Can any moral document be objective?

[BeHereNow]

From another thread:

Wouldn't it be nice to have a nice objective handbook for everyone to have?

First part: Can any moral or religious document be objective in the values it presents? Please explain.
Part two (optional): If you answered yes, you may chose any particular document and defend it as being objective.
If you answered no, you may choose any particular document and use it as an example of why moral documents are subjective.
Part three (optional): If you answered no objective document is possible, but it were magically possible, would you want it?

[bluethread]

To illustrate my point, what is it that makes torturing babies wrong?

As a moral subjectivist, it is my preference that no one would tortures babies that makes torturing babies wrong.

So, what makes your subjective judgement any better than anyone else's?

We are talking about human babies, right?

Yes.

What about none human babies. Why should it only apply to human babes? Is this just all based on a visceral response? If that is the case, everyone should be a vegetarian, because I have a negative visceral response to butchering animals.

By the way, you are presuming a constitution subject to simple democratic amendment. Not all constitutions are subject to simple democratic amendment.

No matter how complicated it is, constitutions are subject to amendment. You said personal morality is valuable to the individual, it is of little value to anyone else, since it can turn on a dime for any reason or no reason. I can grant you that, what you said here is absolutely true. But socially agreed morality even when protected by a strong constitution can still change, because it is just a collection of personal moralities that can turn on a dime.

I get your point, however, large groups do not turn on a dime, unless there is some overwhelming threat. When a bomb goes of in crowd, heaven help any baby who is in the crowd. Barring that, it is much harder to convince a society with a social contract the opposes the torture of babies to decide to become for the torture of babies. An individual is much more flexible.

Would torturing babies be right given that the constitutions of your society says it is right to torture babies? Only those who affirm personal subjective morality can give the easy answer, no.

To me, no. To that society, yes. I don't understand how affirming personal subjective morality determines what is and is not right for a given society. It tells me what I think, but if someone likes to torture babies, his personal subjective morality says just the opposite. Without an agreed upon standard, there is no social morality. It is just a matter of everyone doing what is right in his own eyes.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 38 by Bust Nak]

I’m not going to respond line by line. It appears we are at an impasse. There isn’t anything left to converse when what seems to me a person isn’t capable of being fully honest with himself.

It is fascinating to me that someone thinks believing torturing babies is wrong is simply a matter of taste and opinion equivalent to preferring chocolate over vanilla.

This thread reminds me of the importance of drawing a person’s argument out to its logical conclusion to show the absurdity of their argument.

I also found it amusing how you can argue 2+2=4 is an objective truth – that even if no one is there to count it, 2+2=4. But can’t see how the wrongness of torturing babies is also an objective truth. Even if no one was around to see the babies being tortured, it would still be wrong. Whether someone is there and passes some judgment about the event is irrelevant. The act itself is objectively wrong. There is no opinion, belief, situation, or law that could ever exist to make it right/good. Very strange to me not to admit that.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 41 by RightReason]
If you want to talk about being honest with yourself, you would admit the only good reason you have for why you are a objectivism, is that you personally feel an intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong. And things don't get more subjective than that. How is that supposed to convince anyone who has the intuition that morality is subjective?

All your other points were defeated in debate:

Appeals to authority. Re: philosophers and famous materialists.
Appeal to popularity. Re: lots of people think moral are objective.
Equivocation fallacy. Re: Bulimia is "wrong."
Various Strawman argument: Re: you are denying the existence of objective truths; or if moral subjectivism holds then you should be able to justify torture; if moral subjectivism holds then you would not be adamant about torture.
Appeal to motive. Re: You are only saying this because objectivism points toward God.
Appeal to consequence. Re: If morality is a matter of opinion then little or no interpersonal judgment is possible.
Not to mention ending up with various contradictions from quoting different objectivist authors who don't agree on everything, not least the claims that beauty is objective, but taste is subjective; or things that depend on our value is subjective but value is not subjective.

Your entire contribution to this debate can be boiled down to: I have the truth and anyone we says otherwise is by default, in denial of the truth. We might be at an impasse as far as convincing each other is concern, but as a debate, it's pretty one sided beat down, if I do say so myself.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

All your other points were defeated in debate:

as a debate, it's pretty one sided beat down, if I do say so myself.

Resorting to Danth’s Law (also known as Parker’s Law)?

States: “If you have to insist that you've won an internet argument, you've probably lost badly.�

Appeals to authority. Re: philosophers and famous materialists.

I appealed to logic and reason. What exactly did you appeal to in your argument? You claim morality has to be subjective because it comes from human reasoning. Even though I continued to repeat that actually moral truth is external to human reason. It comes from external, observable facts from the world we live in.

Appeal to popularity. Re: lots of people think moral are objective.

