Moralty is Objective [ by Magnus ]

[popeye1945]

Objective morality is the morality that pertains to all, i.e., primordial morality.

AI, what is primordial morality?

Morality is a distinction of groups, societies, and communities of organisms. Morality for an organism in isolation is nonsense; there is nothing to relate to in isolation. You are a subjective consciousness, and that means there is really nothing objective, for all meaning is the creation of a subjective life form which has a projected reality of sensing and understanding processed through its own being. Your apparent reality is a biological readout; your senses and understandings are projected onto a meaningless world. This does not mean there is nothing out there, but you do not experience what is out there. You experience how what is out there changes, alters, or affects your biology; you are experiencing your biology as apparent reality.

Biologically, unadorned inherent morality is survival oriented. It is objectively immoral to wrong your neighbor because that could create a survival challenge. This applies to everyone, therefore it is objective. The method of wronging the neighbor can vary according to the culture.

The fundamental principle of morality is self-interest, which encompasses one's survival and well-being. Many organisms form societies as a survival mode in the harsh reality of nature. The most rational and natural foundation of morality is a morality based on one's common biology. There is nothing objective to you; you live in a subjective reality. What many call an objective quality is simply keeping an emotional distance from a particular subjective manifestation, a degree of uninvolvement. Only in a society are you an individual; in isolation, you are an experience of need, the need to survive in all its challenges. The method of wronging someone is often due to cultural differences, which are influenced by geography and isolation. The world is so small, and communication is instant; we must start thinking of functioning as a whole species under one morality.

[Age]

But I did not miss 'this', (what you claim is one very important point), at all. As can be seen by 'my words' above, here, which have already addressed 'this very point'.

you claim that 'the writer' gets to 'choose the meaning/s', for words, but, as I have already pointed out, when I or others respond to you, here, in a forum, 'we' 'now' become 'the writers'. And, according to your own so-called 'logic' 'we', 'now', also become 'the ones' who get to 'choose' 'the meanings'. How come you missed 'this point', last time I addressed it?

Regardless of what you think, you have very clearly missed the point.

You're not applying my logic, merely your misunderstanding of it.

You either want to see that or you don't.

LOL your so-called 'logic' is 'the writer' is 'the one' who gets to 'choose' 'the meaning' of 'the words'.

you continually miss the point that every poster, here, is 'the writer'.

And, 'I' actually applied your so-called 'logic', which you are missing, and misunderstanding, here. It is also because of your so-called 'logic' why you are in such total confusion, and conflict, here.

Also, if you, really, do want to claim that it is 'I' who is 'missing the point', and 'misunderstanding', here, then have the courage to also tell 'the readers' what 'it' is, exactly, that you claim 'I' am 'missing the point of', and 'misunderstanding', here.

If you do not do 'this', this time, then 'we' have further proof of who is, exactly, 'the one' that has actually been 'missing the point' and 'misunderstanding', here.

So, in other words you want every one, here, to just accept and agree with your own personal and subjective provided 'meanings/s'.

You can't evaluate the truth value of a statement without first understanding it. And you can't understand it if you're not interpreting its words the way they are meant to be interpreted.

But, 'I' can and have interpreted 'the words', and 'the meaning', in 'the way' that 'they' are meant to be interpreted.

Now, if you want to claim that I am not, then inform the readers of what is the True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct interpretation, exactly.

Again, if you do not, this time, then you are just proving what I am been saying, and claiming, further.

You seriously need a lesson on how language works.

Attempts at deflection and deception is not the best and most efficient way to 'argue'.

But you're refusing to take it, believing yourself to be far more knowledgable than you actually are ( everything else being just a projection of yours. )

Once again, 'we' now have 'another one' who, instead of being precise, explains, and elaborates, prefers to just allude to 'some thing' or another.

And as I've already shown to you, the meaning that I'm assigning to the word "objective" is not an idiosyncratic one. It is YOURS that is idiosyncratic. Not that it matters much, but you seem to be obsessing over it for some reason.

Look "magnus anderson" each time you have 'tried to' argue for what you believe is absolutely true, here, I have shown, and proved, why your belief is False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect. Which you obviously do not like.

'I' will inform 'you', once more, it does not matter one iota how many people assign 'a meaning' to some thing if 'the meaning' does not fit in, perfectly, with what is actually True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, in Life.

Now, 'the meaning' that you are so desperately 'trying to' assign to the 'objective' word, here, does not fit in, at all, let alone perfectly, with what is actually True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, in Life.

But, please do not let 'this' stop you from doing what you are so desperately wanting to do, and are 'trying to' do, here.

I have already done so, and which is the very reason why I pointed out that 'minds' do not exist, and that you would have to provide a definition, and/or a meaning for the 'morality' word, as well.

I've defined both words long before you came.

Really?

Where, and what, is 'your definition' for the 'mind' and/or 'minds' word, exactly?

Read the thread.

Present 'it', or link 'us' to 'it'.

If you do not, then just claiming 'it' does exist, somewhere, will never suffice.

2. If I 'have to' work with 'your definitions', and 'have to' accept that, then I can just start a thread, and then you will 'have to' work with 'my definitions', and will 'have to' just accept that, right?

Yes, but completely irrelevant.

Great. So, to "magnus anderson" anyway, absolutely any one can assign 'opposite meanings' to the exact the 'exact same' words that "magnus anderson", and show how 'morality is not objective', for example, and "magnus anderson" will just have to work with 'those meanings' and/or definitions, and will just 'have to' accept that.

Which, as can be clearly seen, makes language, and the use of language, completely and utterly redundant.

If yes, then there is no wonder the people, in the days when this is being written, were, relatively, always bickering, in conflict, and fighting with each other. There is no wonder there was so much warring and killing of each other.

Actually, you are the one bickering here. You just don't see it being so self-absorbed.

If 'you' stopped 'looking at' and talking 'about me', and instead just focused on 'my words' alone, then you could and would see that I am not 'bickering' at all. I am just pointing out and showing how and why 'your beliefs', here, are distorted and Wrong.

There is zero substance in your posts.

Are 'you' absolutely sure of 'this'?

All you do is mindlessly object and defend yourself with the most vacuous statements you can think of.

So, why have you not yet countered nor refuted an actual thing that I have pointed out and shown, here?

And, if you really do want to believe that you have, then provide the actual examples. Now, obviously, if you do not, then you essentially have nothing that backs up and supports your views and beliefs, here.

