Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:25 am
I have already countered that your 'what is fact' [very conditional] is not relevant for the Moral Framework and System. See my,
Obviously if you insist on sticking to your specific and limited Linguistic Framework and System, there is no way you will accept the existence of moral facts within reality, but that is only because of your bigotry, dogmatism and ignorance.
your objections is only effective to counter Moral Objectivity claimed by theists and platonists. Your counter has no teeth nor bite on moral facts claimed by Moral Empirical Realists who justify their moral facts empirically and philosophically as justified true moral beliefs.
Inference: people don't want to be enslaved; therefore slavery is morally wrong.
What's the connection between those two claims? Why does the second follow from the first? Why does the first entail the second?
I have already explained the above a "1000" times but because you are so dogmatic and bigoted, there is no way the message will get through.
Note the meaning of "wrong"
1. not correct or true; incorrect.; "that is the wrong answer"
2. in an unsuitable or undesirable manner or direction.;
3. an unjust, dishonest, or immoral act.;
misdeed; bad deed; bad act/action; offence; injury; crime; unlawful act; illegal act; violation; infringement; infraction; transgression; peccadillo; sin; injustice; unfairness; unjust act; grievance; outrage; atrocity; malfeasance; tort; trespass; malefaction
act unjustly or dishonestly towards.;
The more relevant meaning of 'wrong' in this case is 'undesirable' and unjust.
- P1. people don't want to be enslaved - a moral issue;
P2. "Don't want" = undesirable = wrong [see dictionary];
C1. therefore slavery is morally wrong.
As I had asserted, 100% of all 'normal' human beings do not want to be enslave.
That itself is inductively true [similar to Science], therefore slavery is wrong.
The above wrongness is supported by the banning and chattel slavery is legally a crime in all sovereign nations.
Morality within its specific Moral FSK
is what humans ought-to or ought-not-to do on a voluntarily basis. This as I have shown is inductively true.
Other than the above which is sufficient, I have other means to justify why slavery is morally.
If people wanted to be enslaved, would that mean slavery is not morally wrong? Is what people do and don't want the criterion for moral rightness and wrongness? If (as I assume) your answer is 'no' - go back to your claim and apply the same test.
Yes, it is a "NO" because it is not supported by evidence at all like ALL 'normal
' humans want to be enslaved by another human.
Do you even have a tiny bit of evidence to support the above thesis??
"what people do and don't want" is not the sole criterion for moral rightness and wrongness.
Rather "what people do and don't want" has to be considered within a constituted Moral Framework and System
with what humans ought-to or ought-not-to do on a voluntarily basis.
Whatever principles and processes within the Moral Framework must be empirically and philosophically justified.
One principle of the Moral FSK is the avoidance of terrible sufferings [physically and psychologically], terrible pains, torture, and the likes which ALL "normal" human beings would want to avoid.
There are many other principles and practices to be considered within the Moral FSK.
You call yourself a moral empirical realist. Moral realism is the claim that there's a moral reality with real moral things in it. And empiricism is the claim that knowledge comes from experience - usually understood to mean something like sense data. So you claim that we can have sensory experience of a moral reality with real moral things in it. And in this experience, language and arguments are irrelevant.
Yours is the burden of proof, unmet so far, to my knowledge. Your claim is as unsupported as the theistic and platonic claims that you so deride. You're as deluded a metaphysician as any other moral realist.
I am not here to convince you and your dogmatic and bigoted stance.
The above posts and discussion are merely opportunity to express my views for my own personal interests in reinforcing my own knowledge of Morality and Ethics.
You can stick to whatever views you are clinging onto.
My point re slavery is not arbitrary but based on observations, i.e. empirical
evidences and personal experience [..I would not want to be enslaved] to an understanding of human nature.
There are loads of empirical-based research concluding on the evil_ness of chattel slavery and other forms of slavery. Suggest you research on them.
You're as deluded a metaphysician as any other moral realist.
Note this survey in the current modern time = not during the flat-earther days;
A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other).
Your stance is only represented by 28% and effectively could be much less than that.
The above is not definite but give us a clue of where your stance is [not credible] and that moral realism has greater support than your stance which is based on some sort of bastardized philosophy.
Btw, so far I have spent 14 months researching full time on Morality and Ethics so I do have some reasonable credibility in supporting my stance of moral empirical realism.