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?

[RightReason]

[Replying to Subjectivity]

You criticized my position of being incapable of debate because you implied I already have my mind made up, but I would argue it is your position that prevents rational argument by its very nature. This guy says it better . . .

Ethical subjectivism reduces morality and moral deliberation to personal tastes—thus eliminating any possibility of rational argument in support of a moral judgment. Philosopher Louis P. Pojman explains: “This form of moral subjectivism has a sorry consequence: It makes morality a useless concept, for, on its premises, little or no interpersonal criticism or judgment is logically possible.�[5] If morality is synonymous with our feelings, our likes, or our dislikes, then rational considerations have no proper application. Ethical subjectivism offers no place for logical analysis and argument.

Ethical subjectivism depends on the untenable position that morality is invented, rather than discovered. But if morality is merely a human convention, then it lacks an objective foundation and cannot truly be understood as prescriptive morality.

Subjectivist ethics also fail to explain mankind’s conscious awareness of moral obligation. Any careful reflection on these moral obligations will indicate that they are certainly more than mere transitory or culturally imposed feelings.

Ethical subjectivism fails to make the crucial distinction between our opinions about morality and morality itself. Some may object that this criticism seems to beg the question at hand. However, this important distinction is necessary to all moral deliberation. To perform authentic ethical thinking and adjudicate between alternative points of view, one must make distinctions between our opinions about morality and morality itself

http://www.reasons.org/articles/is-mora ... e-beholder

[Subjectivity]

What makes you think I am dismissing something before I hear it? If you have facts, a substantive argument then I would have to accept your response no matter how confident I may have been in my challenge.

Here you dismissed claims before examining them.

Show me a culture that values rape. Also, even if you could find some subculture that engaged in rape, THAT wouldn’t mean rape is right or good. It would simply mean that culture is wrong. All people can know right from wrong, regardless of religion.

If, in fact, you have knowledge of moral truths, then you are absolutely justified in outright dismissing contrary moral claims without giving consideration to them or even hearing what those claims are. 1) You know the truth 2) the truth is true irrespective of any claims made for or against it 3) therefore claims made for or against the truth can be outright dismissed with no effect to the truth. This all follows logically when, in fact, you possess the truth.

The problem I have with what you've said in the statement I quoted you above is that I don't believe that you possess the knowledge that what you believe about morality is true. I believe that you've decided you possess the truth and that that decision came by way of subjective evaluation of reality.

But there may be something you are misunderstanding about science: science doesn't uncover truth. It doesn't prove things. Scientists use the scientific method to determine the plausibility (not truth or falsity) of a hypothesis by testing whether it reproducibly and repeatedly predicts the outcomes of carefully constructed experiments. There doesn't come a time when the scientific community decides that it has found the answer to a question and need no longer evaluate completing claims.

Yes, I understand this very well. Perhaps then you can understand how if someone like Bust Nak says of ourse truth exists, then I can say of course moral truth exists. You have already admitted even science cannot uncover truth, but that doesn’t mean truth doesn’t exist and it doesn’t mean truth is subjective. So, why automatically conclude morality is subjective?

Whatever tool of understanding it was that imparted you with an objective understanding of morality, it was not science, because science does not do that.

So is it fair to say whatever tool of understanding it was that imparted someone with an objective understanding that 2+2=4, it was not science, because science does not do that?

Maybe you can share with me the manner by which you acquired what is an understanding of universal moral truths and not simply a pragmatic evaluation of what is in humanity's best interest to give moral consideration to.

Exactly the tools that have imparted to you or anyone else that truth exists.

I'm trying to find out if you see a distinction between a reasoned conclusion and what is objectively true.

Funny, I’m trying to find out the same thing about you.

How was it revealed to you that your reasoned conclusion on the immorality of rape was reflective of an objective moral truth about the immorality of rape?

I’ve said it before, but I will repeat it – via being a human being, living in this world, and acknowledging the truths about this world we live in.[/quote]

[Bust Nak]

That is why it has no place in social morality apart from a personal position one takes in attempting to influence public policy. Though 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 at all. True morality is that which is agreed to and/or enforced by a society. Constitutional morality is even better, because a constitutional society places constraints on the nature of moral instability and change.

