When atheists disagree about the Objectivity of Morality ... !

[Moral Orel]

Right. But I'm ONLY honing in on the FACT that there is [or I think should be deemed to be] an intuited bare minimum that should be recognized and shared among all people everywhere; and if it's not shared, then it may be that some nation or culture that doesn't harbor some minimum objective moral value X is, itself, to some degree, a cultural facilitator of sociopathy among its own people. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that some Full Set of Morals or Ethical System X should be expected, all in all, to be intuited ...

Is this more clear as to what I'm honing in on?

You didn't get it, and it isn't funny if I have to explain it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm glad you asked. As IF you needed to, right?

Because, psychologists and psychiatrists, like folks in, say, the field of law enforcement, probably have a professional code of ethics that they are expected to abide by and to which a sociopath/psychopath won't 'really' care about.

The 10 professions with the most psychopaths

I get that you read one book on the subject, but that hardly makes you an expert. As you can see, understanding of the subject has gone a long ways in the past 15 years.

It should be needless to say, but psychopaths are in all sorts different professions. Some of these are even beneficial where quick decisions and lack of empathy are a benefit.

In short...you're wrong. There's a high prevalence of them amongst surgeons. There's no reason to believe they cannot follow an ethical code.

 

[Skreeper]

Maybe not monstrous villains, but sinful people who make society a hellhole.

View attachment 276232

The picture of a dude eating a banana and the logo of Reddit really made me laugh out loud.

Thanks for that, I needed a good chuckle.

 

[ThievingMagpie]

The picture of a dude eating a banana and the logo of Reddit really made me laugh out loud.

Thanks for that, I needed a good chuckle.

Without god, we must reach for an anime body pillow

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You didn't get it, and it isn't funny if I have to explain it.

Is that a quote from the Bible? It sounds like it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The 10 professions with the most psychopaths

I get that you read one book on the subject, but that hardly makes you an expert. As you can see, understanding of the subject has gone a long ways in the past 15 years.

... I think I already indicated earlier that it has, a little. So, don't make me out like I'm 'behind the times.'

It should be needless to say, but psychopaths are in all sorts different professions. Some of these are even beneficial where quick decisions and lack of empathy are a benefit.

In short...you're wrong. There's a high prevalence of them amongst surgeons. There's no reason to believe they cannot follow an ethical code.

...yeah, that's always good to know, especially the next time "they" want to do brain surgery on me, ay?

***********************************************************

And now, back to our original programming ...

When are you going to figure out that this thread ISN'T about sociopaths. It's actually about the processes that go into our acts of differentiating moral potential and behavior from immoral potential and behavior, between differentiating between the extremes of utter moral relativism on one hand and sheer absolutism on the other hand, with a consideration to the varying understandings we have of Subjectivity and Objectivity as they play a role in our moral deliberations (whatever those are and would be within the realm of 'doing ethics' and being moral).

Does this make sense? (I think it does ... and it should to you, too!)

So, thanks for the 'business insider' article, for whatever generalistic 'stuff' it may be worth, but my focus and beginning point, as it is tied into my OP, is more on things like the following items for the purposes of this thread:

Allan, Alfred. "Law and ethics in psychology: An international perspective." (2016).

Andow, James. "Reliable but not home free? What framing effects mean for moral intuitions." Philosophical Psychology 29, no. 6 (2016): 904-911.

Bailey, Jon, and Mary Burch. Ethics for behavior analysts. Routledge, 2016.

Braswell, Michael C., Belinda R. McCarthy, and Bernard J. McCarthy. Justice, crime, and ethics. Taylor & Francis, 2017.

Byington, Carlos Amadeu B. "The Shadow and the Evil: The paradox of the Central Archetype. A study of ethics by Jungian Symbolic Psychology." Junguiana 37, no. 1 (2019): 221-230.

Clifton, Shane, and Bruce Stevens. "Happiness and mental illness: Virtue ethics in dialogue with psychology." The Heythrop Journal (2018).

Compton, Rebecca. "Research Ethics in Psychology." (2018).

Fisher, Celia B. Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists. Sage Publications, 2016.

