Is morality objective or subjective?

[Gary Childress]

jan aborts cuz she doesn't want the baby (she murders)

betty aborts cuz she'll die if she doesn't (she kills)

It seems difficult to argue against that. Although, I would think it should depend upon the stage of development the fetus is in. I mean if it's just a glob of cells that hasn't formed anything like a brain yet, I wouldn't think it should count as murder.

goin' solely by science: I believe what a woman carries is a person from week 12 on

does that help that pin it down?

It seems to me to be very difficult to argue otherwise.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, the problem is you don't understand the functional difference between a description (what is the case) and a prescription (what must or ought to be the case). So you mistake a moral assertion for a factual assertion. It's that simple.

Note I have already explained in this post above;
viewtopic.php?p=464992#p464992
that a statement can be both descriptive and prescriptive in its context, i.e. constitutional.
Read my post again.

It is not that I have mistaken, the issue of statements having both descriptive and prescriptive elements in its context is a issue that is well recognized within moral philosophers and linguists.

[Peter Holmes]

No, the problem is you don't understand the functional difference between a description (what is the case) and a prescription (what must or ought to be the case). So you mistake a moral assertion for a factual assertion. It's that simple.

Note I have already explained in this post above;
viewtopic.php?p=464992#p464992
that a statement can be both descriptive and prescriptive in its context, i.e. constitutional.
Read my post again.

It is not that I have mistaken, the issue of statements having both descriptive and prescriptive elements in its context is a issue that is well recognized within moral philosophers and linguists.

Note: I reject your explanation and have explained why it's mistaken. And the claim that factual assertions have a prescriptive element is false. And the arguments making the claim are easily refuted.

If you disagree, set out your best example here, preferably as a syllogism, and I'll show you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A fact is a truth statement that can be demonstrated with logic or evidence

Morality as in the morality of that particular society at that particular time
So majority consensus based upon the values of a particular belief system if society is religious or secular values if society is non religious
But not morality as a function of society because that is sociology or mans past [ history ] or as biological trait [ evolutionary psychology ]

DNA wise, Morality-proper is an inherent function within all humans, albeit of low activeness in the majority at present. But the inherent moral function is wakening within the average.

Note the analogy of the average intelligence and knowledge-base of humans which was low >10,000 years ago. However note the average intelligence and knowledge-base of the average person at present in contrast to the average 10,000 years ago or even 100 years ago.
It is the same with the moral competence of the average person which is at present slowly unfolding and very evident.

Since the past and the ancients, the features of morality-proper was already expressed intuitively as in the Ancient Greeks, Plato, Aristotle and the religious of the East and Middle-East.

It was only with the works of Anthropologists who studied different tribes and cultures who proposed the existence of moral relativism, i.e. relative to the different tribes and cultures.
For anthropologists, their philosophy is likely to be relatively of kindergarten level, thus they are delving only into the superficial behaviors and thus concluded the existence of moral relativism which is very obvious.
But these anthropologists are not interested, more like ignorant, of the inherent nature of humans, of which one of the inherent function is morality-proper. It is not within their job function to trace the issues to the proximate roots of the issues.

As with the principle of "unity within diversity" one can infer there are generic moral principles [facts] within the diversity of moral practices. The obvious generic standards are 'no killing,' incest, lying, cheating, adultery, etc. which are expressed in different forms in accordance to the different respective conditions of the tribes and societies.

To understand morality-proper the focus should be on the moral principles [facts] that are generic to all humans as discovered via the neurosciences, neuro-psychology, evolutionary psychology, social biology [analogically and comparatively] etc.

True,that morality is inherent is evident from visible stages of moral development in children. Children will not develop morally unless inherent ability is nurtured within a culture.

There are no "obvious generic standards". There is primary sourced evidence of incest as normalised behaviour among members of poorly housed families . Adultery is also normalised as are killing and cheating.You only have to read decent newspapers to see the evidence.

The 'obvious generic standards' I mentioned above are very glaringly regarded as immoral in any reasonable sized groups or societies.

Where incest happened within a family it is very hidden and I don't think it is acceptable to all the family members or the victims. As such we cannot use the term 'normalized' in this case, it is more rightly a 'perversion' of human norms.

