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

[Lacewing]

Your mind appears to be losing its grasp even more than your usual bullshit does.

No, Karen, you can't see the manager.

I don't understand your attempt at childish humor.

You need to spend some time in the beer virus subforums

Why?

Do you think there is something especially clever there?

[henry quirk]

you have no reason to believe that dolphins and apes don't share in that, or dogs and kittens.

Dolphins & apes may very well be persons. Each has the complexity and the structure for personhood.

Dogs & cats: not so much.

Humans are the only animals we know are persons. Humans have a certain complexity & structure, and a certain body to brain ratio that -- if we're goin' strictly by materialism -- seems necessary for them to be persons. We can look at other life, see where similiar complexities and designs and ratios exist. We can observe those creatures with those like complexities, designs, and ratios, lookin' for signs of personhood.

As an aside: let's say dogs and cats are persons. Would that invalidate ownness, or just add new members to party?


a verbal claim to self ownership

I don't think I said diddly about verbal claims. Ownness isn't validated by words. It simply is.

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.

So, in context, the challenge would be to determine which animals are persons and recognize their personhood.


they seem to have every necessary capacity to experience that self-ownership, which is very basic and primal right?

Ain't talkin' about rights, primal or otherwise.

Dolphins & apes: probably.

Dogs & cats: nope (though I have no objection to bein' proven wrong...I like cats and dogs).

-----

uwot,

Does it follow that they are wrong?

Well, as a deist, I say they're dead wrong...can't prove it, but there you go. Certainly, I feel no natural impulse to take a knee.

-----

Lace,

Do you think there is something especially clever there?

Nope, just information.

Here: https://swprs.org/

All bad blood & insults aside: there's a lot there. Every entry has linked citations, reports, results, etc. Much of the linked material isn't in english so keep a web page or language translator open.

[Peter Holmes]

Pete,

your premise doesn't entail your conclusion

Give me an example of a premise that does entail a conclusion (not bein' a bonafide philosopher, I don't know shit from shinola when you all start philosophizin').

Mebbe an explanation (instead of a lecture) might set me straight, turn me into another subjectvist, have me deny ownness.

P1: All men are mortal. P2: Socrates is a man. Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

The conclusion 'follows' from the premises. The premises 'entail' the conclusion. In any situation in which the premises are true, the conclusion is true. The conclusion can be 'deduced' from the premises. So the argument is 'valid'. But it's 'sound' only if the premises are true - which logic doesn't deal with.

You're claiming that a factual premise (or premises) can entail a moral conclusion in a valid and sound argument. And I'm saying that's not possible - it can never be the case that a moral conclusion follows deductively from one or more factual premises.

Your problem starts with your supposed factual premise, to do with 'ownness' and 'personhood', which you restrict definitionally to human beings. But even if that were true, your claim that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions applies only to human beings - that that's a deducible fact - just doesn't follow. It's an opinion that you want to pass off as a fact. And that's moral objectivism in a nutshell.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Morality [my definition] and justified is confined to the interests of the human species and only to other non-humans where there is a positive interest to the human species.

If your 'morality' is full of empathy and compassion to non-humans, are you implying the present humans are immoral when they have kill non-human living things for food, cut down living trees, etc.

In your other thread you are accusing me of having no empathy at all due to some sort of brain damage that is the only excuse for not agreeing with you. Now We have excess of empathy. You need to make your mind up buddy.

Note I used "IF".
You insisted humans must be kind and compassionate to living non-humans, e.g. dogs, etc, but how can you reconcile this to people having to kill living non-humans for food?
Where do you draw the line in terms of the higher animals, dogs, insects, bacteria, viruses and on what grounds?
Note the Jains think they are most 'moral' by covering their mouth so they don't kill insects just in case - NOPE! instead that that is extreme, blind and stupid altruism.

My accusation is you are ignorant what is Morality-proper.
In various circumstance, there is need to treat living non-humans properly, but that is not Morality-proper which is specific and centered only on the human species.

It is not a question of morality, if there are over-population of living non-human things and it is reaching point as a threat to the human species, it would be cost-beneficial to kill some to reduce their numbers.

It must be a question of morality, and you obviously are aware of that otherwise you wouldn't need to provide explanations to justify such as overpopulation.

You don't have to provide a reason why it is better to be on the other side of the road before you cross, but you do need to provice one for shooting 700 cows, because crossing the road and murdering a bunch of animals are not the same sort of choices, one has moral consequence and the other does not under normal circumstances.

When has having to providing reason be definitely a question of morality?
Shooting 700 cows could be because of the mad-cow diseases and various reasons which has nothing to do with morality per se.

