What could make morality objective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 2:46 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 1:29 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 11:54 am
Pete in that quote is basically a democrat, presenting a rosy view of a future in which everyone participates in some moral improvement project. You criticise him for not being in charge of it, not being the captain of as ship. You completely miss his somewhat flowery point. You do this moral fact thing only because you want to hand out orders for the rest of humanity. Pete and others recognise that moral change comes through persuasion not your brand of dictatorial domination.
Thanks, Flash. Sort of. Rosy and flowery? If we want equal well-being for everyone - and I think we should - we have to overcome the things that get in the way - including the supposed need for economic inequality - which is just capitalist ideology at work: there must be richer and poorer people, and we all get what we deserve in life. Which is patent bollocks.

I think all the other shit we're indoctrinated with - religion, sexism, nationalism and racism - is designed to divide and rule us, so that the rich and powerful can keep their wealth and power. Conservatism is, roughly, wanting to keep things as they are. So if things are unjust and unequal - which they are - conservatives want to maintain injustice and inequality. And that's immoral. And I think we need to call it out.

I'm not rosy about it. But yes, it's about real democracy - not the sham that keeps things as they are - and persuasion.
Hahah, sorry I did that mostly for my own amusement, but also to keep in mind a major theme that VA and Henry are always desperate to avoid. You and I don't see these things as matters of fact, so we can disagree over something quite significant while still broadly sharing similar opinions. I think capitalist markets are the best available tool to achieve the end of poverty at a global level, you have a very different take. We can both make a rational, argued case for our positions, maybe agreeing in the end on some blend, but probably never seeing eye to eye. But I can't make it a FACT that I am right, therefore I don't have to engage in shameful bullshit to avoid saying openly that if it is a fact that I am right, then it is also a fact that you are wrong.

So we don't have to resort to eliminative reductions, where morality cannot account for right and wrong for some fucking reason, or facts cannot entail that 'counterfactual' is synonymous with 'untrue'.
Fair enough. I'd point out that capitalist - supposedly free - markets have produced probably the most obscene wealth-gap so far in human history. But yes, you're entitled to your opinion. And yes, that economic inequality - how ever many more crumbs the rest of us get from the bosses' table - is morally wrong can never be more than a matter of opinion. Completely with you on why morality isn't objective.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

Last I knew your answer was that you refuse to discuss how it is that your moral fact that disagrees with VA's moral fact means that factually one of you should be able to prove why the other is mistaken.
Oh, this again.

I'll say now what I said then: I don't believe VA is on the right track (his approach is wrong), but his intent is right on the money (to illustrate moral fact, moral realism). I won't fight him, as you'd like, for your amusement. Unlike a number of folks in-forum, no matter how he arrives at it, VA would never sanction puttin' a leash on my neck.

So, no, there's no desperate avoidance: I just recognize who my friends are, and who the common enemy is.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 4:08 pm
Last I knew your answer was that you refuse to discuss how it is that your moral fact that disagrees with VA's moral fact means that factually one of you should be able to prove why the other is mistaken.
Oh, this again.

I'll say now what I said then: I don't believe VA is on the right track (his approach is wrong), but his intent is right on the money (to illustrate moral fact, moral realism). I won't fight him, as you'd like, for your amusement. Unlike a number of folks in-forum, no matter how he arrives at it, VA would never sanction puttin' a leash on my neck.

So, no, there's no desperate avoidance: I just recognize who my friends are, and who the common enemy is.
Oh, please, Henry. Do you really think I'd sanction putting a leash on your neck? Our agreed enemy is people who want to put leashes on our necks - such as people who want to force women to have babies against their wishes. Beause a women owns her self, including her own body. End of story, as far as I'm concerned.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

Do you really think I'd sanction putting a leash on your neck?
Yes.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 4:34 pm
Do you really think I'd sanction putting a leash on your neck?
Yes.
Why?

No answer?

I call bullshit. You'd sanction putting a leash on a woman's neck. So a man owns himself, but a woman doesn't. Immoral, fucking bullshit.
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Sun May 15, 2022 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 4:46 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 4:34 pm
Do you really think I'd sanction putting a leash on your neck?
Yes.
Why?
What is...
real democracy
...but the majority directing the minority?

We will upgrade from a stop sign to a traffic light and you will pay for it.

Leashes come in many forms. No, you probably would never sanction the actual leash, but you have no problem demandin' I fork it over becuz the majority rules. And if I don't? Send me to the hoosegow.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 5:09 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 4:46 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 4:34 pm

Yes.
Why?
What is...
real democracy
...but the majority directing the minority?

We will upgrade from a stop sign to a traffic light and you will pay for it.

Leashes come in many forms. No, you probably would never sanction the actual leash, but you have no problem demandin' I fork it over becuz the majority rules. And if I don't? Send me to the hoosegow.
Pathetic. And cowardly. You're 'leashed' because you can't drive on the wrong side of the road, and jump the lights? Ffs.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

Yeah, I didn't say diddly about driving on the wrong side of the road and jumpin' the lights, so: go fuck yourself.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 5:59 pm Yeah, I didn't say diddly about driving on the wrong side of the road and jumpin' the lights, so: go fuck yourself.
Pathetic. Socially agreed rules and laws aren't 'leashes'. That's mindless Trumpist conservative crap. And I note you don't or can't answer the charge that forcing a woman to have a baby is putting a leash on her neck. So, you go fuck your hypocritical self.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

Socially agreed rules and laws aren't 'leashes'.
Convention and culture aren't, but legislation most definitely is.
And I note you don't or can't answer the charge that forcing a woman to have a baby is putting a leash on her neck.
Oh, I know baby killin' is important to you, and you have to virtue-signal, but I've talked all that out with Mr Dasein, iambiguous, multiple times across multiple threads, just recently. I'm not doin' it again (not so soon, any way). Besides, you don't give a shit what I think.
So, you go fuck your hypocritical self.
🖕
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 6:24 pm
Socially agreed rules and laws aren't 'leashes'.
Convention and culture aren't, but legislation most definitely is.
And I note you don't or can't answer the charge that forcing a woman to have a baby is putting a leash on her neck.
Oh, I know baby killin' is important to you, and you have to virtue-signal, but I've talked all that out with Mr Dasein, iambiguous, multiple times across multiple threads, just recently. I'm not doin' it again (not so soon, any way). Besides, you don't give a shit what I think.
So, you go fuck your hypocritical self.
🖕
Virtue-signalling, or just virtue, beats endorsing wickedness any time.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

Virtue-signalling, or just virtue, beats endorsing wickedness any time.
It's virtuous to advocate for baby murder; it's wicked to advocate the baby has a right to himself.

Okeedoke: you be virtuous; I'll be wicked.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 6:57 pm
Virtue-signalling, or just virtue, beats endorsing wickedness any time.
It's virtuous to advocate for baby murder; it's wicked to advocate the baby has a right to himself.

Okeedoke: you be virtuous; I'll be wicked.
A woman owns herself, including her own body. So it's morally wrong to leash her, by forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes. The end. All else is special-pleading hypocrisy. Look at yourself in the mirror.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

Mama owns herself: yep.

The baby owns himself: yep.

It's wrong for mama to have sex of her own accord then, becuz the natural product of that sex is inconvenient, rub him out.

It's also wrong to ask mama to carry the natural product of rape.

It's also wrong to ask mama to sacrifice her life (that is, die) so that natural product might be born.

And, just to be clear & up to date: fuck *you.




*edit: better when it's vanilla
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: What could make morality objective?

Post by henry quirk »

while pete ponders: I got things to do

back in a couple or three
Post Reply