3. The sooner you learn, and understand, that I do not 'have to' with your own personal and subjective meanings and definitions, then the sooner you will realize and learn that what you assume and believe is not necessarily True and Right, in Life, at all.

And the sooner you learn how language works, the sooner you will stop doing what you're doing.

If only you knew "magnus anderson". If only 'you' knew.

This is 'your argument', here, so far.

'Morality' are laws.
'Objective' is mind independent.
Therefore, 'morality is objective'.

Now, if 'this' is not 'your argument', here, then what is, exactly?

Once you provide 'it', here, then 'we' can 'look at' 'it', and discuss 'it'.

true definitions

There are no true and false meanings.

So, I write, 'true definitions', and 'you', once more, 'try to' deflect away from 'this' while 'trying to' deceive 'the readers', here, with,

There are no true and false meanings.

So, why do you attempt to detract, and deflect, so much, here.

What is 'it' that you are so desperately 'trying to' hide, here.

I know that you absolutely hate it when I counter and refute 'your claims', here, but what is 'it', exactly, that you are so afraid and scared of that makes 'you' continually 'deceive', here?

But, there is no use to inform you of this because you believe, absolutely, otherwise. And, because you believe, absolutely, otherwise, you are not open to recognizing and learning what the actual Truth is, here.

Curious. It's of no use to define a term I've asked you to define more than once.[/quote]

When and where have you asked me to define 'a term'? Will you link 'us' to 'that term' and when you asked me to define 'that term'?

If no, then why not? Again, what are you so afraid and scared of, here?

Now, if you do not, then what is 'that term', exactly, which you claim you have asked me to define, more than once?

Let the readers, here, see what 'that term' is, exactly.

But it's perfectly meaningful to spam this thread with your pointless verbiage.

That you, still, can not yet see where and why your claims, here, are False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, then so be it.

But others certainly can.

How about you FINALLY define the term instead of mindlessly complaining?

But, again, I am not complaining. Just pointing out that, actually, what you claim is true is not, is not complaining. Although you obviously hate having 'this' pointed out, here.

Now, what is 'the term' that you want 'me' to define, here, exactly?

As can be very clearly seen, here, again, instead of seeking out clarification, and thus clarity, itself, it much prefers to just rely on its own assumptions and already held beliefs to obtain 'knowledge' from.

The reason I've stopped seeking clarification from you is because you've shown yourself to be a terrible interlocutor.

Yet, here 'you' are not having shown nor proved the 'very things' that you have wanted to and set out to do, here.

Could 'this' mean that it is 'you' who is the 'terrible interlocutor', here?

Now, if you want to claim that you have shown and proved the 'very things' that you have wanted to and set out to do, then to who, exactly?

And, if 'you' can not give 'us' any names, then that would make 'you' a 'terrible interlocutor', would it not?

You never take that into account because you believe yourself to be perfect ( while pretending to be humble. )

What a joke.

'This one', once more, just proved 'my claim' above, here, absolutely True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, again.

'This one' actually does only 'accept that' what it assumes and/or believes is true.

Oh, and by the way, have you, 'yourself", ever taken 'that' into account?

You have to understand that other people aren't obliged to read your posts and respond to them.

Once more it assumes and believes things that are totally False.

How many times is 'this one' going to keep sharing its False assumptions and beliefs before it realizes how foolish doing 'this' makes 'this one' look?

Everything you say can be very easily ignored.

Is 'this' a very mature, and/or wise, thing to say, here, in a philosophy forum, of all places?

Be grateful that anyone is paying attention to you at all.

Coming from 'the one' who has yet to achieve absolutely any thing, here.

As far as I'm concerned, you're embarrassingly clueless.

If only 'you' knew "magnus anderson". If only 'you' knew.

Appreciate the fact that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

What even are 'you', supposedly, giving 'me' the so-called 'benefit of the doubt' in, exactly?

Also, just because you are so insecure and not self-assured at all, here, and will only use meanings that others use, no matter how Wrong and/or utterly absurd they are, never ever means that 'the meaning/s' that you and/or others use fit in, perfectly, or even at all, with what is actually irrefutably True, and Right, in Life.

And you have yet to learn how language works.

Do 'you' believe that you know how language works?

There are no true and false meanings.

Can you, really, not differentiate between 'the meaning that you and/or others provide', from 'definitions', which is what makes up what is true, and right, in Life.

Now, will you 'try to' deflect and/or deceive, here, as well?

Will you accept that 'the meaning/s' you provide, here, are neither true nor false, which means that 'the meaning' that you give to 'language', and how 'language works' is not a true nor false meaning. So, any claim of yours that another has not yet learned how 'language works' is based upon your own 'not true meaning'.

See, if you knew how 'language', itself, works, then you would already know that 'the meaning' that you have, here, is neither false, nor true, right?

you, obviously, can not have 'this' both ways, that is, say and claim that 'the meaning' you have for 'how language works' is the 'true way', and also claim that another has not yet learned 'that meaning', and not be hypocritical.

Again, if you knew how 'language works', then you would already know 'this'.

And, I have not even discussed how you have 'tried to' deflect, and deceive, here, once more.

Again, 'this' is just your personal and subjective view and belief, here.

It is not, regardless of how much you'd like it to be.

Explain how 'this' is not your personal and subjective view', exactly.

I'm wondering whether you even know what the word "idiosyncratic" means.

Is 'this', still, what you are focusing on, here.

Once again, for the very slow of learners, it does not matter one iota if someone's view or definition is not held by absolutely anyone else, if that 'view' fits in, perfectly, with what is actually irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, in Life, then 'that idiosyncratic view' is what is actually what is True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, in Life. And, just as obvious is the fact that any opposing view would not be what is actually what is True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, in Life, and it does not matter at all even if everyone else had, and/or was holding, the opposing view.

Again, your claim that you would not accept a view just because only one other had, explains and proves, tremendously so, why you human beings take and took so, so long to 'catch up' and find and see what are the actual irrefutable Truths, in Life, really are.

Oh, and by the way, you appear to have forgotten your own claim, here.

So, 'this one' believes that just because it says some thing is 'not idiosyncratic', and/or just because a dictionary has and/or uses a particular definition, then 'the meaning' that 'this one' has 'chosen to use' is, itself, has been 'shown' to be not so-called 'idiosyncratic'.

Correct.

And the fact that you don't understand this is bothersome given how much of a stubborn ass you are.

If I, supposedly, did not understand 'this', then how did I come to be 'the one' to 'point out' what you even exclaimed is, 'Correct', here?