In term of morality, the moral fact and moral law [as justified] is;
"no human ought to kill another human" period, no exception.
If there is an overpopulation of humans, it has to be controlled by "effective means" but not by killing humans or fetuses.

In practice, there will be killing of human by another human, but that would be dealt within political laws and various ethical considerations.

Your moral fact is not compatible with Henry's moral fact though. Henry allows for revenge killing but you cannot. I don't believe Henry would agree that there is no exception to the rule that no human ought to kill any other and his moral fact I believe says outright that there are circumstances where one specifically ought to kill. So what is the morally factual way for you and Henry to resolve this difference of fact? One of you must be wrong unless you are you are willing to argue that there are mutually exclusive true facts, which is something you have had months of warnings to think about, but which you denied would ever be a problem.

I understand Henry is not into morality-proper in its full perspective. The only point we agree is 'no human ought to be a chattel slave to another human' based on his principle of 'own_ness'. I am agreeable to this point but there are more deeper basis to it.

As Henry has stated, bestiality and other cruelty to non-human living things is not morality-per-se but it is rather a perversion and a psychiatric problem.

At present there are considerations for animals who are pets because they serve individuals of the human species in various positive ways other than being food. In this case, there would be some sort of minor consideration of ethics but not morality [as defined, i.e. PURE].

You are both wrong. It is immoral to punch a dog in the face, it is unethical to do immoral stuff like punching dogs in the face. You arbitrarily discard moral language in these circumstances to suit your limited arguments, but you are failing to include what are clearly moral and immoral choices, which only shows that your argument is insufficient and overly eliminative.

No sane perosn in the world has any need for any argument that depends on it not being immoral to hold a dog down and shit on its head.

I had argued above, morality is a specifically effective for the human species only.
As such considerations would be extended to non-humans only if they have a positive contribution to humans.
In the case of dogs, many humans in various society has used them as pets which thus positive to those humans only and not universal. In this case, it would be wrong for those people in those society to punch dogs in the face and causing sufferings to the dogs.

But for humans in other parts of the world who punch dogs in the face, beat them and eat them for food, what moral facts as moral grounds do you have to condemn them as immoral and what they are doing is wrong?
(note, as for humans-only I have Justified True Moral Belief [JTmB] and moral facts to support what is to be used as moral standards for human beings only.)

The same is applicable to all other living non-humans.

Have you heard of the case where a few men [4 or 5?] drowned trying to save a dog in a stormy sea?
This is blind, irrational and stupid inter species altruism!
Morality proper cannot be justified to extend to living non-humans in the absolute sense.

Suggest you research more deeply into Morality-proper.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Pete,

your premise doesn't entail your conclusion

Give me an example of a premise that does entail a conclusion (not bein' a bonafide philosopher, I don't know shit from shinola when you all start philosophizin').

Mebbe an explanation (instead of a lecture) might set me straight, turn me into another subjectvist, have me deny ownness.

P1: All men are mortal. P2: Socrates is a man. Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

The conclusion 'follows' from the premises. The premises 'entail' the conclusion. In any situation in which the premises are true, the conclusion is true. The conclusion can be 'deduced' from the premises. So the argument is 'valid'. But it's 'sound' only if the premises are true - which logic doesn't deal with.

You're claiming that a factual premise (or premises) can entail a moral conclusion in a valid and sound argument. And I'm saying that's not possible - it can never be the case that a moral conclusion follows deductively from one or more factual premises.

Your problem starts with your supposed factual premise, to do with 'ownness' and 'personhood', which you restrict definitionally to human beings. But even if that were true, your claim that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions applies only to human beings - that that's a deducible fact - just doesn't follow. It's an opinion that you want to pass off as a fact. And that's moral objectivism in a nutshell.

We have discussed this point before.

Henry's moral basis re 'slavery' is intuitive in alignment with his propensity from the inherent moral function within the brain.
Henry only basis for his point is based on the 'principle of own_ness'.

However Henry's point re slavery is alignment with my moral fact on specifically chattel-slavery which I have provided extensive justifications [in the various posts re moral facts] as a Justified True Moral Belief.

Note, Morality-proper is specifically an intra-species issue and thus applicable only to humans universally with no moral-obligations be extended to other species except in relevant and necessary conditions.

[uwot]

uwot,
Does it follow that they are wrong?

Well, as a deist, I say they're dead wrong...can't prove it, but there you go.

Well that's the point. Mr Can can't prove that god owns you. You can't prove he doesn't. Prof, Veritas Aequitas, Skepdick et al can't prove what day of the week it is. No one can prove anything. Moral anti realists, such as yours truly, don't really give a shit; if I see someone behaving in a way that is causing unnecessary stress or pain to others, animals or even the environment, I will do what I can to stop them. Fuck whether it is 'objectively right or wrong'.

