What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

I strongly believe slavery is morally wrong.

what's the basis for your strong moral opposition to slavery?

I believe a person should have complete control over her own body. It's an important moral principle for me. I assume I don't need to explain why that is. But, of course, a principle isn't a fact. Those are two completely different things.

[henry quirk]

I assume I don't need to explain why that is.

Actually, I think it would be best all around if you did.

Why do you believe a person should have complete control over her own body?

Why is it an important moral principle for you?

[Peter Holmes]

I assume I don't need to explain why that is.

Actually, I think it would be best all around if you did.

Why do you believe a person should have complete control over her own body?

Why is it an important moral principle for you?

What is the aim of your question? If I go through my reasons for having and holding to that moral principle - which I expect are identical or very similar to many or even most other people's reasons - including yours - are you expecting to find a fact or some facts that provide a foundation for the principle? Let me try to predict such a fact.

I don't want anyone to have complete control over my own body, including my own fertility. So I don't want to live in a world where anyone can have such control over anyone's body. Those facts are part of my reason for the moral principle. But that doesn't make the moral principle a fact.

When you say a fact can 'lead to' a moral fact, what I think you mean is a fact can lead to a moral principle. And the problem is the same fact can 'lead to' a different moral principle. For example, anti-abortionists reach their own moral conclusion about control over someone's body. There's a conflict of principles, and they give one precedence over the other. And that's a matter of judgement, and therefore subjective.

[henry quirk]

What is the aim of your question?

curiosity


If I go through my reasons for having and holding to that moral principle - which I expect are identical or very similar to many or even most other people's reasons - including yours - are you expecting to find a fact or some facts that provide a foundation for the principle?

I expect nuthin' but a glimpse at a moral non-realist's reasoning


I don't want anyone to have complete control over my own body,

why?

[Peter Holmes]

What is the aim of your question?

curiosity


If I go through my reasons for having and holding to that moral principle - which I expect are identical or very similar to many or even most other people's reasons - including yours - are you expecting to find a fact or some facts that provide a foundation for the principle?

I expect nuthin' but a glimpse at a moral non-realist's reasoning


I don't want anyone to have complete control over my own body,

why?

Questions and explanations come to an end. Ask yourself why you don't want anyone to have complete control over your body. Is it because 'a person owns herself'? Or is it because you just don't?

A person owns herself. A person wants to own herself. Therefore a person should own herself. Why does the moral conclusion follow?

If a person doesn't own or want to own herself, would it follow that a person shouldn't own herself?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is the aim of your question?

curiosity


If I go through my reasons for having and holding to that moral principle - which I expect are identical or very similar to many or even most other people's reasons - including yours - are you expecting to find a fact or some facts that provide a foundation for the principle?

I expect nuthin' but a glimpse at a moral non-realist's reasoning


I don't want anyone to have complete control over my own body,

why?

Your intuitive question is right on the bullseye.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is the aim of your question?

curiosity


If I go through my reasons for having and holding to that moral principle - which I expect are identical or very similar to many or even most other people's reasons - including yours - are you expecting to find a fact or some facts that provide a foundation for the principle?

I expect nuthin' but a glimpse at a moral non-realist's reasoning


I don't want anyone to have complete control over my own body,

why?

Questions and explanations come to an end. Ask yourself why you don't want anyone to have complete control over your body. Is it because 'a person owns herself'? Or is it because you just don't?

A person owns herself. A person wants to own herself. Therefore a person should own herself. Why does the moral conclusion follow?

If a person doesn't own or want to own herself, would it follow that a person shouldn't own herself?

The above support my point why your thinking is narrow, shallow and dogmatic.

When you direct the point at your self, you need to recognize that you are a human being having such human nature as the rest of the 7+ billion humans at present the others humans of the past.

If you are philosophical and not narrow, shallow and dogmatic, it is only natural you need to ask whether the above impulse re owning oneself is replicated to the rest of the other 7+ billion who has the same fundamental DNA structures.

You cannot be the exception, from empirical evidences one can infer 'wanting to own oneself and having full control is fundamental impulse that is generic to all humans, i.e. an inherent quality of human nature.

If you want to fully own yourself, then you do not want to be own by others.
Anything that is contrary to one's wants bring about pains.
It is immoral to cause pain to others.
Slavery cause pains to others - as evident.
Therefore one ought not to to cause pain to others, in this case, enslave another human.

The Moral Framework and System produces moral facts.
Thus,
'no human ought to own another' justified from within the Moral FSK
is a moral fact.

Note there are a tons of justifications [done elsewhere] I can bring to support my point above.

[Peter Holmes]

What is the aim of your question?

curiosity


If I go through my reasons for having and holding to that moral principle - which I expect are identical or very similar to many or even most other people's reasons - including yours - are you expecting to find a fact or some facts that provide a foundation for the principle?

I expect nuthin' but a glimpse at a moral non-realist's reasoning


I don't want anyone to have complete control over my own body,

why?

Questions and explanations come to an end. Ask yourself why you don't want anyone to have complete control over your body. Is it because 'a person owns herself'? Or is it because you just don't?