I have discussed 'the topic', you obviously just do not want to discuss anything else than what you already believe is absolutely true, here.

Not true.

As I said, if you're convinced that I am not open to opposing ideas, you're free to leave this thread.

LOL So, instead of showing that you are actually open, you instead claim that I am free to leave 'this thread'.

I didn't make this thread so that every moron can share his idiotic belief that the other side is closed-minded.

Once again, you can not even comprehend what I said and meant, even though I have actually written 'it' down, here.

[Magnus Anderson]

LOL your so-called 'logic' is 'the writer' is 'the one' who gets to 'choose' 'the meaning' of 'the words'.

you continually miss the point that every poster, here, is 'the writer'.

Perhaps if you stopped being so pathetically defensive, you would understand what I'm trying to say.

Every writer, and that also means every poster on this forum, is free to choose what meaning he's going to assign to his words. Of course, this should be based on what's likely to be understood by the audience. It is preferable that he uses a language that his audience already understands because otherwise he will have to teach them a new language. The greater the number of words he has to define, the more work both he and his readers have to do.

At the same time, every reader has the responsibility to understand the meanings assigned to the words that they are reading. Otherwise, the reader will misinterpret what he's reading. And if he misinterprets what he's reading, he will end up evaluating the truth value of a statement that the author did not make. In fact, he may end up constructing a strawman argument. A common occurrence.

I am free to assign any meaning I want to the word "objective". The only guide is use value. In the case of speech, that means whether or not the chosen word-concept association will make it easier for the audience to understand what I'm trying to say. In this thread, I chose to use the word "objective" in one of the common ways. The risk of being misunderstood is thus minimal, especially considering the fact that I clarified what I mean by the term.

The word "objective" has no true meaning and it also has no false meanings. It's not a proposition, so it has no truth value. But it does have use value, i.e. more or less useful meanings. You can criticize me for not speaking clearly -- that much is true. But are you really doing that? Do you seriously think that using the word "objective" to mean "that which exists independently of minds" is not clear enough? Especially given the fact that I explicitly stated how I'm using the word?

On the other hand, you, as a reader, are not allowed to interpret my statement any way you want, since you don't want to end up with a misinterpretation. So when I say "Morality is objective" to mean "The existence of morality is independent from the existence of minds", you are not free to misinterpret me as saying "Morality ontologically exists" ( as Skepdick did. )

[Age]

But, because you spoke and wrote like you are speaking, and writing, for every one, then 'this' is a huge reason of why 'you' are having such a 'hard time', here, now.

That's a pleasant simplification, but it isn't reality.

Once again, just saying things like, 'it is not reality', does not mean that 'it' is not reality.

1. Say what 'it' is, exactly?

2. Then explain how, and why, exactly, 'it' is, supposedly 'not reality'.

3. And, if you, really, want to be heard, understood, and agreed with and accepted, then tell 'us' what 'reality' even means and/or refers to, exactly, to you.

And then, and only then, 'we' will decide if 'it' is, or is not, reality.

Until then what you say and claim, here, is just your own personal and subjective view and/or belief, only.

2. If the so-called 'highest goal' is in relation to just an individual, or to just a group of people, then you are back at 'subjectivity', again.

5. From the outset, if 'morality' actually meant some thing like you claim, here, then 'morality' would clearly be subjective. For the very obvious fact that different people have and use 'different, subjective, laws', which they all claim 'ought to be obeyed in order to maximize their chances of attaining their 'highest goal', which also may well be very different, and subjective.

I'm glad you have an opinion but it just happens to be wrong.

That you can only say things like 'this' only goes to show and reaffirm that you are, once again, not even able to back up and support your claims and beliefs, here, and have not yet countered nor refuted absolutely any thing that I have said and written, here.

There is 'a contradiction' in you claiming that if some thing exists 'in mind', then 'that thing is 'not objective' and in your also claiming that 'whether or not minds exist has no impact on the meaning that I am, or should be, attaching to the word, 'objective'.

If you, still, can not see 'this contradiction', then okay.

You'd have to do a lot more than that in order to show the contradiction.

Again, just because you, allege, that you can not see 'the contradiction' this in no way means that 'the contradiction' has not been shown.

For those who have not yet noticed and seen 'the contradiction', but who, really, do want to, then let 'us' have 'a discussion', here.

And, just as I have expressed before, 'we' will need to know what you mean by 'minds', and, 'morality', here.

If you need to know it, then get to know it.

But, how can 'we' get to know 'it' means, to you, when 'you' do not inform 'us' of what 'it' means, to 'you', exactly?

I have already defined these terms.

Really?

If yes, then where, exactly?

Again, if you do not answer and clarify, then 'this' is showing, and verifying, probably what you are hating, here.

But, you have, again, and still, missed the mark, and 'the point', here.

I can be excused when responding to someone who has a lot of trouble making his point.

Yet, it is you who has claimed that it is 'the other's' fault when 'your points' are not able to be seen, and understood, here.

So, once again, 'this one' wants things both ways, here.

[Magnus Anderson]

'I' will inform 'you', once more, it does not matter one iota how many people assign 'a meaning' to some thing if 'the meaning' does not fit in, perfectly, with what is actually True

Dear Mr. Crazy Non-Human Guy Suffering from Quote Abuse Disorder and Redundancy Addiction,

I will inform you, once more, that words have no true and false meanings.

As I said:

You seriously need a lesson on how language works.

Really?

Where, and what, is 'your definition' for the 'mind' and/or 'minds' word, exactly?

Present 'it', or link 'us' to 'it'.

Make an effort, read the thread.

Can you, really, not differentiate between 'the meaning that you and/or others provide', from 'definitions', which is what makes up what is true, and right, in Life.

A definition is merely a special type of statement. It's a statement that a meaning of some sort is assigned to some word by someone.

A definition is true insofar it accurately describes the attached meaning.

The meaning that I attached to the word "objective" is "that which exists independently of minds". Thus, when I say "Here in this thread, the word objective will be used to refer to that which exists independently of minds", that's a true definition.

We went over this . . . but one can't expect better from a self-absorbed retard.

Once again, for the very slow of learners, it does not matter one iota if someone's view or definition is not held by absolutely anyone else, if that 'view' fits in, perfectly, with what is actually irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, in Life, then 'that idiosyncratic view' is what is actually what is True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, in Life. And, just as obvious is the fact that any opposing view would not be what is actually what is True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, in Life, and it does not matter at all even if everyone else had, and/or was holding, the opposing view.

Yes, you really are a slow learner. That's largely because you don't listen.

