Ownness (sumthin' short, pithy, and raw; red meat)

[henry quirk]

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).


Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).


Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

-----

There's more to say, but I'll lay the rest out on the table as you folks question, criticize, or dismiss.

[Peter Holmes]

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).


Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).


Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

-----

There's more to say, but I'll lay the rest out on the table as you folks question, criticize, or dismiss.

Dismiss.

Even if people do own themselves (whatever that means), and even if no one sane ever wants or wanted to be a slave - and how could we possibly verify that claim? - it doesn't follow that people should own themselves and that it's morally wrong to enslave them. Those are moral judgements, which are matters of opinion. An is - a fact - can never entail an ought - a value-judgement.

All we can do to justify our moral beliefs - deeply held and made universally as they usually are - is deploy facts, or what we claim are facts. For example, IC claims that slavery is morally wrong because it's contrary to a god's will and purpose for human beings. And that doesn't make make slavery morally wrong either.

All you're saying is: slavery is morally wrong because...X. And we have no choice but to do that. And I happen to agree with your moral judgement about slavery. Strongly.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).


Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).


Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

-----

There's more to say, but I'll lay the rest out on the table as you folks question, criticize, or dismiss.

Dismiss.

Even if people do own themselves (whatever that means), and even if no one ever wants or wanted to be a slave - and how could we possibly verify that claim? - it doesn't follow that people should own themselves and that it's morally wrong to enslave them. Those are moral judgements, which are matters of opinion. An is - a fact - can never entail an ought - a value-judgement.

All we can do to justify our moral beliefs - deeply held and made universally as they usually are - is deploy facts, or what we claim are facts. And that is what you're doing. And we have no choice but to do that. And I happen to agree with your moral judgement about slavery. Strongly.

The issue with "is" from "ought" is the question of enforcement.
This is what Hume implied, i.e.
"How the hell did an enforceable ought came out of the blue from a illusory being i.e. God. - Why should anyone comply with this ought from an illusory God?"

However from the secular perspective, the question of ought, is that it is not enforceable.
Whatever ought that is enforceable is not 'morality' per se as in Philosophy.
What is enforceable in general belongs to Politics.
What is enforceable by a threat of Hell belongs to theism.

Show me wherein the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics where morality-proper is related to enforcement by external parties or a threat from God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Here are two main perspectives of Morality and Ethics;

• Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
  
  Utilitarianism is a family of consequentialist ethical theories that promotes actions that maximize happiness and well-being for the affected individuals.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

The Philosophy of Morality and Ethics by default is individual-centric and not based on 'oughts' that are to be enforceable by external parties.

Any mentioned of theistic morality is merely pseudo-morality because of the enforcement of a threat of Hell by a God.

All moral oughts must be verified and justified to empirical facts and reinforced with the finest [exhausted to the limit] philosophical reasoning.

The ought,

• "No human ought to own another human" [re Chattel Slavery]

the agreement to the above can be verified empirically by asking whether each individual want to be enslaved by another as a chattel slave;

• 1. the individual him or herself
  2. historically - normal person will agree to the above ought
  3. literature review -normal person will agree to the above ought
  4. questioning one closest kins, friends and associates
  5. polling every human on Earth

The individual can confirm the agreement within 1-4.

Method 5 will be quite a task, but not an impossibility.
If we can poll 80% of all human [in the future] that would be credible and the answer is likely they all will agree with the above ought.

Whilst the empirical evidence is not 100%, we then use the highest and finest philosophical reasoning to reason for method 5.

Thus from the above process we can determine the 'ought'

• "No human ought to own another human"

because no normal human on Earth would volunteer to be enslaved by another human.

Yes, there will be exceptions with some perverts which would be certified by psychiatrist as abnormal and not normal human beings.

I had emphasized the above 'ought' is not enforceable on anyone by external parties.

Since Morality and Ethics are individual centric, thus there ought to be changes in the brain to trigger and activate the inherent faculty of morality to drive the individual toward higher moral competences.

Btw, the above changes is not effective for the present generations but only for future generations if we start the discussion to implement effective strategies now.

[Peter Holmes]

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).


Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).


Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

-----

There's more to say, but I'll lay the rest out on the table as you folks question, criticize, or dismiss.

Dismiss.

Even if people do own themselves (whatever that means), and even if no one ever wants or wanted to be a slave - and how could we possibly verify that claim? - it doesn't follow that people should own themselves and that it's morally wrong to enslave them. Those are moral judgements, which are matters of opinion. An is - a fact - can never entail an ought - a value-judgement.