That way lies madness, this can be shown with this simple mental exercise: Would torturing babies be right, if agreed upon and enforced by a society? A constitution does include safeguard against the tyranny of the majority but that too can be changed with enough of a majority.

[Bust Nak]

Your statement is illogical and meaningless. If something is objective than it isn’t subjective and vice versa.

I didn't say anything that is both objective AND subjective though. The "both" that was referring to, is being both objectively true AND my personal belief. Not all of my personal beliefs are subjective. For example, I personally believe that 2+2=4, and it is objective true that 2+2=4.

Again, morality is not taste. We are talking about morality.

Again, I know that: I didn't say morality is taste, I was objecting to your comment that you can't have both when you clearly can - objectively, taste is subjective.

And no, objectively speaking, morality is not subjective.

Oh? Prove it. That would be the forth time I asked you to do so. The closest you come to doing that is to ask me to prove otherwise.

You keep saying that, but in fact you are denying the existence of moral truth

Sure, that's because I accept objective truth: It is an objective truth that there is no such thing as objective moral truth.

I am saying knowing what is right/good vs. bad/wrong is not subjective, rather it is determined via observation of man and man’s relationship with the world he lives in.

Saying it again doesn't help. You were incorrect and you are still incorrect.

It isn’t about tastes as you keep bringing up.

It's not about food taste or music taste, but it is about personal opinion or feeling.

It is not my taste or feeling that there is an order to our digestive system – that human beings eat food, which contain calories, which are then digested. That’s just the way the world works...

Right, and in contrast, morality is about personal feelings, that's just the way the world works.

Why is it irrelevant?

The answer was already provided: It is irrelevant because whether I could or couldn't tell you why it is ok to torture babies, does not resolve the issue one way or the other. If I could tell you why it is okay, that wouldn't prove moral subjectivism; and if I could not tell you why it is okay, that wouldn't prove moral objectivism.

Sounds like it should be very easy. What are you afraid of? Please let me know why it is ok to torture babies. If morality is so subjective, it should be easy to explain.

Incorrect. It is actually very hard because I don't think it is okay to torture babies.

How do you know it’s not because it is an objective truth that all recognize?

Because we can objectively observe it is not an objective truth that all recognize.

Do we know that bulimia is wrong and label it a disorder because we subjectively prefer to not engage in the behavior? Or do we objectively know it is wrong based on external standards of the world we live in?...

We objectively know it is a disorder based on external standards of the world we live in. Disorders are not morally wrong, your are conflating terms.

Exactly. Who said moral truth depends on us? You made my point.

I said it. It does not make your point because what you said is irrelevant as it does not address my premise.

Exactly. Again you make my point. Just as I’ve been saying moral truth is based on facts.

That is factually incorrect. You don’t have to agree or disagree with it – it just IS. There is no such thing as objective moral truths, we invented morality.

Great! So do I. So, what is your “objective claim� that morality is subjective based on?

Logic and observation on the real world.

Of course you don’t. Nobody does! Because it is an objective truth that all men recognize.

Incorrect on both counts. We know there are people who do prefer it; And I don't prefer it because it my subjective preference.

If you didn’t recognize it, you would be able to easily explain to me when it is acceptable to torture babies.

That does not follow at all. I don't recognize it is an objective truth that it is wrong to torture babies, that does not imply I don't believe it is wrong to torture babies. If and only if I believe it is not wrong to torture babies, would it make sense to ask me to justify it.

Speaking of waiting, I am still waiting for you to prove objective morality. I also asked you if you think music taste or food taste is subjective, no answers.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Quote:
And no, objectively speaking, morality is not subjective.

Oh? Prove it. That would be the forth time I asked you to do so.

Not something to sum up in 2 or 3 sentences so here’s some proof . . .