Generic human standards are not carved in stones thus there are exceptional circumstances that variations are justified whilst the standard still overrides ultimately.
If the members of tribe in the most remote jungle is reduced to a minimal, incest [given the risks] may be necessary but it will not be a norm.

It is the same with the other 'obvious generic standards' I mentioned where justified variations are acceptable but always subject to and overridden by the standards/maxims.

This is why humanity need to establish an effective Moral Framework and System [in the future, not possible immediately] to facilitate all humans spontaneously act in alignment with those generic standards as close as possible, thus maintaining peace, harmony, minimal sufferings & stress, etc.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, the problem is you don't understand the functional difference between a description (what is the case) and a prescription (what must or ought to be the case). So you mistake a moral assertion for a factual assertion. It's that simple.

Note I have already explained in this post above;
viewtopic.php?p=464992#p464992
that a statement can be both descriptive and prescriptive in its context, i.e. constitutional.
Read my post again.

It is not that I have mistaken, the issue of statements having both descriptive and prescriptive elements in its context is a issue that is well recognized within moral philosophers and linguists.

Note: I reject your explanation and have explained why it's mistaken. And the claim that factual assertions have a prescriptive element is false. And the arguments making the claim are easily refuted.

Produce your refutations - justified ones, not your merely noises.

[Peter Holmes]

Note I have already explained in this post above;
viewtopic.php?p=464992#p464992
that a statement can be both descriptive and prescriptive in its context, i.e. constitutional.
Read my post again.

It is not that I have mistaken, the issue of statements having both descriptive and prescriptive elements in its context is a issue that is well recognized within moral philosophers and linguists.

Note: I reject your explanation and have explained why it's mistaken. And the claim that factual assertions have a prescriptive element is false. And the arguments making the claim are easily refuted.

Produce your refutations - justified ones, not your merely noises.

I and others have been refuting your argument consistently for ages. Produce your best example of an argument that demonstrates a fact entailing a moral assertion - a 'prescriptive element' in a factual assertion - and I'll show you why it's unsound. Again.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note: I reject your explanation and have explained why it's mistaken. And the claim that factual assertions have a prescriptive element is false. And the arguments making the claim are easily refuted.

Produce your refutations - justified ones, not your merely noises.

I and others have been refuting your argument consistently for ages. Produce your best example of an argument that demonstrates a fact entailing a moral assertion - a 'prescriptive element' in a factual assertion - and I'll show you why it's unsound. Again.

Others?? and their flimsy superficial arguments?

I have already referred you to the points, i.e.
viewtopic.php?p=464992#p464992

Try refuting Searle's argument for a start;
How to Derive "Ought" From "Is" J. Searle

then look at the other arguments I presented in the other link, i.e.

• Do Unconditional Facts Exist
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29914
  
  Speech Acts' Relevant to 'Is-Ought' Problem.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29868
  
  Brute Facts versus Constitutional Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29864
  
  Thick Ethical Concepts Posed a Challenge to 'No Ought From Is'
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29794
  
  Hillary Putnam: Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29759
  

[Peter Holmes]

Produce your refutations - justified ones, not your merely noises.

I and others have been refuting your argument consistently for ages. Produce your best example of an argument that demonstrates a fact entailing a moral assertion - a 'prescriptive element' in a factual assertion - and I'll show you why it's unsound. Again.

Others?? and their flimsy superficial arguments?

I have already refer you to the points, i.e.
viewtopic.php?p=464992#p464992

Try refuting Searle's argument for a start;
How to Derive "Ought" From "Is" J. Searle

then look at the other arguments I presented in the other link, i.e.

• Do Unconditional Facts Exist
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29914
  
  Speech Acts' Relevant to 'Is-Ought' Problem.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29868
  
  Brute Facts versus Constitutional Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29864
  
  Thick Ethical Concepts Posed a Challenge to 'No Ought From Is'
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29794
  
  Hillary Putnam: Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29759
  

No good. If you think Searle and Putnam's arguments are sound, then by all means set out their best examples demonstrating them - if you can't rustle up your own example. And I'll show you why their examples are unsound. Again.

