(January 16, 2016 at 6:19 am)robvalue Wrote: As in the other thread, I noted that you can have objective value after value has been subjectively defined. For example, the "value" of a human being is 1, and the "value" of anything not a human being is 0. There, done. It's now an objective "value". The problem is, that it doesn't mean anything. To just say that because "value" also has another meaning apart from this defined one and to try and slip that one in is an equivocation fallacy. You can't use the same term for two different things at once.
I can equally well say the "value" of a human is whatever I think of that human, ranging from 0 to 1. It's now entirely subjective.
Things like mass have been subjectively defined, and can then be objectively measured. But the results have real, practical applications. Whereas just defining people to have objective "value" is of no use whatsoever to anything.
This is a perfect explanation Rob! (As always). The problem is, it's not the answer that Mystic wants, so he will probably ignore it. Since his entire "logical" argument for god's existence rests on the premise that morality is some sort of objective thing that cannot be created by God or humans, he has already decided what he "knows" to be the answer of the question he, himself has asked. He has done nothing but dismiss or ignore alternative answers given to him, which leads me to believe he is not here for a true discussion, but to see if there is anyone out there he can...convert. Dishonest to the bone IMO...
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