Certainly, I feel no natural impulse to take a knee.

No. Nor should you.

[Peter Holmes]

Pete,

your premise doesn't entail your conclusion

Give me an example of a premise that does entail a conclusion (not bein' a bonafide philosopher, I don't know shit from shinola when you all start philosophizin').

Mebbe an explanation (instead of a lecture) might set me straight, turn me into another subjectvist, have me deny ownness.

P1: All men are mortal. P2: Socrates is a man. Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

The conclusion 'follows' from the premises. The premises 'entail' the conclusion. In any situation in which the premises are true, the conclusion is true. The conclusion can be 'deduced' from the premises. So the argument is 'valid'. But it's 'sound' only if the premises are true - which logic doesn't deal with.

You're claiming that a factual premise (or premises) can entail a moral conclusion in a valid and sound argument. And I'm saying that's not possible - it can never be the case that a moral conclusion follows deductively from one or more factual premises.

Your problem starts with your supposed factual premise, to do with 'ownness' and 'personhood', which you restrict definitionally to human beings. But even if that were true, your claim that the moral rightness and wrongness of actions applies only to human beings - that that's a deducible fact - just doesn't follow. It's an opinion that you want to pass off as a fact. And that's moral objectivism in a nutshell.

We have discussed this point before.

Henry's moral basis re 'slavery' is intuitive in alignment with his propensity from the inherent moral function within the brain.
Henry only basis for his point is based on the 'principle of own_ness'.

Nope. Henry says it's a fact that only humans are persons (which, by any definition of 'person', is a matter of opinion); that it's morally wrong to harm persons (which is a matter of opinion, not a fact); and that therefore it's not morally wrong to harm other animals (which is a matter of opinion, not a fact).

As I've explained, whatever facts we deploy to justify a moral opinion, it remains an opinion and doesn't thereby magically metamorphose into a fact; and others can always deploy the same facts differently, or different facts, to justify a different moral opinion.

However Henry's point re slavery is alignment with my moral fact on specifically chattel-slavery which I have provided extensive justifications [in the various posts re moral facts] as a Justified True Moral Belief.

Nope. As I've explained, the JTB definition of knowledge is incoherent, because only factual assertions can have truth value; so beliefs are neither true nor false; and knowing something is the case need have nothing to do with language. And anyway, your assumption that morality is an epistemological matter in the first place begs the question.

Note, Morality-proper is specifically an intra-species issue and thus applicable only to humans universally with no moral-obligations be extended to other species except in relevant and necessary conditions.

Nope. You merely state this matter of opinion - regarding moral scope - as though it's a fact, when it isn't.

[FlashDangerpants]

you have no reason to believe that dolphins and apes don't share in that, or dogs and kittens.

Dolphins & apes may very well be persons. Each has the complexity and the structure for personhood.

Dogs & cats: not so much.

Humans are the only animals we know are persons. Humans have a certain complexity & structure, and a certain body to brain ratio that -- if we're goin' strictly by materialism -- seems necessary for them to be persons. We can look at other life, see where similiar complexities and designs and ratios exist. We can observe those creatures with those like complexities, designs, and ratios, lookin' for signs of personhood.

As an aside: let's say dogs and cats are persons. Would that invalidate ownness, or just add new members to party?


a verbal claim to self ownership

I don't think I said diddly about verbal claims. Ownness isn't validated by words. It simply is.

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.

All you have for this self ownership thing at present is some flowery poetry that just amounts to "it's just this thing that you know and feel but can't describe" and a bunch of things that it isn't. The the new addition of some vague stuff about biological complexity doesn't really clear anything up. This is supposed to be fact, it should be substantive, either testable or something you can point at, it should be clear. What you have there, is a axiom derived from a loose collection of metaphor. As such, it meets no possible standard for fact.

Just being this thing that you can't conceive of as being untrue or meaningless but which is the starting point for any and all investigation ... this is not a standard for a fact. sorry to belabour the point, but that is exactly what axioms are for. However, axioms are tricky, we often use them without (and please forgive me for sounding like Skepdick here) noticing that they are a choice. But when they make no sense to half your audience, that option goes away, you have to make an actual case for why your chosen axiom should be treated as some foundational fact of the matter when it is not an observable fact of the world. It requires persuasion becasue it is impossible to demonstrate, because it is not a fact.

So, in context, the challenge would be to determine which animals are persons and recognize their personhood.

There's no scope to define what success is in this task if you don't have a definition of what personhood actually is that is less weird that "it's as real as the beating of your heart that a person unambigiously belongs to himself". The word unambiguous has no right to intrude into this conversation at all, it should be evicted for trespsass.

they seem to have every necessary capacity to experience that self-ownership, which is very basic and primal right?

