(February 17, 2017 at 8:49 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: When a bunch of healthy people are around we can't always decide who is the healtheist but when we can't prove objectively who is the healtheist out of a group of healthy people... we don't get people saying that therefore health is not objective and we need an exact definition that everyone agrees on and is completely non-arbitrary and foolproof otherwise it's not objective. No.
No part of science is completely non-arbitary and foolproof. Objective is not the same as universal or non-arbitrary. It's also not the same as finding answers in practice.
Something can be completely non-universal, non-arbitrary and even impossible to find answers in practice and there can STILL be objective answers in principle.
The fact that people don't agree on a definition of morality is completely irrelevant. Each definition has objective answers to it in principle.
You may not have realized it but your analogy relies on the idea that there are normative properties to being human. That's a good first step towards natural law ...