All we can do to justify our moral beliefs - deeply held and made universally as they usually are - is deploy facts, or what we claim are facts. And that is what you're doing. And we have no choice but to do that. And I happen to agree with your moral judgement about slavery. Strongly.

The issue with "is" from "ought" is the question of enforcement.
This is what Hume implied, i.e.
"How the hell did an enforceable ought came out of the blue from a illusory being i.e. God. - Why should anyone comply with this ought from an illusory God?"

However from the secular perspective, the question of ought, is that it is not enforceable.
Whatever ought that is enforceable is not 'morality' per se as in Philosophy.
What is enforceable in general belongs to Politics.
What is enforceable by a threat of Hell belongs to theism.

Show me wherein the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics where morality-proper is related to enforcement by external parties or a threat from God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Here are two main perspectives of Morality and Ethics;

• Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
  
  Utilitarianism is a family of consequentialist ethical theories that promotes actions that maximize happiness and well-being for the affected individuals.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

The Philosophy of Morality and Ethics by default is individual-centric and not based on 'oughts' that are to be enforceable by external parties.

Any mentioned of theistic morality is merely pseudo-morality because of the enforcement of a threat of Hell by a God.

All moral oughts must be verified and justified to empirical facts and reinforced with the finest [exhausted to the limit] philosophical reasoning.

The ought,

• "No human ought to own another human" [re Chattel Slavery]

the agreement to the above can be verified empirically by asking whether each individual want to be enslaved by another as a chattel slave;

• 1. the individual him or herself
  2. historically - normal person will agree to the above ought
  3. literature review -normal person will agree to the above ought
  4. questioning one closest kins, friends and associates
  5. polling every human on Earth

The individual can confirm the agreement within 1-4.

Method 5 will be quite a task, but not an impossibility.
If we can poll 80% of all human [in the future] that would be credible and the answer is likely they all will agree with the above ought.

Whilst the empirical evidence is not 100%, we then use the highest and finest philosophical reasoning to reason for method 5.

Thus from the above process we can determine the 'ought'

• "No human ought to own another human"

because no normal human on Earth would volunteer to be enslaved by another human.

Yes, there will be exceptions with some perverts which would be certified by psychiatrist as abnormal and not normal human beings.

I had emphasized the above 'ought' is not enforceable on anyone by external parties.

Since Morality and Ethics are individual centric, thus there ought to be changes in the brain to trigger and activate the inherent faculty of morality to drive the individual toward higher moral competences.

Btw, the above changes is not effective for the present generations but only for future generations if we start the discussion to implement effective strategies now.

Enforcement is not the issue when it comes to moral objectivity - the claim that there are moral facts - that an ought assertion can be objective.

Whatever facts we deploy to justify a moral assertion - how ever rational, scientific, evidenced, peer reviewed, and so on, and so on - to assert an ought is to express a judgement - a belief or opinion - and that must be subjective. That's just the way it is.

[Skepdick]

Enforcement is not the issue when it comes to moral objectivity - the claim that there are moral facts - that an ought assertion can be objective.

You have to make up your mind here. You keep insisting that facts are not linguistic - they exist independent of language and before any claims about them.

So you admit that the issue of moral facts is not about language, but then you want to resolve it in language. With arguments. That's just sophistry.

Whatever facts we deploy to justify a moral assertion - how ever rational, scientific, evidenced, peer reviewed, and so on, and so on - to assert an ought is to express a judgement - a belief or opinion - and that must be subjective. That's just the way it is.

If you were to object/protest/resist your own enslavement your actions mean "I ought not be enslaved".
If they didn't mean "I ought not be enslaved" - you wouldn't object/protest/resist your enslavement.

You are an object. Everything about you is objective. Your oughts (expressed through your actions and reactions, not your words) are objective fact.

[Sculptor]

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).


Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).


Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

-----

There's more to say, but I'll lay the rest out on the table as you folks question, criticize, or dismiss.

That might work for you and many other people with the privilege of their life circumstances, but cannot work for many others.
Slavery has been practiced since time immemorial and only relatively recently has it been made illegal, Despite that it is still commonly practiced, and has been entered into voluntarily.

You are lucky enough to be born into a time where you have the luxury to be able to think that way.
Despite this you voluntarily enter into compacts with society which restrict your freedom, whether you like it or not.