What you're saying applies to STATEMENTS. It does not apply to WORD-CONCEPT ASSOCIATIONS.

Learn the difference.

There are no true and false word-concept associations. Get that inside of your head. Any concept can be associated with any word.

LOL So, instead of showing that you are actually open, you instead claim that I am free to leave 'this thread'.

You're presuming that you're open to the idea that I'm open. You think that everyone should be wasting their time trying to prove things to you. Things don't really work that way in reality.

[Magnus Anderson]

3. And, if you, really, want to be heard, understood, and agreed with and accepted, then tell 'us' what 'reality' even means and/or refers to, exactly, to you.

You're not the only person reading this thread.

not even able

Not willing.

You have to realize that there are people out there who do not want to bother with you because they perceive you as someone who is not capable of having a proper dialogue.

Again, just because you, allege, that you can not see 'the contradiction' this in no way means that 'the contradiction' has not been shown.

Again, just because you have asserted more than once that there's a contradiction does not mean you have shown there's a contradiction.

How do you like it when the other side repeats itself?

You have done nothing, actually, other than asserting the contradiction.

But, how can 'we' get to know 'it' means, to you, when 'you' do not inform 'us' of what 'it' means, to 'you', exactly?

Stop calling yourself "we". You aren't the same as everyone else. And you don't have to be on this thread at all.

[Age]

LOL your so-called 'logic' is 'the writer' is 'the one' who gets to 'choose' 'the meaning' of 'the words'.

you continually miss the point that every poster, here, is 'the writer'.

Perhaps if you stopped being so pathetically defensive, you would understand what I'm trying to say.

LOL What do you even think 'it' is, exactly, which I am 'now', supposedly, wanting to defend, here?

There is nothing for me to 'defend', here. I am just pointing out the ridiculousness and absurdity in 'your claim' that 'the writer' gets to 'choose the meanings' for the words that they use.

Look, you obviously 'tried to' make out that because you were 'the writer', then this, somehow, 'justified' you to 'choose' 'the meanings', here. The ludicrousness of 'this' I just showed, pointed out, and made clearer, here.

Every writer, and that also means every poster on this forum, is free to choose what meaning he's going to assign to his words. Of course, this should be based on what's likely to be understood by the audience. It is preferable that he uses a language that his audience already understands because otherwise he will have to teach them a new language. The greater the number of words he has to define, the more work both he and his readers have to do.

Once more you have managed to completely and utterly miss the actual point being made.

It does not matter one bit if just about every one understands 'a meaning', if 'that meaning' does not fit in, perfectly, with what is actually True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, in Life, then assigning 'that meaning' is really just useless.

When will you comprehend and understand this Fact?

Look, the very reason why you feel some need to express what you believe is true and right, here, is because of the 'current' meanings that assigned to words, in the days when you are writing this, have not and, still, do not work.

Do you know what meaning has been assigned to the word, 'insanity'?

If no, then 'that assigned meaning' was, and still is, 'Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results'.

So, in other words, it could be said and argued that if you keep assigning the 'same meanings', over and over again, which obviously have not previously worked for you human beings, could be a sign of, pure, insanity.

But, please feel absolutely free to keep doing what you have been doing, over and over again, here.

At the same time, every reader has the responsibility to understand the meanings assigned to the words that they are reading. Otherwise, the reader will misinterpret what he's reading. And if he misinterprets what he's reading, he will end up evaluating the truth value of a statement that the author did not make. In fact, he may end up constructing a strawman argument. A common occurrence.

So, when you say and mean some thing, here, you are not making 'truth values', right?

Is your statement and claim that, 'morality is objective', have 'truth value', to you?

I am free to assign any meaning I want to the word "objective".

you are also free to assign any 'definition' you want to the word 'objective'. And, according, to you anyway, until you do, then no one can evaluate 'the truth value' in your statement/s, here.

So, do you have enough courage to assign only 'definitions', here, instead of useless and worthless in regards to 'truth value' 'meanings'?

If no, then why not?

If you, really, want to just express that it is your opinion, only, that 'morality is objective', and that 'objective is mind independent', then just keep expressing 'meanings', only.

However, if you want to argue for your belief, here, that 'morality is objective', then I suggest that you assign 'definitions' to 'the words' that you want to use, here, and stop this useless assigning of 'meanings', only.

The only guide is use value.

There is no use in not expressing 'truth value' statements when forming 'arguments'.

In the case of speech, that means whether or not the chosen word-concept association will make it easier for the audience to understand what I'm trying to say.

If you are not assigning definitions, and instead assigning meanings, then you are not necessarily trying to say any thing of 'truth value', obviously.

In this thread, I chose to use the word "objective" in one of the common ways. The risk of being misunderstood is thus minimal, especially considering the fact that I clarified what I mean by the term.

But, it does not matter all that people are 'understanding' what you are saying, and meaning, when what you are saying, and meaning, has no 'truth value', here. nor if you just want to express your opinion, only.

The word "objective" has no true meaning and it also has no false meanings.

Yes, you have said the same thing over and over again. Are you expecting a different result?

It's not a proposition, so it has no truth value. But it does have use value, i.e. more or less useful meanings.

LOL 'Uselful' in regards to 'what', exactly?

Again, what purpose is it in 'understanding' you when you are just expressing 'an opinion', which is not even true, or false?

You can criticize me for not speaking clearly -- that much is true. But are you really doing that? Do you seriously think that using the word "objective" to mean "that which exists independently of minds" is not clear enough? Especially given the fact that I explicitly stated how I'm using the word?

Are you purposely being 'stupid', or have you, still, really not yet understood.

What you are saying, and meaning, is very clear, but there is absolutely no use in you saying, and meaning, what you are, here.

The word, 'objective', to "martin peter clarke" anyway, means, 'that which exists independently of minds'. Although 'this' is neither true nor false, and is just 'an opinion', only, of "martin peter clarke's".

So, as can be very clearly seen, here, 'this' is just useless and pointless information, especially considering that 'we' are in a 'philosophy forum', of all places.

On the other hand, you, as a reader, are not allowed to interpret my statement any way you want, since you don't want to end up with a misinterpretation. So when I say "Morality is objective" to mean "The existence of morality is independent from the existence of minds", you are not free to misinterpret me as saying "Morality ontologically exists" ( as Skepdick did. )

But, when you say, 'morality is objective' to mean, 'The existence of morality is independent from the existence of minds', do you actually mean that 'it' is not true and not false?

If no, then what do you actually mean?

