscience exists, and why love in particular is so vital and important to our purpose. If God is omnibenevolent, then God is love itself.

Your post is what might be ideal, but it's not true.

By asserting it's idealness you've helped prove my point. There is no "ideal" with an objectively purposeless existence.

Now that's a ridiculous claim to make. I can easily imagine my subjective pleasures and work to maximize them. That does not make then objective.

The way in which well-being is achieved isn't the basis for objective morality but seeking to maximize well-being itself is the objective component. If we recognize that seeking to maximize the well-being of all people as a whole is an objective moral truth, the only way we can go about doing that is through expressions of love.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 3:24:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 3:22:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:19:15 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:52:45 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:15:59 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:11:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How could life not?

Human beings have intrinsic worth. If we see a baby dying on the side of the road, we'll rescue it for no reason. People give to charity without the expectation of being reimbursed in any way, shape, or form. The controversy surrounding abortion centers on whether or not a fetus is a human being because we recognize that once something is human it has intrinsic value. The way we maximize this well-being is different but the goal is always the same. Our morality is objectively based on maximizing well-being through expressions of love. Murder without cause or rape against someone's will is universally wrong regardless of culture, nation, religion, and always has been since any lawful record of human existence has been established.

So how could life not have any objective meaning given that we have objective moral truths? The way we observe our morality empirically, intuitively, logically, shows that objective morality is explanatorily superior to all morality being subjective. Given objective morality, this necessitates a purpose. Since our objective morality is based on expressions of love, it follows that our objective meaning or purpose is to love. It also logically follows that if an omni-benevolent God created mankind in his likeness, we would have his moral values instilled within us. With the theory that God is real and humans have free will, it makes sense why objective moral values exist, why our conscience exists, and why love in particular is so vital and important to our purpose. If God is omnibenevolent, then God is love itself.

Your post is what might be ideal, but it's not true.

By asserting it's idealness you've helped prove my point. There is no "ideal" with an objectively purposeless existence.

Now that's a ridiculous claim to make. I can easily imagine my subjective pleasures and work to maximize them. That does not make then objective.

The way in which well-being is achieved isn't the basis for objective morality but seeking to maximize well-being itself is the objective component. If we recognize that seeking to maximize the well-being of all people as a whole is an objective moral truth, the only way we can go about doing that is through expressions of love.

But even if we have the subjective desire to work toward that, there's no objective basis to say we should, or even that it's right.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 3:33:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 3:24:12 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:22:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:19:15 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:52:45 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:15:59 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:11:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How could life not?

Human beings have intrinsic worth. If we see a baby dying on the side of the road, we'll rescue it for no reason. People give to charity without the expectation of being reimbursed in any way, shape, or form. The controversy surrounding abortion centers on whether or not a fetus is a human being because we recognize that once something is human it has intrinsic value. The way we maximize this well-being is different but the goal is always the same. Our morality is objectively based on maximizing well-being through expressions of love. Murder without cause or rape against someone's will is universally wrong regardless of culture, nation, religion, and always has been since any lawful record of human existence has been established.

So how could life not have any objective meaning given that we have objective moral truths? The way we observe our morality empirically, intuitively, logically, shows that objective morality is explanatorily superior to all morality being subjective. Given objective morality, this necessitates a purpose. Since our objective morality is based on expressions of love, it follows that our objective meaning or purpose is to love. It also logically follows that if an omni-benevolent God created mankind in his likeness, we would have his moral values instilled within us. With the theory that God is real and humans have free will, it makes sense why objective moral values exist, why our conscience exists, and why love in particular is so vital and important to our purpose. If God is omnibenevolent, then God is love itself.

Your post is what might be ideal, but it's not true.

By asserting it's idealness you've helped prove my point. There is no "ideal" with an objectively purposeless existence.

Now that's a ridiculous claim to make. I can easily imagine my subjective pleasures and work to maximize them. That does not make then objective.

The way in which well-being is achieved isn't the basis for objective morality but seeking to maximize well-being itself is the objective component. If we recognize that seeking to maximize the well-being of all people as a whole is an objective moral truth, the only way we can go about doing that is through expressions of love.

But even if we have the subjective desire to work toward that, there's no objective basis to say we should, or even that it's right.

The way we observe our morality empirically, intuitively, logically, shows that objective morality is explanatorily superior to all morality being subjective. If we accept the evidence on its own merits objective morality is superior to the idea that all morality is subjective.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 3:33:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 3:33:01 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:24:12 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:22:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:19:15 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:52:45 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:15:59 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:11:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How could life not?

