On objective morality
"Pain is not directly equal to suffering. Suffering is a negative EXPERIENCE as felt" - YN
Another person might argue that suffering builds character,
That it is proof one is alive, something 'valuable to them, that they seek out.
Or perhaps simply something they value in itself.
Why should their perspective be brushed aside?
"Overall well being."
'Is there such a thing?
One person see's a grape on the vine, says it is doing well.
Another crushes the grape into wine, drinks it, and says the grape is doing well.
Something's 'well 'being, depends on the end we normalize and idealize for it. Which varies, person to person.
Addicts and food junkies, the body will be shorter for this world,
But claims the pyromaniac, "What purpose serves a candle, if not to burn?"
The body exists, but there is no Objective Claim that we 'must prolong it.
There are various claims for using it towards ends, or ignoring it altogether,
Different people, different opinions, different lowercase values.
No objective 'Val'ue to the body inherent in existence.
For value is an invention, a claim of the moment, a use, it's not in the world, and people everywhere disagree upon it.
On no universal agreement
Some treatments are more probable to lead to certain ends,
But people don't all agree on what ends we should seek.
Not everyone 'values happiness or physical health.
Well, I imagine some people debate, that they can gain more wins on their scoreboard,
Some people debate as to troll and cause pain to others,
Some people debate to convince others of 'their values,
Plenty of 'reasons and ends, none that stand as objective 'oughts.
They are descriptive 'guides of 'IF one values this or that, ways to achieve them.
More human happiness exists if I do this,
More human misery exists if I do that,
For oneself, for others, (Shrug) doesn't matter, people have different ends.
A person can experience the chemical reaction known as happiness and think this is happiness. and seek it,
Another man can experience the chemical reaction known as happiness and think this is misery, and avoid it,
Depends on their ends. People decide for themselves, nothing 'objective about it.
And thus deciding for themselves, it's a fiction we tell ourselves.
On value,
Well, I'm not 'sure 'either of us explicitly defined the word "objective".
Not in the description, or 'any of the rounds thus far.
And I hesitate to outright define it now. . . but,
Shortened from,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
1: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
2: philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world
A human body may objectively die, but we cannot be objective about our 'value of such an occurrence, whether to ourselves or others.
value 'requires a human 'to value something.
And people differ on the meanings they take away from events, people have different ends.
Live is something bodies do,
End is something bodies do,
There's nothing Objective saying that a human valuing Living or Ending is the 'better decision.
Because 'better decision is dependent on the individual valuation.
And human values are hallucinated lies.
The painter and the child
If the child dies, his future experiences are lost, why need the painter care?
The painter values his painting.
Perhaps he is in a moment of creativity and motion, the light is hitting the canvas right, it can only be done now.
To the painter who values his art above all, what matters the child?
Even other people might differ in they value the situation,
People have 'killed others for their possessions or minor enjoyments.
People 'rationalize and sort 'possible ends that people might value.
The painter is only immoral according to a moral system that prioritizes human life.
The painter saving the child would be immoral, to a moral system that prioritizes individuals doing themselves no harm.
The painter would feel himself harmed by the loss of his painter. Perhaps the painter even comments on what a moral person he is, in prioritizing his own happiness.
"One man cannot wrong another man. He can only wrong himself. As I see it, I do wrong always when I consider the interests of others. Don’t you see? How can two particles of the yeast wrong each other by striving to devour each other? It is their inborn heritage to strive to devour, and to strive not to be devoured. When they depart from this they sin.”
- The Sea Wolf (1904) by Jack London
Such people see and hold to heart such a world.
But it is not universal, not THE singular value to the world.
It is something 'personal, an opinion, a fiction.
Just as valid, and thus as invalid, as a moral view which prioritizes other humans lives.
The Range
The Range only exists as an invented framework.
One who values maximizing suffering, would have a range where suffering was high and nonsuffering low.
One who values minimizing suffering, would have the opposite chart.
What makes them null and cancel into zero, is the lack of ought.
One question for my opponent, - YN
I see more than one. . .
"Is your claim, "nothing has value", true?"
I think so.
"Or better than my claim, "nihilism is a philosophical mistake"?"
Yes and No.
"Is it more logical?"
Yes and No.
"If con answer is no, them their argument has no value, and is worthless."
Yes and No.
"If they say yes, that means value does exist."
I disagree.
"Why should someone accept my opponent's conclusion if their position removes any reason to accept their conclusion?"
Because my position does not remove any reason to accept my conclusion.
My conclusion that existence does not possess inherent morality, does not mean we do not have subjective morality.
That one subjective morality is as good as another subjective morality, does not mean we humans will accept such in practice.
There is a difference between knowing something and experiencing it.
Many humans I do not think, care whether Nihilism is true or false.
Were we to possess knowledge of an asteroid hitting and destroying the Earth tomorrow, there would exist humans somewhere who would not care. And would still go to work.
On Leaning's reason to care,
Not everyone would agree that the stranger or the brother 'were suffering.
And from 'different points of view, different valuations, they would be right.
Except that such valuations are arbitrary and lack a single objective stance.
Being valuation of whim and fiction.
On their statement about art and beauty,
If one person values the color blue and another person values the color orange.
They would each value two paintings, one blue, one orange, differently.
The debate description says,
"Nihilism is the idea that life has no objective purpose, and meaning, thus no value."
It does not say existence lacks objective elements. It says objective purpose and meaning.
"Is some random scribble equal to a masterwork?"
To some people, yeah. Some scribbles sell for millions of dollars.
Depends on what they value in their art.
On value in every direction,
(will end soon) does not equal do objectively worse
There have existed communities glad to die. If they value dying sooner rather than later, then they are objectively succeeding in their goal.
And by a lack of objective morality, we cannot say they are doing worse.
We can only say particulars are better or worse, but the particulars being valuable are valued by individuals, who have different views.
What people want vs what happens to the people.
I don't deny material existence, I deny that material existence possesses or imprints a single inherent moral claim on various states of moral existence.
Instead 'many moral claims exist, many contradictory, yet being equally right, thus wrong.
"Blood Knight enjoys violence. But does his victims enjoy it?"
I'm sure there is a person 'somewhere in history who enjoyed dying.
Whether suicidal or masochistic, besides.
Does it 'matter if they enjoy it? In the blood knights eyes they might be 'deserving of their fate for being weak,
Though that's just 'another arbitrary moral valuation.
"Why does my opponent only care about one individual who enjoys a system which causes extreme suffering?"
Because existence, by it's lack of objective morals objective value 'allows them to enjoy it.
So called 'Suffering is just another rock encountered, some people value it, others avoid it.
No goal is better than others.
Because something being better depends on what the 'individual values, not what the 'world values.
Because the world cannot value anything.
And Value does not exist, it's something people invent and 'claim to exist. Whilst others value something opposite.
FINAL WORDS
My arguments in short,
(0) The word Value implies a single standard, unlike values
(1) Value is zero, nothing.
(2) A point in every direction, is the same as no point at all.
(3) Meanings are fictions.
Pro
#1