What is 'it', exactly, that you are wanting to say, and mean, here, exactly?

Also, if when you say 'morality is objective', to mean something else, then why not just say the 'very thing' that you, actually, 'do mean', instead?

Now, and by the way, any claim that 'The existence of morality is independent from the existence of minds', is, very clearly, and obviously, False, and Wrong, and Inaccurate, and Incorrect. As 'morality' begins as a perception or concept, only, and does not exist as some physical thing outside of Mind and/or human thought, from the beginning. But, 'we' are, still, a very long way of 'discussing' any of 'this'.

[Age]

'I' will inform 'you', once more, it does not matter one iota how many people assign 'a meaning' to some thing if 'the meaning' does not fit in, perfectly, with what is actually True

Dear Mr. Crazy Non-Human Guy Suffering from Quote Abuse Disorder and Redundancy Addiction,

I will inform you, once more, that words have no true and false meanings.

LOL 'Now' you want to 'try to' claim that 'words', themselves, have no true nor false meanings.

As I said:

You seriously need a lesson on how language works.

Really?

Where, and what, is 'your definition' for the 'mind' and/or 'minds' word, exactly?

Present 'it', or link 'us' to 'it'.

Make an effort, read the thread.

Again, there is absolutely nothing at all, here, that could be verified nor countered.

Can you, really, not differentiate between 'the meaning that you and/or others provide', from 'definitions', which is what makes up what is true, and right, in Life.

A definition is merely a special type of statement. It's a statement that a meaning of some sort is assigned to some word by someone.

A definition is true insofar it accurately describes the attached meaning.

The amount of 'time' and 'energy' you spend deviating and 'trying to' deceive, here, is really quite surprising considering how much 'effort' and 'time' to just be open and honest instead would be relatively nothing at all.

The meaning that I attached to the word "objective" is "that which exists independently of minds". Thus, when I say "Here in this thread, the word objective will be used to refer to that which exists independently of minds", that's a true definition.

Ah, so 'now' it is 'a meaning', that is either a true, or false, definition.

We went over this . . . but one can't expect better from a self-absorbed retard.

Resorting to attempts at ridicule and humiliation reveals more 'about you', then 'about me', as well as showing and proving that you are at your very end.

Once again, for the very slow of learners, it does not matter one iota if someone's view or definition is not held by absolutely anyone else, if that 'view' fits in, perfectly, with what is actually irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, in Life, then 'that idiosyncratic view' is what is actually what is True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, in Life. And, just as obvious is the fact that any opposing view would not be what is actually what is True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, in Life, and it does not matter at all even if everyone else had, and/or was holding, the opposing view.

Yes, you really are a slow learner. That's largely because you don't listen.

What you're saying applies to STATEMENTS. It does not apply to WORD-CONCEPT ASSOCIATIONS.

LOL How do you think or believe so-called 'word-concept associations' are formulated if not through 'statements', themselves?

Learn the difference.

There are no true and false word-concept associations. Get that inside of your head. Any concept can be associated with any word.

Therefore, to "martin peter clarke" absolutely every concept, here, is not true and false. So, does this mean that 'concepts', which are statements, can be, or can not be, true and/or false?

LOL So, instead of showing that you are actually open, you instead claim that I am free to leave 'this thread'.

You're presuming that you're open to the idea that I'm open. You think that everyone should be wasting their time trying to prove things to you. Things don't really work that way in reality.

So, again, it appears that 'this one' only wants to express, here, just 'that', what is just 'an opinion', to it, only.

Imagine coming into a philosophy forum 'trying to' claim some thing is true, but when challenged and questioned, then claims that what 'it' is claiming is neither true nor false, anyway.

[Age]

3. And, if you, really, want to be heard, understood, and agreed with and accepted, then tell 'us' what 'reality' even means and/or refers to, exactly, to you.

You're not the only person reading this thread.

Again, when this one is challenged and/or questioned it 'tries to' deflect, 'run away', and hide.

not even able

Not willing.

You have to realize that there are people out there who do not want to bother with you because they perceive you as someone who is not capable of having a proper dialogue.

Once again, 'we' have another prime example who when questioned and/or challenged is not actually able to back up and support its beliefs and claims, then, laughingly, claims that 'it can' but has just 'chosen' 'not to'.

The 'immaturity' of this kind of responding speaks for itself.

Again, just because you, allege, that you can not see 'the contradiction' this in no way means that 'the contradiction' has not been shown.

Again, just because you have asserted more than once that there's a contradiction does not mean you have shown there's a contradiction.

How do you like it when the other side repeats itself?

I love it.

The more you speak and write, here, like 'the way' you have been, here, verifies and proves what I have been saying, and claiming, here.

You have done nothing, actually, other than asserting the contradiction.

So you allege, and believe.

But, how can 'we' get to know 'it' means, to you, when 'you' do not inform 'us' of what 'it' means, to 'you', exactly?

Stop calling yourself "we".

But I was not. Why did you assume such a thing as 'this'?

You aren't the same as everyone else.

So, what is the 'you', exactly, if 'you' are not the same as every other 'you'?

And you don't have to be on this thread at all.

LOL Is 'this' all you have left, here, now?

When I start a thread I want as many people to question and challenge me. But then I do obtain actual proof for what I say and claim, before I even consider saying and writing 'my views and claims' in public.

[Magnus Anderson]

Once more you have managed to completely and utterly miss the actual point being made.

It does not matter one bit if just about every one understands 'a meaning', if 'that meaning' does not fit in, perfectly, with what is actually True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, in Life, then assigning 'that meaning' is really just useless.

When will you comprehend and understand this Fact?

Once more, you have managed to completely and utterly miss the actual point being made.

There are no true and false meanings.

There is no such thing as "a meaning that fits in perfectly with what is actually True, Right, Accurate, and Correct."

That's why I keep telling you you need to take a lesson on how language works.

When will you comprehend and understand this fact?

So, when you say and mean some thing, here, you are not making 'truth values', right?

Is your statement and claim that, 'morality is objective', have 'truth value', to you?

Only propositions have truth value.

"Morality is objective" is a proposition. Therefore, it has truth value.

However, the word "objective" as well as the meaning assigned to it are not propositions at all. The former is a word and the latter is a meaning. Thus, they have no truth value. There are no true and false words and no true and false meanings.

The same applies to word-concept associations. They are not propositions, so they have no truth value. You can assign any concept/meaning to any word. There are no true and false associations.

