Is morality objective or subjective?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 9:25 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 8:38 am The longer this drivel dribbles on, the more convinced I am that moral realism/objectivism - belief in the existence of a moral reality and, therefore, moral facts - is identical in form to supernaturalism: animism, diabolism, theism, and so on.

There's the same irrationality - faith despite the absence of evidence and sound argument - and the same determination to justify the faith. Which of us wants to be, or at least appear, irrational?

I've not seen research into the overlap between the two forms of irrationalism, but I'd guess it's considerable.
Form the fact Man is a social animal it follows Man is a moral animal.

But Man is a moral animal does not imply Every man holds the same moral tenets.

The question should read Are any moral tenets (or any morals) objective?
The point is within Morality there is its substance and its forms.

Whilst not every man will hold the same moral tenets as in the moral forms, the substance of moral within each man is the same for every man.

That man is a moral animal is a fact, i.e. basically a moral fact.
Those moral facts that I had justified empirically and philosophically as Justified True Moral Facts represent the substance of Morality.

Moral Forms are definitely subjective and relative to different man as warranted in different conditions and these cannot be moral facts as justified.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Fri Jul 31, 2020 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: for anyone

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 8:20 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:13 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:45 pm More spin and misrepresentation. I think a person should have complete control over what happens to her body, including her fertiity. So I think this should have been and should always be the case everywhere. But this is a moral principle I hold to - not some kind of fact. Stop fucking about with what I'm saying to twist it with your projections.
You are the one who is making all the spins till getting your 'knickers in a twist' you cannot unknot.
  • PH: I think a person should have complete control over what happens to her body, including her fertility.
    So I think this should have been and should always be the case everywhere.
If the above is universal to all humans, then I presumed the above would be verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically.
In that case, it is fact, i.e. a state-of-affairs, at least mentally.
  • PH: But this [as above] is a moral principle I hold to ..
Since 'this' is a fact and a moral principle,
and this fact is dealt within the moral framework to be a moral principle,
then, it is a moral fact, i.e. a fact within the moral context.

Prove me wrong on the above?
The fact that you can write this and think it makes sense - that you don't understand the mistakes you make - indicates - at least to me - that there's no point in pursuing the discussion. Others may want to, of course.
As usual you are making noises again without justifications.
The point is the more you try to counter, the more your ignorance will be exposed, that is why you are running away.
Hey, I am not that ugly monster who is threatening to eat you, we are just discussing within a discussion.
Belinda
Posts: 3992
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 6:25 am
Belinda wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 9:50 am Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... opulations
From the above 70% of the world's population are theistic, i.e. depend on their morality from a God which issue immutable moral commands, thus claimed to be 'objective'.

The other Moral Framework and System of moral relativism are not grounded and guided by highly credible moral facts.
The moral acts within the utilitarianism-moral-systems are led by a noose on merely desires and what is felt to pleasurable [happiness]. There is no absolute 'ought-not' to restrain anyone who kill other humans because their desire led them to kill and they feel the pleasure, happiness and the approbations with it.
Despite "There is no absolute 'ought-not' to restrain anyone who kill other humans because their desire led them to kill and they feel the pleasure, happiness and the approbations with it." social tradition including that of both arts and science is not only a field rich for the pickings but is also a moral base from which we can create newer and more suitable moral tenets.In connection with tradition history , stories of man's past , is where tradition we find tradition.

Rightly so, we are currently engaged in unpicking formerly received stories and assembling newer and better stories. Historians who work as investigative scientists and also historians who work as interpreters of evidence have methods that act to filter the probable and the improbable.History same as science has undergone paradigm shifts especially as to what history is for. Modern historiographers select evidence and frames from a really big field of inquiry and that can only be truer. We can now look at heroes such as Joan of Arc, or Muhammad, or Jesus of Nazareth, or George Washington from a variety of perspectives, see that certainty is a Bad Thing, and pick out the traditions that work and those that don't work.

Obviously "traditions that work" indicates a criterion to separate what works from what doesn't work. Here science can help, especially ecology. Freedom to live is felt in the innermost heart of each living being, + we now know how species and individuals within species need each other.
I had stated morality-proper is an inherent function within ALL human beings but this function is dormant in most and slightly active and unfolding in some percentile of humans.

