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 Bust Nak]

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

.

There you go worrying more about semantics again than what is actually being said. If you can’t see the similarities, not sure what else to say.

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?

My life has value, whether no one, including myself thinks so or not. The value of my life is not dependent on an evaluator. The value of my life is inherent in life itself. And that is something all men know to be true. Morality is based on objective values and the definition of objective values are those that lie outside of the individual and are not dependent upon her/his perception or belief. Relationships exist in this world we live in and they exist in a way that scientists can discover them and describe them in statements that are testable and knowable. Moral values in this sense are objective.

[Bust Nak]

There you go worrying more about semantics again than what is actually being said.

You say that like they are different issues: We are discussing if two statements means the same thing as each other, of course semantics would come up. I am dealing with what was being said: There is nothing similar between those two statement, let alone the same thing. And that is a matter of semantics.

If you can’t see the similarities, not sure what else to say.

Insist on it even harder like you always do, as if conviction alone could settle an issue?

My life has value, whether no one, including myself thinks so or not.

Don't just say it. Prove it. Meanwhile I am here to point out that people, including you do think your life has value, which means subjectivism is more consistent with real world facts.

Finally, lets try a role reversal: What would you say to someone who insist that taste is objective?

[Bust Nak]

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

Which subjective judgement is better is in itself, another subjective judgement. As such, it is my preference for my judgement that makes it better than someone else's.

What about none human babies. Why should it only apply to human babes?

It doesn't necessarily applies only to human babes, other species may apply too. Human babes were simply what I had in mind when I brought it up.

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.

Yes, it boils down to a visceral response. As for everyone ought to be a vegetarian, sure, if that is how you feel, then it is how you feel.

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.

Granted, it's all but impossible to convince a society see torture of babies as acceptable. But that doesn't change my question, as I asked IF your society see torturing babies as fine, is it fine? You said "To me, no. To that society, yes" well, since I was asking you specifically, the "to me" bit is redundant, the "to that society, yes" bit is irrelevant. Your answer then is a simple "no" it is not okay even if your society see it as fine.

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.

The point is person subjective morality determines what is and is not right full stop, even if your society has decided that baby torture is okay, it still isn't okay.

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.

It is just a matter of everyone doing what is right in his own eyes, it just happens that a lot of us agree on what is right in our own eyes; but that's just a happenstance, because as I've been prompting you to say: even if the agreed upon standard says baby torture is okay, it still isn't okay.

[RightReason]

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

Which subjective judgement is better is in itself, another subjective judgement. As such, it is my preference for my judgement that makes it better than someone else's.

What about none human babies. Why should it only apply to human babes?

It doesn't necessarily applies only to human babes, other species may apply too. Human babes were simply what I had in mind when I brought it up.

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.

Yes, it boils down to a visceral response. As for everyone ought to be a vegetarian, sure, if that is how you feel, then it is how you feel.

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.

Granted, it's all but impossible to convince a society see torture of babies as acceptable. But that doesn't change my question, as I asked IF your society see torturing babies as fine, is it fine? You said "To me, no. To that society, yes" well, since I was asking you specifically, the "to me" bit is redundant, the "to that society, yes" bit is irrelevant. Your answer then is a simple "no" it is not okay even if your society see it as fine.

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.

The point is person subjective morality determines what is and is not right full stop, even if your society has decided that baby torture is okay, it still isn't okay.

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.

It is just a matter of everyone doing what is right in his own eyes, it just happens that a lot of us agree on what is right in our own eyes; but that's just a happenstance, because as I've been prompting you to say: even if the agreed upon standard says baby torture is okay, it still isn't okay.

^^ This ^ This is a beautiful example of the madness of your argument. It is spoken like a wishy washy politician speaking out of both sides of his mouth, refusing to acknowledge the obvious. It’s a denial of how things are and what we all know.

What would you say to someone who insist that taste is objective?

There is an obviousness to life that you won’t seem to acknowledge. Right and wrong are determined by what is correct/true vs incorrect/false. One cannot say, it is not good for man that he choose chocolate over vanilla. There is nothing observable or scientific or any external in fact that can show vanilla is superior to chocolate or vice versa. Therefore, taste is subjective not objective. The opposite is true regarding morality. Morality is based on observable/scientific/external facts that lie outside of the individual and are not dependent upon her/his perception or belief. Relationships exist in this world we live in and they exist in a way that scientists can discover them and describe them in statements that are testable and knowable. We can know it is wrong to torture babies from (like all good scientists do) observing the world we live in, acknowledge the truths about the world we live in and man’s relationship with this world we live in and know what is right/good vs. wrong/bad. Again, to not torture babies is not a matter of taste. How odd.

[Bust Nak]

^^ This ^ This is a beautiful example of the madness of your argument. It is spoken like a wishy washy politician speaking out of both sides of his mouth, refusing to acknowledge the obvious. It’s a denial of how things are and what we all know.