[henry quirk]

Thanks for the response. Your dismissal was expected.

[henry quirk]

Your observations about culture and legalities are noted.

For the record: contract, wherein a man voluntarily takes on obligation, is not synonymous with slavery, wherein a man is treated as property.

[Peter Holmes]

Thanks for the response. Your dismissal was expected.

Sorry, Henry. I was joking. I don't dismiss your jsutification for condemning slavery. And I guess the vast majority of us who do condemn it do so for similar reasons. I just think the claim that it's a fact that slavery is morally wrong is false. As you know.

[henry quirk]

I don't dismiss your jsutification for condemning slavery.

Yeah, I get that.


I just think the claim that it's a fact that slavery is morally wrong is false. As you know.

Yeah, I get that too.

[Impenitent]

it's not slavery, it's citizenship...

utopia

-Imp

[RCSaunders]

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).


Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).


Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

-----

There's more to say, but I'll lay the rest out on the table as you folks question, criticize, or dismiss.

I do not agree with any of the criticisms of your view, Henry.

I certainly agree that every individual is autonomous. An individual's life is his and his alone and he has sole authority and responsibility for it. Being a slave would certainly be in contradiction of that because it would be denying one's own nature as a human being.

Just a thought. Is it a horse's nature to be a slave to human beings? Is that what a horse is? (I'm not an animal rights advocate and believe using and eating animals is just ducky.)

I'm sure it is wrong for someone to be a slave because it is contrary to his nature, but I'm not sure that makes it wrong for someone to have a slave or slaves. Is it contrary to the slave owner's nature?

It's not an argument. Just a question. I have my own answer to it which I'll explain when I've seen yours.

[henry quirk]

I do not agree with any of the criticisms of your view, Henry.

Cuz your head is screwed on right.


Is it a horse's nature to be a slave to human beings?

I think a horse (or cow, or porcupine, or duck, or...) is bio-automation. A man uses a horse in a way no different than usin' a truck.


Is it contrary to the slave owner's nature?

Sure. The slaver sees others as meat for the tradin' block, but he'd never agree to plunk himself up there for auction. He knows what he does is wrong, that's why his merchandise has to be defined as less than or other.

[RCSaunders]

Is it contrary to the slave owner's nature?

Sure. The slaver sees others as meat for the tradin' block, but he'd never agree to plunk himself up there for auction. He knows what he does is wrong, that's why his merchandise has to be defined as less than or other.

I agree with your conclusion that owning slaves is wrong for the slave owner, but not for the same reason. I very much doubt most slave owners believe they are doing wrong. I think most do regard their slaves as inferior to themselves in some way, but not to justify what they are doing. I doubt if they think it needs to be justified.

I think it is wrong to own slaves because it is contrary to the slave owner's own nature as a human being, which requires him to be fully responsible for his own life. Owning slaves is attempting to live on another's efforts when one's nature requires them to live by their own efforts, making the slave owner dependent on someone else for his own life and welfare. By owning a slave he essentially gives up his own autonomy and responsibility for his own life.

There is no doubt that both the slave and slave owner are harmed, but the cause of the harm, in both cases, is the slave owners ignorant violation of the requirements of his own nature.

[henry quirk]

I very much doubt most slave owners believe they are doing wrong. I think most do regard their slaves as inferior to themselves in some way, but not to justify what they are doing. I doubt if they think it needs to be justified.

I don't believe a man can look at another and believe it's okay to leash the other while not acceptin' the leash himself. No, the slaver knows it wrong. He just doesn't care. Why he doesn't care, well, that's another topic.


I think it is wrong to own slaves because it is contrary to the slave owner's own nature as a human being,

And I think slavery is wrong cuz a man belongs to himself. The injury is to the man who is leashed.


Owning slaves is attempting to live on another's efforts when one's nature requires them to live by their own efforts, making the slave owner dependent on someone else for his own life and welfare. By owning a slave he essentially gives up his own autonomy and responsibility for his own life.

Nah. The slaver is simply usin' a man as a draft animal, or a sex toy, or a cotton-picker. The slaver isn't makin' himself any more dependent by way of slavery than a modern farmer is by way of a harvester, or a dweeb by way of a blow-up doll. The slaver is a monster, not a milquetoast. His sin is not violatin' his own nature; the slaver's sin is violatin' the other man's ownness.


There is no doubt that both the slave and slave owner are harmed

Well, you're half-right.