Replies

What definition of objective would you like to use. I've found about a dozen in the OED, but most boil down to an observable and quantifiable property of an object, as opposed to a property assigned by another. How is worth quantifiable?

You say values are subjective. This statement itself is an OBJECTIVE statement (making universal claims about values) and is self-refuting and self-stultifiying. If values are subjective, you can make no objective claims about them without contradicting yourself.

Objective is a word with meaning. Thank you for proving that. The concept of objective exists. It simply means universal. If God created the universe and all that is in it including all moral precepts, then to discuss anything "universal" is to automatically defer to God as he created the "universe." Our entire reality is within this universe and God made it. If any abstract idea or moral precept be objective, it must come from God as there is no other possible source. For example, the moral precept "all men are created equal" must be assigned to God as there is no other objective source available. Therefore, if objectivity exists, God is the author. There is no other possible source for objectiveness.

Your only logical refuge is to say all things (morals, rights, human value) are ALL COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE - or relative. That makes you a relativist. If all is subjective, who cares about your subjective opinion, I have my own and I CAN'T BE WRONG in your system. If it is subjective, then I must be right, and you must be right. Therefore, when I argue that human value is objective, I CAN'T BE WRONG, because in your world, whatever view I hold is right under the rules of subjectivism. Thus, you contradict yourself when you argue the point. All you can do is remain silent - otherwise, you contradict yourself.

You can't win this argument so you should quit while you are ahead.

This statement itself is an OBJECTIVE statement (making universal claims about values) and is self-refuting and self-stultifiying. If values are subjective, you can make no objective claims about them without contradicting yourself.

How is it self-refuting? One can make all sorts of objective observations about subjective things -- otherwise, how would one determine if another's opinions were worth the paper they were printed upon? Or, as another example one can objectively determine the effects of a particular value judgement on a system through experimentation or observation. One can even statistically compile the subjective opinions of a subject from a number of people and draw an objective conclusion from the numbers. Of course, one can also make subjective claims about objective properties -- i.e., "I don't like people shorter than 1.2 meters tall."

If all is subjective, who cares about your subjective opinion, I have my own and I CAN'T BE WRONG in your system. If it is subjective, then I must be right, and you must be right. Therefore, when I argue that human value is objective, I CAN'T BE WRONG, because in your world, whatever view I hold is right under the rules of subjectivism.

We were talking about worth and value, not right or wrong. Worth and value are purely subjective. The two groupings are not synonymous. Logically, you can be wrong because you haven't made a valid argument for your position. For example, you have yet to show me how value and worth may be quantified. Other properties of an object can be so quantified, therefore it must be possible to do so for value and worth if those are valid properties of an object. I have shown you, however, that value can be entirely subjective and such subjectivity actually forms the basis for economic systems.

In other words, I have given evidence for my position. You have simply naysayed my position, which is not evidence for your position. We find this situation in the over-arching crevo arguments; the evos give evidence to support their positions and the creos attack that evidence without ever supplying evidence for their particular positions.