Fitzpatrick, Simon. "Moral realism, moral disagreement, and moral psychology." Philosophical Papers 43, no. 2 (2014): 161-190.

Gauthier, J., & Pettifor, J. L. (2012). The tale of two universal declarations: Ethics and human rights. The Oxford handbook of international psychological ethics, 113-133.

Griffith, Ezra E., ed. Ethics Challenges in Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology Practice. Columbia University Press, 2018.

Guha, Martin. "The Cambridge Handbook of Applied Psychological Ethics." Reference Reviews (2018).

Handelsman, Mitchell M. "A teachable ethics scandal." Teaching of Psychology 44, no. 3 (2017): 278-284.

Islam, Gazi. "Psychology and business ethics: A multi-level research agenda." Journal of Business Ethics (2019): 1-13.

Kahane, Guy, Jim AC Everett, Brian D. Earp, Lucius Caviola, Nadira S. Faber, Molly J. Crockett, and Julian Savulescu. "Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology." Psychological Review 125, no. 2 (2018): 131.

Kim, Eugenia, Sojung Bahng, Lukasz Mirocha, and Carloalberto Treccani. "Navigating the Penumbra of Virtual Reality: Perception, Cinematography, Psychology and Ethics." In 25th International Symposium on Electronic Art (ISEA 2019): LUX AETERNA (Eternal Light), pp. 670-672. Art Center Nabi, 2019.

Korkut, Yesim, and Carole Sinclair. "Integrating emotion and other nonrational factors into ethics education and training in professional psychology." Ethics & Behavior (2020): 1-15.

Kristjánsson, Kristján. "Situationism and the concept of a situation." European Journal of Philosophy 20 (2012): E52-E72.

Kumar, Victor, S. J. Leslie, and S. Cullen. "The ethical significance of cognitive science." Current controversies in philosophy of cognitive science. Abingdon: Routledge (2017).

Leach, Mark M., and Elizabeth Reynolds Welfel, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Applied Psychological Ethics. Cambridge University Press, 2018.

Kumar, Victor. "Moral vindications." Cognition 167 (2017): 124-134.

Leiter, Brian. "Against convergent moral realism: the respective roles of philosophical argument and empirical evidence." Moral psychology 2 (2008).

Lish, Darren L. "Ethics Challenges in Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology Practice." (2018): 1024-1025.

Mazzula, Silvia L. Ethics for Counselors: Integrating Counseling and Psychology Standards. Springer Publishing Company, 2017.

McCutcheon, Jeni L. "Emerging ethical issues in police and public safety psychology: Reflections on mandatory vs. aspirational ethics." In Police psychology and its growing impact on modern law enforcement, pp. 314-334. IGI Global, 2017.

Meyers, Chris D. "Defending moral realism from empirical evidence of disagreement." Social theory and practice 39, no. 3 (2013): 373-396.

Monroe, K. R. (2017). Biology, Psychology, Ethics, and Politics: An Innate Moral Sense?. In On Human Nature (pp. 757-770). Academic Press.

Merkur, Dan. Jung's Ethics: Moral Psychology and His Cure of Souls. Taylor & Francis, 2017.

Mills, Jon. "Critiquing Jung’s Ethics." International Journal of Jungian Studies 10, no. 2 (2018): 135-142.

Neill, Calum. Ethics and psychology: Beyond codes of practice. Routledge, 2016.

Hagenaars, P. (2016). Towards a human rights based and oriented psychology. Psychology and Developing Societies, 28(2), 183-202.

Oates, John. "Ethical Considerations in Psychology Research." Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity (2020): 783.

Plante, Thomas G., and Selena Pistoresi. "A survey of ethics training in undergraduate psychology programs at Jesuit universities." Pastoral Psychology 66, no. 3 (2017): 353-358.

Pope, Kenneth S., and Melba JT Vasquez. Ethics in psychotherapy and counseling: A practical guide. John Wiley & Sons, 2016.

Proctor, Carmel. "Virtue Ethics in Psychotherapy: A Systematic Review of the Literature." International Journal of Existential Positive Psychology 8, no. 1 (2018): 22.

Reckman, Rick. "505-01 Professional Problems and Ethics in Psychology." (2016).