************************************************************

To begin with, let's define what we mean by "objective moral values". Objective moral values are qualities like kindness or love which are morally good independent of the belief of human beings. For this reason, philosophers who affirm the existence of objective moral values sometimes speak about them as moral facts. A purported fact can either be true or false, but it is qualitatively different than an opinion, which is a matter of personal preference. So when we say that objective moral values exist, we mean that a statement like, "Murder is evil," is making a claim about some objective moral reality in precisely the same way that the statement, "There is a chair in my kitchen," is making a claim about objective physical reality. In contrast, a moral relativist claims that a statement like, "murder is evil," is a subjective claim about our (or our society's) preference. The statement, "murder is evil," expresses a subjective preference similar to the statements, "curry is tasty," or, "bluegrass is the best musical genre." If objective moral values exist, then statements like, "the Holocaust was evil," can be objectively true. If objective moral values exist, then this statement would be true even if the Nazis had won World War II and had convinced every human being in the entire world that the Holocaust was good. In contrast, the position of moral relativism commits one to the proposition that moral statements like, "the Holocaust was evil," are subjective. If some person or some society, like Nazi Germany, believes that the Holocaust was good, then the Holocaust would indeed be good "for them". There would be no objective moral standard to which their assessment could be compared.


A very helpful extended analogy can be made by comparing the existence of objective moral values to the existence of the external objective universe. First, the question of whether the external, objective universe exists is a question of ontology; is there a real world that really exists outside of my own mind? Is there really a chair in my kitchen, or is this just a figment of my imagination? This question, like the question of the existence of objective moral values, is independent of epistemology: how we know that such a world exists. The objective external universe could exist, even if we have no reliable way to know that it exists. Second, the external objective universe can exist even if my perception of facts about it are not always reliable. Consider the development of the natural sciences over the last four centuries. Scientists in the 17th century had incredibly poor and often erroneous ideas about the natural world. Since that time, our ideas have presumably become more and more accurate. But it does not follow that the objective universe does not exist or somehow depends upon our perception of it. In the same way, our perception of what is good and evil may change over time without affecting the claim that objective moral values exist. I would be very foolish to use the evolution of our understanding of science over the last four centuries to argue against the existence of an objective universe subject to physical laws.

Five pieces of evidence that objective moral values exist. (see link for details on each)

1. Nearly universally across human cultures, there exist the same basic standards of morality. In addition, there exist in all cultures truly altruistic acts which lead to no genetic benefit.
2. The majority of people who explicitly deny the existence of objective morality still act as if objective morality exists.
3. There exists a nearly universal human intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong.
4. The majority of philosophers recognize the existence of objective moral facts.
5. Many naturalists (like Sam Harris or Shelley Kagan) affirm the existence of objective moral facts, despite the problems inherent in grounding these facts in the natural world.

http://www.shenvi.org/Essays/ObjectiveMoralValues.htm

****************************************************


Life is the ultimate end served by our pursuit of values, and thus reigns as our objective standard of value. Something has value to us only to the extent that it furthers or enhances our life.

But what do we mean by “objective�? Isn’t the idea that life is the standard of value just Rand’s opinion? Can’t you choose another standard based on your subjective tastes? Biddle answers:

No, free will do not make the issue subjective. It does mean that a person can choose not to live; but it does not mean that he can choose a standard of value other than life.

… Without life there would be no one to whom anything could be beneficial or harmful. And why do such alternatives matter one way or the other? Because of the requirements of life. They are values or non-values only in relation to the alternative of life or death – and only for the purpose of promoting one’s life. The fact that we have free will does not change any of this; it simply grants us a choice in the matter: to live or not to live – to be or not to be.

Having discovered this objective standard of value, we have our reference point for further unveiling an objective morality. From the fact of our own existence as living beings with a particular nature, we can rationally ascertain what we ought to do.

Generally speaking, we ought to work to provide for our needs. We ought to act to obtain or keep that which furthers our survival and makes us happy.

This happiness, the sort referenced by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, is not a hedonistic whim. It’s not chocolate for a diabetic. It’s not an affair for a married man. Rather, true happiness is gauged in the context of how life works and what we can reasonably expect to follow from our actions. The diabetic who eats lots of chocolate may gain short-term pleasure, but at the expense of his long-term well-being. The same can be said of the adulterer.

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2015/3/8/ ... -prove-it/

Sure, that's because I accept objective truth: It is an objective truth that there is no such thing as objective moral truth.

