[stareatgoats]

> objectively bad

I agree that treating people like shit or executing them is bad and most people would agree with you, but it is not objectively bad, since "bad" in the way you use it here is a subjective value judgement, by definition the polar opposite of objective. Just saying.

[paulryanrogers]

Technically maybe. Though I think it's a much stronger case for objectivity when one is murdering, imprisoning, and enslaving fellow humans to please imaginary friends or destructive traditions.

[stareatgoats]

I think you will find that most dictionaries defines objectivity and subjectivity as binary opposites, and that there can be no such thing as a subjective opinion that can morph into objectivity, even if the phenomena are ghastly.

But I'm sure you find people who agree with you, all those who want to have their opinions elevated to objective truth, much like churches of old that claimed to have God on their side. To me such a stance is usually indications of prejudice and naïve realism [0], and perhaps worse; relieves one of the hard work of trying to see the other side, preventing one from building a solid case for ones own (subjective, but morally better) stance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology...

[paulryanrogers]

My point is not that objectivity is a spectrum. Rather that some cultural norms or traditions can be evaluated from a strictly utilitarian view, arguably approaching objectivity. For example killing or exploiting humans because they have a different skin color or refuse to wear certain clothing.

Should we dismiss all cultural critique because on some level everything is subjective, even experience and knowledge itself?

For all it's flaws and misuse, the scientific method provides the closest thing to an objective approach. Should it be discarded as well?

Now perhaps there are parts of Sharia law worth preserving. Can you steel-man that for me? Because my experience with theocracy based law has not been positive. What I've read of Sharia doesn't strike me as a good legal system.

[stareatgoats]

Looks like we are discussing two different things. From what I can glean you need to find some "close to objective" (albeit still subjective) truth, for example based on utilitarianism in order to engage in cultural critique.

On my part I too base my ethics on something universal, but it is human universality (that we at most possibly can share with a few other animal species); it bends and shifts with history, geography and social conditions, but with a common denominator and ideal that is empathy. Something entirely subjective, something hard to accomplish and ultimately not completely attainable. And it allows me to keep things like "objective truth" out of ethical considerations.

In the case of Saudi Arabia it allows me to criticize the regime along the same lines as you, but it also requires that I try to understand how things became this bad, i.e. to have some empathy with the people that one otherwise easily could string up in the nearest lamppost if we had the chance.

The scientific method is not relevant for me here at all because it doesn't give us ethical guidance at all. It is relevant only as a tool to sift false assumptions from facts, where the facts are ultimately tentative, not absolute. It can help us for example to weed out illusions like the world being flat, but it doesn't answer everything about what the world is. The world still holds a lot of mystery, and will likely always do. Which is actually a sound position to take, scientifically.