Rist, John M. On Ethics, Politics and Psychology in the Twenty-first Century. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2017.

Otto, Randy K., Alan M. Goldstein, and Kirk Heilbrun. Ethics in forensic psychology practice. John Wiley & Sons, 2017.

Parsonson, Karen L. "Is Teaching International Ethics Codes Important for Psychology Graduate Students?." Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry (2020).

Rini, Regina A. "Morality and cognitive science." (2015).

Sauer, Hanno. "Between Facts and Norms: Ethics and Empirical Moral Psychology." In Moral Psychology, pp. 5-27. Springer, Cham, 2017.

Sauer, Hanno. Debunking arguments in ethics. Cambridge University Press, 2018.

Sauer, Hanno. "It’s the Knobe effect, stupid!." Review of Philosophy and Psychology 5, no. 4 (2014): 485-503.

Sinclair, C. (2012). Ethical principles, values, and codes for psychologists: An historical journey.

Soldz, Stephen, Bradley Olson, and Jean Maria Arrigo. "Interrogating the ethics of operational psychology." Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 27, no. 4 (2017): 273-286.

Sutton, M. (2017). Summary Notes on Nietzsche's Ethics.

Yap, Andy J. "The ergonomics of ethics." (2016).

Yona, Sergio. Epicurean Ethics in Horace: The Psychology of Satire. Oxford University Press, 2018.​

********************************************************************

... and so on, and so on, and so on, and so forth!

 

[Moral Orel]

Allan, Alfred. "Law and ethics in psychology: An international perspective." (2016).

Andow, James. "Reliable but not home free? What framing effects mean for moral intuitions." Philosophical Psychology 29, no. 6 (2016): 904-911.

Bailey, Jon, and Mary Burch. Ethics for behavior analysts. Routledge, 2016.

Braswell, Michael C., Belinda R. McCarthy, and Bernard J. McCarthy. Justice, crime, and ethics. Taylor & Francis, 2017.

Byington, Carlos Amadeu B. "The Shadow and the Evil: The paradox of the Central Archetype. A study of ethics by Jungian Symbolic Psychology." Junguiana 37, no. 1 (2019): 221-230.

Clifton, Shane, and Bruce Stevens. "Happiness and mental illness: Virtue ethics in dialogue with psychology." The Heythrop Journal (2018).

Compton, Rebecca. "Research Ethics in Psychology." (2018).

Fisher, Celia B. Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists. Sage Publications, 2016.

Fitzpatrick, Simon. "Moral realism, moral disagreement, and moral psychology." Philosophical Papers 43, no. 2 (2014): 161-190.

Gauthier, J., & Pettifor, J. L. (2012). The tale of two universal declarations: Ethics and human rights. The Oxford handbook of international psychological ethics, 113-133.

Griffith, Ezra E., ed. Ethics Challenges in Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology Practice. Columbia University Press, 2018.

Guha, Martin. "The Cambridge Handbook of Applied Psychological Ethics." Reference Reviews (2018).

Handelsman, Mitchell M. "A teachable ethics scandal." Teaching of Psychology 44, no. 3 (2017): 278-284.

Islam, Gazi. "Psychology and business ethics: A multi-level research agenda." Journal of Business Ethics (2019): 1-13.

Kahane, Guy, Jim AC Everett, Brian D. Earp, Lucius Caviola, Nadira S. Faber, Molly J. Crockett, and Julian Savulescu. "Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology." Psychological Review 125, no. 2 (2018): 131.

Kim, Eugenia, Sojung Bahng, Lukasz Mirocha, and Carloalberto Treccani. "Navigating the Penumbra of Virtual Reality: Perception, Cinematography, Psychology and Ethics." In 25th International Symposium on Electronic Art (ISEA 2019): LUX AETERNA (Eternal Light), pp. 670-672. Art Center Nabi, 2019.

Korkut, Yesim, and Carole Sinclair. "Integrating emotion and other nonrational factors into ethics education and training in professional psychology." Ethics & Behavior (2020): 1-15.

Kristjánsson, Kristján. "Situationism and the concept of a situation." European Journal of Philosophy 20 (2012): E52-E72.