I agree traditions, culture, social activities within humanity had triggered the inherent moral function positively within humans over time.

I am sure the first human who was enslaved as a chattel-slave >10,000 years ago would have wished [as a moral sentiment] that he is not enslaved and is free.
But is only after >10,000 years [perhaps >100,000 years ago] that we see some inklings of restraint on slavery, e.g. with the UN Declaration on Human Rights - the Slavery Conventions. Despite that there are still enslavement of humans going on around the world.
There is still a long list of immoral acts that humans has to deal with.

So yes, there are improvements in moral competences since long ago via traditions, customs, conventions, etc. BUT those noted progress in morality are too slow.
Such slowness is very concerning given that there is an exponential expansion in knowledge and technology which the evil prone people can exploit to commit their evil acts.

At present it is very possible with what we have in hand, for a rogue mad dictator could push the "red-button" with WMDs [nuclear and biological] to exterminate the human species. There are other serious threats that could decimate the human species, e.g. rogue asteroids, climate change, etc.

Given the above serious threats, thus is imperative that we need justified moral 'ought' as a stop-gap measure to restrain such serious evil acts. [in contrast to individuals setting their own subjective moral standards]
Therefrom, humanity need to establish fool proof self development programs to increase the moral competence of every individual to the extent they are spontaneously moral without any threats or nudging from others.

To achieve the above, humanity must at this point initiate the plan of establishing an effective moral framework and system with Justified True Moral Facts as guide and standards, thus the need for Morality to be Objective.
Done!

A summary of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 1: We are all born free. We all have our own thoughts and ideas and we should all be treated the same way.

Article 2: The rights in the UDHR belong to everyone, no matter who we are, where we’re from, or whatever we believe.

Article 3: We all have the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety.

Article 4: No one should be held as a slave, and no one has the right to treat anyone else as their slave.

Article 5: No one has the right to inflict torture, or to subject anyone else to cruel or inhuman treatment.

Article 6: We should all have the same level of legal protection whoever we are, and wherever in the world we are.

Article 7: The law is the same for everyone, and must treat us all equally.

Article 8: We should all have the right to legal support if we are treated unfairly.

Article 9: Nobody should be arrested, put in prison, or sent away from our country unless there is good reason to do so.

Article 10: Everyone accused of a crime has the right to a fair and public
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4591
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Belinda wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 6:25 am
Belinda wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 9:50 am Veritas Aequitas wrote:

Despite "There is no absolute 'ought-not' to restrain anyone who kill other humans because their desire led them to kill and they feel the pleasure, happiness and the approbations with it." social tradition including that of both arts and science is not only a field rich for the pickings but is also a moral base from which we can create newer and more suitable moral tenets.In connection with tradition history , stories of man's past , is where tradition we find tradition.

Rightly so, we are currently engaged in unpicking formerly received stories and assembling newer and better stories. Historians who work as investigative scientists and also historians who work as interpreters of evidence have methods that act to filter the probable and the improbable.History same as science has undergone paradigm shifts especially as to what history is for. Modern historiographers select evidence and frames from a really big field of inquiry and that can only be truer. We can now look at heroes such as Joan of Arc, or Muhammad, or Jesus of Nazareth, or George Washington from a variety of perspectives, see that certainty is a Bad Thing, and pick out the traditions that work and those that don't work.

Obviously "traditions that work" indicates a criterion to separate what works from what doesn't work. Here science can help, especially ecology. Freedom to live is felt in the innermost heart of each living being, + we now know how species and individuals within species need each other.
I had stated morality-proper is an inherent function within ALL human beings but this function is dormant in most and slightly active and unfolding in some percentile of humans.

I agree traditions, culture, social activities within humanity had triggered the inherent moral function positively within humans over time.

I am sure the first human who was enslaved as a chattel-slave >10,000 years ago would have wished [as a moral sentiment] that he is not enslaved and is free.
But is only after >10,000 years [perhaps >100,000 years ago] that we see some inklings of restraint on slavery, e.g. with the UN Declaration on Human Rights - the Slavery Conventions. Despite that there are still enslavement of humans going on around the world.
There is still a long list of immoral acts that humans has to deal with.