Ain't talkin' about rights, primal or otherwise.

Dolphins & apes: probably.

Dogs & cats: nope (though I have no objection to bein' proven wrong...I like cats and dogs).

That wasn't right as in human rights, it was just right, right? End of a question, am I getting this right? That sort of thing.

This self ownership... either it's incredibly simple and thus too basic and fundamental to describe (like the old excercise of describing white without reference to a white object like snow), or it's from the next layer up, and you should be able to describe it intelligibly using a basis of those other things that are simple which you therefore cannot.

But if it's as simple as you imply, while not a linguistic artifact as you insist, then it should be available to many animals. Any animal that can know what it wants should probably meet the criteria.

[FlashDangerpants]

You insisted humans must be kind and compassionate to living non-humans, e.g. dogs, etc, but how can you reconcile this to people having to kill living non-humans for food?

I simply note that we have this language of morality about right and wrong and shit like that. If you want to make a set of facts out of it all, you have to include stuff like that.

The social practise of morality includes lots of stuff like reasons, explanations, conflicts and excuses. If your moral facts don't account for this sort of thing, you failed.

also, if your moral "facts" can't account for it being morally wrong to torture an animal for pleasure, you failed real hard.

My accusation is you are ignorant what is Morality-proper.
In various circumstance, there is need to treat living non-humans properly, but that is not Morality-proper which is specific and centered only on the human species.

Morality-proper is therefore worthless. It is clearly morally wrong to harm an animal without reason just as it is morally wrong to harm a person without reason.

It is not a question of morality, if there are over-population of living non-human things and it is reaching point as a threat to the human species, it would be cost-beneficial to kill some to reduce their numbers.

It must be a question of morality, and you obviously are aware of that otherwise you wouldn't need to provide explanations to justify such as overpopulation.

You don't have to provide a reason why it is better to be on the other side of the road before you cross, but you do need to provice one for shooting 700 cows, because crossing the road and murdering a bunch of animals are not the same sort of choices, one has moral consequence and the other does not under normal circumstances.

When has having to providing reason be definitely a question of morality?
Shooting 700 cows could be because of the mad-cow diseases and various reasons which has nothing to do with morality per se.

The mad-cow thing is just another reason for why it is not morally wrong to do a certain action. Again, I already told you this. If it's not a moral question, you don't need any reason at all to do a thing. That's absolutely not a claim that all reasons for doing things are moral. You are supposed to consider yourself a talented philosopher, so why are you affirming the consequent like a child?

To make this absolutely clear, let's go again. I don't make an excuse to scratch my own balls because I don't need one, I just do the thing and there is no moral issue there to debtate. If I were to scratch your balls, that would need some sort of justification, not having one when needed would be a moral problem. If there were no moral factor in our treatment of animals, then you wouldn't need any excuse at all to justify kicking a puppy to death, not if you owned that puppy. Just like you don't have to make an excuse for eating an apple, unless the apple belongs to somebody else.

In term of morality, the moral fact and moral law [as justified] is;
"no human ought to kill another human" period, no exception.
If there is an overpopulation of humans, it has to be controlled by "effective means" but not by killing humans or fetuses.

In practice, there will be killing of human by another human, but that would be dealt within political laws and various ethical considerations.

Your moral fact is not compatible with Henry's moral fact though. Henry allows for revenge killing but you cannot. I don't believe Henry would agree that there is no exception to the rule that no human ought to kill any other and his moral fact I believe says outright that there are circumstances where one specifically ought to kill. So what is the morally factual way for you and Henry to resolve this difference of fact? One of you must be wrong unless you are you are willing to argue that there are mutually exclusive true facts, which is something you have had months of warnings to think about, but which you denied would ever be a problem.

I understand Henry is not into morality-proper in its full perspective. The only point we agree is 'no human ought to be a chattel slave to another human' based on his principle of 'own_ness'. I am agreeable to this point but there are more deeper basis to it.

That's the wrong language to be using about facts, that sort of talk is for opinions.
Are you 'agreeable' to the speed of light being 100km/hr?
Is the principle of "he who smelt it dealt it" an adequate way to determine who farted as long as you agree with the outcome of a specific investigation, even though yuo think there is "deeper basis" available?
Facts man, you claim to have them, show that they resolve error the way actual facts do.

As Henry has stated, bestiality and other cruelty to non-human living things is not morality-per-se but it is rather a perversion and a psychiatric problem.