Ha,ha,ha . . . prove it!

It's not about food taste or music taste, but it is about personal opinion or feeling.

Then I’m afraid so is this statement of yours, “It is an objective truth that there is no such thing as objective moral truth.�

Right, and in contrast, morality is about personal feelings, that's just the way the world works.

Absolutely wrong. As my previous example illustrated, bulimia is not wrong because I just don’t like it. Or because I prefer to eat my food and allow the food to digest. We can know bulimia is wrong by observation of this world we live in. It has nothing to do with my personal feelings.

Incorrect. It is actually very hard because I don't think it is okay to torture babies.

Of course you don’t! Because it is objective truth. Why can’t you admit that? You really think torturing babies is not objectively wrong? If you are saying it is only subjectively wrong to torture babies, to draw your argument out to its logical conclusion means you think torturing babies could be ok for someone. Is that what you believe?

Because we can objectively observe it is not an objective truth that all recognize.

Quite the contrary, as my previous links show.

We objectively know it is a disorder based on external standards of the world we live in. Disorders are not morally wrong, your are conflating terms.

No, you are playing semantics. So, disorders aren’t wrong? Are disorders right/good? If they were right and good and properly ordered we wouldn’t call them disordered and know the person will be happier and healthier following proper order. Eating and allowing the food to digest is good. We can know it is good by observing the world. We can use this standard to know what violates this good and can from there know what is right/wrong. See? Objective!

Very interesting to me when people can’t admit the obvious.

Quote:
Exactly. Who said moral truth depends on us? You made my point.

I said it. It does not make your point because what you said is irrelevant as it does not address my premise.

What you mean is you call it irrelevant because admitting moral truth does not depend on us shows it is based on something other than ‘us’ (personal feelings, preferences), IOW externals and undermines your argument that morality is subjective.

That is factually incorrect.

Is it?

You don’t have to agree or disagree with it – it just IS.

Ha! That’s my line. You don’t have to agree with moral facts (truth) – they just are. They are written in the world we live in.

There is no such thing as objective moral truths, we invented morality.

No – we acknowledge it. Even you do with your “preference� for not torturing babies. You really want to argue that man invented not torturing babies as a moral truth?

[Bust Nak]

To begin with, let's define what we mean by "objective moral values". Objective moral values are qualities like kindness or love which are morally good independent of the belief of human beings.

Why just human beings and not any conscious sentient beings? But I'll let that slide for now.

For this reason, philosophers who affirm the existence of objective moral values sometimes speak about them as moral facts...

...I would be very foolish to use the evolution of our understanding of science over the last four centuries to argue against the existence of an objective universe subject to physical laws.

So far so good, lays out the two stances accurately.

1. Nearly universally across human cultures, there exist the same basic standards of morality. In addition, there exist in all cultures truly altruistic acts which lead to no genetic benefit.

Invalid: Nearly universally across human cultures, there exist the same basic standards of food taste. Yet food taste is subjective.

2. The majority of people who explicitly deny the existence of objective morality still act as if objective morality exists.

Incorrect: People who explicitly deny the existence of objective morality universally act as if morality is subjective.

Objectivists are guilty of mischaracterising our behaviour. An example of already appeared in this thread when you asked me to justify baby torture, as if my unwillingness to justify meant I was acting as if objective morality exists.

3. There exists a nearly universal human intuition that certain things are objectively right or wrong.

Incorrect: The human intuition that that certain things are objectively right or wrong, is far from "nearly universal." Most atheists are subjectivist, for example.

4. The majority of philosophers recognize the existence of objective moral facts.

Granted.

5. Many naturalists (like Sam Harris or Shelley Kagan) affirm the existence of objective moral facts, despite the problems inherent in grounding these facts in the natural world.

Granted. But aren't you undermining your own case by pointing out that they have problems grounding these "facts?"

So it boils down to two appeals to authority. The majority of people believe in God, so does the majority of theologians, is that a good reason to believe? No.

Life is the ultimate end served by our pursuit of values, and thus reigns as our objective standard of value. Something has value to us only to the extent that it furthers or enhances our life...