A person owns herself. A person wants to own herself. Therefore a person should own herself. Why does the moral conclusion follow?

If a person doesn't own or want to own herself, would it follow that a person shouldn't own herself?

The above support my point why your thinking is narrow, shallow and dogmatic.

When you direct the point at your self, you need to recognize that you are a human being having such human nature as the rest of the 7+ billion humans at present the others humans of the past.

If you are philosophical and not narrow, shallow and dogmatic, it is only natural you need to ask whether the above impulse re owning oneself is replicated to the rest of the other 7+ billion who has the same fundamental DNA structures.

You cannot be the exception, from empirical evidences one can infer 'wanting to own oneself and having full control is fundamental impulse that is generic to all humans, i.e. an inherent quality of human nature.

If you want to fully own yourself, then you do not want to be own by others.
Anything that is contrary to one's wants bring about pains.
It is immoral to cause pain to others.
Slavery cause pains to others - as evident.
Therefore one ought not to to cause pain to others, in this case, enslave another human.

The Moral Framework and System produces moral facts.
Thus,
'no human ought to own another' justified from within the Moral FSK
is a moral fact.

Note there are a tons of justifications [done elsewhere] I can bring to support my point above.

Every human wants to own herself; therefore owning a human is morally wrong.

Every human wants to live; therefore killing a human is morally wrong.

Even if those factual premises were true - and the second is definitely false - the moral conclusions don't logically follow.

Meanwhile, I note that you haven't produced an argument - yours, Searle's or Putnams - demonstrating a moral entailment from a fact. I wait with unbated breath. Again.

But perhaps you think the following does the job:

If you want to fully own yourself, then you do not want to be own by others.
Anything that is contrary to one's wants bring about pains.
It is immoral to cause pain to others.
Slavery cause pains to others - as evident.
Therefore one ought not to to cause pain to others, in this case, enslave another human.

Trouble is, you're trying to show a moral conclusion follows from one or more factual premises. And 'It is immoral to cause pain to others' is a moral assertion, not a factual assertion, let alone a fact. So this argument is unsound:

P1: Causing pain to others is morally wrong.
P2: Slavery causes pain to others.
C: Therefore slavery is morally wrong.

This is valid, but you can see that it's unsound. Why is causing pain to others morally wrong?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Questions and explanations come to an end. Ask yourself why you don't want anyone to have complete control over your body. Is it because 'a person owns herself'? Or is it because you just don't?

A person owns herself. A person wants to own herself. Therefore a person should own herself. Why does the moral conclusion follow?

If a person doesn't own or want to own herself, would it follow that a person shouldn't own herself?

The above support my point why your thinking is narrow, shallow and dogmatic.

When you direct the point at your self, you need to recognize that you are a human being having such human nature as the rest of the 7+ billion humans at present the others humans of the past.

If you are philosophical and not narrow, shallow and dogmatic, it is only natural you need to ask whether the above impulse re owning oneself is replicated to the rest of the other 7+ billion who has the same fundamental DNA structures.

You cannot be the exception, from empirical evidences one can infer 'wanting to own oneself and having full control is fundamental impulse that is generic to all humans, i.e. an inherent quality of human nature.

If you want to fully own yourself, then you do not want to be own by others.
Anything that is contrary to one's wants bring about pains.
It is immoral to cause pain to others.
Slavery cause pains to others - as evident.
Therefore one ought not to to cause pain to others, in this case, enslave another human.

The Moral Framework and System produces moral facts.
Thus,
'no human ought to own another' justified from within the Moral FSK
is a moral fact.

Note there are a tons of justifications [done elsewhere] I can bring to support my point above.

Every human wants to own herself; therefore owning a human is morally wrong.

Every human wants to live; therefore killing a human is morally wrong.

Even if those factual premises were true - and the second is definitely false - the moral conclusions don't logically follow.

You deliberately ignored the intermediate premises I have mentioned i.e. the respective Framework and System of Knowledge.

Meanwhile, I note that you haven't produced an argument - yours, Searle's or Putnams - demonstrating a moral entailment from a fact. I wait with unbated breath. Again.

You are acting like an ostrich when I have already provided the arguments and links for your reference.
Try to counter the Searle's one [for a start] which is rather sort compared to Putnam's book.

The other problem is you have not defined morality-proper but merely banked on pseudo-morality.
In a wider perspective, morality-proper deal with Normative Ethics or to be more precise Normative Morality which argue why the Normative [justified] is a necessity and critical to get practical results.

[Peter Holmes]

The above support my point why your thinking is narrow, shallow and dogmatic.

When you direct the point at your self, you need to recognize that you are a human being having such human nature as the rest of the 7+ billion humans at present the others humans of the past.

If you are philosophical and not narrow, shallow and dogmatic, it is only natural you need to ask whether the above impulse re owning oneself is replicated to the rest of the other 7+ billion who has the same fundamental DNA structures.

You cannot be the exception, from empirical evidences one can infer 'wanting to own oneself and having full control is fundamental impulse that is generic to all humans, i.e. an inherent quality of human nature.