Where's your self-procalimed intellectual integrity? 'These philosophers make these arguments that convince me; therefore I'm right.'

[Veritas Aequitas]

I and others have been refuting your argument consistently for ages. Produce your best example of an argument that demonstrates a fact entailing a moral assertion - a 'prescriptive element' in a factual assertion - and I'll show you why it's unsound. Again.

Others?? and their flimsy superficial arguments?

I have already refer you to the points, i.e.
viewtopic.php?p=464992#p464992

Try refuting Searle's argument for a start;
How to Derive "Ought" From "Is" J. Searle

then look at the other arguments I presented in the other link, i.e.

• Do Unconditional Facts Exist
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29914
  
  Speech Acts' Relevant to 'Is-Ought' Problem.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29868
  
  Brute Facts versus Constitutional Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29864
  
  Thick Ethical Concepts Posed a Challenge to 'No Ought From Is'
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29794
  
  Hillary Putnam: Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29759
  

No good. If you think Searle and Putnam's arguments are sound, then by all means set out their best examples demonstrating them - if you can't rustle up your own example. And I'll show you why their examples are unsound. Again.

Where's your self-procalimed intellectual integrity? 'These philosophers make these arguments that convince me; therefore I'm right.'

Personally I have already given my own justifications why moral facts are moral facts.

Intellectual Integrity??
In such a philosophical situation, the onus is on you to read up the arguments at least by the notable philosophers - of course not every tom, dick and harry's views.
I understand this is quite a task, thus I have already given reasonable presentation of their argument.
Instead of 18 pages of Searle's argument, I have presented only 3 relevant pages to make it easier for you.

If you make any reference to any notable philosopher to support your point, I will definitely read the book or books from page 1 to the end or the relevant chapters as many times as necessary.

Since the IS-OUGHT is one of the supporting point used by the likes of yourself to support you point, I have been reading Hume's Treatise since and is going through all the relevant sections line by line.

Hume's is-ought problem do not effectively support your thesis.
The other is you have to fall back on is the ideology of the logical positivists [you cannot deny this] and those of analytic philosophy which is very limited. Putnam had argued on this point and presented a historical basis of it. [will get to this later].

[Peter Holmes]

Others?? and their flimsy superficial arguments?

I have already refer you to the points, i.e.
viewtopic.php?p=464992#p464992

Try refuting Searle's argument for a start;
How to Derive "Ought" From "Is" J. Searle

then look at the other arguments I presented in the other link, i.e.

• Do Unconditional Facts Exist
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29914
  
  Speech Acts' Relevant to 'Is-Ought' Problem.
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29868
  
  Brute Facts versus Constitutional Facts
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29864
  
  Thick Ethical Concepts Posed a Challenge to 'No Ought From Is'
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29794
  
  Hillary Putnam: Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29759
  

No good. If you think Searle and Putnam's arguments are sound, then by all means set out their best examples demonstrating them - if you can't rustle up your own example. And I'll show you why their examples are unsound. Again.

Where's your self-procalimed intellectual integrity? 'These philosophers make these arguments that convince me; therefore I'm right.'

Personally I have already given my own justifications why moral facts are moral facts.

Intellectual Integrity??
In such a philosophical situation, the onus is on you to read up the arguments at least by the notable philosophers - of course not every tom, dick and harry's views.
I understand this is quite a task, thus I have already given reasonable presentation of their argument.
Instead of 18 pages of Searle's argument, I have presented only 3 relevant pages to make it easier for you.

If you make any reference to any notable philosopher to support your point, I will definitely read the book or books from page 1 to the end or the relevant chapters as many times as necessary.

Since the IS-OUGHT is one of the supporting point used by the likes of yourself to support you point, I have been reading Hume's Treatise since and is going through all the relevant sections line by line.

Hume's is-ought problem do not effectively support your thesis.
The other is you have to fall back on is the ideology of the logical positivists [you cannot deny this] and those of analytic philosophy which is very limited. Putnam had argued on this point and presented a historical basis of it. [will get to this later].