However, if you want to argue for your belief, here, that 'morality is objective', then I suggest that you assign 'definitions' to 'the words' that you want to use, here, and stop this useless assigning of 'meanings', only.

This is a word salad.

One doesn't assign definitions to words. One assigns meanings. One can also say, one attaches concepts.

A definition is merely a description of the meaning that someone attached to some word at some point in time.

I seriously suspect that you don't really understand what definitions are. You very likely equate them with statements. A common mistake.

The word, 'objective', to "martin peter clarke" anyway, means, 'that which exists independently of minds'. Although 'this' is neither true nor false, and is just 'an opinion', only, of "martin peter clarke's".

You should stop mentioning Martin Peter Clarke.

And you should learn that an opinion is a proposition held by someone to be true. As such, it DOES have truth value.

LOL 'Now' you want to 'try to' claim that 'words', themselves, have no true nor false meanings.

I've been saying that for ages.

Ah, so 'now' it is 'a meaning', that is either a true, or false, definition.

You're unbelievably clueless.

A definition is not a meaning. It's a description of the assigned meaning.

And in the non-linguistic sense, it's an idea that the meaning assigned to some word by someone at some point in time is such and such.

LOL How do you think or believe so-called 'word-concept associations' are formulated if not through 'statements', themselves?

Well, I can describe people using words. Does that mean that people are words?

Surely, I can state that this or that word-concept association is such and such. That does not make it a statement, doesn't it?

Therefore, to "martin peter clarke" absolutely every concept, here, is not true and false. So, does this mean that 'concepts', which are statements, can be, or can not be, true and/or false?

Concepts aren't statements.

Imagine coming into a philosophy forum 'trying to' claim some thing is true, but when challenged and questioned, then claims that what 'it' is claiming is neither true nor false, anyway.

You're embarrassing yourself.

[Age]

Once more you have managed to completely and utterly miss the actual point being made.

It does not matter one bit if just about every one understands 'a meaning', if 'that meaning' does not fit in, perfectly, with what is actually True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, in Life, then assigning 'that meaning' is really just useless.

When will you comprehend and understand this Fact?

Once more, you have managed to completely and utterly miss the actual point being made.

There are no true and false meanings.

LOL Even when 'I' repeat the exact same thing 'this one' completely and utterly misses 'it'.

There is no such thing as "a meaning that fits in perfectly with what is actually True, Right, Accurate, and Correct."

That's why I keep telling you you need to take a lesson on how language works.

When will you comprehend and understand this fact?

Obviously 'this one' has not yet just stopped, to then just consider and think what I have said and written, here, through.

For if it did, then it would never say and write what it is, here.

What a Truly absurd and foolish thing to say and write. 'This one' literally believes, absolutely, that either there is actual what is True, Right, Accurate, and Correct knowledge, in Life, and/or that there are no words, ever, that could written in a way that could align, perfectly, with what is actually True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, in Life.

So, when you say and mean some thing, here, you are not making 'truth values', right?

Is your statement and claim that, 'morality is objective', have 'truth value', to you?

Only propositions have truth value.

"Morality is objective" is a proposition. Therefore, it has truth value.

Great, 'we' finally got, here.

Now, to you, is 'your proposition' that 'morality is objective' true, or not true?

Hopefully, it will not take 'as long', as last time.

However, the word "objective" as well as the meaning assigned to it are not propositions at all.

So, in other words, any one can present any sentence and/or any statement, and then just say and claim, that 'the sentence, or statement', assigned to absolutely any word/s I use is either 'a proposition', or is 'not a proposition'.

And, that is all that is needed, here.

The former is a word and the latter is a meaning. Thus, they have no truth value. There are no true and false words and no true and false meanings.

If, as you are 'now' 'trying to' say and claim, words, themselves, are neither true nor false, then the words, 'morality is objective', are neither true nor false.

For surely, the word, 'morality', which you assign meaning to is not true and false, just like the meaning that you want to assign to the 'objective', word is not true and false, to you.

So, the sentence, or statement, 'morality is objective', is not a proposition. Just like the sentence, and statement, 'morality', is laws, as 'this meaning' assigned to 'that word' is not true and false, as well.

The same applies to word-concept associations. They are not propositions, so they have no truth value. You can assign any concept/meaning to any word. There are no true and false associations.

And, just like you assigned the concept/meaning, "the set of all laws that someone [ an individual, a group of people or everyone ] ought to obey in order to maximize their chances of attaining their highest goal", to the 'morality' word, which is very clearly not true and false, and has no 'truth value' at all, the sentence, and statement, 'morality is objective' must therefore be not true and false, either, and therefore must also be 'not a proposition'.

Which some will 'now' be thinking, but 'this' is exactly not where "magnus anderson" wanted to end up, but going on and by "magnus anderson's" so-called 'logic', here, 'this' is, exactly, where 'we' have ended up.

However, if you want to argue for your belief, here, that 'morality is objective', then I suggest that you assign 'definitions' to 'the words' that you want to use, here, and stop this useless assigning of 'meanings', only.

This is a word salad.

LOL 'This' is very funny considering that is has been 'you', all along, here, 'trying to' twist and distort words, and 'their meanings', around, to 'try' absolutely any way to get to claim that 'morality is objective' is a Fact.

One doesn't assign definitions to words. One assigns meanings. One can also say, one attaches concepts.

Here 'we' go, again.

So, if one does not 'assign' definitions, to words, then how does one 'arrive at' definitions, exactly?

A definition is merely a description of the meaning that someone attached to some word at some point in time.

And, some call what you are doing, here, 'word salad'. But, because you human beings, assign meanings to words, there is no 'truth value', here, right?

I seriously suspect that you don't really understand what definitions are. You very likely equate them with statements. A common mistake.

LOL your continual attempts at deception, here, is very amusing to watch, and observe.

What do you understand of 'definitions', themselves?

What do you equate definitions to, exactly?

Do you, this time, equate 'definitions' with 'truth value' or with 'no truth value'?

The word, 'objective', to "martin peter clarke" anyway, means, 'that which exists independently of minds'. Although 'this' is neither true nor false, and is just 'an opinion', only, of "martin peter clarke's".

You should stop mentioning Martin Peter Clarke.

Why, exactly?

And you should learn that an opinion is a proposition held by someone to be true. As such, it DOES have truth value.

What does?

What is the 'it' word in relation to, exactly?

Also, is saying, 'that which exists independently of minds' an opinion, a proposition, a sentence, a statement, a meaning, or something else?

And, whatever you 'now' will might say that 'those words' are, then does 'that' have 'truth value', or not?

