(October 6, 2014 at 9:24 am)alpha male Wrote: I disagree. If we hold a tape measure to a board, everyone would agree to its length, as that's an objective measurement.
Agreement doesn't prove objectivity, but disagreement does indicate subjectivity.
Wrong - people could argue that the measurement isn't being done properly or that the tape isn't accurate or that the board has been distorted to give inaccurate length. People can disagree about the length for all sorts of reasons - that disagreement does not indicate subjectivity.
(October 6, 2014 at 9:24 am)alpha male Wrote: But go ahead and give us the sound basis you use to judge fundamental rights as objective, and tell us why those people who disagree with you are wrong and don't understand the objective nature of your position.
Certain needs like life, liberty etc. are fundamental human needs - these aren't based on someone's opinion, they are factual - and the fundamental rights derive their legitimacy from these needs which is why they are objective. People who disagree ignore the factual nature of those needs which is why they are wrong.
Which brings us back to your god - whose 'laws' are not based on any factual understanding of human nature but on his whims and wishes which makes them subjective.
