FFS...I'm only answering this because I refuse to let you get away with this steaming pile.
Intrinsic values are as objective. The intrinsic values of gold are objectively determinable. True morality is no different.
To begin with, there are no intrinsic values. Nothing is good just because it's good. Anything that is a value is a value because
someone values it, and values it for a
reason. Gold is a value in an unstable economy based on fiat money; it is not a value when such an economy is stable. It is a value in a free economy because it is portable, divisible, homogenous, and rare. But if the economy is small and transportation of goods is a minor issue, gold (and any commodity whose only usefulness is fulfilling the function of exchange) has no value beyond esthetics (and it has none where people do not find yellow shiny stuff attractive).
Blackthornone said:
I have denied that human JUDGMENT is reliable or always valid. I said individual judgment isn't trustworthy.
Human beings do not have to be omniscient for their judgment to be valid and/or reliable. The fact that human judgment is fallible does not disqualify their judgment as such. To be right you need to be capable of being wrong. Being right once is still being right.
And what other human judgment is there besides individual human judgment? Collective human judgment?
Blackthornone said:
I never said that human consciousness doesn't exist, only that there is no reason for it to be certain that it really knows what it is perceiving.
How is a 'consciousness' conscious if what it perceives is not real?
Blackthornone said:
I said that the individual consciousnesses cannot accurately determine the truth when filtered through the subjective filter of the ego.
So here we are again with the individual human not being truly conscious, but you insisting that there is some kind of human consciousness that is conscious. Since the disqualifying factor according to you is individuality, again I have to ask if collective consciousness is what you consider to be a valid form of human consciousness.
Blackthornone said:
Human values exist, but are only valid if they can be objectively proven to be correct.
Is food a value to a baby if the baby can't prove it's a value? Or are you simply saying that values can be objectively validated? Of course they can. By any individual consciousness that determines that an object or action is a value
to them. But you don't believe individual consciousness is capable of this, so I am still stuck with the question of whose consciousness is supposed to do this validating, by what standard they validate it, and how if it isn't an individual's judgment, how can it be anything other than a collective's judgment?
Blackthornone said:
Otherwise, it is really no better than mob consciousness, in which people get carried away by a feeling that leads them to destroy.
Your definition of mob consciousness is overly narrow. Otherwise you would have realized that mob consciousness is collective consciousness, which you have been implying is the only valid form of human consciousness.
I'm only going to say this once (yeah, right). There is no such thing as collective consciousness. Abdicating one's consciousness by deferring to the judgment of another is not a form of awareness, and to achieve what you have stated is true selfishness (self-interest that does not harm another) would require one to defer in all matters of judgment to the judgment of others. Your idealized society where people only do what is allegedly best for them would require omniscience--omniscience of the intentions and aspirations of all other people, and omniscience of the capablities and shortcomings of all other people--so how exactly would that ever be possible to a fallible mind? Does abandoning one's own point of view, i.e., one's ego, make them omniscient?
One's ego
is their conscious mind. Society is only an aggregate of egos. Abandoning it does not make one conscious. Mob consciousness destroys because it is not conscious (let alone omniscient), like any 'mind' that has abdicated the responsibility of individual judgment.
Blackthornone said:
Both examples are wrong, yet both alcohol drinkers and the Kool Aid drinkers believed that it was a beneficial action.
And here we are again at human consciousness being fallible. What makes you think that the fact that error of judgments are possible implies that individual judgment as such is incapable of arriving at the truth?
The only answer to the question of how individual judgment can be invalid while collective consciousness is equally invalid (after all, many unconscious individuals are as unconscious as one), but values can
somehow be objectively determined, is that you believe
someone is capable of determining what is good for everyone.
Who?