That's a contradiction right there, remember the first article you quoted, objective moral values supposed to be independent of the belief of human beings. Yet in this next article you quote, keep appealing to things that has value to us. The article continues along the same line, appealing to value that are important to us, and to our reference point. The piece amounts to an affirmation that morality is dependent on human beings and hence subjective by definition, but chooses to label it "objective" regardless.

Ha,ha,ha . . . prove it!

Done and done. Repeated here for your continence: Values are inherently subjective because there is no value without an evaluation and no evaluation without an evaluator. What depends on an evaluator, is by definition subjective.

Ironically, the first article you quoted affirms the premise that "what depends on an evaluator is subjective" while your second article you quoted affirms the premise that "values depends on evaluators." Given these two premises, it follows inescapably that morality is subjective. Thanks for proving moral subjectivism.

Then I’m afraid so is this statement of yours, “It is an objective truth that there is no such thing as objective moral truth.�

Incorrect. That is a factual statement not based on human opinion, but simple logic and observed facts.

Absolutely wrong. As my previous example illustrated, bulimia is not wrong because I just don’t like it.

That's the same equivocation fallacy as before. Bulimia is "wrong" only in the sense that it is an disorder, not in the sense that it is immoral. The topic here, is morality.

Of course you don’t! Because it is objective truth. Why can’t you admit that?

Because it is a falsehood. I am not in the habit of saying thing that are incorrect.

You really think torturing babies is not objectively wrong?

Yes, I have made that crystal clear that torturing babies is not objectively wrong.

If you are saying it is only subjectively wrong to torture babies, to draw your argument out to its logical conclusion means you think torturing babies could be ok for someone. Is that what you believe?

Put in "baby torturer" in Google and you'll find plenty of people who not only thought it is ok, but put that thought into action too.

No, you are playing semantics. So, disorders aren’t wrong?

Correct. Disorders aren’t morally wrong at all.

Are disorders right/good?

No. Disorders are not morally right or morally good either. They are not an moral issue at all. And you had the nerve to mention semantic games.

If they were right and good...

n/a

What you mean is you call it irrelevant because admitting moral truth does not depend on us shows it is based on something other than ‘us’ (personal feelings, preferences), IOW externals and undermines your argument that morality is subjective.

Incorrect. What I mean is I made a statement in the form of IF A THEN B. You responded with IF NOT A THEN NOT B, that does not logically falsify (nor affirm for that matter) my statement. This is logic 101, we can dismiss your attempt and that's before we even go into the content of your statement.

You really want to argue that man invented not torturing babies as a moral truth?

Close enough, I would not use the term "moral truth" as it gives the impression of objectivity.

Finally, I asked you if you thought if food taste was subjective or not. I never got an answer from you. This is important, my counter-example above presumes food taste is subjective. I might have to think of something else if you actually thought food taste is objective.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Finally, I asked you if you thought if food taste was subjective or not. I never got an answer from you.

Because I have answered, you just continue to ignore it. I’ve said multiple times throughout our conversation that tastes, opinions, and feelings are subjective. I have also emphasized that morality is NOT taste, opinion, or feelings.

You can’t seriously be considering the two are equivalent. So you think your knowledge that torturing babies is wrong comes from the same place that makes you choose chocolate over vanilla? You believe it is simply your opinion that it is wrong to torture babies, no different than preferring hip hop over country? You aren’t prepared to stand up and say it is always wrong to torture babies? I’m sorry but I can’t help but find that intellectually dishonest.

I’ve always found it fascinating what moral relativists will sink to, rather than admit the illogic of their worldview. I think it stems from the idea that many moral relativists are also atheist and they think admitting to objective morality might imply there is a higher being. Even though there are plenty of atheists who believe in moral absolutes (they realize the illogic of believing otherwise), there still remain those who are scared to admit this, less it leads one to see God behind it all. But really, one need not believe in God to believe objective moral truth. One need only acknowledge the world we live in and recognize there exist natural laws that all men are subject to, whether we want to be or not.

Why just human beings and not any conscious sentient beings? But I'll let that slide for now.

