Objective Moralism

The statement remains self contradictory because it is a statement.

So, based on oxford definitions, we may truthfully state that:
1. 'Expressive' is an adjective which describes the meaningfulness (or the quality of meaning) of something; and

2. The noun 'Expression' denotes the result of expressing, or being expressive.
Therefore:

3. The noun 'Statement' can be accurately defined as 'the definite or clear result of the action of expressing something in speech or writing'; and

4. The noun 'Statement' can be accurately defined as 'the definite or clear result of an action or state, having the attribute of meaningfulness (or the quality of meaning), as applied to something (a subject), put in to speech or writing.



Thus proving that the statement 'What humans want is meaningless' is a self contradiction.

The statement has meaning, by its very definition. You want to make the statement. Therefore what you want is to communicate meaningfully. Therefore the statement 'what humans want is meaningless' is contradicted by your desire to make the statement in the first place.

I hope that clears that up.

 

Impossible. For there to be a debate two or more people must exist to debate it. Everything stems from that. To deny the root truth of all truths is to reject rational debate outright.

It is the nature of logic and truth that you cannot make an argument on a false premise and expect the conclusion to be true. Therefore, if you make a logical argument with the premise that a logical argument can be made without a person (or consciousness) to make it, it is already false. The premise is false therefore the conclusion can not be expected to be true.

 

You have a narrow minded view of logic.
Logic is only the technical form of reasoning, given two or more premises, from one fact to another.

The premises must, however, be true for the conclusion to be valid.

If I were to say: "monkeys are one inch tall, pink, and smell like terpintine." I can form a perfectly valid set of logical reasoning based on that premise, but it is inevitably a waste of time, because any conclusion I draw from a premise which is absolutely false will be invalid. The conclusion may still be true, but that would not be because you have put forward a rational and consistent argument based on true premises. It would be merely co-incidence.

So, your logic may be perfectly valid, if it is encapuslated in your mind and you have never spoken a word of it, but it does not make the conclusions valid. Conclusions are only valid, and of absolute truth, when the premises are valid. One of the premises or 'assumptions' you make when you begin an argument is that you are arguing with someone. If you are not then your conclusion is invalid.

To recap:
When you put forward an argument, you attach to the argument a number of additional premises which are understood but not explicitly stated. Those premises you may refer to as assumptions, but the are necessarily premises of the logical argument as well.

These are premises such as:
You speak english, I speak english, and we both understand eachother.
We are both able to communicate in a meaningful way.
Truth is absolute and therefore there is a reason to be arguing in the first place.
I am not simply a figment of your imagination because arguing with yourself is irrational, as arguments are debates between two or more people.
We both exist, and are both alive, and are both conscious, and both have free will.

And so on.

Whenever you actually take your argument from your thoughts and turn them into language, that is: start a debate. You attach all of these premises (and more) to your argument. It is perfectly valid for me to point out that your argument contradicts an implicit premise.

And this is actually entirely essential to epistemology; the study of knowledge.

To argue outside of this scope is to argue irrationally and without the essential motive to determine truth from falsehood; knowledge from opinion.

 

You have claimed that nothing can be applied to the entire human population.

I give you an example of a set of rules which can: medical science.
Medical science is optional but that does not make it subjective.
I have now proven your proposition to be incorrect.

 

I am not going to argue with you unless you accept this basic definition as a premise of the debate:


Morality is defined as universally preferred behaviour within the species of homo sapiens sapiens. That is: An action that is moral is universally preferred within the human species. An action that is immoral is universally unpreferred within the human species. Universal meaning that there are very few exceptions, with those exceptions being cases such as psychopaths.


If you don't agree to accept the above then the argument is pointless; You are free to start you own thread to debate the definition of morality.