[exmarine]

From the definition of objective (measurable) given before, it is a TRUE conclusion. You may not agree with it, but you proferred no other definition, therefore, following from the definition I proferred, and your claim that human worth was immeasurable, the only conclusion is that human worth is not objective and is therefore subjective. Empiricism be damned. That is logic. Period. End of story. A premise was given and a conclusion drawn through deductive reasoning. You have not shown the premise to be flawed. You have not shown the logic to be flawed. You rant against "empiricism" but that is all it is -- a rant. The conclusion stands.

Your reasoning is faulty. Empirical presuppositions are at the heart of your conclusion - you PRESUPPOSE that if you can't measure something it can't be real or can't have value. Problem is - that's a leap of faith on your part as your method is assumed by faith. Therefore, your conclusions fall along with your unsupported presuppositions.

Furthermore, you only half answer my posts. You have nothing to say about the practical consequences of your thinking.

[Junior]

I presuppose nothing. THe definition for "objective" included "measurable." If it is not measurable, it is not objective. You said human value is not measurable, therefore it is not objective. This is why I defined my terms before making my argument. I do not like wishy-washiness.