Objective Moral Judgements can be made in Moral Nihilism

I also thank xXCrpytoXx for not be an arse and running with the FF, which was due to stupidity of letting the timer run to the last second on my part, in any case time to conclude this debate. ‘Bias’ can be Objective The most serious objection Pro raised is that I need to affirm objective moral egoism (and hence objective values which contradicts Moral Nihilism), but this is false. I demonstrated how self-interest becomes axiomatic in my opening, despite it being intrinsically subjective. Since it is logically absurd to make the following statement: “I do not necessarily want what I want” If we accept what ‘we want’ is indeed entirely within bias, and is the epitome of subjectivism, then there is no sensible way for an individual contradict this as it cannot fulfil its own conditions for satisfying the truth of the statement, it becomes essentially the same problem as attempting to state: “This sentence is false” Since such a statement is incoherent, hence the antithesis must entail: “This sentence is true” Similarly: “I necessarily want what I want” Hence any purely subjective moral system necessarily has a foundation that is itself objectively true, and self-attesting. I do not need to submit that this entails objective moral egoism, and that self-interest is an objective moral value, I only assert that such a (subjective) moral value is one that cannot be sensibly denied. Upon which a moral system can be built on (moral egoism). Recall the definition of ‘objective’ I have provided: “"A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of asentient subject" The truth conditions are met in an objective manner in assessing exactly what an individual, or community’s self-interest is, they vary from individual, but are impartially determined to be true or false. Con seems to confuse that because the truth conditions ARE the feelings, ideas and biases of sentient subject, that these facts are objectively true regardless of the biases, feelings etc in assessing them. Moral Egoism There are many different forms of egoism which Con affirms, and I proposed in my opening that a ‘communal’ form of egoism would be the type of moral system that gives an overall maximal average fulfilment of self-interest for all members of a society. If you take society as a whole, and make an assessment of people’s desires, their most desired state of self (even if that supersedes what they think is their most desired state), then we have a solid grounds for making objective moral judgements. These judgements are plastic, and change according to characteristics and desires of a population. A population which experiences utmost discomfort from hearing high pitched noises for instance, it would be immoral to play said high pitched noises to that population, and the opposite would be true if hearing high pitched noises was one of the utmost pleasure inducing stimuli for a population. Such judgements would be impartial, and with answers that are not subject to any one’s say-so, whilst being adaptable, a significant advantage over purely objectivist moral systems where certain actions are rules moral and immoral whilst being ultimately divorced from the desires of the participants of the population. Math Analogies To roll with Con’s math-type objections, it seems appropriate to use these in kind to give an illustration, take the two following equations: 1. ) 10x +9 = y 2. ) 10 + 9 = y The latter equation is closest o my opponent’s interpretation of what an objective answer, these is one answer to 10 + 9 = y, and only one answer (19), and it is not subject to bias of any external factors. The answer is an objective fact, and that is that. The former equation, 10x + 9 = y, does not have a single answer, which is analogous to what I am proposing, the answer y is subjective depending on what the value of ‘x’ is, similarly the moral values of a subjective system such as moral egoism has a multitude of answers, Pro is very right to assert that different perspectives can lead to wildly opposing answers, I never contested this. However, once you have a value for ‘x’, the answer that follows is itself an objective fact, since it cannot be anything else once you have settled for a value. Similarly once you have a full understanding of someone’s self-interest, then what is moral that follows is itself an objective fact. If ‘x’ is known to be the number ‘2’ for example, then the answer is objectively ‘29’. There is no bias involved in finding that answer, it is not a matter of opinion of what the answer is once the background factors are known. That’s precisely the point I have been trying to get across in this debate. Conclusion I thank Crypto for a civil debate, and for showing excellent sportsmanship by allowing my second round through, and wish him luck in the voting! Back to Con!