Kumar, Victor, S. J. Leslie, and S. Cullen. "The ethical significance of cognitive science." Current controversies in philosophy of cognitive science. Abingdon: Routledge (2017).

Leach, Mark M., and Elizabeth Reynolds Welfel, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Applied Psychological Ethics. Cambridge University Press, 2018.

Kumar, Victor. "Moral vindications." Cognition 167 (2017): 124-134.

Leiter, Brian. "Against convergent moral realism: the respective roles of philosophical argument and empirical evidence." Moral psychology 2 (2008).

Lish, Darren L. "Ethics Challenges in Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology Practice." (2018): 1024-1025.

Mazzula, Silvia L. Ethics for Counselors: Integrating Counseling and Psychology Standards. Springer Publishing Company, 2017.

McCutcheon, Jeni L. "Emerging ethical issues in police and public safety psychology: Reflections on mandatory vs. aspirational ethics." In Police psychology and its growing impact on modern law enforcement, pp. 314-334. IGI Global, 2017.

Meyers, Chris D. "Defending moral realism from empirical evidence of disagreement." Social theory and practice 39, no. 3 (2013): 373-396.

Monroe, K. R. (2017). Biology, Psychology, Ethics, and Politics: An Innate Moral Sense?. In On Human Nature (pp. 757-770). Academic Press.

Merkur, Dan. Jung's Ethics: Moral Psychology and His Cure of Souls. Taylor & Francis, 2017.

Mills, Jon. "Critiquing Jung’s Ethics." International Journal of Jungian Studies 10, no. 2 (2018): 135-142.

Neill, Calum. Ethics and psychology: Beyond codes of practice. Routledge, 2016.

Hagenaars, P. (2016). Towards a human rights based and oriented psychology. Psychology and Developing Societies, 28(2), 183-202.

Oates, John. "Ethical Considerations in Psychology Research." Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity (2020): 783.

Plante, Thomas G., and Selena Pistoresi. "A survey of ethics training in undergraduate psychology programs at Jesuit universities." Pastoral Psychology 66, no. 3 (2017): 353-358.

Pope, Kenneth S., and Melba JT Vasquez. Ethics in psychotherapy and counseling: A practical guide. John Wiley & Sons, 2016.

Proctor, Carmel. "Virtue Ethics in Psychotherapy: A Systematic Review of the Literature." International Journal of Existential Positive Psychology 8, no. 1 (2018): 22.

Reckman, Rick. "505-01 Professional Problems and Ethics in Psychology." (2016).

Rist, John M. On Ethics, Politics and Psychology in the Twenty-first Century. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2017.

Otto, Randy K., Alan M. Goldstein, and Kirk Heilbrun. Ethics in forensic psychology practice. John Wiley & Sons, 2017.

Parsonson, Karen L. "Is Teaching International Ethics Codes Important for Psychology Graduate Students?." Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry (2020).

Rini, Regina A. "Morality and cognitive science." (2015).

Sauer, Hanno. "Between Facts and Norms: Ethics and Empirical Moral Psychology." In Moral Psychology, pp. 5-27. Springer, Cham, 2017.

Sauer, Hanno. Debunking arguments in ethics. Cambridge University Press, 2018.

Sauer, Hanno. "It’s the Knobe effect, stupid!." Review of Philosophy and Psychology 5, no. 4 (2014): 485-503.

Sinclair, C. (2012). Ethical principles, values, and codes for psychologists: An historical journey.

Soldz, Stephen, Bradley Olson, and Jean Maria Arrigo. "Interrogating the ethics of operational psychology." Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 27, no. 4 (2017): 273-286.

Sutton, M. (2017). Summary Notes on Nietzsche's Ethics.

Yap, Andy J. "The ergonomics of ethics." (2016).

Yona, Sergio. Epicurean Ethics in Horace: The Psychology of Satire. Oxford University Press, 2018.
********************************************************************

... and so on, and so on, and so on, and so forth!

Have you ever heard the term, "Gish Gallup" there, Philo?

 

[zippy2006]

When one atheist disagrees with another about morality...

