What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

I'd like moral objectivists here address the vegan assertion: eating animals and their products is morally wrong.

If morality is objective - if moral assertions make truth-claims about reality - so that a moral assertion is (classically) true or false - how do objectivists here assess this vegan moral assertion?

I've answered already with this...

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.

Summed up, generalized: A person belongs to him- or her- or it-self. It's wrong to use a person as resource.

So: which animals are persons? I've never met a chicken that qualifies, but I've known a few dogs who do.

But the vegan moral assertion is about people's behaviour, not their nature.

Is it morally right or wrong to eat animals and their products? And is that a factual question, with a factual answer with a truth-value?

[Skepdick]

But the vegan moral assertion is about people's behaviour, not their nature.

Is it morally right or wrong to eat animals and their products? And is that a factual question, with a factual answer with a truth-value?

I asked you, and you ignored me - so I will ask you again.

If all facts are true, does this imply that all truths are facts?

According to you: are there truths which are not facts?

[henry quirk]

Is it morally right or wrong to eat animals and their products? And is that a factual question, with a factual answer with a truth-value?

I answered that.

[Peter Holmes]

Is it morally right or wrong to eat animals and their products? And is that a factual question, with a factual answer with a truth-value?

I answered that.

Sorry if I missed your answer - or misunderstood it. You seemed to be talking about people owning themselves, so that slavery is morally wrong. And that doesn't seem to refer to eating animals and their products.

Please can you humour me by repeating your answer to that question: is eating animals and their products morally right or wrong - and is that a factual question with a factual answer with a truth-value?

[henry quirk]

Is it morally right or wrong to eat animals and their products?

Again: A person belongs to him- or her- or it-self. It's wrong to use a person as resource.

So: which animals are persons? I've never met a chicken that qualifies, but I've known a few dogs who do.

[Peter Holmes]

Is it morally right or wrong to eat animals and their products?

Again: A person belongs to him- or her- or it-self. It's wrong to use a person as resource.

So: which animals are persons? I've never met a chicken that qualifies, but I've known a few dogs who do.

Okay. So you think it's not morally wrong to eat animals and their products. So I assume you agree with the following.

The vegan claim 'eating animals and their products is morally wrong' is a factual assertion, with the truth-value 'false'.

Can I ask how you'd demonstrate this to someone who thinks you're wrong? For example, would you assert the following?

If an animal is not a person, then it is not morally wrong to eat it and its products.

And if you think this is a true factual assertiion, how would you demonstrate that to someone who thinks you're wrong? What would you point at to verify it - so that you'd settle the disagreement?

[henry quirk]

Okay. So you think it's not morally wrong to eat animals and their products.

If it ain't a person: eat it (if it's not somebody else's).


So I assume you agree with the following.

The vegan claim 'eating animals and their products is morally wrong' is a factual assertion, with the truth-value 'false'.

If you mean vegans are misguided when they say it's wrong to eat animals, then: yep.


Can I ask how you'd demonstrate this to someone who thinks you're wrong?

Man, I can't get you to see why slavery is wrong (as fact), but I'm supposed to demonstrate to you why what vegans assert is nonsense?

4DA254F7-0EA0-4DB6-8105-91A69D149C18.jpeg (46.96 KiB) Viewed 2473 times

[Belinda]

Is it morally right or wrong to eat animals and their products?

Again: A person belongs to him- or her- or it-self. It's wrong to use a person as resource.

So: which animals are persons? I've never met a chicken that qualifies, but I've known a few dogs who do.

Personhood is conferred by other persons and nobody is a person unless their society or the regime says they can have that status.

It will be a long time before dogs are allowed to be persons, if ever. The great apes may be considered for personhood and so they should be.

There was a time when African slaves , although they were known to be human beings, were not allocated personhood.

Sentient creatures such as hens can't be persons however we are responsible for their welfare and should respect their feelings as sentient beings.

[henry quirk]

Personhood is conferred by other persons and nobody is a person unless their society or the regime says they can have that status.