Human beings have intrinsic worth. If we see a baby dying on the side of the road, we'll rescue it for no reason. People give to charity without the expectation of being reimbursed in any way, shape, or form. The controversy surrounding abortion centers on whether or not a fetus is a human being because we recognize that once something is human it has intrinsic value. The way we maximize this well-being is different but the goal is always the same. Our morality is objectively based on maximizing well-being through expressions of love. Murder without cause or rape against someone's will is universally wrong regardless of culture, nation, religion, and always has been since any lawful record of human existence has been established.

So how could life not have any objective meaning given that we have objective moral truths? The way we observe our morality empirically, intuitively, logically, shows that objective morality is explanatorily superior to all morality being subjective. Given objective morality, this necessitates a purpose. Since our objective morality is based on expressions of love, it follows that our objective meaning or purpose is to love. It also logically follows that if an omni-benevolent God created mankind in his likeness, we would have his moral values instilled within us. With the theory that God is real and humans have free will, it makes sense why objective moral values exist, why our conscience exists, and why love in particular is so vital and important to our purpose. If God is omnibenevolent, then God is love itself.

Your post is what might be ideal, but it's not true.

By asserting it's idealness you've helped prove my point. There is no "ideal" with an objectively purposeless existence.

Now that's a ridiculous claim to make. I can easily imagine my subjective pleasures and work to maximize them. That does not make then objective.

The way in which well-being is achieved isn't the basis for objective morality but seeking to maximize well-being itself is the objective component. If we recognize that seeking to maximize the well-being of all people as a whole is an objective moral truth, the only way we can go about doing that is through expressions of love.

But even if we have the subjective desire to work toward that, there's no objective basis to say we should, or even that it's right.

The way we observe our morality empirically, intuitively, logically, shows that objective morality is explanatorily superior to all morality being subjective. If we accept the evidence on its own merits objective morality is superior to the idea that all morality is subjective.

I disagree. Show me some of this evidence.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 5:05:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 3:33:57 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:33:01 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:24:12 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:22:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 5/20/2014 3:19:15 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:52:45 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:15:59 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 5/20/2014 2:11:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
How could life not?

Human beings have intrinsic worth. If we see a baby dying on the side of the road, we'll rescue it for no reason. People give to charity without the expectation of being reimbursed in any way, shape, or form. The controversy surrounding abortion centers on whether or not a fetus is a human being because we recognize that once something is human it has intrinsic value. The way we maximize this well-being is different but the goal is always the same. Our morality is objectively based on maximizing well-being through expressions of love. Murder without cause or rape against someone's will is universally wrong regardless of culture, nation, religion, and always has been since any lawful record of human existence has been established.

So how could life not have any objective meaning given that we have objective moral truths? The way we observe our morality empirically, intuitively, logically, shows that objective morality is explanatorily superior to all morality being subjective. Given objective morality, this necessitates a purpose. Since our objective morality is based on expressions of love, it follows that our objective meaning or purpose is to love. It also logically follows that if an omni-benevolent God created mankind in his likeness, we would have his moral values instilled within us. With the theory that God is real and humans have free will, it makes sense why objective moral values exist, why our conscience exists, and why love in particular is so vital and important to our purpose. If God is omnibenevolent, then God is love itself.

Your post is what might be ideal, but it's not true.

By asserting it's idealness you've helped prove my point. There is no "ideal" with an objectively purposeless existence.

Now that's a ridiculous claim to make. I can easily imagine my subjective pleasures and work to maximize them. That does not make then objective.

The way in which well-being is achieved isn't the basis for objective morality but seeking to maximize well-being itself is the objective component. If we recognize that seeking to maximize the well-being of all people as a whole is an objective moral truth, the only way we can go about doing that is through expressions of love.

But even if we have the subjective desire to work toward that, there's no objective basis to say we should, or even that it's right.

The way we observe our morality empirically, intuitively, logically, shows that objective morality is explanatorily superior to all morality being subjective. If we accept the evidence on its own merits objective morality is superior to the idea that all morality is subjective.

I disagree. Show me some of this evidence.

