“Life is not an intrinsic value - there are no such things are intrinsic values. Values cannot exist without a valuer.”
Yea well we all agree with that. This is not in dispute.

“Life is the ultimate value because there is none higher - life makes value possible.”
This is the genetic fallacy. Just because life is the cause of value does not mean it is value. Alonzo made an equivalent argument over the existence of value versus the value of value.
Q1: Now please answer and try to refute either what I or Alonzo said.

“There is only one “ultimate” value, by definition, and because life is an end in itself.”
If a value is an end in itself - the other meaning of intrinsic BTW, (versus a value that is a means instrumental), then there is no “by definition” that there is only one such value. Q2: Where is your argument that this is singular? Q3: What is the meaning of an ultimate value if it is not intrinsic? Do you just mean an end in itself?

“Nothing else is an end in itself. Further up, I challenged anyone to disagree with this by providing an example of something else that IS an end in itself. This challenge remains unmet.”
This challenge has been repeatedly met. A desire to avoid pain, a desire for happiness, a desire to avoid predators, a desire for food, a desire for drink, a desire for sex. These are all ends in themselves. They are all relational values the value is in the relation between the desire and its fulfillment. Q4: Your “stealing the concept ” argument is invalid. How can you show these are not ends in themselves without breaking Occam’s Razor?

“There are no rational “multiple ends” - this is logically self-evident.”
Empty rhetoric. Q5: Where is your argument that this is self-evident.

“All values (or subvalues I should say in this context) as pursued because they ULTIMATELY either benefit your life or detract from your life.”
This is a beneficial side effect. We have evolved to have the desire-as-ends that we do as they enabled our ancestors to survive and reproduce and we are the result. No animal reasons nor is able to reason this way. As humans we can go further but only need to replace this as needed. Q6: The same argument is made by genetic biologists that the ultimate goal is successful reproduction. As far as I can see these are both abstractions. How can you refute the geneticists and show your is better than theirs?

“One cannot pursue rational values that conflict with this.”
Q7:Define rational values. I suggested means-end rationality but you appeared to reject this. Means-end rationality is about reasoning over means not ends.

“Even if you want to talk about “sub-ends”, the way we talk about subvalues, in other words, where one acheives or accomplishes something - even the acheival of this “end” is itself a means to another. The only way to avoid an infinite regress of “means” and “ends”, where all values and goals take place in a vacuum of arbitrary and random action - is to have an end that is an end in itself - something is not a means to anything else: life.”
Q8: Geneticists would disagree with this (see above). What do you say to them
Infinite regress can be also avoided with multiple desire-as-ends so this does not refute such a position.

“Objectivism posits LIFE. What do YOU posit? What is YOUR philosophical alternative?”
You are implicitly equivocating over life. I post life too but this does not lead to Objectivism, that is the whole point. I am not presenting an alternative as such, I am saying that everyone seeks to fulfill the more and stronger of their desires.

“The examples that you mention, such as pursuit of happiness or avoidance of pain are YOU begging the question - you steal the concept of value into YOUR argument, but these are concepts that are epistemologically dependant on and derived from LIFE.”
Confusing instrumental again. Your are imposing an ad hoc rationalization
Q10: where is your logical or empirical argument that your approach is correct?

“By even suggesting that you SHOULD desire to avoid pain, and SHOULD desire pleasure, you ASSUME that one already lives a life that makes such values or non-values possible, and that one is pursuing one’s life and happiness in such a way to avoid that which detracts from such life and seek that which benefits and aids such life! Which is exactly the Objectivism theory of rational values.”
There are no SHOULDS here. Once you have burned your hand in a flame you do not want to do so again. There is no should involved. Desires exist we are not arguing over having desire-as-ends people do not have have, only recognizing the desire-as-ends they do have and the implications of this. You are performing the same instrumental error as before. It does not matter how often you assert it this error will not just disappear without an argument.

“An ultimate value is actually philosophical necessary, and the fact that you would question this with “multiple desires-as-ends” is propesterous!”
Q11: How about making an argument as to why this is preposterous.

“Otherwise one would not act with any rational goals - one could eat healthy food one day and drink poison the next; why not, unless life was your value?”
Q12: What is a rational goal? This sounds very Kantian, I thought Rand did not like Kant.
Q13: What is the logic that leads one to eat poison one day, certainly not the desire-as-ends already listed.

“One could be obnoxious and vicious one day and pleasant and mild the next; why not, unless you had an ultimate goal?”
One always has “ultimate goals”, which ones are activated depends on the situation. When you are thirsty you seek to satiate that thirst. When you are not thirsty you do not.

“It should not even need to be spelled out that desires are NOT ends!”
To be accurate it is their fulfillments that are the ends.

“If they were, I could desire to chop off my big toe, as an end in itself.”
Q14: Why would you want to do this?

“I could desire to shoot you in the head, or eat the bark of a tree, or masturbate on the street corner, or eat nothing but chocolate all day, FOR NO OTHER REASON that the desire itself.”
All these desires are possible and people have had and acted on them. Who is going to recommend and encourage them, rather they are to be condemned and discouraged?