I'll just add this to your tally of appeals to ridicule. You say I am not acknowledging the obvious and if it was so obvious, why can't you show it instead of saying "it is obvious?"

And what's this about speaking out of both sides of my mouth? What exactly do you think is inconsistent with what I stated?

There is an obviousness to life that you won’t seem to acknowledge. Right and wrong are determined by what is correct/true vs incorrect/false. One cannot say, it is not good for man that he choose chocolate over vanilla. There is nothing observable or scientific or any external in fact that can show vanilla is superior to chocolate or vice versa. Therefore, taste is subjective not objective.

Telling me that taste is subjective but morality isn't and hence not equivalent does not answer my question, what would you say to someone who insist that taste is objective?

Morality is based on observable/scientific/external facts that lie outside of the individual and are not dependent upon her/his perception or belief. Relationships exist in this world we live in and they exist in a way that scientists can discover them and describe them in statements that are testable and knowable...

You keep saying this but yet the closest you've come to science is that equivocation fallacy re: Bulimia.

Show me a scientific test that can demonstrate that it is immoral to torture babies.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Show me a scientific test that can demonstrate that it is immoral to torture babies

Show me a scientific test that your statement, “Moral truth is subjective� is objective.


One can use the scientific method to acknowledge the wrongness of torturing babies.

From simple observation of this world:

Human beings have intrinsic value. The value of a human life is equivalent to a law of physics. It cannot be removed or changed. Torture attempts to take away human value. Since human value is inherent, not dependent on someone else, it is wrong to dehumanize human beings. Babies are human beings, therefore it is wrong to violate the value of a baby, therefore it is wrong to torture babies.

[Bust Nak]

Show me a scientific test that your statement, “Moral truth is subjective� is objective.

That's easy, there are a number of studies that demonstrate innate morality in infant development, as well as brain studies of sociopaths.

More to the point, what if instead I said:

One can use the scientific method to acknowledge the subjective wrongness of torturing babies.

From simple observation of this world:

Human beings have no intrinsic value. The value of a human life is equivalent to a preference of vanilla over chocolate. It can be removed or changed. Torture attempts to take away human value. Since human value is not inherent, but dependent on a subject's preference, it is not objective wrong to dehumanize human beings. Babies are human beings, therefore it is subjective wrong to violate the value of a baby, therefore it is subjective wrong to torture babies.

Would that convince you? I am guessing no. It's a circular argument that presumes intrinsic value. So why would you present a version of that as your argument?

One can use the scientific method to acknowledge the wrongness of torturing babies.

From simple observation of this world:

Human beings have intrinsic value...

Oh? How is that measured by the way?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 56 by Bust Nak]


RightReason: Show me a scientific test that your statement, “Moral truth is subjective� is objective.

That's easy, there are a number of studies that demonstrate innate morality in infant development

Uuh . . . wouldn’t that support my position? Also, I didn’t say show me science that proves morality is subjective. I said show me science that proves your statement, “Moral truth is subjective� is objective.

Since human value is not inherent, but dependent on a subject's preference, it is not objective wrong to dehumanize human beings

I would say you are starting with a false premise. I would also say your argument is sad and scary, but that part of my statement is merely subjective.

Quote:
One can use the scientific method to acknowledge the wrongness of torturing babies.

From simple observation of this world:

Human beings have intrinsic value...

Oh? How is that measured by the way?

By observing the world we live in. By recognizing this world consists of natural laws that all men are subject to.

[Bust Nak]

Uuh . . . wouldn’t that support my position?

No, it shows that morality is mind dependent.

Also, I didn’t say show me science that proves morality is subjective. I said show me science that proves your statement, “Moral truth is subjective� is objective.

If science proves morality is subjective, and what science can prove is objective, then it follows trivially that "morality is subjective" is objective. Was that not good enough?

Or perhaps you are implying that "moral truth is subjective" means something different to "morality is subjective?" I told you, I am not interested in semantic arguments.

I would say you are starting with a false premise. I would also say your argument is sad and scary, but that part of my statement is merely subjective.

Right, and here I am saying the same thing to you - you started with a false premise "human beings have intrinsic value..." Hence my remark "it's a circular argument that presumes intrinsic value."

Oh? How is that measured by the way?

By observing the world we live in. By recognizing this world consists of natural laws that all men are subject to.

Tell me explicitly, how is that measured. Which scientific instruments can be used to measure and affirm that "baby torture is immoral" is part of the natural laws that all men are subject to?

While you are here, let me repeat one of my earlier question: what would you say to someone who insist that taste is objective?

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Which scientific instruments can be used to measure and affirm that "baby torture is immoral" is part of the natural laws that all men are subject to?

Early in our discussion, you admitted truth exists. Tell me what scientific instruments can be used to measure and affirm that truth exists.