sameness = possessing same qualities
equality = valued/treated equally
Well, I can't speak for others, but I'm not assuming this category error, Qman. I'm just pointing out that
*in the case of those who think value-equality is naturalistically discernable,* they would have to be able to name the natural property to which that "equality" attaches. And so far, no one has any plausible suggestions on that.
Henry's obviously a genius, for casually enjoying the freedoms that communitarian action brought about. Freedoms so easily lost by people with his selfish attitude. Freedoms that have to be defended and fought for with each new generation, ,as each. like Henry has a tendency to take these freedoms for granted.
I confess that I find that this is unnecessarily sarcastic, and more than a little
ad hominem (read "illogical"). We don't know that Henry is selfish or a parasite on others achievements, or that he takes anything for granted. His position is rational, and deserves rational refutation.
As for its historical claim that "freedoms" were brought about by "communitarian action," there's nothing to them. That's not how basic freedoms or the concept of value-equality of persons appeared. They weren't some sort of benign consensus achieved by the natural evolution of communities. That's mythology, pure and simple.
Moral claims are not true or false. They do not submit to "refutation".
This is only true if moral claims cannot be objective. That is a disputed matter, not clear sailing for your ensuing claim. And you should ask yourself this: if moral claims are "not true or false," and "do not submit to refutation," then how can they be either rational or binding, and how then how justified can you be in being perturbed that Henry doesn't regard them as binding him?
Henry is wrong because people have managed to achieve freedoms, that were his philosophy to be dominant they would loose over night.
I predict Henry will say something like, "So?" but I'll let him speak for himself. So long as he has the freedoms he values, what reasons would compel him to worry? You need to prove to him he has a duty to care about the loss of other people's freedoms. So far you haven't given him any reason to think so.
It's just a choice.
If it's just a choice, then why are you annoyed at Henry? He made a "choice." Don't you like "choice"?
I'm still waiting for that answer to how we get the value-equality of persons.