” But then we wouldn’t be talking about rational values! All desires are desires precisely because we believe we accomplish something by attaining them; by acheieving these values.”
Yea duh!. I am thirsty and I fulfill my desire for water by drinking water.

“But this assumes that they are of VALUE TO SOMETHING, and beneficial TO SOMETHING… but to what??”
When I drink this satisfies me.

“Objectivism answers: LIFE.”
Q15: So when you are thirsty you want a drink because it will save your life. If you don’t think it will save your life you will not drink?

“You answer: NOTHING! The absurdity of your position is staggering.”
Stop looking in the mirror!

“A further example of the validity of the Objectivist philosophy is that it is impossible for you to provide two examples of rational values that one would pursue that ultimately conflict with each other.”
You need to define what a rational value is then we can see it is impossible or not. Certainly desires can conflict and this leads to dilemmas, a subject of much philosophical analysis, partly because there can be rational support to both sides of certain dilemmas.

“All your philosophical attacks and positions are premised on a foundation of air (because you reject the notion of ultimate ends in themselves, a contradiction);”
This is false, no-one here rejects ultimate ends, it is just we have defined what we mean and you have not.

” in fact, you have to assume Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology for yourself in order to attack it (the fallacy of concept stealing: because even your warped notion of values and ends presuppose Objectivism).”
This is a completely empty argument we have covered before. One does not need and can indeed reject Objectivist “metaphysics” and epistemology and make these arguments as we have all done here.

“You have shot yourself in the epistemological foot and don’t even realise it.”
Dare I mention that pesky mirror again

Life is not an intrinsic value - there are no such things are intrinsic values. Values cannot exist without a valuer.

Life is the ultimate value because there is none higher - life makes value possible. There is only one “ultimate” value, by definition, and because life is an end in itself. Nothing else is an end in itself. Further up, I challenged anyone to disagree with this by providing an example of something else that IS an end in itself. This challenge remains unmet.

There are no rational “multiple ends” - this is logically self-evident. All values (or subvalues I should say in this context) as pursued because they ULTIMATELY either benefit your life or detract from your life. One cannot pursue rational values that conflict with this.

Even if you want to talk about “sub-ends”, the way we talk about subvalues, in other words, where one acheives or accomplishes something - even the acheival of this “end” is itself a means to another. The only way to avoid an infinite regress of “means” and “ends”, where all values and goals take place in a vacuum of arbitrary and random action - is to have an end that is an end in itself - something is not a means to anything else: life. Objectivism posits LIFE. What do YOU posit? What is YOUR philosophical alternative?

The examples that you mention, such as pursuit of happiness or avoidance of pain are YOU begging the question - you steal the concept of value into YOUR argument, but these are concepts that are epistemologically dependant on and derived from LIFE. By even suggesting that you SHOULD desire to avoid pain, and SHOULD desire pleasure, you ASSUME that one already lives a life that makes such values or non-values possible, and that one is pursuing one’s life and happiness in such a way to avoid that which detracts from such life and seek that which benefits and aids such life! Which is exactly the Objectivism theory of rational values.

An ultimate value is actually philosophical necessary, and the fact that you would question this with “multiple desires-as-ends” is propesterous! Otherwise one would not act with any rational goals - one could eat healthy food one day and drink poison the next; why not, unless life was your value? One could be obnoxious and vicious one day and pleasant and mild the next; why not, unless you had an ultimate goal?

It should not even need to be spelled out that desires are NOT ends! If they were, I could desire to chop off my big toe, as an end in itself. I could desire to shoot you in the head, or eat the bark of a tree, or masturbate on the street corner, or eat nothing but chocolate all day, FOR NO OTHER REASON that the desire itself. But then we wouldn’t be talking about rational values! All desires are desires precisely because we believe we accomplish something by attaining them; by acheieving these values. But this assumes that they are of VALUE TO SOMETHING, and beneficial TO SOMETHING… but to what?? Objectivism answers: LIFE. You answer: NOTHING! The absurdity of your position is staggering.

A further example of the validity of the Objectivist philosophy is that it is impossible for you to provide two examples of rational values that one would pursue that ultimately conflict with each other.

All your philosophical attacks and positions are premised on a foundation of air (because you reject the notion of ultimate ends in themselves, a contradiction); in fact, you have to assume Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology for yourself in order to attack it (the fallacy of concept stealing: because even your warped notion of values and ends presuppose Objectivism).

You have shot yourself in the epistemological foot and don’t even realise it.

Impossible? That’s the easiest thing in the world. I (hypothetically speaking) love Mary and Sally. I can pursue one or the other, but I cannot pursue both without conflict. They are both rational values.

in fact, you have to assume Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology for yourself in order to attack it (the fallacy of concept stealing: because even your warped notion of values and ends presuppose Objectivism).