Either objective morality exists or it doesn't. It is mutually exclusive with the assertion that all morality is subjective. Therefore,

The notion that all morality is subjective has necessary conditions:

1) moral truths don't exist
1a) murdering babies for fun or giving to charities is not objectively right/wrong

2) human beings have no intrinsic worth

3) human beings have no objective purpose

4) purpose-driven morality motivate us towards a purpose that doesn't objectively exist
--------
1) Supports objective morality because empirically, human beings have never behaved as though rape against someone's will and murder for the sake of pleasure is morally acceptable behavior.

1a) supports objective morality because this is intuitively true for humans collectively

2) supports objective morality because humans behave as though others have intrinsic worth without any necessary extrinsic evaluation. Intrinsic value is indicated we save a dying baby on the side of the road for no reason, give to charity without expectation of reimbursement, or ague over whether a fetus is a human being surrounding the abortion controversy.

3) follows in favor of objective morality following from 1,1a, and 2.

4) also supports objective morality because our morality follows from a moral code that seeks to maximize the collective well-being which is only possible trough expressions of love.

Without objective morality, but arguing that all morality is subjective and only exists to further the evolutionary process, it follows that you're arguing for an objective purpose among an objectively purposeless species. Just like natural selection is a natural process resulting in the propagation of our species, death is just as natural and results in termination. Natural processes have no purpose.

------

Thus, given how the world actually behaves the existence of objective morality is explanatorily superior to the notion that all morality is subjective. Given multiple competing hypothesis theory and given that one is explanatorily superior given it's predictive power and ability to meet real world data better than the other, it should be accepted.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 6:31:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 9:53:57 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/11/2014 6:38:04 AM, Questionner wrote:
People get depressed at the thought that life has no intrinsic value or objective meaning, they talk about wanting life to have an objective purpose, but are these people searching for a nonsensical concept? I'm under the impression that meaning or purpose can only be subjective.

More clearly, the question I'm wondering about is: In what (hypothetical) conditions would life/existence have "objective meaning"?

God existing would give us an objective meaning.

If God were objective, you wouldn't know it, because you're not.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 6:59:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 6:31:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/14/2014 9:53:57 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/11/2014 6:38:04 AM, Questionner wrote:
People get depressed at the thought that life has no intrinsic value or objective meaning, they talk about wanting life to have an objective purpose, but are these people searching for a nonsensical concept? I'm under the impression that meaning or purpose can only be subjective.

More clearly, the question I'm wondering about is: In what (hypothetical) conditions would life/existence have "objective meaning"?

God existing would give us an objective meaning.

If God were objective, you wouldn't know it, because you're not.

Okay, but that doesn't prevent us from having an objective meaning. It simply prevents us from realizing it.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 7:13:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 6:59:38 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/20/2014 6:31:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/14/2014 9:53:57 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/11/2014 6:38:04 AM, Questionner wrote:
People get depressed at the thought that life has no intrinsic value or objective meaning, they talk about wanting life to have an objective purpose, but are these people searching for a nonsensical concept? I'm under the impression that meaning or purpose can only be subjective.

More clearly, the question I'm wondering about is: In what (hypothetical) conditions would life/existence have "objective meaning"?

God existing would give us an objective meaning.

If God were objective, you wouldn't know it, because you're not.

Okay, but that doesn't prevent us from having an objective meaning. It simply prevents us from realizing it.

What does unrealized meaning mean, to you?
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 7:15:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 7:13:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/20/2014 6:59:38 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/20/2014 6:31:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/14/2014 9:53:57 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/11/2014 6:38:04 AM, Questionner wrote:
People get depressed at the thought that life has no intrinsic value or objective meaning, they talk about wanting life to have an objective purpose, but are these people searching for a nonsensical concept? I'm under the impression that meaning or purpose can only be subjective.

More clearly, the question I'm wondering about is: In what (hypothetical) conditions would life/existence have "objective meaning"?

God existing would give us an objective meaning.

If God were objective, you wouldn't know it, because you're not.

Okay, but that doesn't prevent us from having an objective meaning. It simply prevents us from realizing it.

What does unrealized meaning mean, to you?

To me, it means something along the lines of this ...

A meaning that exists, yet is unrealized by perception; thus, because it is not subject to the whims of a perception (as it still is within existence), it is not subjective but objective.

I guess. I don't really know.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 7:37:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 7:15:35 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/20/2014 7:13:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/20/2014 6:59:38 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/20/2014 6:31:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/14/2014 9:53:57 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/11/2014 6:38:04 AM, Questionner wrote:
People get depressed at the thought that life has no intrinsic value or objective meaning, they talk about wanting life to have an objective purpose, but are these people searching for a nonsensical concept? I'm under the impression that meaning or purpose can only be subjective.