So yes, there are improvements in moral competences since long ago via traditions, customs, conventions, etc. BUT those noted progress in morality are too slow.
Such slowness is very concerning given that there is an exponential expansion in knowledge and technology which the evil prone people can exploit to commit their evil acts.

At present it is very possible with what we have in hand, for a rogue mad dictator could push the "red-button" with WMDs [nuclear and biological] to exterminate the human species. There are other serious threats that could decimate the human species, e.g. rogue asteroids, climate change, etc.

Given the above serious threats, thus is imperative that we need justified moral 'ought' as a stop-gap measure to restrain such serious evil acts. [in contrast to individuals setting their own subjective moral standards]
Therefrom, humanity need to establish fool proof self development programs to increase the moral competence of every individual to the extent they are spontaneously moral without any threats or nudging from others.

To achieve the above, humanity must at this point initiate the plan of establishing an effective moral framework and system with Justified True Moral Facts as guide and standards, thus the need for Morality to be Objective.
Done!

A summary of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 1: We are all born free. We all have our own thoughts and ideas and we should all be treated the same way.

Article 2: The rights in the UDHR belong to everyone, no matter who we are, where we’re from, or whatever we believe.

Article 3: We all have the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety.

Article 4: No one should be held as a slave, and no one has the right to treat anyone else as their slave.

Article 5: No one has the right to inflict torture, or to subject anyone else to cruel or inhuman treatment.

Article 6: We should all have the same level of legal protection whoever we are, and wherever in the world we are.

Article 7: The law is the same for everyone, and must treat us all equally.

Article 8: We should all have the right to legal support if we are treated unfairly.

Article 9: Nobody should be arrested, put in prison, or sent away from our country unless there is good reason to do so.

Article 10: Everyone accused of a crime has the right to a fair and public
Good points.

It would be an insult to humanity if people like Peter Holmes keep insisting the above are merely opinions.
Actually his insistence those above are merely opinions [not moral facts] reflect the damaging cognitive deficit in his morality.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1328
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:15 am
Belinda wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 6:25 am
I had stated morality-proper is an inherent function within ALL human beings but this function is dormant in most and slightly active and unfolding in some percentile of humans.

I agree traditions, culture, social activities within humanity had triggered the inherent moral function positively within humans over time.

I am sure the first human who was enslaved as a chattel-slave >10,000 years ago would have wished [as a moral sentiment] that he is not enslaved and is free.
But is only after >10,000 years [perhaps >100,000 years ago] that we see some inklings of restraint on slavery, e.g. with the UN Declaration on Human Rights - the Slavery Conventions. Despite that there are still enslavement of humans going on around the world.
There is still a long list of immoral acts that humans has to deal with.

So yes, there are improvements in moral competences since long ago via traditions, customs, conventions, etc. BUT those noted progress in morality are too slow.
Such slowness is very concerning given that there is an exponential expansion in knowledge and technology which the evil prone people can exploit to commit their evil acts.

At present it is very possible with what we have in hand, for a rogue mad dictator could push the "red-button" with WMDs [nuclear and biological] to exterminate the human species. There are other serious threats that could decimate the human species, e.g. rogue asteroids, climate change, etc.

Given the above serious threats, thus is imperative that we need justified moral 'ought' as a stop-gap measure to restrain such serious evil acts. [in contrast to individuals setting their own subjective moral standards]
Therefrom, humanity need to establish fool proof self development programs to increase the moral competence of every individual to the extent they are spontaneously moral without any threats or nudging from others.

To achieve the above, humanity must at this point initiate the plan of establishing an effective moral framework and system with Justified True Moral Facts as guide and standards, thus the need for Morality to be Objective.
Done!

A summary of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 1: We are all born free. We all have our own thoughts and ideas and we should all be treated the same way.

Article 2: The rights in the UDHR belong to everyone, no matter who we are, where we’re from, or whatever we believe.

Article 3: We all have the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety.

Article 4: No one should be held as a slave, and no one has the right to treat anyone else as their slave.

Article 5: No one has the right to inflict torture, or to subject anyone else to cruel or inhuman treatment.

Article 6: We should all have the same level of legal protection whoever we are, and wherever in the world we are.

