Does this mean that whether this is

Does this mean that whether this is an act of procreation, an instance of friendship, or a house is a matter simply of individual perception or preference? Of course not. The fact is that things (institutions, relationships, actions, even buildings) can be man-made but nonetheless objective. There can be truth and falsehood even in artificially created or man-made phenomena.
Given these considerations, I shall argue that what morality is, what is meant by the word ‘morality’, is less in doubt, less contentious, than is generally recognized. It is indeed, in a sense, a human construct or man-made thing, no more simply ‘given in nature’ than marriage, friendship, football, or art. But the questions that really need our attention are precisely what it means to say that such disparate things as football, marriage, and art are human constructs, whether they are all man-made in the same sense or in the same way, whether, to what extent, and in what way they might also be said to be given in nature or natural, and what the implications are of acknowledging in each case that they are to this or that extent variously either human constructs or given in nature. After all, man cannot make anything: he cannot make square circles, he cannot double the number of degrees in a triangle, he cannot make something black and white all over. Conversely, he can build theories that are coherent or incoherent, clear or obscure, complete or incomplete, and that do or do not conflict with facts about the world (including other well-grounded beliefs). The fact that we recognize that in some sense we create morality ourselves does not mean that what we designate as moral becomes arbitrary. At the very least, we should be looking for a clear, complete, consistent, and coherent theory of morality that is compatible with our other knowledge and beliefs.
Take, for example, a library that needs to classify its books. Now there are hundreds of ways that a library might classify its books, including by colour, by height, by weight, by size, by length, by type of jacket design, by librarians’ preference, by subject matter, and so on. But only some of these approaches even begin to make sense in relation to the purpose of the library, which is to store books in a way that maximizes ease of retrieval or, more generally, use.
Given that people read books for their subject matter, we are immediately led to reject colour, size, and a librarian’s personal preferences, for example. Some form of genre categorization is called for because it is a fact (not an opinion or a preference) that fiction, biography, poetry, history, and essays can be distinguished. This is not to say that it was written in heaven that they must be, but nonetheless the distinctions are not arbitrary; they are given in the sense that we cannot wish them away or deny them, despite the true observation that they wouldn’t in some sense be there or have been formulated if there were no humans, and despite the fact that a particular group of humans might fail to make them. But the fact that some particular tribe does not distinguish between poetry and fiction (as in a sense the Homeric Greeks or Chaucerian England did not) doesn’t stop the distinction being there to be made. It may be conceded that one can argue about where biography ends and fiction begins, about whether this particular library needs or does not need a particular distinction to be utilized (perhaps the clientele here simply don’t mind what they are reading), about whether other categories are not equally or more important (sociology distinguished from history, perhaps; gay literature; ethnic literature). All this is true and takes a bit of time to say, so may look like a lot of objections. But there is no valid objection. The point is that given who we are and what a library is for, only a certain number (in fact relatively few) alternative systems make sense.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Apakah ini berarti bahwa apakah ini adalah suatu tindakan prokreasi, instance dari persahabatan, atau sebuah rumah adalah hanya masalah persepsi individu atau preferensi? Tentu saja tidak. Kenyataannya adalah bahwa hal-hal (lembaga, hubungan, tindakan, bahkan bangunan) dapat buatan manusia tetapi tetap objektif. Ada kebenaran dan kepalsuan bahkan dalam fenomena artifisial diciptakan atau buatan manusia.Mengingat pertimbangan-pertimbangan ini, saya akan berpendapat bahwa moralitas apa adalah, apa yang dimaksud dengan kata 'moralitas', adalah kurang ragu-ragu, kurang perdebatan, umumnya diakui. Memang, dalam arti, manusia membangun, atau buatan manusia hal, tidak lain hanyalah 'diberikan dalam alam' daripada perkawinan, persahabatan, sepak bola, atau seni. Tetapi pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang benar-benar membutuhkan perhatian kita justru apa artinya untuk mengatakan bahwa hal-hal yang berbeda seperti sepak bola, perkawinan, dan seni adalah konstruksi manusia, apakah mereka semua buatan manusia dalam pengertian yang sama atau dengan cara yang sama, apakah, sejauh, dan dengan cara apa mereka bisa juga dikatakan diberikan di alam atau alam, dan apa implikasi yang mengakui dalam setiap kasus bahwa mereka adalah sejauh ini atau itu berbagai konstruksi baik manusia atau diberikan di alam. Setelah semua, manusia tidak dapat membuat apa-apa: ia tidak dapat membuat lingkaran persegi, dia tidak bisa ganda jumlah gelar dalam sebuah segitiga, dia tidak bisa membuat sesuatu yang hitam dan putih seluruh. Sebaliknya, ia dapat membangun teori-teori yang koheren atau tidak koheren, jelas atau tidak jelas, lengkap atau tidak lengkap, dan yang melakukan atau bertentangan dengan fakta-fakta tentang dunia (termasuk keyakinan beralasan lainnya). Fakta bahwa kita mengenali bahwa dalam beberapa pengertian kita menciptakan moralitas diri kita tidak berarti bahwa apa yang kita menetapkan sebagai moral menjadi sewenang-wenang. Sekurang-kurangnya, kita harus mencari sebuah teori yang jelas, lengkap, konsisten dan koheren moralitas yang kompatibel dengan kita pengetahuan dan keyakinan.Ambil, misalnya, sebuah perpustakaan yang perlu mengklasifikasikan buku. Sekarang ada ratusan cara bahwa perpustakaan mungkin mengklasifikasikan nya buku, termasuk oleh warna, oleh tinggi, berat, berdasarkan ukuran, dengan panjang, oleh jenis desain jaket, oleh pustakawan preferensi, dengan subject matter, dan sebagainya. Tapi hanya beberapa pendekatan ini bahkan mulai masuk akal dalam kaitannya dengan tujuan dari Perpustakaan, yang adalah untuk menyimpan buku-buku dengan cara yang memaksimalkan kemudahan pengambilan atau, lebih umum, gunakan. Given that people read books for their subject matter, we are immediately led to reject colour, size, and a librarian’s personal preferences, for example. Some form of genre categorization is called for because it is a fact (not an opinion or a preference) that fiction, biography, poetry, history, and essays can be distinguished. This is not to say that it was written in heaven that they must be, but nonetheless the distinctions are not arbitrary; they are given in the sense that we cannot wish them away or deny them, despite the true observation that they wouldn’t in some sense be there or have been formulated if there were no humans, and despite the fact that a particular group of humans might fail to make them. But the fact that some particular tribe does not distinguish between poetry and fiction (as in a sense the Homeric Greeks or Chaucerian England did not) doesn’t stop the distinction being there to be made. It may be conceded that one can argue about where biography ends and fiction begins, about whether this particular library needs or does not need a particular distinction to be utilized (perhaps the clientele here simply don’t mind what they are reading), about whether other categories are not equally or more important (sociology distinguished from history, perhaps; gay literature; ethnic literature). All this is true and takes a bit of time to say, so may look like a lot of objections. But there is no valid objection. The point is that given who we are and what a library is for, only a certain number (in fact relatively few) alternative systems make sense.