More clearly, the question I'm wondering about is: In what (hypothetical) conditions would life/existence have "objective meaning"?

God existing would give us an objective meaning.

If God were objective, you wouldn't know it, because you're not.

Okay, but that doesn't prevent us from having an objective meaning. It simply prevents us from realizing it.

What does unrealized meaning mean, to you?

To me, it means something along the lines of this ...

A meaning that exists, yet is unrealized by perception; thus, because it is not subject to the whims of a perception (as it still is within existence), it is not subjective but objective.

I guess. I don't really know.

So, since this meaning is not realized by perception and is not subjected to it, how do you know this meaning exists?
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 7:59:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 7:37:05 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/20/2014 7:15:35 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/20/2014 7:13:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/20/2014 6:59:38 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/20/2014 6:31:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/14/2014 9:53:57 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/11/2014 6:38:04 AM, Questionner wrote:
People get depressed at the thought that life has no intrinsic value or objective meaning, they talk about wanting life to have an objective purpose, but are these people searching for a nonsensical concept? I'm under the impression that meaning or purpose can only be subjective.

More clearly, the question I'm wondering about is: In what (hypothetical) conditions would life/existence have "objective meaning"?

God existing would give us an objective meaning.

If God were objective, you wouldn't know it, because you're not.

Okay, but that doesn't prevent us from having an objective meaning. It simply prevents us from realizing it.

What does unrealized meaning mean, to you?

To me, it means something along the lines of this ...

A meaning that exists, yet is unrealized by perception; thus, because it is not subject to the whims of a perception (as it still is within existence), it is not subjective but objective.

I guess. I don't really know.

So, since this meaning is not realized by perception and is not subjected to it, how do you know this meaning exists?

Before I answer the question, I'd like to rewind a little bit.

Knowing whether or not God is objective (as you initially stated) doesn't necessarily mean we cannot realize an objective meaning (or even that we cannot realize God is objective). We can realize that one exists. For example, if God did exist and the teachings of his messengers were true, then everyone who believed in these teachings would be able to realize that there is an objective meaning for them. Would they necessarily be able to know it? That's rather different.

Back to the question. If there were an objective meaning that is not realized or subject to perception, then there would be one way for humans to realize that it exists. It is if God sent a messenger (such as Abraham or Moses) to spread the word of God and to reveal humanity's purpose in life, then we would be able to realize the meaning (i.e. know it exists).
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 11:21:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 7:59:12 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/20/2014 7:37:05 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/20/2014 7:15:35 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/20/2014 7:13:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/20/2014 6:59:38 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/20/2014 6:31:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/14/2014 9:53:57 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/11/2014 6:38:04 AM, Questionner wrote:
People get depressed at the thought that life has no intrinsic value or objective meaning, they talk about wanting life to have an objective purpose, but are these people searching for a nonsensical concept? I'm under the impression that meaning or purpose can only be subjective.

More clearly, the question I'm wondering about is: In what (hypothetical) conditions would life/existence have "objective meaning"?

God existing would give us an objective meaning.

If God were objective, you wouldn't know it, because you're not.

Okay, but that doesn't prevent us from having an objective meaning. It simply prevents us from realizing it.

What does unrealized meaning mean, to you?

To me, it means something along the lines of this ...

A meaning that exists, yet is unrealized by perception; thus, because it is not subject to the whims of a perception (as it still is within existence), it is not subjective but objective.

I guess. I don't really know.

So, since this meaning is not realized by perception and is not subjected to it, how do you know this meaning exists?

Before I answer the question, I'd like to rewind a little bit.

Knowing whether or not God is objective (as you initially stated) doesn't necessarily mean we cannot realize an objective meaning (or even that we cannot realize God is objective). We can realize that one exists. For example, if God did exist and the teachings of his messengers were true, then everyone who believed in these teachings would be able to realize that there is an objective meaning for them. Would they necessarily be able to know it? That's rather different.

Having a partial understanding, you can see that which is absolute? Is that akin to the ancients' thinking their little corner of the world was all there was or the ancient mariner's believing if they sailed too far they'd go over the edge of the earth? It's one thing to say God is objective; it's something else, entirely, to say you can know, absolutely.


