RightReason wrote:
Perhaps you forget that even in measurable science it is necessary to have evaluators and place
value on things.
What value am I placing on what things, as I measure the length of a pencil? This should be good, I am sensing another equivocation fallacy.
I think your argument collapses in thinking anything we might label or term value is by default subjective.
Correction: Any time we place
value on things, we do so subjectively.
I am really not all that interested in arguing semantics, so go back and read the opening section of
one of the article you quoted, it sets out what subjectivism means very nicely.
I think it is intellectually dishonest to insist the value of human life is merely subjective.
Okay, and I think it is intellectually dishonest to insist the value of human life is merely objective; I think it is intellectually dishonest to respond to challenges by issuing a counter-challenge; I think it is intellectually dishonest to presume you are correct and anyone who says otherwise is by default, in denial of the truth.
How do I measure this truth? I’m not sure I can, other than hoping someone can acknowledge that truth cannot always be measured in some single proof equation.
Sure, some truths cannot be measured in some single proof equation, but scientific facts
can be measured. You claimed "one can use the scientific method to acknowledge the wrongness of torturing babies" and now you are backpedalling when you are challenged to use the scientific method to acknowledge the wrongness of torturing babies.
One must admit what we say and do stems from external truth. Human beings assess truth via observation of the world we live in, but we can’t assess truth a part from ourselves.
Some things we say do stems from external truths, other things we say do
not stem from external truth but comes from within. Look no further to food taste, you've already acknowledge that taste is subjective.
We can’t stop being human. The truth is human beings place value on things.
And that by definition is subjective.
We acknowledge the world and that things in this world have relationships and or connections with us. We acknowledge the unwritten rules and external connections and understand this acknowledgment in practice as truth. There exists a common sense understanding of truth in man’s practice of conforming to the realities of this world that you seem to be unable to acknowledge. These practices for assessing moral truth are based on observation of already existing truths and are therefore not subjective.
So you kept insisting for the past week, I heard you the first time round. Yet here you are, unable do more than dismiss my points as denial of simple truths. Let me ask you one more time, what would you say to someone who insist thus?
"There exists a common sense understanding of truth in man’s practice of conforming to the realities of this world that you seem to be unable to acknowledge. These practices for assessing [strike]moral[/strike]
taste truths are based on observation of already existing truths and are therefore not subjective."
You've avoided this question for long enough.