Yes, I included this to point out they came to such a conclusion recognizing objective external truth and to counter your own appeal to authority regarding “we subjectivists�

Equivocation fallacy. Re: Bulimia is "wrong."

It’s perfectly acceptable to use specific examples to demonstrate an argument. But you wanted to play semantics and say bulimia is a disorder but not wrong refusing to again acknowledge how we know it is disordered? Is it our personal taste? No, we know due to external facts. Exactly the same way we recognize moral truth.

Various Strawman argument: Re: you are denying the existence of objective truths

This wasn’t a strawman. It is what you are doing. And you still don’t see the irony!

You: There is no such thing as objective moral truth.
Me: Is that objectively true?

if moral subjectivism holds then you should be able to justify torture; if moral subjectivism holds then you would not be adamant about torture.

I said you were adamant that it is wrong to torture babies and can’t articulate any other reason then that it is simply a matter of opinion. That there is no objective moral truth that all men know torturing babies is wrong. It all comes down to personal preference. Ha,ha,ha . . . sorry just makes me laugh that you’re sticking to that.

Appeal to motive. Re: You are only saying this because objectivism points toward God.

Yes, I did do this. You’re right it has nothing to do with the argument, though I find it telling. This world is full of facts, order, systems, functions that can be observed and known by man. Man didn’t create or design these things – they are simply part of the natural world we live in. They are objective truths and not based on our beliefs, opinions, or “wishful thinking� You don’t have to give God the credit, but you do have to admit to and acknowledge this world we live in and that’s all I’m asking, which you appear incapable of doing. So it is more than fair to wonder if perhaps the reason why is because you think admitting such leaves the door open to God.

Your entire contribution to this debate can be boiled down to: I have the truth and anyone we says otherwise is by default, in denial of the truth.

Actually, since you insist your claim that objective morality is subjective is objective, I would have to say that is the contribution of your entire argument. And therefore once again self contradicting.

[Bust Nak]

Resorting to Danth’s Law (also known as Parker’s Law)?

States: “If you have to insist that you've won an internet argument, you've probably lost badly.�

That's rich coming from a guy who declared there was nothing left to converse with a person who isn’t capable of being fully honest with himself, then couldn't resist when your opponent has the last word.

Appeals to authority. Re: philosophers and famous materialists.

I appealed to logic and reason.

An appeal to authority is a fallacy is the very opposite of logic and reason.

What exactly did you appeal to in your argument? You claim morality has to be subjective because it comes from human reasoning. Even though I continued to repeat that actually moral truth is external to human reason. It comes from external, observable facts from the world we live in.

That is already more than you can provide. You have nothing other than your insistence that morality is objective, where as I have a deductive proof re: "it comes from human reasoning." Not the words i would use but the readers should understand what we are referring to.

Appeal to popularity. Re: lots of people think moral are objective.

Yes, I included this to point out they came to such a conclusion recognizing objective external truth and to counter your own appeal to authority regarding “we subjectivists�

Well there you go, an affirmation that you did indeed appealed to popularity. Although I am not sure what you are referring to by authority regarding “we subjectivists.�

Equivocation fallacy. Re: Bulimia is "wrong."

It’s perfectly acceptable to use specific examples to demonstrate an argument. But you wanted to play semantics and say bulimia is a disorder but not wrong refusing to again acknowledge how we know it is disordered? Is it our personal taste? No, we know due to external facts.

Doubling down on a fallacy I see. Bulimia is a disorder, we do know that from external facts, but bulima still isn't immoral, and that was what this debate is about.

Exactly the same way we recognize moral truth.

So you keep insisting. Prove it.

Various Strawman argument: Re: you are denying the existence of objective truths

This wasn’t a strawman. It is what you are doing. And you still don’t see the irony!

You: There is no such thing as objective moral truth.
Me: Is that objectively true?

Note the difference between denying the existence of objective moral truth, and denying the existence of objective truths. I stated the former, you are acting as if I was saying the latter. My accusation of a strawman was spot on, as you are still doing it, right here.

I said you were adamant that it is wrong to torture babies and can’t articulate any other reason then that it is simply a matter of opinion. That there is no objective moral truth that all men know torturing babies is wrong. It all comes down to personal preference. Ha,ha,ha . . . sorry just makes me laugh that you’re sticking to that.

Great, now we can add appeal to ridicule to your list of fallacies committed.

Yes, I did do this [Appeal to motive]. You’re right it has nothing to do with the argument, though I find it telling. This world is full of facts, order, systems, functions that can be observed and known by man. Man didn’t create or design these things – they are simply part of the natural world we live in. They are objective truths and not based on our beliefs, opinions, or “wishful thinking� You don’t have to give God the credit, but you do have to admit to and acknowledge this world we live in...

