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?

[Bust Nak]

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

You don't seem all that keen on answering questions. Not exactly sure what you are fishing for, but wouldn't any and all scientific instruments be able to do just that? Use a ruler to measure the length of a pencil, and boom, a demonstration the existence of one objective truth, "the length of a particular pencil is X mm;" and if one objective truth exist then objective truth exist.

So back to my question: 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?

[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?

Perhaps you forget that even in measurable science it is necessary to have evaluators and place valueon things. This acknowledgment of evaluators does not then render everything subjective. I think your argument collapses in thinking anything we might label or term value/i] is by default subjective. I think it is intellectually dishonest to insist the value of human life is merely subjective. 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. 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. We can’t stop being human. The truth is human beings place value on things. 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.

[Bust Nak]

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.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

I think it is intellectually dishonest to insist the value of human life is merely objective

I’m not simply “insisting� on it. I’ve demonstrated and explained how it is something we can know via observation of man and man’s relationship with the world we live in. You even believe it is wrong to torture babies, but you feel some need to qualify it as merely your subjective opinion. Even though you and everyone else would insist it is wrong to torture babies, you reduce it to mere sentiment. Interesting how no one would risk their life to insist vanilla is better than chocolate and yet do so on a daily basis with regards to the devaluing of human life. So, yes, to equivocate taste and [i[preference[/i] to moral truth is intellectually dishonest.

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.

Using science includes using the scientific method of observation, of reason, of logic, and of knowledge of the existing world.

Quote:
We can’t stop being human. The truth is human beings place value on things.

And that by definition is subjective.

Actually, it is an objective truth that human beings place value on things.

[Bust Nak]

I’m not simply “insisting� on it. I’ve demonstrated and explained how it is something we can know via observation of man and man’s relationship with the world we live in.

Telling me "morality is based on facts and not preference and is therefore not subjective" is not an explanation nor a demonstration. What you called demonstrating or explaining, is exactly what I was referring to as insisting on it.

Your other attempts have been defeated as fallacious.

You even believe it is wrong to torture babies, but you feel some need to qualify it as merely your subjective opinion. Even though you and everyone else would insist it is wrong to torture babies, you reduce it to mere sentiment.

Right, and you can do nothing other than insist that I am in denial of the truth.

Interesting how no one would risk their life to insist vanilla is better than chocolate and yet do so on a daily basis with regards to the devaluing of human life. So, yes, to equivocate taste and [i[preference[/i] to moral truth is intellectually dishonest.

That's non sequitur fallacy, willing to risking one's life to stop torture does not imply it is objectively wrong to torture, nor does it imply it is not equivalent to taste or preference.

Using science includes using the scientific method of observation, of reason, of logic, and of knowledge of the existing world.

Right, so go ahead and scientific method of observation, of reason, of logic, and of knowledge of the existing world and demonstrate for me, that "torturing babies is immoral" is a law of nature.

Actually, it is an objective truth that human beings place value on things.

Red herring: It is an objective truth that human beings find certain food taste pleasing, yet taste is subjective.