You're talkin' about legalities; I'm talkin' about sumthin' else.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Morality can only ever be objective, else someone might kill you for stepping on their toes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, like Peter,
Therefore, you are cornered to accept it is not morally wrong if anyone wants to kill you rape your wife/daughters/kin or commit any other evil acts on him and others.
The above do not sound nice, but I have to introduce such drastic examples with the hope to get the message through.

The point is, there is no absolute-objective morality [e.g. Platonic Forms or God moral laws] but there are justifiable relative objective moral facts just like how Science derives its relative objective scientific facts.
Do you dispute that scientific facts are not objective?

What empirical evidence do you mean by the way? We have evidence that during the 4 billion years of life on this planet, most organisms survived by eating other organisms. Humans also have to kill plants or plants+animals. And most organisms (including a few humans) don't even have any morality.

While there are eating and killing of each other inter-species, there is the core principle of self-preservation within intra-species, especially of the higher animals.
Whilst there are intraspecies competition, the indication such competition is by default for the long good of the species, i.e. the preservation of the species.

Show me which specifically identified species [higher animals] strive to eat and kill each other within the species?

Note:

From the gene-centred view, it follows that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave selflessly with each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

Morality is inherent to the human species.
Note,
There are research on babies of less than 12 months [not yet significantly influenced by nurture] that demonstrated human babies has an inherent propensity for morality.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
The Moral Life of Babies
Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with.

At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.

Lol okay, so you admitted that there is no absolute-objective morality. I accept your admission of defeat.

WTF, I have always rejected absolute-objective morality [e.g. Platonic Forms or God moral laws] - I have posted that from the start.

Quickly changing the subject to non-absolute morality, and then claiming that I was arguing against that one, and saying that I was cornered, is pathetic. Drawing a parallel with science is also pathetic.

As above, there is no change in the subject.
You are arguing with along with Peter's idea, thus the consequences.

Denying the existence of genuinely amoral people is pathetic, yes they are rare, but denying their existence is a great source of the world's evils.

It is human nature all humans are to be born with two legs and two arms.
That is the fact of human nature.
But no one in the know [as evident] will deny there are people who are born with one or no arms and legs.

Thus my point;
It is human nature all humans are to be born with a natural propensity for morality
That is the fact of human nature and a fact.
As such there are moral facts [as justified] extended from the above.

Is it morally right or wrong to beat dishonest idiots like Veritas into a pulp?

It is legally wrong to beat someone into a pulp, thus it same [as justified] in the moral perspective.
Obviously, it is morally wrong to beat someone into a pulp.

It is an idiotic fool like you who insist it is not morally wrong for anyone wants to kill you, rape your wife/daughters/kin or commit any other evil acts on him and others.
The only recourse to you [if you are not living in an unowned isolated island] is the legal way or just cry miserably.

[Veritas Aequitas]

a moral fact is justified from empirical evidences via a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
Note the maxim 'no human ought to stop other humans from breathing till they die' is obvious relied upon evident empirical evidences from natural facts.

Nope. You can say this till the cows come home, but it remains false.

'Humans must breathe or they die' is a fact - a true factual assertion, based on empirical evidence.

But 'No human ought to stop other humans from breathing till they die' is not a fact - a true factual assertion. There is no empirical evidence, because it does not make a factual claim. Instead, it expresses a moral value-judgement.

You merely insist on an entailment which does not, in fact, exist - which is why denying the moral consequent does not produce a contradiction.

But, tell you what - let's keep this going for ever and ever, until one of us stops breathing.

But you are committing a fallacy of equivocation.
You are conflating a natural fact with moral fact ignorantly and without any justifications.
Show me why you have not committed a fallacy of equivocation?

Note there is empirical evidence of another person-X who had killed another human.
This result in a legal-value-judgment and a legal fact, i.e. it is an act of murder and the X is convicted as a murder and is sentenced to death or some period in prison.
How come you are not questioning 'where is the entailment,' where is the factual claim, etc.?

The fact is the legal fact is justified [judgement made] from within a legal framework and system.
It is the same, the fact is the moral fact is justified [judgement made] from within a Moral framework and system.

As I had stated you are very ignorant of "what is morality" and got stuck and thus is dogmatic by clinging to some archaic teachings re morality.