You are still talking as if you have the truth and anyone who says otherwise is by default in denial. Have you considered the alternative that it is you who are not acknowledging this world we live in? Sure there are objective facts, part of the world and not based on our opinion, but there also things that are in the mind and based on our opinion, you know this, you've affirmed as much when you stated taste is subjective.

Actually, since you insist your claim that objective morality is subjective is objective, I would have to say that is the contribution of your entire argument. And therefore once again self contradicting.

First of all, I did a lot more than insist on my stance as being objectively true, I offered you a deductive proof, I offered counter examples And rebuttal to the claims made by the articles you quoted. Secondly, even if one was to take what you said here for granted, that all I did was insist on moral subjectivism, how is that self contradicting? It looks like you are just picking up on the words I used and said, "no, you!"

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

The following is the only quote from you that is new and worth addressing . . .

First of all, I did a lot more than insist on my stance as being objectively true, I offered you a deductive proof

As did I. Declaring your statement as objectively true because it is based on external facts and not simply human taste or preference is the EXACT deductive proof I made regarding objective morality. You’re a funny guy. If you want pages and pages of deductive proof of objective morality I assume you are familiar with Google. Do a search right now and you can read to the desire of your content on deductive proof of objective morality. You simply don’t accept the deductive proof. So, like I said we are at an impasse.

And I might add, I am not all that interested in “winning�, but I do so enjoy showing the underlying truth in someone’s worldview and believe that has been accomplished in this thread.

[Bust Nak]

As did I. Declaring your statement as objectively true because it is based on external facts and not simply human taste or preference is the EXACT deductive proof I made regarding objective morality.

Incorrect, the record will show that was not what I offered as my deductive proof. Had I attempted to declare the statement "morality is subjectively" as objectively true because it is based on external facts and not preference as my proof, then I would be guilty of just insisting on subjectivism. You can see for yourself that when I stated subjectivism is based on external facts, I was responding to you questions, asking me what my thesis is based on and if it was subjective or objective.

The actual proof was the stuff about no value without evaluators.

But it is nice to see you admit to declaring your statement as objectively true because it is based on external facts and preference, and that was supposed to be your "deductive proof." My accusation on your whole argument boiling down to insisting on objectivism is once again proven to be 100% accurate.

You’re a funny guy. If you want pages and pages of deductive proof of objective morality I assume you are familiar with Google. Do a search right now and you can read to the desire of your content on deductive proof of objective morality.

I am not debating Google, I am debating you, you have shot yourself in the foot if there are indeed countless proof and the closest you have come to a proof is to insist on objectivism with more passion than ever.

You simply don’t accept the deductive proof. So, like I said we are at an impasse.

How would you know if you don't try by reproducing a proof from Google?

And I might add, I am not all that interested in “winning...�

Well, I am interested in winning, so I am satisfied.

but I do so enjoy showing the underlying truth in someone’s worldview and believe that has been accomplished in this thread.

Likewise, I do enjoy demonstrating the underlying truth in my worldview.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

The actual proof was the stuff about no value without evaluators.

Yes, even your “no value without evaluators� is saying the same thing as “based on external facts and not simply human taste or preference� and hence my point. I refuted your “no value without evaluators�. Like I said, moral truth is not picked or chosen by human beings. We aren’t the ones who determine the standard. We know that 2+2=4 because it is based on external facts. It doesn’t come from our opinion or preference. And we know that it is wrong to torture babies because it is based on external facts. It doesn’t come from our opinion or preference. Just like 2+2=4, this knowledge is discovered via the world we live in and accepting the natural laws of this world we live in. No personal value attributed necessary.

Your whole argument is based on insisting morality is a value in the sense of opinion or preference, which I have shown to be untrue. If you insist on using the word value then it is clear that morality is based on objective values and objective values are those that lie outside of the individual and are not dependent upon her/his perception or belief.

Likewise, I do enjoy demonstrating the underlying truth in my worldview.

Yes, sometimes ignorance is bliss.

[Aetixintro]

Aren't the crime statistics the very document of morality over population?

There are two notions to watch for:
1. The normative - the various ethical theories for normative action, for morality.
2. The descriptive - how people actually behave, the very documented morality of people, if not only yourself.

Answer to OP: Sure. The crime statistics supply the very objective moral document where police itself is one factor, that of making the complaint...

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 47 by RightReason]

In which language is “no value without evaluators� the same thing as " the same thing as “based on external facts and not simply human taste or preference?" I have to ask because they aren't remotely similar in the English language.

Like I said, moral truth is not picked or chosen by human beings. We aren’t the ones who determine the standard...

So you keep insisting, how about you don't more than insist on it for a change?

Your whole argument is based on insisting morality is a value in the sense of opinion or preference...

That's the thing, there are no other sense of value. Value by definition depends on an evaluator. I asked you before what is the worth of an item, when no one's want it?