Do humans have intrinsic moral value?

The problem is that you aren't willing to look at things objectively. You believe that one can "imagine oneself outside of the established system," and use that as a basis for objectivity.

For all that you can imagine yourself outside of the established system (i.e. being human), you are, in the end, a human.

What other estabished systems are there upon which you base your criteria for objectivity?

Ok, please explain how it is i'm not willing to look at things objectively, thats exactly what im trying to do. "For all that you can imagine yourself outside of the established system (i.e. being human), you are, in the end, a human." i can understand your objection and understand the fact that one can not truly be objective but if you dont even attempt there is absolutely no point in arguing these issues, i believe the easiest route to that is to try to forget human attachments, its then imo that you realise that in fact none of it really matters and life is ultimately pointless and any sense of morals seems trivial.
"What other estabished systems are there upon which you base your criteria for objectivity?" im sorry i dont understand what you are asking, the base of my argument is that you attempt to free your self from the established system, why would i base my criteria for objectivity on established systems?

Well, when you explained that you “believe the easiest route to that is to try to forget human attachments, its then,” in your opinion, “ that you realise that in fact none of it really matters and life is ultimately pointless and any sense of morals seems trivial,” you established a system for objectivity.
But then that is contradicted by your previous statement that, “one can not truly be objective,” and yet you come to the conclusion that “in fact none of it really matters and life is ultimately pointless and any sense of morals seems trivial.”
You jump to conclusions about morals based on other conclusions about none of it really mattering, and life being pointless, which in turn are based on impossible criteria, forgetting human attachments.

Yes i understand that but if you dont even attempt to achieve an objective point of view, what the hell is the point in arguing which is why i attempt assume the point of view of something that would be objective, that is to say something without earthly attachments- how could that not be objective? You miss the point of my argument, that in order to achieve objectivity you have to forget human attachments, how could you achieve objectivity with them? And who cares whether the criteria is impossible or not thats the purpose of the hypothetical situation: to attempt to achieve a perpective where you can view things in a balanced fashion. Also you highlight the fact that its my opinion and that i contradict myself but actually if you read the post again i aknowledged the fact that it was my opinion which is why i write imo. And again step by step highlight the parts of my chain of logic which are false, please.
Also there is no system for objectivity it is an ideological, hypothetical point of view how have i established a system for objectivity its just one possible scenario that could qllow for objectivity.

and no reply it seems.

Most people I think had come to the same conclusion that I had that you are playing words games to the point it is not worth the trouble to engage you over the subject.

I am not playing word games, please point to where you can counter me and make your point, inevitably I will riposte as that is the natural course of an argument. And again if there is an error in my chain of logic then Please point out where and what specific part.