This is all deflection. Produce a valid and sound argument for a moral conclusion from a factual premise or premises. And you can't use 'there are moral facts' as a premise, for obvious reasons. Spend a long time thinking about and formulating it - because you don't want to embarrass yourself yet again. Or waste everyone's time. Again.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No good. If you think Searle and Putnam's arguments are sound, then by all means set out their best examples demonstrating them - if you can't rustle up your own example. And I'll show you why their examples are unsound. Again.

Where's your self-procalimed intellectual integrity? 'These philosophers make these arguments that convince me; therefore I'm right.'

Personally I have already given my own justifications why moral facts are moral facts.

Intellectual Integrity??
In such a philosophical situation, the onus is on you to read up the arguments at least by the notable philosophers - of course not every tom, dick and harry's views.
I understand this is quite a task, thus I have already given reasonable presentation of their argument.
Instead of 18 pages of Searle's argument, I have presented only 3 relevant pages to make it easier for you.

If you make any reference to any notable philosopher to support your point, I will definitely read the book or books from page 1 to the end or the relevant chapters as many times as necessary.

Since the IS-OUGHT is one of the supporting point used by the likes of yourself to support you point, I have been reading Hume's Treatise since and is going through all the relevant sections line by line.

Hume's is-ought problem do not effectively support your thesis.
The other is you have to fall back on is the ideology of the logical positivists [you cannot deny this] and those of analytic philosophy which is very limited. Putnam had argued on this point and presented a historical basis of it. [will get to this later].

This is all deflection. Produce a valid and sound argument for a moral conclusion from a factual premise or premises. And you can't use 'there are moral facts' as a premise, for obvious reasons. Spend a long time thinking about and formulating it - because you don't want to embarrass yourself yet again. Or waste everyone's time. Again.

I have provided all the necessary justification in the above, it is because you are too 'thick' to understand the point.
Again you are still insistence on your own definition of what is fact and factual which is ultimately fatuous and farts.

It is well understood a statement of fact that is descriptive-alone cannot follow to a conclusion of prescription.

But as I had argued above,
there are statement of facts that have both descriptive and prescription elements, i.e. those of thick concepts, constitutional facts and speech acts, thus,

• P1 Statements of thick concepts, constitutional facts and speech acts, have both descriptive and prescription elements.
  P2 Statement A is a speech act within a Moral FSK
  C1 Statement A is prescriptive [as constituted] within a Moral FSK.
  
  P3 All FSK produce facts.
  P4 Statement A is prescriptive [as constituted] within a Moral FSK. [C1]
  C2 Statement A is a moral fact.

[Belinda]

DNA wise, Morality-proper is an inherent function within all humans, albeit of low activeness in the majority at present. But the inherent moral function is wakening within the average.

Note the analogy of the average intelligence and knowledge-base of humans which was low >10,000 years ago. However note the average intelligence and knowledge-base of the average person at present in contrast to the average 10,000 years ago or even 100 years ago.
It is the same with the moral competence of the average person which is at present slowly unfolding and very evident.

Since the past and the ancients, the features of morality-proper was already expressed intuitively as in the Ancient Greeks, Plato, Aristotle and the religious of the East and Middle-East.

It was only with the works of Anthropologists who studied different tribes and cultures who proposed the existence of moral relativism, i.e. relative to the different tribes and cultures.
For anthropologists, their philosophy is likely to be relatively of kindergarten level, thus they are delving only into the superficial behaviors and thus concluded the existence of moral relativism which is very obvious.
But these anthropologists are not interested, more like ignorant, of the inherent nature of humans, of which one of the inherent function is morality-proper. It is not within their job function to trace the issues to the proximate roots of the issues.

As with the principle of "unity within diversity" one can infer there are generic moral principles [facts] within the diversity of moral practices. The obvious generic standards are 'no killing,' incest, lying, cheating, adultery, etc. which are expressed in different forms in accordance to the different respective conditions of the tribes and societies.

To understand morality-proper the focus should be on the moral principles [facts] that are generic to all humans as discovered via the neurosciences, neuro-psychology, evolutionary psychology, social biology [analogically and comparatively] etc.

True,that morality is inherent is evident from visible stages of moral development in children. Children will not develop morally unless inherent ability is nurtured within a culture.

There are no "obvious generic standards". There is primary sourced evidence of incest as normalised behaviour among members of poorly housed families . Adultery is also normalised as are killing and cheating.You only have to read decent newspapers to see the evidence.