At present there are considerations for animals who are pets because they serve individuals of the human species in various positive ways other than being food. In this case, there would be some sort of minor consideration of ethics but not morality [as defined, i.e. PURE].

You are both wrong. It is immoral to punch a dog in the face, it is unethical to do immoral stuff like punching dogs in the face. You arbitrarily discard moral language in these circumstances to suit your limited arguments, but you are failing to include what are clearly moral and immoral choices, which only shows that your argument is insufficient and overly eliminative.

No sane perosn in the world has any need for any argument that depends on it not being immoral to hold a dog down and shit on its head.

I had argued above, morality is a specifically effective for the human species only.
As such considerations would be extended to non-humans only if they have a positive contribution to humans.
In the case of dogs, many humans in various society has used them as pets which thus positive to those humans only and not universal. In this case, it would be wrong for those people in those society to punch dogs in the face and causing sufferings to the dogs.

Then you have failed. You are not capable of putting together moral fact. No sane perosn in the world has any need for any argument that depends on it not being immoral to hold a dog down and shit on its head. This is not a moral fact, but it is a fact about morality and what we use it for.

But for humans in other parts of the world who punch dogs in the face, beat them and eat them for food, what moral facts as moral grounds do you have to condemn them as immoral and what they are doing is wrong?
(note, as for humans-only I have Justified True Moral Belief [JTmB] and moral facts to support what is to be used as moral standards for human beings only.)

There are no moral facts. What we are seeing here is that your attempt to assert moral facts has come entirely undone as soon as you had to describe some. Now you are in the absurd position of not being able to morally condemn what any decent person can see is morally reprehensible behaviour.

This is a straightforward Reductio ad absurdum and you did it to yourself by being shockingly shit. Nobody laid a trap for you, you were just given the opportnity to fail horribly and you seized it. There was no reason why you had to exclude animals in this thing of yours, you aren't a Contractarian so far as I can see. It was just lazy, and stupid, self-harm.

[Lacewing]

Here: https://swprs.org/

All bad blood & insults aside: there's a lot there. Every entry has linked citations, reports, results, etc. Much of the linked material isn't in english so keep a web page or language translator open.

Henry, are you being balanced with the variety of information you present, or do you only distribute the information that supports/perpetuates your beliefs?

If you are too single-focused, dismissing all to the contrary, then you are not seeing/acknowledging broader truths -- don't you agree?

There is truth in all directions -- so to take up certain positions is to champion/serve the agendas of those positions. Everything is worth questioning and challenging, don't you think?

An apparent Media Bias / Fact Check site (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/swiss-policy-research/) says this about the Swiss Policy Research link you provided:

"Although, SPR thoroughly sources information they often use very poor sources that lack credibility. For example, when reporting on the Israel Lobby they provide a link to a video from the Questionable Unz Review, which is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and anti-Semitic by the Anti-Defamation League. Other sources used include RT and Sputnik, which they openly criticize as Russian Propaganda in other articles.

In another article they discredit Wikipedia as being a propaganda organization, Wikipedia: A Disinformation Operation? Yet, they are perfectly comfortable using them as a source of information in their analyses.

Swiss Policy Research is also providing information regarding the Coronavirus with mixed facts and misinformation. In this article, Facts about Covid-19, there is the use of several poor sources to support their claims such as the Daily Mail, Off-Guardian, Sputnik, and Youtube videos. Further, this list of so-called facts also contains unproven conspiracy theories...

The website also promotes other unproven conspiracy theories such as the majority of the USA media being controlled by The Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderbergs, and the Trilateral Commission. While there is no question there is a corporate monopoly in USA media ownership, there isn’t evidence to support their claims. This story again uses Wikipedia as a source, which they have discredited numerous times. In general, this is a conspiracy website that is not credible due to poor sourcing and lack of transparency."

Henry, I think there is truth in all kinds of camps and directions, while there is also fanaticism and distortion and lots of mis-information. Your "research" seems more like cherry-picking, and too skewed to be truthful. I'm guessing you don't care -- but that makes you no different than anyone else who spreads their particular brand of favorite propaganda. The truth is in the middle. You may prefer to stand belligerently in one position and shake your fist, but that's not truth. Rather, you're representing what pleases and excites you no matter how lame or inaccurate it is. (Sorry, I almost made it all the way through without a little insult... but it's just so fun and funny.)

Aren't you actually more interested in being entertained... than in representing broader truths?

I try not to get tangled in anything too tightly, and that seems more truthful to me. Beyond that, I don't expect that ultimate truths are likely knowable or necessary, so yes, I'm being entertained at the love-in -- and by challenging rigid/know-it-all positions/claims here on the forum. Why not sail on a pleasure cruise rather than a sinking ship? Life is (in great part) what we make of it. Don't you agree, Mr. Self-owned man?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You insisted humans must be kind and compassionate to living non-humans, e.g. dogs, etc, but how can you reconcile this to people having to kill living non-humans for food?

