Moving back to more profound statements -
I'd like to just throw my own world view into the mix here. But first, I question this entire debate. I think it should probably be obvious to everyone here that tasty is either far better educated or spends a great deal more effort in writing his posts than baz. Intelligence may also play a factor. However, what I find difficult to grasp is the real contrast between their two points. When one is presented with lucidity and finality, it immediately lessens the impact of the opposing statement. Basically, I would wonder if alaric, for example, had written baz's argument, if the debate "winner" would have been different. Tasty's viewpoints seem correct, but I don't know without seeing a logical answer to them.
So, my personal view on the matter is quite simple. Any theory of subjectivity or objectivity is based on perception. What we perceive to be the truth may differ from others' interpretations. Even statements we regard as absolutes are still arbitrary. Using the 4+4=8 example, those figures represent arbritrary values assigned years ago, based on someone's perceptions. While those perceptions have persisted for generations, who is say that the sum would not actually be "9". Since 9 is also an entity created only by mankind (or God, if that's how you want to look at it), we can modify it to be whatever we wish.
Ok...getting to my belief. Since any concept is based essentially on our viewpoints, any lifestyle or course of action is ultimately acceptable. For the species, each individual is required only to survive and reproduce. And our population is so great that we can support numerous people doing neither. Thus, morals, and a proper lifestyle, are based entirely on your own whims. Of course, most people throughout the course of their lives will never take a moment to determine their values. Generally, they are instilled through culture, and the actions of people long dead. But those original values were based, again, on those forefathers' perceptions of the world.
So, in abstract, a lifetime is equally successful if one is a bank robber, a couch potato, or a world leader. However, in my own personal experience, I feel that anything is acceptable as long as it does not interfere with the lives and futures of others. Thus, if I choose to do "nothing" with my life, "waste" it on GR, the choice is acceptable. It might cause my mother anguish, but it does no one permanent harm. But under this same reasoning, it would be unjustificable to be a mass murderer. Otherwise, life is meant to be lived. And it is not the role of others to say absolutely what is right and what is wrong. Of course, some people can't be trusted to think for themselves, and it is necessary to think for them.
That of course, would segue me into my feelings on organized religion, but let's not go there