By the way, do you hold 'the words', of yours, 'that which exists independently of minds', to be true, not true, or something else?

LOL 'Now' you want to 'try to' claim that 'words', themselves, have no true nor false meanings.

I've been saying that for ages.[/quote]

Okay. And so 'the words', 'I've been saying that for ages', has no true nor false meaning, correct?

Ah, so 'now' it is 'a meaning', that is either a true, or false, definition.

You're unbelievably clueless.

A definition is not a meaning. It's a description of the assigned meaning.

So, 'now' a 'definition' is not 'a meaning', a 'definition', instead, is 'a description' of an 'assigned meaning', which is not true and false, right?

And in the non-linguistic sense, it's an idea that the meaning assigned to some word by someone at some point in time is such and such.

But, which can, or can not be, true and false?

LOL How do you think or believe so-called 'word-concept associations' are formulated if not through 'statements', themselves?

Well, I can describe people using words. Does that mean that people are words?

Who knows what you mean, here?

Is the word 'people' a word?

if yes, then what does the word, 'people', even mean, to you, exactly?

Surely, I can state that this or that word-concept association is such and such. That does not make it a statement, doesn't it?

Why? What does the word, 'statement', even mean, to you, exactly?

Therefore, to "martin peter clarke" absolutely every concept, here, is not true and false. So, does this mean that 'concepts', which are statements, can be, or can not be, true and/or false?

Concepts aren't statements.

So, what does the word, 'concept' mean, to you, exactly?

Imagine coming into a philosophy forum 'trying to' claim some thing is true, but when challenged and questioned, then claims that what 'it' is claiming is neither true nor false, anyway.

You're embarrassing yourself.

Am 'I'?

What, exactly, do you mean when you say and write, 'you're embarrassing yourself'?

[Magnus Anderson]

Great, 'we' finally got, here.

Now, to you, is 'your proposition' that 'morality is objective' true, or not true?

The issue was whether or not the meaning that I assign to the word "objective" is true.

Stop distracting yourself, fucktard. Try focusing for once.

So, in other words, any one can present any sentence and/or any statement, and then just say and claim, that 'the sentence, or statement', assigned to absolutely any word/s I use is either 'a proposition', or is 'not a proposition'.

You should seriously stop opening your mouth. You're babbling. Try listening for change.

If, as you are 'now' 'trying to' say and claim, words, themselves, are neither true nor false, then the words, 'morality is objective', are neither true nor false.

You are extremely, embarrassingly, clueless.

"Morality is objective" is not a word. It's a statement. "Morality" is a word. "Is" is a word. "Objective" is a word. These things on their own have no truth value. However, when you put them together to form a propositional statement, you get something that has truth value.

What's the truth value of the word "dog", moron? Is it true or false? Please, enlighten us.

Understand that you've been derailing this thread with your childish bullshit ever since you stepped into it. I've been extremely patient with you. Far more than you actually deserve.

So, the sentence, or statement, 'morality is objective', is not a proposition.

It is. Stop confusing yourself.

Just like the sentence, and statement, 'morality', is laws, as 'this meaning' assigned to 'that word' is not true and false, as well.

Learn how to write coherent sentences, manchild.

How old are you?

And, just like you assigned the concept/meaning, "the set of all laws that someone [ an individual, a group of people or everyone ] ought to obey in order to maximize their chances of attaining their highest goal", to the 'morality' word, which is very clearly not true and false, and has no 'truth value' at all, the sentence, and statement, 'morality is objective' must therefore be not true and false, either, and therefore must also be 'not a proposition'.

If we follow your own idiotic way of thinking, then yes.

So, if one does not 'assign' definitions, to words, then how does one 'arrive at' definitions, exactly?

A question only an utter and complete imbecile would ask.

Why are you a complete and utter imbecile, Age?

And, some call what you are doing, here, 'word salad'.

Yes. Retards, such as yourself, call that word salad. So what? Retards will be retards.

LOL your continual attempts at deception, here, is very amusing to watch, and observe.

You're projecting.

Do you, this time, equate 'definitions' with 'truth value' or with 'no truth value'?

An idiotic question.

Also, is saying, 'that which exists independently of minds' an opinion, a proposition, a sentence, a statement, a meaning, or something else?

It's a phrase, retard. A phrase describing a meaning that can be assigned to a word. It's not an opinion. It's not a proposition. It's not a statement. It's not a sentence.

And, whatever you 'now' will might say that 'those words' are, then does 'that' have 'truth value', or not?

That phrase has no truth value, retard. It must be a truth claim, a propositional statement, in order to have truth value. It must ASSERT that some portion of reality is in certain state. It must have a subject ( a reference to a portion of reality ) and a predicate ( a description of the referenced portion of reality. ) It must be of the form, "S is P". No such thing is found in that phrase. Is that clear to you, moron? Or do I have to repeat it another 100 times for you to finally get it?

So, 'now' a 'definition' is not 'a meaning', a 'definition', instead, is 'a description' of an 'assigned meaning', which is not true and false, right?

It's not "now", fuckface. I've been telling you this for ages. You've been sitting on your deaf ears.

Who knows what you mean, here?

Pretty much anyone who isn't a retard. In other words, most people. Unfortunately, that does not include you.

Am 'I'?

Absolutely.

And you're demolishing this thread with your nonsense.

I am starting to wonder whether the owners of this idiotic magazine that calls itself "Philosophy Now" is hiring people to sabotage every attempt at philosophy on their forums. There are too many of you on this forum.

[Age]

Great, 'we' finally got, here.

Now, to you, is 'your proposition' that 'morality is objective' true, or not true?

The issue was whether or not the meaning that I assign to the word "objective" is true.

Stop distracting yourself, fucktard. Try focusing for once.

So, in other words, any one can present any sentence and/or any statement, and then just say and claim, that 'the sentence, or statement', assigned to absolutely any word/s I use is either 'a proposition', or is 'not a proposition'.

You should seriously stop opening your mouth. You're babbling. Try listening for change.

If, as you are 'now' 'trying to' say and claim, words, themselves, are neither true nor false, then the words, 'morality is objective', are neither true nor false.

You are extremely, embarrassingly, clueless.

"Morality is objective" is not a word. It's a statement. "Morality" is a word. "Is" is a word. "Objective" is a word. These things on their own have no truth value. However, when you put them together to form a propositional statement, you get something that has truth value.

What's the truth value of the word "dog", moron? Is it true or false? Please, enlighten us.