My impression is that Alex is wrong, and wronger than Harris. Alex is basically just a hard skeptic who doesn't accept the existence of objectivity and demonstration at all, so for him objective morality is impossible whether it comes from secular or religious sources. Some quotes:

"For something to be objectively true it means that that truth is in no way influenced by human opinion, so if that truth is a human opinion, it can't be objective (5:42)."
​

His theory of the relation between opinion and objective truth is apparently grounded in the premise that humans can never arrive at objective truth (hard skepticism).

"In order to say that because we all experience pain as bad, avoiding pain is good, you have to presume that something can be defined as good or bad simply because we feel that it's good or bad, which is subjective; or you have to just immediately assert that good is simply defined in accordance with the objectively measurable states of our minds, which is the very thing that you're trying to prove, which is circular" (8:38).​

Here we see a weird materialistic dichotomy between objectively measurable mind states and knowledge of abstract truths. Alex's skepticism prevents him from conceiving how anyone could ever arrive at (objective) knowledge of truth, much less abstract truth or good and evil.

"So, of Sam Harris' argument for objective morality, not a modicum of any of the premises can be demonstrated to be objectively true. It's completely grounded in subjectivity and question-begging" (11:26).​

On Alex's system, nothing can be demonstrated to be objectively true. This has little to do with Harris or morality.

Well, the question was "Is Alex right in saying that Sam is wrong about the nature of human morality?"

Sam is indeed mistaken, so Alex is correct in saying so. (His reasoning may or may not be faulty. I wouldn't know. I didn't watch the video.)

Not really. You can arrive at a true conclusion by way of invalid or unsound reasoning. Just because someone arrives at something which is in fact true does not mean that their reasoning process was legitimate.

Does he? [I have not watched the video, but my impression of Harris is that he does not acknowledge this.]

If so, does that mean that there is no conflict, since both people in the video agree than morality has no objective basis?

My guess is that @R.Miller is right. A big part of the problem here is that Alex is using subtle analytic arguments to dismantle tweets! He needs to at least quote Harris' book.

Obeying someone merely because they give you a command or a directive isn't moral at all. After all, that was the excuse used by substantial numbers of defendants at Nurenberg. So I very much disagree with the notion that Christian morality as you articulate it is superior.

Related:

In a previous video where Alex defines morality he says that it must be about more than merely following commands as a robot does (5:05).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Have you ever heard the term, "Gish Gallup" there, Philo?

More than once, especially from you.

However, I don't have a gripe with you in this because the bib --- like any bib that I may put up --- is by no means meant to be taken as the final word: hence, it kind of matters 'how' you read the meaning of "... and so on, and so on, and so on, and so forth!"

So, by all means, if you have a counter-measure bib you'd like to put up, I'm all for it!

 

[Chesterton]

For the record, Sam Harris is a dumbdumb doodyhead.

CF really needs to strengthen its profanity filter.

 

[Ana the Ist]

... I think I already indicated earlier that it has, a little. So, don't make me out like I'm 'behind the times.'

Well...

...yeah, that's always good to know, especially the next time "they" want to do brain surgery on me, ay?

***********************************************************

And now, back to our original programming ...

When are you going to figure out that this thread ISN'T about sociopaths. It's actually about the processes that go into our acts of differentiating moral potential and behavior from immoral potential and behavior, between differentiating between the extremes of utter moral relativism on one hand and sheer absolutism on the other hand, with a consideration to the varying understandings we have of Subjectivity and Objectivity as they play a role in our moral deliberations (whatever those are and would be within the realm of 'doing ethics' and being moral).

Does this make sense? (I think it does ... and it should to you, too!)

You brought up sociopaths....not me.

Clearly they're capable of holding a job and navigating the ethics therein....

Was there some other point you were trying to make that I missed?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Have you ever heard the term, "Gish Gallup" there, Philo?

Hey now....there's Gish Gallups....and then there's listing a bunch of book titles without any links to the actual information therein....and just pretending that they somehow validate a point.