Article 7: The law is the same for everyone, and must treat us all equally.

Article 8: We should all have the right to legal support if we are treated unfairly.

Article 9: Nobody should be arrested, put in prison, or sent away from our country unless there is good reason to do so.

Article 10: Everyone accused of a crime has the right to a fair and public [trial.]
Good points.

It would be an insult to humanity if people like Peter Holmes keep insisting the above are merely opinions.
Actually his insistence those above are merely opinions [not moral facts] reflect the damaging cognitive deficit in his morality.
I agree with all of those UDHR articles.

But 4, 6 , 8 and 9 - those with 'should' - express moral judgements, not factual claims.

And those that purport to be factual assertions - 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 10 - are either false, or really express moral aims. For example, '7 the law is the same for everyone' is in reality false, and really means 'the law should be the same for everyone'. Recently, ruling classes worldwide have paid lip-service to equality before the law. But the facts expose their hypocrisy.

I'm wondering why the idea that these (in my opinion) morally excellent principles express value-judgements is so disturbing. Why can't it be true that an organisation aiming to represent the world has settled on moral principles designed for the well-being of everyone equally?

Why is it important to insist, without evidence, that these are not freely-chosen moral principles, but rather facts - true factual assertions - not value-judgements decided on collectively, but rather merely statements of the way things are?

They don't assert the way things are. They assert the way things ought to be.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: for anyone

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 2:06 am
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:21 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:57 am The choice is whether or not to have sex, not whether or not to murder a human being ...
What are you talking about? What human being would have to be murdered?
the bun in the oven
Doesn't that assume that any, "bun in the oven," is bread (to use your metaphor)?

I'm questioning the meaning of, "human?" Is the "bun" human because it is the consequence of coitus? Is it human because the cells are are genetically human? Is it human whether it makes it to term or not?

If the fetus is ectopic it is never going to reach term and if not removed it will kill the mother. Is that fetus a human being?

One kind of molar pregnancy produces an organism that is genetically human but not viable because the fertilized egg was not fully mature. Another kind of molar pregnancy produces a non-viable organism with an extra set of chromosomes (all perfectly human) which cannot survive but can kill the mother. Are these buns human beings?

What is a parasitic twin? It is genetically identical to the host twin, but cannot survive on it's own if removed from the host twin, but the host may not survive if it isn't. Is a parasitic twin a human being? The argument that it isn't because it cannot survive on its own sounds suspiciously like the description of any fetus, which cannot survive on its own.

Which raises the question of all fetuses with cephalic disorders, such as anencephaly, which is a fetus without most of its head or brain, or no brain at all (like a parasitic twin). They are genetically human but can never gain consciousness, even if born.

Between 10 and 20 percent of all pregnancies involve one of these non-viable buns.

So my question is what exactly identifies a mass of protoplasm as a human being? If murder is killing a human being, just exactly what a human being is must be specified, doesn't it?

I'm not discussing abortion, only the use of the word, "murder," to describe the termination of every and all pregnancies, which I regard as grossly dishonest.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8826
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Pete

Post by henry quirk »

What makes you a person?

These questions don't have factual answers.

Even the one above? You are a person, yes? Surely there must be sumthin' concrete, sumthin' factual, about you, some quality or qualities that anyone can point to and say 'this is why Pete is a person'.


How does the moral non-realist justify such a declaration?

If there are no moral facts, then moral judgements are subjective. So, how can moral judgements be justified, if there are no moral facts?

In other words: your declaration is just opinion. You agree with the notion that a woman owns herself and should exercise complete control over her reproductive system., but it's just an opinion.

Okay.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1328
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Pete

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 2:18 pm What makes you a person?

These questions don't have factual answers.

Even the one above? You are a person, yes? Surely there must be sumthin' concrete, sumthin' factual, about you, some quality or qualities that anyone can point to and say 'this is why Pete is a person'.


How does the moral non-realist justify such a declaration?

If there are no moral facts, then moral judgements are subjective. So, how can moral judgements be justified, if there are no moral facts?

In other words: your declaration is just opinion. You agree with the notion that a woman owns herself and should exercise complete control over her reproductive system., but it's just an opinion.

