I read about half of this. It's really quite simple. Nigel said it well, but DMC somehow missed the driving point. There is no ultimate or absolute morality or ethical guideline. That does not mean that ethics are absolutely meaningless, it just means they are subjective to individuals and their values. So your ethics have meaning to you. They don't necessarily have meaning to another, but they might. If they do, it will almost certainly work in reverse as well (you will value their ethics as an ally to your own, if for no other reason). From this a consensus is built, and the majority makes the law, which the majority believes in. Should the majority change, then so will laws, and the ethics of those who make them.

It could be argued that people who turn to religion for ethics have none of their own, making them dangerous individuals indeed. Why do theists need their invisible friend to tell them not to kill me?

I too don't have time to respond to all of this at the moment; I'm going to pull out two issues that I think are core -- one is core to my discernment of ethics, the other to yours. I'll try to get to the others as I can, if they are still relevant.

I'm actually not too concerned about quantification. I'm more concerned about qualification. Near as I can see, no epistemology has been presented that would allow you to discern the nature of the "ultimate meaning." There seems to be no way to assign a full set of properties to it.

Let's ignore the problem of proving its existence. Assume you can prove (using logic) that this "absolute meaning" must exist. How would one go about discerning its properties? You'd have no yardstick (calibrated or not) until you knew what you were measuring.

What I believe you are saying is this (this is to perception check, to rephrase it in my own words):

"Ethics as practiced is deeply flawed. There are certain obvious principles that could make the system much better, that could make human interaction more sane and civil. As human nature is flawed, and subjective meaning produces impotent ethics, there must be a greater meaning that is static and eternal from which we can draw our ideals."

I'll let you correct that strawman version before I respond to it, of course. But I think I have a way forward that will be productive for both of us (or at least me).

Anyway, I'm dropping the "Platonic" label. I did that more as a reaction to your introduction, where you used the, "If there is no greater meaning, there cannot be meaning at all" argument, which is a non sequitur unless you assume some Platonic ideal that must exist. I still don't get how one follows the other, though.

Correct. That is a logical conclusion of subjective morality.

Again, what's the problem? Is this not how this works in the real world?

My point is, if you are looking for the nature of ethics, you must look at how ethics is practiced throughout history. Otherwise, you are constructing an ideal ethics that is not congruent with reality. Human nature is our yardstick! After all, ethics is the rules by which humans interact. If you are to find ethical absolutes, they will be found in human nature, in the way we already interact.

I believe there is a third option, one which underpins my belief. Morality evolved because of the evolutionary advantage of humans hanging out in groups. There are certain natural principles that make getting along in groups easier, such as mutual respect, altruism, perhaps the concept of equality, and so on. These concepts and ideals are perhaps the same qualities you are hoping to find in the "ultimate meaning." In any case, I freely admit these are the closest to an ideal I can reach with my ethical understanding.

In any case: thanks. You have caused me to think about this in new ways. I've seen this argument before, but presented strictly as an assertion ('You can't have meaning without absolute meaning!'). It's good to see it explicated in an intelligent manner.

And love is self serving. Basic human values are basic human values essential for social functioning.

They're also self serving, though there are standout examples of self sacrifice.

I'm on my rocking horse with this but I find it special to think that religion swooped down and threw

all humanity's virtues in a sack - love, compassion, forgiveness, kindness, integrity etc - and stole them.

The idea we need god to form some sort of moral compass is patently laughable and the existence of

religion is the resounding proof.