*Why is slavery wrong, B? I can tell you why cuz I'm a moral realist. Can you tell me why as a moral anti-realist?
Is morality objective or subjective?
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
There you have me! I must admit to a few moral tenets. Regarding slavery, it is stupid to argue that some men are not really persons and may be enslaved.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 1:37 am*Why is slavery wrong, B? I can tell you why cuz I'm a moral realist. Can you tell me why as a moral anti-realist?
All men are persons is an objective moral tenet.
-
- Posts: 3732
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Sorry, but it's not. It says nothing about morality, let alone anything morally objective, whatsoever. A moral assertion has to mention moral rightness and/or wrongness in some way or other. Here's another non-moral assertion: all men are humans. (So what?)
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
But 'intelligence' is exactly HOW what is harmful was discovered.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 1:29 am*intelligence, rationality, reason is not enough to suss out what's harmful.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 4:49 pm*Men have the intelligence to know what is harmful per se. **Each man knows there are other men and animals and all. So far I guess you would agree, Henry.
The crunch line is that knowledge of the two above facts give men a lot of power over others and animals and all, and with power comes responsibility.
But, then again, you probably use a VERY DIFFERENT definition for the 'intelligence' word.
But what led to ALL atrocities is NOT 'reasoning' AT ALL but rather "justifying", itself
But a purely 'rational human being' would NEVER view ANY "other human being" as a resource to exploit.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 1:29 am **And the purely rational man has no cause to view other men as anything other than resources to exploit.
With intelligence and conscience NO possible reason could arise to harm "others".henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 1:29 am No, intelligence isn't enough. There must also be conscience.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
WHY is slavery wrong, to 'you', "henry quirk"?henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 1:37 am*Why is slavery wrong, B? I can tell you why cuz I'm a moral realist. Can you tell me why as a moral anti-realist?
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6268
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Fuck it. I am now a moral realist and my real moral principle is that it's wrong in all cases to cause suffering.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 1:37 am*Why is slavery wrong, B? I can tell you why cuz I'm a moral realist. Can you tell me why as a moral anti-realist?
Slavery is wrong in my new moral realist set of principles because it inflicts suffering.
Abortion is not wrong because the zygote doesn't suffer.
Eating animals is wrong because it inflicts suffering.
Now I am a moral realist exactly like you, so you won't argue against my moral realist principles just like before. But every time you eat a bacon sandwich you are commiting a heinous crime you evil bastard.
The difference between moral realism and antirealism seems to be escaping you. Frankly I think it has passed B by as well. The point is that different persons seem to hold disimilar moral beliefs and there is no apparent way to discover who is right and wrong in many matters. That's the actual point, the question of how contentious questions can be satisfactorily resolved.
In those matters where people actually disagree, we can't rustle up experiments to find out who is wrong. We can only make our own case as persuasively as possible. If your moral fact was worth shit, it would answer actual controversial questions, rather than lazily targetting simple shit such as thieving, raping, murdering and enslaving being wrong, things for which you can't find anyone to argue the other side. If you had real, discoverable, moral facts to work with you would be in a position to argue against mistaken moral realists like Vaginal Artifact, but you can't do that so you just team up with them instead.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
All men are persons is an objective moral tenet.
Uh oh, B: Pete disagrees...
Sorry, but it's not. It says nothing about morality, let alone anything morally objective, whatsoever. A moral assertion has to mention moral rightness and/or wrongness in some way or other. Here's another non-moral assertion: all men are humans. (So what?)
Me, I say you're almost there. You gotta get closer to the bone. Try this...
Fact: a man belongs to himself.
...therefore...
Moral fact: it's wrong to use him as property.
Pete, and other anti-realists, disagree, and have all the philo-jargon they need to (not) explain why. And if you ask them why it's wrong to use another man as property, well, their answer boils down to becuz I don't like it. As Pete has said many times morality is just opinion.
Now, he won't talk to me cuz I've been vulgar (and I'm about to be vulgar again), but you, B, are the soul of civility. Ask Pete why it was wrong his dear friend was raped. I say it's becuz she is her own therefore it was, is, factually wrong for a man to treat her as a semen catcher. I promise you, the best Pete, a moral anti-realist, can drum up is becuz I don't like it.
-----
With intelligence and conscience NO possible reason could arise to harm "others".
Almost, age. More accurately: with intelligence and conscience no reason can arise to initiate violence. A successful defense of self/others is both reasonable (intelligent) and moral (conscience-driven).
-----
Fuck it.
Hiya, flash! I see your piles are actin' up just like veg's.
Good.
Uh oh, B: Pete disagrees...
Sorry, but it's not. It says nothing about morality, let alone anything morally objective, whatsoever. A moral assertion has to mention moral rightness and/or wrongness in some way or other. Here's another non-moral assertion: all men are humans. (So what?)
Me, I say you're almost there. You gotta get closer to the bone. Try this...