Maybe because in case you haven’t noticed human beings are different than other animals. Animals can learn, but they cannot reason like man. They also do not have control of their passions like man. You could however argue that in a sense morality does exist for animals. That is in the sense that when something/someone is doing what they are supposed to do or ought it is right and good (moral if you will). If someone/some thing is doing something contrary to what they ought or what they are intended to do, it is wrong/bad. If some animal eats his young because that in fact is what that species of animal does, then one could actually say that animal is doing GOOD. He/she is doing what it is supposed to do. Human beings don’t eat their young, so if someone kills their newborn and serves the child up for food, we can objectively acknowledge it as WRONG. The wrongness of such an action is independent of my “evaluation� of it. I am merely observing and acknowledging the immoral act – not determining if it is to my liking. It would be wrong/immoral even if it didn’t bother me. And how I know that is that it isn’t based on me, unlike my preference for chocolate over vanilla ice cream is based on me.

Objectivists are guilty of mischaracterising our behaviour. An example of already appeared in this thread when you asked me to justify baby torture, as if my unwillingness to justify meant I was acting as if objective morality exists.

Nope. No mischaracterization. If torturing babies was subjective as you claim you and everyone else wouldn’t be so adamant about standing up to anyone or any group that wants to torture babies. We would insist the torture of babies cannot nor should not happen. We wouldn’t quite be as moved to make a law against strawberry flavored ice cream.

Granted. But aren't you undermining your own case by pointing out that they have problems grounding these "facts?"

Nope. Many have problems grounding the facts regarding the origin of the universe and yet here we are.

That's a contradiction right there, remember the first article you quoted, objective moral values supposed to be independent of the belief of human beings. Yet in this next article you quote, keep appealing to things that has value to us. The article continues along the same line, appealing to value that are important to us, and to our reference point. The piece amounts to an affirmation that morality is dependent on human beings and hence subjective by definition, but chooses to label it "objective" regardless.

I’m afraid you’ve missed the point of the article. Maybe go back and re read. Saying something has value to us does not imply subjectivity. If that is the case every objective fact that you accept as objective would be also classified as subjective because it has value to us. value to us is not the same as value from us. We value 2+2=4, even though it is an objective truth. Just like we value not torturing babies.

Values are inherently subjective because there is no value without an evaluation and no evaluation without an evaluator. What depends on an evaluator, is by definition subjective.

Your argument is reduced to nonsense because it would reduce everything and anything relating to human beings as subjective. Yes, we learn the truth about things via evaluation or I prefer to call it observation. Evaluation and observation of facts. And there exist facts, external to ourselves that are used as the standard. This doesn’t mean the “evaluator� is inventing the facts or the standard. Once again he is simply acknowledging it – hence OBJECTIVE.

Quote:
Then I’m afraid so is this statement of yours, “It is an objective truth that there is no such thing as objective moral truth.�

Incorrect. That is a factual statement not based on human opinion, but simple logic and observed facts.

Oh contraire. It came from you, an evaluator and you think you have evaluated the facts from which you gave your evaluation. Unfortunately, your evaluation is subjective.

Put in "baby torturer" in Google and you'll find plenty of people who not only thought it is ok, but put that thought into action too.

That’s not what I asked. I asked do you think torturing babies could be ok for someone? And just like I thought – you avoided the question.

[bluethread]

That is why it has no place in social morality apart from a personal position one takes in attempting to influence public policy. Though 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 at all. True morality is that which is agreed to and/or enforced by a society. Constitutional morality is even better, because a constitutional society places constraints on the nature of moral instability and change.

That way lies madness, this can be shown with this simple mental exercise: Would torturing babies be right, if agreed upon and enforced by a society? A constitution does include safeguard against the tyranny of the majority but that too can be changed with enough of a majority.

To illustrate my point, what is it that makes torturing babies wrong? We are talking about human babies, right? By the way, you are presuming a constitution subject to simple democratic amendment. Not all constitutions are subject to simple democratic amendment.

[Bust Nak]

Because I have answered, you just continue to ignore it. I’ve said multiple times throughout our conversation that tastes, opinions, and feelings are subjective. I have also emphasized that morality is NOT taste, opinion, or feelings.

Incorrect. The record will show that you never stated that taste is subjective. What you said instead is that morality is not taste, opinion or feelings. If you think I am mistaken, quote your answer.

