[quote=joey]By what standards do you live your life?[/quote]

Reason, liberty, creativity, innovation, rationality, science, voluntaryism.

[quote=joey]Why are these considered to be standards?[/quote]

[b]Standard[/b](n)-those morals, ethics, habits, etc., established by authority, custom, or an individual (Dictonary.com)

Take off the 'ty' and "ism" off the words. Voluntary, standard of doing something without being told, commonly for a good cause.

If you dont mind, please tell me what would be considered standards.

[quote=joey]Why are these considered to be standards?[/quote]

Because I use reason, liberty, voluntaryism, etc. as principles on how to live my life.

If you're using that as an argument for God's existence that's probably the lamest one ever. Relying on God makes it [b]relative to God[/b], not absolute in any way. Absolute truth is rooted in the facts of the world around us, not on the whims of a supernatural being.

I said IF, not that you were.

If by standards you mean moral principles, I don't disagree that absolute standards are necessary, either.

[quote=KCahill]Take off the 'ty' and "ism" off the words. Voluntary, standard of doing something without being told, commonly for a good cause.[/quote]

Hmmm...I dunno, I'd say a better definition of voluntary would be without being coerced. I don't see anything wrong in talking someone into doing something.

[quote=joey]But where do those standards come from? [/quote]

Individuals live by at least one standard. If you try to deny it you must implicitly admit that you deny things that you think are irrational, so that makes it an axiom.

What exactly do you mean by justified?

A valid standard? If a standard is based on reason, then that makes it valid (such as voluntaryism, which is based on non-aggression, which derives from the self-ownership axiom).

BTW I'm splitting this into another thread in the Debate forum, unless you want otherwise.

[quote=joey]Saying that a standard is merely based on reason does not validate that standard at all. [/quote]

Valid means that it is rationally coherent, aka conforming with logic.

[quote]Is it reasonable to eat another human if you get hungry? Your answer to this question would most likely (or hopefully) be no. But to a native tribe in South America, the answer may be yes. Can you condemn them as savages because they do this? Not if your standards are based merely on reason. Because their reasoning differs from yours. [/quote]

Yes, I would condemn them. I consider eating another human wrong (unless the victim voluntarily chose to be eaten) and I don't care where, when or why.

Morality is about using the facts of reality in order to achieve our values. I don't go around murdering others because I know that if I do, I'll likely get my head blown up or dragged to court, which is not what I value. If I'm alone on an island and I make a hut out of flimsy straw, that was a bad decision (aka one I shouldn't have done). I value my hut but I didn't use the fact that straw means a wind will blow it off. Facts of reality aren't subjective. The fact that not eating will lead to starving and death is the same for all humans, that's why you eat. Because you value staying alive. Eating a victim who didn't consent is morally wrong since it goes against his value of staying alive, and if the cannibals want him to respect their values, they should respect his.

In this context perhaps I should have used "sound" instead of "valid." An argument is valid if the premises follow from the conclusion ("All red-headed men are named Jack. There is a red-headed man. Therefore his name is Jack."), where it doesn't matter if the premise is sound or not. An argument is sound if it comes from premises proven true (the above isn't sound since not all red-heads are named Jack). Cannibals might have valid arguments ("If I am hungry, I can eat a victim. I am hungry. Therefore I can eat a victim.") The whole argument is valid, but it's not sound since the first premise can definitely be questioned.

[quote]If there is no absolute that is not confined and shaped by this universe, then there is not any justification for morals or laws of any form.[/quote]

Explained that above.

[quote=joey]Valid also means that it is justifiable.[/quote]

If you mean justifiable by logic, yes.

[quote]You would, if you could.[/quote]

No I wouldn't. I value my life, the other person also values his.

[quote]No. Morality is about what is right and what is wrong, not about achieving values.[/quote]

Achieving values IS how I determine good from bad. If I do something that helps me achieve my values, and if the fulfilled values are rational, that means the action can be judged as good.

[quote]So, basically, you value not being caught but you have no value for the lives of others. Hmmm.... That means that you would consider murder justified as long as you weren't caught. [/quote]

Not just that. It's also the fact that my murdering someone is irrational because if I value my life, the same applies to the victim because in the end he and I have the same biological needs to survive (a need is a necessary value).

[quote]This isn't really about morality at all but ....

If you had true value for the hut then you wouldn't have built it out of such flimsy materials.[/quote]

It's certainly possible to make a bad choice without realizing it.

[quote]Let's say that there are two cannibals without any food. They are both starving. One of them decides that he will eat his companion in order to survive. The other cannibal refuses to consent to being eaten; therefore both of the cannibals die.

Now, according to your view of morality, the second cannibal can be condemned morally for not consenting to being eaten because he infringed on the first cannibal's value to stay alive. You must face it, you can't argue against the ultimate end of your own principles.[/quote]

Both cannibals value their lives equally. Why should the second one be condemned? Why not the first one also? Both have the same biological needs, aka necessary values, upon which a self-sustaining value hierarchy builds. Both of them are equal in terms of self-ownership and rights also.

[quote=joey]And back to square one. It's obvious that this argument is in an endless loop... I've already stated my opinion about absolutes and tha human logic is not an absolute...[/quote]

Bullshit. Logic isn't created by our minds, it's part of an objective reality which we perceive.

[quote]I meant you would CONDEMN the cannibals, if only you could.[/quote]

Probably, but I wouldn't kill him or anything.

[quote]How can you define someone's values as irrational. You don't have any valid basis by which can define what is and what isn't rational... [/quote]

Rational is whether it fits the facts of reality. It's a fact that if I don't have food I'll die, which is why I eat. Because I value my life. Irrational would be me valuing my life and at the same time consuming poison. I'm not using the fact that poison will kill me, in my decision.

[quote]But if he doesn't value his life? [/quote]

Well if person A wants B to kill him and B agrees, I don't see much wrong with that.

[quote]Such a carless mistake, however, shows that not much value is held for that hut.[/quote]

If I didn't have much value for the hut I probably wouldn't build it in the first place, since other values would likely be more important than the hut.

[quote]Both would be condemned. My point is that ... the second cannibal being condemned as well as the first makes your argument invalid. The fact that he valued his life infringed on the other cannibal's value to live and vice versa. [/quote]

Rights are another thing to be valued. Both cannibals value their right over their bodies. For A to infringe on B's right over his body would mean that B's rights are infringed upon, and if B values his right over his body that would mean A is wrong.

[quote]According to your definition of morality: The second cannibal's value to live was rational and also irrational because it infringes on another human's values. So is it rational, or irrational? You can't argue for or against either of them. Your argument cuts off it's own head.
[/quote]

See above, the part about rights.