Fact: a man belongs to himself.
...therefore...
Moral fact: it's wrong to use him as property.
Pete, and other anti-realists, disagree, and have all the philo-jargon they need to (not) explain why. And if you ask them why it's wrong to use another man as property, well, their answer boils down to becuz I don't like it. As Pete has said many times morality is just opinion.
Now, he won't talk to me cuz I've been vulgar (and I'm about to be vulgar again), but you, B, are the soul of civility. Ask Pete why it was wrong his dear friend was raped. I say it's becuz she is her own therefore it was, is, factually wrong for a man to treat her as a semen catcher. I promise you, the best Pete, a moral anti-realist, can drum up is becuz I don't like it.
-----
With intelligence and conscience NO possible reason could arise to harm "others".
Almost, age. More accurately: with intelligence and conscience no reason can arise to initiate violence. A successful defense of self/others is both reasonable (intelligent) and moral (conscience-driven).
-----
Fuck it.
Hiya, flash! I see your piles are actin' up just like veg's.
Good.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
different persons seem to hold disimilar moral beliefs
Not on the core they don't. No man thinks bein' a slave is a fine thing. Even slavers don't wanna be slaves. Every man knows he's his own.
and there is no apparent way to discover who is right and wrong in many matters.
Sure there is: ask people.
In those matters where people actually disagree, we can't rustle up experiments to find out who is wrong.
Sure we can: ask people.
If your moral fact was worth shit, it would answer actual controversial questions,
It does. Test it, here, in this thread. Ask the controversial questions. Let's play this out.
Before we start, understand this: I argue morality is solely about what is impermissible between and among men. I don't take the position that all human action is founded in morality or that all choices ought be undergirded by morality. My choosin' between a walk and a nap ain't a moral question. Neither is my choosing between a salad and a ham sandwich (a pig is not a person...if you disagree, tell me why, convince me porky is a person).
Not on the core they don't. No man thinks bein' a slave is a fine thing. Even slavers don't wanna be slaves. Every man knows he's his own.
and there is no apparent way to discover who is right and wrong in many matters.
Sure there is: ask people.
In those matters where people actually disagree, we can't rustle up experiments to find out who is wrong.
Sure we can: ask people.
If your moral fact was worth shit, it would answer actual controversial questions,
It does. Test it, here, in this thread. Ask the controversial questions. Let's play this out.
Before we start, understand this: I argue morality is solely about what is impermissible between and among men. I don't take the position that all human action is founded in morality or that all choices ought be undergirded by morality. My choosin' between a walk and a nap ain't a moral question. Neither is my choosing between a salad and a ham sandwich (a pig is not a person...if you disagree, tell me why, convince me porky is a person).
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6268
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
I don't need to. I just need to hold as moral fact that causing suffering is wrong (go out in the street and see how many people disagree) and then I extend that courtesy to the pig on the simple grounds that pigs clearly can suffer. If you hold the opinion that morality isn't involved in the decision whether to inflict pain on animals, that's just an opinion you hold.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 2:27 pm Before we start, understand this: I argue morality is solely about what is impermissible between and among men. I don't take the position that all human action is founded in morality or that all choices ought be undergirded by morality. My choosin' between a walk and a nap ain't a moral question. Neither is my choosing between a salad and a ham sandwich (a pig is not a person...if you disagree, tell me why, convince me porky is a person).
To discover that you are wrong, go into the street and torture a pig, you'll soon find out that passers by consider that imoral.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Person implies a certain social status, which human does not. To put it another way, a person is a human with rights and responsibilities ; slaves are humans that are deprived of rights and responsibilities.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 11:25 amSorry, but it's not. It says nothing about morality, let alone anything morally objective, whatsoever. A moral assertion has to mention moral rightness and/or wrongness in some way or other. Here's another non-moral assertion: all men are humans. (So what?)
To be enslaved is to be deprived of personhood.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Pete will say that's all just opinion.Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 4:03 pmPerson implies a certain social status, which human does not. To put it another way, a person is a human with rights and responsibilities ; slaves are humans that are deprived of rights and responsibilities.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 11:25 amSorry, but it's not. It says nothing about morality, let alone anything morally objective, whatsoever. A moral assertion has to mention moral rightness and/or wrongness in some way or other. Here's another non-moral assertion: all men are humans. (So what?)
To be enslaved is to be deprived of personhood.
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6268
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Indeed. You "argued" that morality is solely about what is impermissible between and among men but when it comes down to it, you can't defend that as a statement of any sort of a fact and you even fail your own test of "asking people" unless you are extremely selective about which people to ask (it works I guess if you only ask total bastards).
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
you can't defend that
I can but...
I can but...
- FlashDangerpants
- Posts: 6268
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm
Re: Is morality objective or subjective?
Okeedokie.
Moral fact: Cruelty is wrong. Therefore cruelty to animals is wrong. Therefore Henry is wrong.
Sorted.