That’s the exact same argument the christians use. “You use logic to argue, but without god there could be no logic, so you pre-suppose that which you are denying!” It’s a silly argument because, regardless of whether it’s true or not, it’s absolutley worthless and is always used as a conversation stopper. Why do people love Objectivism so much if this is what is has to offer?

Life is the ultimate value because there is none higher - life makes value possible. There is only one “ultimate” value, by definition, and because life is an end in itself. Nothing else is an end in itself. Further up, I challenged anyone to disagree with this by providing an example of something else that IS an end in itself. This challenge remains unmet.

There are no rational “multiple ends” - this is logically self-evident. All values (or subvalues I should say in this context) as pursued because they ULTIMATELY either benefit your life or detract from your life. One cannot pursue rational values that conflict with this.

Even if you want to talk about “sub-ends”, the way we talk about subvalues, in other words, where one acheives or accomplishes something - even the acheival of this “end” is itself a means to another. The only way to avoid an infinite regress of “means” and “ends”, where all values and goals take place in a vacuum of arbitrary and random action - is to have an end that is an end in itself - something is not a means to anything else: life. Objectivism posits LIFE. What do YOU posit? What is YOUR philosophical alternative?

The examples that you mention, such as pursuit of happiness or avoidance of pain are YOU begging the question - you steal the concept of value into YOUR argument, but these are concepts that are epistemologically dependant on and derived from LIFE. By even suggesting that you SHOULD desire to avoid pain, and SHOULD desire pleasure, you ASSUME that one already lives a life that makes such values or non-values possible, and that one is pursuing one’s life and happiness in such a way to avoid that which detracts from such life and seek that which benefits and aids such life! Which is exactly the Objectivism theory of rational values.

An ultimate value is actually philosophical necessary, and the fact that you would question this with “multiple desires-as-ends” is propesterous! Otherwise one would not act with any rational goals - one could eat healthy food one day and drink poison the next; why not, unless life was your value? One could be obnoxious and vicious one day and pleasant and mild the next; why not, unless you had an ultimate goal?

It should not even need to be spelled out that desires are NOT ends! If they were, I could desire to chop off my big toe, as an end in itself. I could desire to shoot you in the head, or eat the bark of a tree, or masturbate on the street corner, or eat nothing but chocolate all day, FOR NO OTHER REASON that the desire itself. But then we wouldn’t be talking about rational values! All desires are desires precisely because we believe we accomplish something by attaining them; by acheieving these values. But this assumes that they are of VALUE TO SOMETHING, and beneficial TO SOMETHING… but to what?? Objectivism answers: LIFE. You answer: NOTHING! The absurdity of your position is staggering.

A further example of the validity of the Objectivist philosophy is that it is impossible for you to provide two examples of rational values that one would pursue that ultimately conflict with each other.

All your philosophical attacks and positions are premised on a foundation of air (because you reject the notion of ultimate ends in themselves, a contradiction); in fact, you have to assume Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology for yourself in order to attack it (the fallacy of concept stealing: because even your warped notion of values and ends presuppose Objectivism).

You have shot yourself in the epistemological foot and don’t even realise it.

So if you’re saying that animals don’t have rights, then presumably neither do these categories of humans ?

As far as I can see that has been zero progress on the key questions here

Life is the only ultimate value.

1. You have failed to explain what this ultimate value is if it is not intrinsic

2. You have failed to show why it is the only ultimate value

3. You have failed to show that life is not just mostly an instrumental value. (I say mostly becuase there are situations where one could operate in terms specifically of saving one’s life - as an end in itself - but these are rare)

You have been shown a number of “ultimate values” and you beg the question by showing how these can all be derived from the ultimate value of life. It is granted that this can be done but is an additional requirement over just having multiple ultimate values - desires-as-ends. The same argument could be made against other singular ultimate values such as avoidance of pain, or seeking happiness. What they all have in common is that they are desires-as-ends and the simpler answer is that there are multiple desires-as-ends.

That is absolutely false. What I wrote are my own thoughts, ones that I reasoned out, whether or not I initially thought about them due to one of the arguments I’ve linked to. If I had copied and pasted, I would have given credit. What makes you think I plagiarized?

they’ve all been refuted.

That is also absolutely false. What has been refuted is any argument relying on the truth value of the point in my paragraph that begins with “Using ‘value’ in a more standard way, …”, since I switched between the noun “value” and the verb “value”, just as Huemer did.

If values are “[those thing] which one acts to gain and/or keep”, and we take an intentionless interpretation, then absolutely anything and everything we come into contact with or affect can be considered a value. The intentionless interpretation is therefore stupid and useless.

3. Put up or shut up.

Why is it ok for you to provide links that you claim support your position but not for Ergo to provide counter links that refute those positions? Why should Ergo waste his time repeating somebody else’s work, when all you have to do is visit the link and read it for yourself?

I’ll tell you why he shouldn’t: because you have proven time and again that you have no honest interest in open debate. You post the same tired flawed attacks on Objectivism on every site and hope nobody notices that you’re just repeating yourself, having long since been refuted. We both know you’re not here for honest discussion, so I don’t see why Ergo should waste his time.