Well, you have put it in video now, but you're still wrong.
The line you draw in your example is not objective. To make science from that, you should be able to order the whole humanity in this well being scale. But that scale is not objective. Common sense is not science !!
For example, I might think that prostitution would remove my dignity, but a 100/hour prostitute may think that she's better positioned than me, coding for 6/hour.
Can you order by "well being" all the people on earth as you can do by say height? No.
Then well being is not objective, period. With written arguments or videos.
I'm really sorry you are still stuck in your reasoning, and you can't see past what you already think you know.
As I explained in the video, and everybody seems to get it beside you, even though some things might still be blurry and undecided, there
are things that we
know are objectively better than others.
Putting up a philosophical argument about moral relativism just degrades the discussion into nothing, because your line of reasoning is this:
if you don't
know everything, then you can't talk about anything!That's bullshit, and you know it. You just want to say you are right, even though you know you are not. I understand that, everybody has an ego problem. If you didn't see the argument as "against you", but you were just an external observer, you would recognise the fact the the reasoning is correct.
Notice that the fact that the concept of health is open, genuinely open for revision does not make it vacuous. The distinction between a healthy person and a dead one is about as clear and consequential as any we make in science. Another thing to notice is that there may be many peaks on the moral landscape: There may be equivalent ways to thrive; there may be equivalent ways to organize a human society so as to maximize human flourishing.
Now, why wouldn't this undermine an objective morality? Well think of how we talk about food: I would never be tempted to argue to you that there must be one right food to eat. There is clearly a range of materials that constitute healthy food. But there is nevertheless a clear distinction between food and poison. The fact that there are many right answers to the question, "What is food?" does not tempt us to say that there are no truths to be known about human nutrition. Many people worry that that a universal morality would require moral precepts that admit of no exceptions.
What you are saying is: "
Everything is subjective, being dead or alive is the same! You can't say that being raped, beaten to death is worse and have a nice and nurturing upbringing, it's all subjective!"
Please, stop this nonsense.