Back to the question. If there were an objective meaning that is not realized or subject to perception, then there would be one way for humans to realize that it exists. It is if God sent a messenger (such as Abraham or Moses) to spread the word of God and to reveal humanity's purpose in life, then we would be able to realize the meaning (i.e. know it exists).

If there were objective meaning unrealized and not subjected to perception, there would be objective meaning unrealized and not subjected to perception. That which is objective can't be made subjective and, then, called objective. That which is objective can't be made subjective period.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 10:52:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 11:21:33 PM, s-anthony wrote:

Having a partial understanding, you can see that which is absolute? Is that akin to the ancients' thinking their little corner of the world was all there was or the ancient mariner's believing if they sailed too far they'd go over the edge of the earth? It's one thing to say God is objective; it's something else, entirely, to say you can know, absolutely.

Of course. That's why I said you can realize that there is an objective meaning or that God is objective, but not necessarily know or understand what it means to truly be objective. There is a distinct difference between the two.


If there were objective meaning unrealized and not subjected to perception, there would be objective meaning unrealized and not subjected to perception. That which is objective can't be made subjective and, then, called objective. That which is objective can't be made subjective period.

That which is objective can be subjectively viewed, yet at the same time be objective itself.

After all, we already agreed it's not subject to the whims of perception, so regardless of whether or not it is perceived, it will continue to be objective.

It's similar to empirical evidence. While there can be the utmost objective scientific experiment performed, it is still possible to subjectively view it.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 11:19:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/11/2014 6:38:04 AM, Questionner wrote:
People get depressed at the thought that life has no intrinsic value or objective meaning, they talk about wanting life to have an objective purpose, but are these people searching for a nonsensical concept? I'm under the impression that meaning or purpose can only be subjective.

More clearly, the question I'm wondering about is: In what (hypothetical) conditions would life/existence have "objective meaning"?

'What Heaven has conferred is called The Nature; an accordance with this nature is called The Path of duty; the regulation of this path is called Instruction. The path may not be left for an instant. If it could be left, it would not be the path. On this account, the superior man does not wait till he sees things, to be cautious, nor till he hears things, to be apprehensive. There is nothing more visible than what is secret, and nothing more manifest than what is minute. Therefore the superior man is watchful over himself, when he is alone. While there are no stirrings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, or joy, the mind may be said to be in the state of Equilibrium. When those feelings have been stirred, and they act in their due degree, there ensues what may be called the state of Harmony. This Equilibrium is the great root from which grow all the human actings in the world, and this Harmony is the universal path which they all should pursue. Let the states of equilibrium and harmony exist in perfection, and a happy order will prevail throughout heaven and earth, and all things will be nourished and flourish.' -Doctrine of the Mean

The Path of Duty is, to me, objective meaning. Our nature was conferred upon us by Mother Nature, and to follow this nature is the meaning of life. As for the nature of this nature:

'All men have a mind which cannot bear to see the sufferings of others. 'The ancient kings had this commiserating mind, and they, as a matter of course, had likewise a commiserating government. When with a commiserating mind was practised a commiserating government, to rule the kingdom was as easy a matter as to make anything go round in the palm. When I say that all men have a mind which cannot bear to see the sufferings of others, my meaning may be illustrated thus: even now-a-days, if men suddenly see a child about to fall into a well, they will without exception experience a feeling of alarm and distress. They will feel so, not as a ground on which they may gain the favour of the child's parents, nor as a ground on which they may seek the praise of their neighbours and friends, nor from a dislike to the reputation of having been unmoved by such a thing. From this case we may perceive that the feeling of commiseration is essential to man, that the feeling of shame and dislike is essential to man, that the feeling of modesty and complaisance is essential to man, and that the feeling of approving and disapproving is essential to man. The feeling of commiseration is the principle of benevolence. The feeling of shame and dislike is the principle of righteousness. The feeling of modesty and complaisance is the principle of propriety. The feeling of approving and disapproving is the principle of knowledge. Men have these four principles just as they have their four limbs. When men, having these four principles, yet say of themselves that they cannot develop them, they play the thief with themselves, and he who says of his prince that he cannot develop them plays the thief with his prince. Since all men have these four principles in themselves, let them know to give them all their development and completion, and the issue will be like that of fire which has begun to burn, or that of a spring which has begun to find vent. Let them have their complete development, and they will suffice to love and protect all within the four seas. Let them be denied that development, and they will not suffice for a man to serve his parents with.' - Mencius 3.6

Love and protect all within the four seas - is that not the goal we should all pursue?
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...