I simply note that we have this language of morality about right and wrong and shit like that. If you want to make a set of facts out of it all, you have to include stuff like that.

The social practise of morality includes lots of stuff like reasons, explanations, conflicts and excuses. If your moral facts don't account for this sort of thing, you failed.

also, if your moral "facts" can't account for it being morally wrong to torture an animal for pleasure, you failed real hard.

This is why I stated you are ignorant of "what is morality" in its full perspective.
Like most Framework of Knowledge, the Framework for "what is right and wrong" has its PURE and APPLIED categories.
At present, generally, 'Morality' is attributed to the PURE aspects while 'Ethics' is confined to the application and practices related to the moral facts established with Morality [PURE].

My focus on moral facts is confined to the PURE aspects, i.e. Morality and how such JUSTIFIED moral facts to be used as GUIDE only as standard or moral objective for the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Not ALL human actions are relevant for ethical considerations.
Obviously all human actions that are related and relevant to Ethics must be grounded on the JUSTIFIED moral facts and moral standards.

I have also stated 'Morality' is strictly confined to the human species only and only related to living non-humans if there are vested positive interests to the human species.

This is why the killing of living non-humans for food and other positive reasons are not a moral issue. So the killing of living non-humans things can be deal outside morality, e.g. psychiatry, psychology, etc.
If a madman [confirmed by psychiatry] had been chopping up people, how can we talk morality and ethics to him??

The killing living non-human things for pleasure or sadism is not a moral issue per se. It is not acceptable because such acts do not benefit the human species in general. Such acts are evidently a psychiatric issue which need to be addressed.

My accusation is you are ignorant what is Morality-proper.
In various circumstance, there is need to treat living non-humans properly, but that is not Morality-proper which is specific and centered only on the human species.

Morality-proper is therefore worthless. It is clearly morally wrong to harm an animal without reason just as it is morally wrong to harm a person without reason.

It is medically [psychiatric] wrong to harm an animal without reason.
It is also a social, cultural issue but not a moral issue because animals [non-humans] do not belong to the human species.

The mad-cow thing is just another reason for why it is not morally wrong to do a certain action. Again, I already told you this. If it's not a moral question, you don't need any reason at all to do a thing. That's absolutely not a claim that all reasons for doing things are moral. You are supposed to consider yourself a talented philosopher, so why are you affirming the consequent like a child?

To make this absolutely clear, let's go again. I don't make an excuse to scratch my own balls because I don't need one, I just do the thing and there is no moral issue there to debtate. If I were to scratch your balls, that would need some sort of justification, not having one when needed would be a moral problem. If there were no moral factor in our treatment of animals, then you wouldn't need any excuse at all to justify kicking a puppy to death, not if you owned that puppy. Just like you don't have to make an excuse for eating an apple, unless the apple belongs to somebody else.

You cannot conflate animals which are not of the human species with morality - unless there is a vested interests for the human species.
For example, if one kick the puppy belonging to another human, then, there is a moral issue re what is owned by the other human and not with the puppy. In addition it is also a mental issue.

I understand Henry is not into morality-proper in its full perspective. The only point we agree is 'no human ought to be a chattel slave to another human' based on his principle of 'own_ness'. I am agreeable to this point but there are more deeper basis to it.

That's the wrong language to be using about facts, that sort of talk is for opinions.
Are you 'agreeable' to the speed of light being 100km/hr?
Is the principle of "he who smelt it dealt it" an adequate way to determine who farted as long as you agree with the outcome of a specific investigation, even though yuo think there is "deeper basis" available?
Facts man, you claim to have them, show that they resolve error the way actual facts do.

As I had argued you are using the term 'fact' is a very narrow and specific sense of the logico and linguistic perspective favored by one specific class of philosophers, i.e. analytic philosophy. This view is very contentious [note Wittgenstein and Quine] and in my view very limited.

What is more pertinent to discuss "fact" is this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

and mine,
What is Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

I have also provided my argument re the justification of moral facts from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.

Then you have failed. You are not capable of putting together moral fact. No sane perosn in the world has any need for any argument that depends on it not being immoral to hold a dog down and shit on its head. This is not a moral fact, but it is a fact about morality and what we use it for.

Whatever fact about morality [PURE] must be grounded on objective grounds which must be justified as Justified True Moral Beliefs.

Yes, no sane person would do that, that is why the insane are dealt within psychiatry and not morality-proper.