I had to ask you to explicitly affirm it because it was pretty shocking that you linked an article that says beauty is objective. What is beauty, if not taste in visual stimulus? Could you explain this apparent contradiction?

You can’t seriously be considering the two are equivalent. So you think your knowledge that torturing babies is wrong comes from the same place that makes you choose chocolate over vanilla?

Correct. They come from the same place, the minds of individuals, mine in this case.

You believe it is simply your opinion that it is wrong to torture babies, no different than preferring hip hop over country?

There is a difference in degree, but both are matters of personal opinion.

You aren’t prepared to stand up and say it is always wrong to torture babies?

I am - let me demonstrate: it is always wrong to torture babies. Also noted that I stated "I don't think it is okay to torture babies" in my previous post. So I don't know why you'd question if I am prepared to denounce baby torture.

I think it stems from the idea that many moral relativists are also atheist and they think admitting to objective morality might imply there is a higher being... But really, one need not believe in God to believe objective moral truth.

That's illogical. Even if one was to believe in God, morality would still be subjective: morality will STILL be dependent on an evaluator - God in this case.

Maybe because in case you haven’t noticed human beings are different than other animals...

I am thinking about beings with a sense of right and wrong here, angels, deities, or alien intelligence. I was that was being clear when I said conscious sentient beings, perhaps I should have added intelligent too.

Nope. No mischaracterization. If torturing babies was subjective as you claim you and everyone else wouldn’t be so adamant about standing up to anyone or any group that wants to torture babies.

Incorrect. We can be adamant about standing up to anyone or any group that wants to torture babies, whether morality is subjective or objective, as I have just demonstrate above.

You have just doubled down on your mischaracterization: You somehow got into your head that "subjectivists aren't supposed to be adamant about rights and wrongs" and when you see us being adamant, you think we are acting as if morality is objective. Hence the misconception that the majority subjectivists still act as if objective morality exists.

Nope. Many have problems grounding the facts regarding the origin of the universe and yet here we are.

Okay, it is still an appeal to authority.

I’m afraid you’ve missed the point of the article. Maybe go back and re read. Saying something has value to us does not imply subjectivity.

You are contradicting the first article you quoted which stated: "Objective moral values are ... independent of the belief of human beings... [as opposed to] a subjective claim about our (or our society's) preference." Why post that article if you don't agree with its fundamental premise?

If that is the case every objective fact that you accept as objective would be also classified as subjective because it has value to us. value to us is not the same as value from us. We value 2+2=4, even though it is an objective truth. Just like we value not torturing babies.

Incorrect. 2+2=4 is an objective. That we value 2+2=4 is subjective. 2 apples being added to a basket with 2 apples in it will have 4 apples, even if there is no one to count it. In contrast, there is no value in 2+2=4 when there is no one to value it.

Your argument is reduced to nonsense because it would reduce everything and anything relating to human beings as subjective.

What you called reduced to nonsense, I would call logically trivial. Everything and anything relating to human beings is subjective. That's what subjectivism means: relative to indivuduals, human beings in this case. If you don't agree on basic definitions, this debate is wasted and has became an argument on semantics, something I am not interested in.

Yes, we learn the truth about things via evaluation or I prefer to call it observation.

What you are missing is the observed isn't related to human beings though.

Oh contraire. It came from you, an evaluator and you think you have evaluated the facts from which you gave your evaluation.

Incorrect. The facts and logic are independent from human beings.

That’s not what I asked. I asked do you think torturing babies could be ok for someone? And just like I thought – you avoided the question.

You are contradicting yourself in the space of two sentences. First you say that is not what you asked then went ahead and asked the same question again. What the hell is going on? You wanted to know I think there are someone who believes torturing babies could be ok. Of course there are, Google is full news of them. Let me be even more explicit: I think Peter Scully believes torturing babies could be ok. If you still don't think my response answers your question, please rephrase your question. Did you perhaps meant to ask if I think torturing babies could be ok for me? If so you already have the answer above: "it is always wrong to torture babies."

[Bust Nak]

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.

We are talking about human babies, right?

Yes.

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.

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.