Understand that you've been derailing this thread with your childish bullshit ever since you stepped into it. I've been extremely patient with you. Far more than you actually deserve.

So, the sentence, or statement, 'morality is objective', is not a proposition.

It is. Stop confusing yourself.

Just like the sentence, and statement, 'morality', is laws, as 'this meaning' assigned to 'that word' is not true and false, as well.

Learn how to write coherent sentences, manchild.

How old are you?

And, just like you assigned the concept/meaning, "the set of all laws that someone [ an individual, a group of people or everyone ] ought to obey in order to maximize their chances of attaining their highest goal", to the 'morality' word, which is very clearly not true and false, and has no 'truth value' at all, the sentence, and statement, 'morality is objective' must therefore be not true and false, either, and therefore must also be 'not a proposition'.

If we follow your own idiotic way of thinking, then yes.

So, if one does not 'assign' definitions, to words, then how does one 'arrive at' definitions, exactly?

A question only an utter and complete imbecile would ask.

Why are you a complete and utter imbecile, Age?

And, some call what you are doing, here, 'word salad'.

Yes. Retards, such as yourself, call that word salad. So what? Retards will be retards.

LOL your continual attempts at deception, here, is very amusing to watch, and observe.

You're projecting.

Do you, this time, equate 'definitions' with 'truth value' or with 'no truth value'?

An idiotic question.

Also, is saying, 'that which exists independently of minds' an opinion, a proposition, a sentence, a statement, a meaning, or something else?

It's a phrase, retard. A phrase describing a meaning that can be assigned to a word. It's not an opinion. It's not a proposition. It's not a statement. It's not a sentence.

And, whatever you 'now' will might say that 'those words' are, then does 'that' have 'truth value', or not?

That phrase has no truth value, retard. It must be a truth claim, a propositional statement, in order to have truth value. It must ASSERT that some portion of reality is in certain state. It must have a subject ( a reference to a portion of reality ) and a predicate ( a description of the referenced portion of reality. ) It must be of the form, "S is P". No such thing is found in that phrase. Is that clear to you, moron? Or do I have to repeat it another 100 times for you to finally get it?

So, 'now' a 'definition' is not 'a meaning', a 'definition', instead, is 'a description' of an 'assigned meaning', which is not true and false, right?

It's not "now", fuckface. I've been telling you this for ages. You've been sitting on your deaf ears.

Who knows what you mean, here?

Pretty much anyone who isn't a retard. In other words, most people. Unfortunately, that does not include you.

Am 'I'?

Absolutely.

And you're demolishing this thread with your nonsense.

I am starting to wonder whether the owners of this idiotic magazine that calls itself "Philosophy Now" is hiring people to sabotage every attempt at philosophy on their forums. There are too many of you on this forum.

I, now, claim that 'morality is objective'. Which is a proposition. However, I will assign the meaning, 'objective', to the word, 'morality', like I assign the word, 'laws', to the word, 'morality', which now means that my own personal definition, which describes my own personal assigned meanings, here, which are neither true nor false, which then means that my own personal definition, which describes what is neither true nor false, because it is based solely upon 'that' what is neither true nor false.

So, in other words, when I questioned and challenged over 'my claims', here, and I could not back up and support 'my claims' in any way at all, I then decided to change my own persona meanings of my words, in an attempt to deflect, and ultimately deceive, here.

See, 'morality is objective' is a proposition, but, 'objective is laws' is not a proposition. Any one can see things clearly, here.

'Laws' is just my own personal assigned meaning, which you all should know is neither false nor true.

So, all of you, by now, should know that 'morality', which I claim 'is objective', because I also claim that 'objective is 'that', which exists independently of mind/s', which obviously looks like another proposition of mine, is not a proposition at all. Which you should have already known is not a proposition and is only the meaning that I have assigned to the 'morality' word, which means what could be considered a proposition is, actually, not a proposition at all 'now' because I say 'it' is just an assigned meaning, and you all 'now' know that assigned meanings are not true nor false.

if 'this' does not make sense to any of you, then I totally understand, However there are some people who expect you to have already understood all of 'this' fully, by now.

Let 'us' try again.

I claim, 'Morality is 'that' (which is objective), just like I claim, 'Morality is 'that', (which is law), and just like I claim, 'Objective is 'that' (which is what exists independently of mind/s). Now, some hold 'truth value', and, some do not hold 'truth value'. Can any of you pick which one/s do, and, which one/s do not?

Now, and obviously, only those like, "martin peter clarke", who know how 'language', itself, works can know, for sure, which one/s hold 'truth value' and which one/s do not hold 'truth value'.

But, 'I' will inform 'you' of which one/s do hold 'truth value' and which one/s do not hold 'truth value' only after you question and/or challenge 'me'. Because it is only 'then' when I will decide.

By the way, I will inform you people, here, that the 'very thing' that I claim makes up and is 'objective' is the exact same 'very thing' that comes from and/or exists within the 'very thing' that is in the 'assigned meaning', here. Which ultimately means that what I claim does hold 'truth value' I will also claim 'it' does not hold 'truth value'.

Which means that all of 'this', 'now', makes perfect sense, right?

Which is 'another' contradiction that I will present and put forth, here.

[Age]

Imagine coming into a 'philosophy forum' of all places, claiming,

'Morality is objective', (by me).

'Morality' being 'the laws', we make up and hold 'in mind', and,
'Objective' being 'that', what exists independently 'of mind'. But,
Not recognizing and noticing the blatant contradiction, here.

Once more I will suggest that when absolutely any one wants to present and claim absolutely any thing, here, that you first obtain actual irrefutable proof for 'your claim' before you even begin to think about presenting absolutely any claim at all, here.

Now, the fact is, 'morality is objective'. but obtain and have the actual irrefutable proof, first, for this irrefutable Fact.

In other words be able to formulate and present a 'sound and valid argument', first, for 'your claim', before you even think about making 'any claim' public, here, in a 'philosophy forum'.

[MikeNovack]

Magnus, it's not just "objective" vs "subjective".

I would argue there is also what I am going to call "contingent".

Contingent shares with "objective" that its truth does nor depend on the mind of an observer.. But it lacks the sense of eternal truth usually assigned to the "objective" because contingent on the existence of something else to have any meaning.

For example "the current tallest white pine" has well defined meaning. Nor does the tallest white pine depend on anybody having seen it, recognized it as tallest. It is only for brief time identical with some specific living tree. BUT ---- before white pines came into existence and after the species has gone extinct the meaning is NULL (the empty set).