But for humans in other parts of the world who punch dogs in the face, beat them and eat them for food, what moral facts as moral grounds do you have to condemn them as immoral and what they are doing is wrong?
(note, as for humans-only I have Justified True Moral Belief [JTmB] and moral facts to support what is to be used as moral standards for human beings only.)

There are no moral facts. What we are seeing here is that your attempt to assert moral facts has come entirely undone as soon as you had to describe some. Now you are in the absurd position of not being able to morally condemn what any decent person can see is morally reprehensible behaviour.

This is a straightforward Reductio ad absurdum and you did it to yourself by being shockingly shit. Nobody laid a trap for you, you were just given the opportnity to fail horribly and you seized it. There was no reason why you had to exclude animals in this thing of yours, you aren't a Contractarian so far as I can see. It was just lazy, and stupid, self-harm.

For you, that there are no moral facts is driven by dogmatic ideology and confirmation bias.

When I have Justified moral facts as grounds and standards, I am able to condemned anyone as immoral if they act against those moral facts.
My moral facts as grounds will cover all evil acts related to intra-human-species and not inter-species except where there is an vested interest.

Where inter-species acts and issues are involved, we review them then determined whether the acts are due to insanity or mental issues which need to be dealt via psychiatry and not necessary morality and ethics.

Suggest you research more into what is Morality proper and its related Ethics.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope. Henry says it's a fact that only humans are persons (which, by any definition of 'person', is a matter of opinion); that it's morally wrong to harm persons (which is a matter of opinion, not a fact); and that therefore it's not morally wrong to harm other animals (which is a matter of opinion, not a fact).

Where did you get the idea that 'by any definition of 'person', is a matter of opinion'.
That is crazy idea.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person
Obvious 'what is person' is based on fact [knowledge] and not opinion. Note,

Re: opinion: A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/opinion

Note this distinction between Knowledge and Opinion:

Historically, the distinction of demonstrated knowledge and opinion was articulated by Ancient Greek philosophers.
Today, Plato's analogy of the divided line is a well-known illustration of the distinction between knowledge and opinion, or knowledge and belief, in customary terminology of contemporary philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

I have also argued Morality is strictly confined to the human species only, exceptions are only when there are vested interests to the human species.
Thus harming non-human animal is outside the scope of morality, thus no question of morality on such acts, but such acts imply the existence of mental issues and should be dealt within psychiatry.

As I've explained, whatever facts we deploy to justify a moral opinion, it remains an opinion and doesn't thereby magically metamorphose into a fact; and others can always deploy the same facts differently, or different facts, to justify a different moral opinion.

However Henry's point re slavery is alignment with my moral fact on specifically chattel-slavery which I have provided extensive justifications [in the various posts re moral facts] as a Justified True Moral Belief.

Nope. As I've explained, the JTB definition of knowledge is incoherent, because only factual assertions can have truth value; so beliefs are neither true nor false; and knowing something is the case need have nothing to do with language. And anyway, your assumption that morality is an epistemological matter in the first place begs the question.

JTB [Gettier acknowledged] is the most effective basis to determine what is knowledge that is distinct from what is 'opinion'.

Whatever that is justified from a specific Framework and System of Knowledge and Activities is fact [as defined above].
Morality like any Framework and System of activities and knowledge rely upon JTBs from other field of knowledge to justify its moral facts to be used a moral standards within the Moral F/S.

Note, Morality-proper is specifically an intra-species issue and thus applicable only to humans universally with no moral-obligations be extended to other species except in relevant and necessary conditions.

Nope. You merely state this matter of opinion - regarding moral scope - as though it's a fact, when it isn't.

How come your skull is SO thick.
I have explained a 'thousand' times the difference between Knowledge, belief, and Opinion, see Plato mentioned above.

Morality-proper has to be confined within the human species only, else one will face the CONTRADICTION and dilemma of having to kill living non-humans for food, for other necessity, kill or harm them accidentally, ignorantly, etc.
Where such killing do not involved any vested positive interests to the human species, they are not within the confine of Morality, but should be dealt with via psychiatry, psychology, traditions, social norms, etc.

[Peter Holmes]

Nope. Henry says it's a fact that only humans are persons (which, by any definition of 'person', is a matter of opinion); that it's morally wrong to harm persons (which is a matter of opinion, not a fact); and that therefore it's not morally wrong to harm other animals (which is a matter of opinion, not a fact).

Where did you get the idea that 'by any definition of 'person', is a matter of opinion'.
That is crazy idea.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person
Obvious 'what is person' is based on fact [knowledge] and not opinion.