Okay.
Yes. And the ratonally-argued and evidenced decision handed down by a supreme court on a question of law is also 'just an opinion'.

Why think an opinion has to be irrational, selfish, self-regarding, fickle, and so on? Are your opinions like that?
Last edited by Peter Holmes on Fri Jul 31, 2020 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9053
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: for anyone

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:21 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:57 am The choice is whether or not to have sex, not whether or not to murder a human being ...
What are you talking about? What human being would have to be murdered?
Babies. Babies are people too, of course. They count exactly as much as women do.

Heck, statistically, most of the aborted ones ARE women, and of colour, too.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8826
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

RC

Post by henry quirk »

Doesn't that assume that any, "bun in the oven," is bread (to use your metaphor)?

As a irrational deist I believe the bun in the oven is bread even when it's just a cluster of rapidly dividin' bread cells.

Goin' solely by science, I'd have to say the bun is bread by the beginnin' of the second trimester and not before.


I'm questioning the meaning of, "human?" Is the "bun" human because it is the consequence of coitus? Is it human because the cells are are genetically human? Is it human whether it makes it to term or not?

Bein' an irrational deist, I think the meaning or definition of person is what we ought to focus on. What constitutes a person? Some folks think such a question has no factual answer. What do you think?


If the fetus is ectopic it is never going to reach term and if not removed it will kill the mother. Is that fetus a human being?

Goin' by science, after week 12, yeah, it's a person. It's also assumed the role of tumor. Mom has a decision to make.


One kind of molar pregnancy produces an organism that is genetically human but not viable because the fertilized egg was not fully mature. Another kind of molar pregnancy produces a non-viable organism with an extra set of chromosomes (all perfectly human) which cannot survive but can kill the mother. Are these buns human beings?

Are these deviations persons? I don't know. Mebbe. Probably. Again: Mom has a decision to make.


What is a parasitic twin? It is genetically identical to the host twin, but cannot survive on it's own if removed from the host twin, but the host may not survive if it isn't. Is a parasitic twin a human being? The argument that it isn't because it cannot survive on its own sounds suspiciously like the description of any fetus, which cannot survive on its own.

Which raises the question of all fetuses with cephalic disorders, such as anencephaly, which is a fetus without most of its head or brain, or no brain at all (like a parasitic twin). They are genetically human but can never gain consciousness, even if born.

Between 10 and 20 percent of all pregnancies involve one of these non-viable buns.

With these (ectopic, molar, parasitic, cephalic) we move from abortion as relief from inconvenience to abortion to save at least one life The first, in my irrationally morally realistic view is wrong; the second is a matter of soul-searchin' and hard choices.


So my question is what exactly identifies a mass of protoplasm as a human being? If murder is killing a human being, just exactly what a human being is must be specified, doesn't it?

As I say: I focus on what is a person?

Unlike some folks, I'll give you an answer...

As a deist (whacky, irrational, morally realistic, ought to be locked away): I believe personhood is when spirit is irrevocably coupled to substance (crazy, yeah?). This composite of spirit and substance (soul and flesh, information and matter) is a person.

Goin' only by science: a person arises from a particular and peculiar kind of biological complexity most clearly evidenced by human beings from the end of the end of the first trimester on.

We associate certain qualities or characteristics with personhood. A full listing would bore the forum, tax me, and isn't necessary for the conversation. We can sum personhood up in this way: I-ness (yeah, another whacky notion, like ownness [somebody get the white coat boys in here, Quirk done gone off the deep end!].

We can talk about I-ness if you want.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8826
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Pete

Post by henry quirk »

I'm a dog worryin' at a bone, Pete...

What makes you a person?

These questions don't have factual answers.

Even the one above? You are a person, yes? Surely there must be sumthin' concrete, sumthin' factual, about you, some quality or qualities that anyone can point to and say 'this is why Pete is a person'.

-----

Why think an opinion has to be irrational, selfish, self-regarding, fickle, and so on? Are your opinions like that?

There are informed opinions (informed by fact [fire is hot, I prefer not to touch it]); there are uninformed opinions (plucked right out of fancy land [Joe has a big nose, big nosed folks are stupid, so Joe is an imbecile]).
Belinda
Posts: 3992
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Belinda »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:15 am
Belinda wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:07 am
Done!

