I think my belief that women should control their own bodies and fertitlity is universally applicable - through time and space. That's the nature of moral beliefs. And, I'm glad to say, increasing numbers of people worldwide share that belief - though not enough yet, because the subjugation of women is still widely practised.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:21 amPH: And under my regime,Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:43 amAnd under my regime, respect for liberty would include women's control over their bodies and fertility. And respect for property would include ending the theft of surplus value from workers by capitalists. Unequal outcomes mean unequal opportunities in life, liberty and the acquisition of property.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:09 am I assume you think...your regime would be beneficent.
My regime...that's funny...you made a funny...
Yep, my regime would be beneficent for those who respect individual life, liberty, and property...not so much for those who don't.
Who will give the F... to YOUR 'moral' maxims when it is so personal and subjective to only yourself.
At least with Henry's moral realism, there is some semblance of universality among moral realists thus objective, albeit ultimately intersubjective co-shared truth of moral reality.
You do understand the bandwagon fallacy, I assume. And I assume you understand that 'some semblance of universality of opinion' isn't a condition, let alone a sufficient condition, for what we call objectivity - independence from opinion with regard to the facts.