Think carefully. To define a word, such as 'person', is to explain how we use it or could use it. If we use the word 'person' as a synonym for 'human being', then the claim that only humans are persons is redundant. And I'm pointing out the redundancy of saying that it's morally wrong to harm humans because they're persons, and therefore not morally wrong to harm other animals because they're not persons.

This boils down to the obnoxious claim that moral rightness and wrongness don't figure in our treatment of other animals, so that we can do what we like with them. For example, foxes aren't humans, so its morally okay to hunt them with dogs that tear them to pieces, all for our pleasure. And it's morally okay to shoot a lion for 'sport', because it doesn't 'own itself', because it isn't a 'person'. This position is morally bankrupt, IMHO.

Note,

Re: opinion: A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/opinion

Note this distinction between Knowledge and Opinion:

Historically, the distinction of demonstrated knowledge and opinion was articulated by Ancient Greek philosophers.
Today, Plato's analogy of the divided line is a well-known illustration of the distinction between knowledge and opinion, or knowledge and belief, in customary terminology of contemporary philosophy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

I have also argued Morality is strictly confined to the human species only, exceptions are only when there are vested interests to the human species.
Thus harming non-human animal is outside the scope of morality, thus no question of morality on such acts, but such acts imply the existence of mental issues and should be dealt within psychiatry.

FFS, wake up. That humans are not non-human animals is a FACT. That morality applies only to humans is an OPINION, and not a fact.

As I've explained, whatever facts we deploy to justify a moral opinion, it remains an opinion and doesn't thereby magically metamorphose into a fact; and others can always deploy the same facts differently, or different facts, to justify a different moral opinion.

However Henry's point re slavery is alignment with my moral fact on specifically chattel-slavery which I have provided extensive justifications [in the various posts re moral facts] as a Justified True Moral Belief.

Nope. As I've explained, the JTB definition of knowledge is incoherent, because only factual assertions can have truth value; so beliefs are neither true nor false; and knowing something is the case need have nothing to do with language. And anyway, your assumption that morality is an epistemological matter in the first place begs the question.

JTB [Gettier acknowledged] is the most effective basis to determine what is knowledge that is distinct from what is 'opinion'.

Pay attention. I've just shown you why the JTB definition of knowledge is a conceptual mess. Why not have a go at understanding the explanation, instead of ignoring it? And, btw, Gettier merely recycled the confusion in 'true belief', missing the real problem, which is the assumed necessity of the truth condition.

Whatever that is justified from a specific Framework and System of Knowledge and Activities is fact [as defined above].
Morality like any Framework and System of activities and knowledge rely upon JTBs from other field of knowledge to justify its moral facts to be used a moral standards within the Moral F/S.

Note, Morality-proper is specifically an intra-species issue and thus applicable only to humans universally with no moral-obligations be extended to other species except in relevant and necessary conditions.

Nope. You merely state this matter of opinion - regarding moral scope - as though it's a fact, when it isn't.

How come your skull is SO thick.
I have explained a 'thousand' times the difference between Knowledge, belief, and Opinion, see Plato mentioned above.

Morality-proper has to be confined within the human species only, else one will face the CONTRADICTION and dilemma of having to kill living non-humans for food, for other necessity, kill or harm them accidentally, ignorantly, etc.
Where such killing do not involved any vested positive interests to the human species, they are not within the confine of Morality, but should be dealt with via psychiatry, psychology, traditions, social norms, etc.

WTF? It's precisely because the scope of our moral concerns is not, factually, confined to humans that vegans think eating animals and their products is morally wrong. Your 'intra-species' bullshit has no factual justification. It's just an opinion.

[FlashDangerpants]

also, if your moral "facts" can't account for it being morally wrong to torture an animal for pleasure, you failed real hard.

...the killing of living non-humans for food and other positive reasons are not a moral issue....

This is why your description of morality does not cover the actual thing, it's a substitute, or at best a minimal subset of the proper thing.

Suggest you research more into what is Morality proper and its related Ethics.

You can take a nasy vegan paste and make fake bacon out of it and call that "Bacon Proper", but it's still a shit and insubstantial alternative to the actual thing. Just calling it "proper" does nothing to change the fact that it is visibly inferior and fake. The same goes for all of your utterly shit "proper" alternatives. Your "philosophy-proper" is fake sad and usless, your "morality-proper" is hopelessly inadequate.

If you want to base morality on fact, use actual morality. If you can't do that, quit lying to yourself about whatever fake substitute shit you can do being "proper"

[henry quirk]

P1: All men are mortal. P2: Socrates is a man. Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

So because I didn't construct a syllogism a person belongs to himself therefore it is wrong to treat him as property or resource isn't true?

I wonder how many other truths we can dismiss cuz they don't readily lend themselves to bein' syllogisticized.

Someone ought to do a study.