A summary of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 1: We are all born free. We all have our own thoughts and ideas and we should all be treated the same way.

Article 2: The rights in the UDHR belong to everyone, no matter who we are, where we’re from, or whatever we believe.

Article 3: We all have the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety.

Article 4: No one should be held as a slave, and no one has the right to treat anyone else as their slave.

Article 5: No one has the right to inflict torture, or to subject anyone else to cruel or inhuman treatment.

Article 6: We should all have the same level of legal protection whoever we are, and wherever in the world we are.

Article 7: The law is the same for everyone, and must treat us all equally.

Article 8: We should all have the right to legal support if we are treated unfairly.

Article 9: Nobody should be arrested, put in prison, or sent away from our country unless there is good reason to do so.

Article 10: Everyone accused of a crime has the right to a fair and public [trial.]
Good points.

It would be an insult to humanity if people like Peter Holmes keep insisting the above are merely opinions.
Actually his insistence those above are merely opinions [not moral facts] reflect the damaging cognitive deficit in his morality.
I agree with all of those UDHR articles.

But 4, 6 , 8 and 9 - those with 'should' - express moral judgements, not factual claims.

And those that purport to be factual assertions - 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 10 - are either false, or really express moral aims. For example, '7 the law is the same for everyone' is in reality false, and really means 'the law should be the same for everyone'. Recently, ruling classes worldwide have paid lip-service to equality before the law. But the facts expose their hypocrisy.

I'm wondering why the idea that these (in my opinion) morally excellent principles express value-judgements is so disturbing. Why can't it be true that an organisation aiming to represent the world has settled on moral principles designed for the well-being of everyone equally?

Why is it important to insist, without evidence, that these are not freely-chosen moral principles, but rather facts - true factual assertions - not value-judgements decided on collectively, but rather merely statements of the way things are?

They don't assert the way things are. They assert the way things ought to be.
The articles are the way things are whenever we make them so. There is no other reality apart from what we intend and do. There are no other morals apart from what we intend and do. There is no other moral system apart from what we intend and do.
Justice has no essential defining attribute by which it could be known.
Justice does not exist until we make it exist.
One can say "ought" and "it's a matter of duty" forever but intentions must be fulfilled before they signify.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a matter of "should" or "ought" it's a legal document with powers.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 1328
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Pete

Post by Peter Holmes »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Jul 31, 2020 3:31 pm I'm a dog worryin' at a bone, Pete...

What makes you a person?

These questions don't have factual answers.

Even the one above? You are a person, yes? Surely there must be sumthin' concrete, sumthin' factual, about you, some quality or qualities that anyone can point to and say 'this is why Pete is a person'.

-----

Why think an opinion has to be irrational, selfish, self-regarding, fickle, and so on? Are your opinions like that?

There are informed opinions (informed by fact [fire is hot, I prefer not to touch it]); there are uninformed opinions (plucked right out of fancy land [Joe has a big nose, big nosed folks are stupid, so Joe is an imbecile]).
Agreed. And in this way opinions are identical to beliefs and judgements. Would we say 'that's merely a belief' or 'that's merely a judgement'?

And back to 'what makes a person a person?' You seem to think that's a factual question, so that the answers are true or false.

Okay, if you think a zygote - a fertilised egg - is a person, is it the fact that it contains human DNA that makes that true? Or is it that a zygote owns itself - is that what makes it a person?

Whatever you think a person is, do you think that killing a person is never morally justifiable?

If you think it can be morally justifiable to kill a person, do you think that's a fact, or a matter of opinion?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8826
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Pete

Post by henry quirk »

What makes you a person?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8826
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Pete

Post by henry quirk »

Whatever you think a person is, do you think that killing a person is never morally justifiable?

I've addressed this before.

A man belongs to himself. He has a inviolate right to his life, liberty, and property. His life, liberty, or property is only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, without just cause, deprives, in part or whole, another of his life, liberty, or property.

Summed up: mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else.

As I say: I think a fact leads to a moral fact that in turns leads to practical applications.

But: you disagree and that's okay.

Today: I'm far more interested in...

What makes you, Peter Holmes, a person?
Post Reply