The 'obvious generic standards' I mentioned above are very glaringly regarded as immoral in any reasonable sized groups or societies.

Where incest happened within a family it is very hidden and I don't think it is acceptable to all the family members or the victims. As such we cannot use the term 'normalized' in this case, it is more rightly a 'perversion' of human norms.

Generic human standards are not carved in stones thus there are exceptional circumstances that variations are justified whilst the standard still overrides ultimately.
If the members of tribe in the most remote jungle is reduced to a minimal, incest [given the risks] may be necessary but it will not be a norm.

It is the same with the other 'obvious generic standards' I mentioned where justified variations are acceptable but always subject to and overridden by the standards/maxims.

This is why humanity need to establish an effective Moral Framework and System [in the future, not possible immediately] to facilitate all humans spontaneously act in alignment with those generic standards as close as possible, thus maintaining peace, harmony, minimal sufferings & stress, etc.

I think of slum dwellers as people too. If a pubescent boy shares a bed with his older sister, do you not think he would have been into her several times? True, the caring priest in charge of a slum district would have told him he was risking his immortal soul, and incest would have been an everyday problem for the priest to deal with. If we have a deeply divided society with slum dwellers whose work makes them as badly off as slaves in the American cotton plantations we have a nation divided into two societies, two nations, two cultures. The poor are one nation with one culture and the middle classes are another nation wit another culture. So far history has seldom been written by slaves and slum dwellers. There is evidence, in the form of first person disinterested testimony, for incest among the very poor who are inadequately housed.These circumstances were not exceptional but at times and places were the rule. And there are still very poor people whose housing is inadequate so they are crammed together and have to share beds. It is a simple thing to understand, a simple cause and effect.

Who knows "the inherent nature of humans" ? Not the greatest minds past or present can fathom inherent human nature beyond the most obvious like what Shakespeare called a "poor bare forked animal" (King Lear).

You may argue, VA, that slavery and cruel exploitation of free workers is wrong, as would I. However we need to produce our criterion for our claim.

My criterion is human freedom is a universal human right.

A corollary of that is to oppress others so much they have no choice but to work themselves to death for starvation wages is immoral.

[Peter Holmes]

Personally I have already given my own justifications why moral facts are moral facts.

Intellectual Integrity??
In such a philosophical situation, the onus is on you to read up the arguments at least by the notable philosophers - of course not every tom, dick and harry's views.
I understand this is quite a task, thus I have already given reasonable presentation of their argument.
Instead of 18 pages of Searle's argument, I have presented only 3 relevant pages to make it easier for you.

If you make any reference to any notable philosopher to support your point, I will definitely read the book or books from page 1 to the end or the relevant chapters as many times as necessary.

Since the IS-OUGHT is one of the supporting point used by the likes of yourself to support you point, I have been reading Hume's Treatise since and is going through all the relevant sections line by line.

Hume's is-ought problem do not effectively support your thesis.
The other is you have to fall back on is the ideology of the logical positivists [you cannot deny this] and those of analytic philosophy which is very limited. Putnam had argued on this point and presented a historical basis of it. [will get to this later].

This is all deflection. Produce a valid and sound argument for a moral conclusion from a factual premise or premises. And you can't use 'there are moral facts' as a premise, for obvious reasons. Spend a long time thinking about and formulating it - because you don't want to embarrass yourself yet again. Or waste everyone's time. Again.

I have provided all the necessary justification in the above, it is because you are too 'thick' to understand the point.
Again you are still insistence on your own definition of what is fact and factual which is ultimately fatuous and farts.

It is well understood a statement of fact that is descriptive-alone cannot follow to a conclusion of prescription.

But as I had argued above,
there are statement of facts that have both descriptive and prescription elements, i.e. those of thick concepts, constitutional facts and speech acts, thus,

• P1 Statements of thick concepts, constitutional facts and speech acts, have both descriptive and prescription elements.
  P2 Statement A is a speech act within a Moral FSK
  C1 Statement A is prescriptive [as constituted] within a Moral FSK.
  