 

[holo]

I think Alex is right, and I think it's a little odd that Harris seems to be arguing (if I've understood him correctly) that any moral value can truly be objective. Sure, we can all agree on where to place action A or consequence B on a moral spectrum, but that of course doesn't make morality objective. I guess our sense of morality is the one sense that seems the most obvious and self-evident to us, but none of us can actually point out this supposed objectivity. I mean even the founding fathers had to phrase it something like "we hold these truths to be self-evident" - and we do, but neither an atheist nor a believer can demonstrate it to be anything like that. Even if moral values ultimately come from God, that only makes them God's subjective values, right? If they somehow exist apart from God's personal will, then God isn't God and there is something even he is subject to. So Christians may be right when they point out that atheist have no objective basis for morality, but neither do they. It invariably boils down to "it's wrong because... it just is."

 

[Caliban]

I think Alex is right, and I think it's a little odd that Harris seems to be arguing (if I've understood him correctly) that any moral value can truly be objective. Sure, we can all agree on where to place action A or consequence B on a moral spectrum, but that of course doesn't make morality objective. I guess our sense of morality is the one sense that seems the most obvious and self-evident to us, but none of us can actually point out this supposed objectivity. I mean even the founding fathers had to phrase it something like "we hold these truths to be self-evident" - and we do, but neither an atheist nor a believer can demonstrate it to be anything like that. Even if moral values ultimately come from God, that only makes them God's subjective values, right? If they somehow exist apart from God's personal will, then God isn't God and there is something even he is subject to. So Christians may be right when they point out that atheist have no objective basis for morality, but neither do they. It invariably boils down to "it's wrong because... it just is."

When I was a Christian, I believe morality came from God, that whatever he did or commanded was right. It is called Divine Command theory. That is how I was able to justify some of the horrible things in the Bible. Most modern Christians don't use Divine Command Theory now as it clearly contradicts modern cultural moral norms.

 

[Chesterton]

Is Alex right in saying that Sam is wrong about the nature of human morality?

I think they're both wrong because they're talking about this thing called "morality" in a modern American-era way. It's very business-like, as a means to an end (some end that not everyone can agree on any more than everyone can agree on best color).

Christians, and even ancient pagans, were concerned with what they called virtue, not morality. Virtue is its own reward.

 

[zippy2006]

I think they're both wrong because they're talking about this thing called "morality" in a modern American-era way. It's very business-like, as a means to an end (some end that not everyone can agree on any more than everyone can agree on best color).

Christians, and even ancient pagans, were concerned with what they called virtue, not morality. Virtue is its own reward.

That might be right. I watched this video and the portion of a previous video that Alex claimed was necessary to understand his argument in this video. I think that in order for him to begin looking at this with more rigor he ought to try to define "good," a word which is central to his definition of morality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hey now....there's Gish Gallups....and then there's listing a bunch of book titles without any links to the actual information therein....and just pretending that they somehow validate a point.

And let me guess: you think your little business article about a few supposed sociopaths in various professions 'means' something objective, something that somehow ....(and in what nihilistic way you've intended for it to be taken I'm sure I'll never know)....establishes some "point" and thereby derails the whole locus of my thread, ay?

C'mon. For once, give us a break, Ana! You're smarter than that, I hope.

 

[public hermit]

On Alex's system, nothing can be demonstrated to be objectively true.

That's right. His argument against objective morality depends on the idea that moral statements, even if universally agreed upon, are simply a matter of intersubjective agreement. But any truth-claim, according to that way of arguing, is a matter of intersubjective agreement. Of course, maybe he has no intention of defending objectivity in any instance. If so, then he's a run-of-the-mill postmodern.

 

[Caliban]

That's right. His argument against objective morality depends on the idea that moral statements, even if universally agreed upon, are simply a matter of intersubjective agreement. But any truth-claim, according to that way of arguing, is a matter of intersubjective agreement. Of course, maybe he has no intention of defending objectivity in any instance. If so, then he's a run-of-the-mill postmodern.

That is not accurate. Truth claims can very verified as true because of the law of non contradiction and the excluded middle.

 

[public hermit]

That is not accurate. Truth claims can very verified as true because of the law of non contradiction and the excluded middle.

Sure, but can those means be used to show objectivity? I'm not sure how that would work, but I'm open to learning. It seems to me I can use those means to verify that unicorns are not rocks, but I'm not sure that would also show objectivity. Nonetheless, if those means could verify objectivity, then I see no reason moral claims couldn't be objectively verified in that way.