I don't think you're interpreting people's original objection very charitably here. They're not asking for a *person* to be the arbiter, they're asking for an underlying mechanism or process. The scientific method is the arbiter of science, not the President of Science. The laws of logic and proofs that adhere to them, rather than a CEO of Math.
So people are asking what your philosophical framework for morality is. They already understand that being a utilitarian or whatever doesn't mean that John Stuart Mill himself is the ultimate arbiter of morality. But in other fields we all do subscribe to some framework of truth or another, even if in the "real subjects" those frameworks seem considerably less arbitrary than when discussing immigration.
> If a subject has an arbiter, that subject is fake.
Which side of the road to drive on in your country is not a natural fact, and is a prime example of the kind of socially-constructed fact that could be determined through an arbiter. However, it seems like a big mistake to call it "fake" or deny that it is, in fact, a clear, objective truth.
(This is the same problem with terminology that Yuval Harari ran into recently.)
There is gradation of steps between morality and law such that the arbiter of the law is sometimes also deciding what would be moral. Such deciding is not purely arbitrary or made up, but emergent from morality.
The same is true in intellectual life cf. Deciderization essay by David Foster Wallace
I don't think you're interpreting people's original objection very charitably here. They're not asking for a *person* to be the arbiter, they're asking for an underlying mechanism or process. The scientific method is the arbiter of science, not the President of Science. The laws of logic and proofs that adhere to them, rather than a CEO of Math.
So people are asking what your philosophical framework for morality is. They already understand that being a utilitarian or whatever doesn't mean that John Stuart Mill himself is the ultimate arbiter of morality. But in other fields we all do subscribe to some framework of truth or another, even if in the "real subjects" those frameworks seem considerably less arbitrary than when discussing immigration.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbiter
arbiter
noun
ar·bi·ter ˈär-bə-tər
Synonyms of arbiter
1
: a person with power to decide a dispute : JUDGE
The mayor will act as the final arbiter in any dispute between board members.
2
: a person or agency whose judgment or opinion is considered authoritative
arbiters of taste
Don't confuse "decisive issue," or question, with arbiter. Then, there's proxy, too.
The arbiter remains YOU (me).
Morality has always had arbiters, mate. Today in the West we've precisely a moral arbitration crisis since Nietzsche.
> If a subject has an arbiter, that subject is fake.
Which side of the road to drive on in your country is not a natural fact, and is a prime example of the kind of socially-constructed fact that could be determined through an arbiter. However, it seems like a big mistake to call it "fake" or deny that it is, in fact, a clear, objective truth.
(This is the same problem with terminology that Yuval Harari ran into recently.)
There is gradation of steps between morality and law such that the arbiter of the law is sometimes also deciding what would be moral. Such deciding is not purely arbitrary or made up, but emergent from morality.
The same is true in intellectual life cf. Deciderization essay by David Foster Wallace