  P3 All FSK produce facts.
  P4 Statement A is prescriptive [as constituted] within a Moral FSK. [C1]
  C2 Statement A is a moral fact.

1 This argument assumes morality constitutes an FSK - a system or framework that can produce knowledge - that moral rightness and wrongness are epistemological matters - which begs the question. So this argument is unsound.

2 Concepts are metaphysical fictions, so talk of thick and thin concepts is mired in mentalist delusion. What and where are abstract things, and in what way do they exist?

3 Produce an example of each kind of factual assertion - thick concept, constitutional and speech act - that logically entails a moral conclusion. And I'll show you why it doesn't. I defy you to produce the goods. Stop defelcting.

[Skepdick]

2 Concepts are metaphysical fictions, so talk of thick and thin concepts is mired in mentalist delusion. What and where are abstract things, and in what way do they exist?

Logic is metaphysics. So you keep rejecting metaphysics, but then you insist on a metaphysical argument.

There is just no pleasing you!

[Veritas Aequitas]

True,that morality is inherent is evident from visible stages of moral development in children. Children will not develop morally unless inherent ability is nurtured within a culture.

There are no "obvious generic standards". There is primary sourced evidence of incest as normalised behaviour among members of poorly housed families . Adultery is also normalised as are killing and cheating.You only have to read decent newspapers to see the evidence.

The 'obvious generic standards' I mentioned above are very glaringly regarded as immoral in any reasonable sized groups or societies.

Where incest happened within a family it is very hidden and I don't think it is acceptable to all the family members or the victims. As such we cannot use the term 'normalized' in this case, it is more rightly a 'perversion' of human norms.

Generic human standards are not carved in stones thus there are exceptional circumstances that variations are justified whilst the standard still overrides ultimately.
If the members of tribe in the most remote jungle is reduced to a minimal, incest [given the risks] may be necessary but it will not be a norm.

It is the same with the other 'obvious generic standards' I mentioned where justified variations are acceptable but always subject to and overridden by the standards/maxims.

This is why humanity need to establish an effective Moral Framework and System [in the future, not possible immediately] to facilitate all humans spontaneously act in alignment with those generic standards as close as possible, thus maintaining peace, harmony, minimal sufferings & stress, etc.

I think of slum dwellers as people too. If a pubescent boy shares a bed with his older sister, do you not think he would have been into her several times? True, the caring priest in charge of a slum district would have told him he was risking his immortal soul, and incest would have been an everyday problem for the priest to deal with. If we have a deeply divided society with slum dwellers whose work makes them as badly off as slaves in the American cotton plantations we have a nation divided into two societies, two nations, two cultures. The poor are one nation with one culture and the middle classes are another nation wit another culture. So far history has seldom been written by slaves and slum dwellers. There is evidence, in the form of first person disinterested testimony, for incest among the very poor who are inadequately housed.These circumstances were not exceptional but at times and places were the rule. And there are still very poor people whose housing is inadequate so they are crammed together and have to share beds. It is a simple thing to understand, a simple cause and effect.

There are a lot of research going with "inbreeding avoidance" which a natural instinct within humans and many other animals, even in plants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_avoidance

Research has shown siblings who live together from childhood has an active instinct to avoid incest. This is why incest happened are common when siblings [& parent-child] are reunited after long separations.

However as with human beings, there are a percentage of outliers who are the exceptions and they don't happen in slums but can be anywhere even in the most elites of societies.

Who knows "the inherent nature of humans" ? Not the greatest minds past or present can fathom inherent human nature beyond the most obvious like what Shakespeare called a "poor bare forked animal" (King Lear).

That was Shakespear's time, a few hundreds years ago.
But not in 2020 when we are already on a trend of an exponential expansion of knowledge towards the future. Note the advances of the Human Genome Project, the Human Connectome Project and others where I am optimistic we will soon know more and more of human nature.

You may argue, VA, that slavery and cruel exploitation of free workers is wrong, as would I. However we need to produce our criterion for our claim.

My criterion is human freedom is a universal human right.

A corollary of that is to oppress others so much they have no choice but to work themselves to death for starvation wages is immoral.

Didn't you notice in all the posts here where I have provided arguments and justifications from a wide range of evidence on why Slavery is wrong?