It is likely your cows will never come home because they are grazing on a fallacy of equivocation.

[Peter Holmes]

a moral fact is justified from empirical evidences via a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
Note the maxim 'no human ought to stop other humans from breathing till they die' is obvious relied upon evident empirical evidences from natural facts.

Nope. You can say this till the cows come home, but it remains false.

'Humans must breathe or they die' is a fact - a true factual assertion, based on empirical evidence.

But 'No human ought to stop other humans from breathing till they die' is not a fact - a true factual assertion. There is no empirical evidence, because it does not make a factual claim. Instead, it expresses a moral value-judgement.

You merely insist on an entailment which does not, in fact, exist - which is why denying the moral consequent does not produce a contradiction.

But, tell you what - let's keep this going for ever and ever, until one of us stops breathing.

But you are committing a fallacy of equivocation.
You are conflating a natural fact with moral fact ignorantly and without any justifications.
Show me why you have not committed a fallacy of equivocation?

Note there is empirical evidence of another person-X who had killed another human.
This result in a legal-value-judgment and a legal fact, i.e. it is an act of murder and the X is convicted as a murder and is sentenced to death or some period in prison.
How come you are not questioning 'where is the entailment,' where is the factual claim, etc.?

The fact is the legal fact is justified [judgement made] from within a legal framework and system.
It is the same, the fact is the moral fact is justified [judgement made] from within a Moral framework and system.

As I had stated you are very ignorant of "what is morality" and got stuck and thus is dogmatic by clinging to some archaic teachings re morality.

It is likely your cows will never come home because they are grazing on a fallacy of equivocation.

No. Equivocation is using the same word in a different way. I use the word 'fact' to mean either a state-of-affairs - as many philosophers do - or a description of a state-of-affairs - of which only the second has a truth-value, obviously. And that dual-use is standard - check it out in any dictionary.

And that's why your theory of frameworks is irrelevant when it comes to what counts as a fact. What you call a moral fact is either a moral state-of-affairs or a description of a moral state-of-affairs with the truth-value 'true'.

And you - like all moral realists and objectivists, empiricist or not - haven't demonstrated the existence of moral states-of-affairs (whatever they may be), or (and therefore) the truth of a moral assertion - or that it can even have a truth-value.

And the reason why you haven't produced the goods is because you can't. It can't be done. It's a fool's endeavour. It's a category error. It's conceptually and intellectually incoherent. It's irrational. And, like any religious belief, shedding it requires a kind of awakening to reality.

[Peter Holmes]

Okay. So you think it's not morally wrong to eat animals and their products.

If it ain't a person: eat it (if it's not somebody else's).


So I assume you agree with the following.

The vegan claim 'eating animals and their products is morally wrong' is a factual assertion, with the truth-value 'false'.

If you mean vegans are misguided when they say it's wrong to eat animals, then: yep.


Can I ask how you'd demonstrate this to someone who thinks you're wrong?

Man, I can't get you to see why slavery is wrong (as fact), but I'm supposed to demonstrate to you why what vegans assert is nonsense?

4DA254F7-0EA0-4DB6-8105-91A69D149C18.jpeg

That's a cop out.

If killing a human can be murder, why can killing a cow never be murder? And is that a fact, or a matter of opinion?

If it's because a cow isn't a person, why is killing a non-person never murder? And is that a fact, or a matter of opinion?

Vegans say meat and milk are murder. You say this is nonsense and they're misguided - as a matter of fact.

Okay, demonstrate that. Or don't, because you can't - which, of course, you can't. Hide behind a jokey distraction.

[Belinda]

Personhood is conferred by other persons and nobody is a person unless their society or the regime says they can have that status.

You're talkin' about legalities; I'm talkin' about sumthin' else.

Not only legalities, Henry, but also society itself underwrites legalities. This power of society to influence and change legalities is what democracy is about. Oppressive regimes such as Mafia, ISIS, Iran, and Saudi Arabia and other ruling class dictators lack live connection between the ruled and the rulers in society but impose artificial definitions of such as personhood and the rights that accompany personhood.