If you want to fully own yourself, then you do not want to be own by others.
Anything that is contrary to one's wants bring about pains.
It is immoral to cause pain to others.
Slavery cause pains to others - as evident.
Therefore one ought not to to cause pain to others, in this case, enslave another human.

The Moral Framework and System produces moral facts.
Thus,
'no human ought to own another' justified from within the Moral FSK
is a moral fact.

Note there are a tons of justifications [done elsewhere] I can bring to support my point above.

Every human wants to own herself; therefore owning a human is morally wrong.

Every human wants to live; therefore killing a human is morally wrong.

Even if those factual premises were true - and the second is definitely false - the moral conclusions don't logically follow.

You deliberately ignored the intermediate premises I have mentioned i.e. the respective Framework and System of Knowledge.

Meanwhile, I note that you haven't produced an argument - yours, Searle's or Putnams - demonstrating a moral entailment from a fact. I wait with unbated breath. Again.

You are acting like an ostrich when I have already provided the arguments and links for your reference.
Try to counter the Searle's one [for a start] which is rather sort compared to Putnam's book.

The other problem is you have not defined morality-proper but merely banked on pseudo-morality.
In a wider perspective, morality-proper deal with Normative Ethics or to be more precise Normative Morality which argue why the Normative [justified] is a necessity and critical to get practical results.

As you know, if even one premise of an argument is false or unsupported, then the argument is unsound.

And your argument that, in your fantasy moral FSK, there are moral facts, such as 'x is morally wrong' is utterly fatuous. Your supposed moral FSK facts are merely moral assertions which are, as always, unentailed by the facts you claim entail them.

Try again, with premises that really are all factual. And don't include the premise that, in the moral FSK, this is a moral fact. That just begs the question.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Every human wants to own herself; therefore owning a human is morally wrong.

Every human wants to live; therefore killing a human is morally wrong.

Even if those factual premises were true - and the second is definitely false - the moral conclusions don't logically follow.

You deliberately ignored the intermediate premises I have mentioned i.e. the respective Framework and System of Knowledge.

Meanwhile, I note that you haven't produced an argument - yours, Searle's or Putnams - demonstrating a moral entailment from a fact. I wait with unbated breath. Again.

You are acting like an ostrich when I have already provided the arguments and links for your reference.
Try to counter the Searle's one [for a start] which is rather sort compared to Putnam's book.

The other problem is you have not defined morality-proper but merely banked on pseudo-morality.
In a wider perspective, morality-proper deal with Normative Ethics or to be more precise Normative Morality which argue why the Normative [justified] is a necessity and critical to get practical results.

As you know, if even one premise of an argument is false or unsupported, then the argument is unsound.

And your argument that, in your fantasy moral FSK, there are moral facts, such as 'x is morally wrong' is utterly fatuous. Your supposed moral FSK facts are merely moral assertions which are, as always, unentailed by the facts you claim entail them.

Try again, with premises that really are all factual. And don't include the premise that, in the moral FSK, this is a moral fact. That just begs the question.

Why not?
I did not simply claim is moral fact is a moral fact, but I have provided the justification for the premise how a moral FSK produce moral facts.

I have demonstrate here, facts are contextual to their respective FSK,
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
supported by the arguments from the various threads I listed.

You are the problematic one because you are stuck in one dogmatic perspective of what is fact.

[Peter Holmes]

You deliberately ignored the intermediate premises I have mentioned i.e. the respective Framework and System of Knowledge.


You are acting like an ostrich when I have already provided the arguments and links for your reference.
Try to counter the Searle's one [for a start] which is rather sort compared to Putnam's book.

The other problem is you have not defined morality-proper but merely banked on pseudo-morality.
In a wider perspective, morality-proper deal with Normative Ethics or to be more precise Normative Morality which argue why the Normative [justified] is a necessity and critical to get practical results.

As you know, if even one premise of an argument is false or unsupported, then the argument is unsound.

And your argument that, in your fantasy moral FSK, there are moral facts, such as 'x is morally wrong' is utterly fatuous. Your supposed moral FSK facts are merely moral assertions which are, as always, unentailed by the facts you claim entail them.

Try again, with premises that really are all factual. And don't include the premise that, in the moral FSK, this is a moral fact. That just begs the question.

Why not?
I did not simply claim is moral fact is a moral fact, but I have provided the justification for the premise how a moral FSK produce moral facts.

I have demonstrate here, facts are contextual to their respective FSK,
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
supported by the arguments from the various threads I listed.

You are the problematic one because you are stuck in one dogmatic perspective of what is fact.

Yes, facts are contextual. No, not all contexts can produce facts. A fact - a true factual assertion - in any context - requires empirical evidence. If 'slavery is morally wrong' is a fact, then it must have empirical evidence. There must be evidence for the existence of the moral wrongness of slavery. But there's no such thing. The moral wrongness of slavery isn't a feature of reality.

Saying " 'slavery is morally wrong' is a fact in the moral framework and system of knowledge" is fatuous, specious nonsense. It's an empty, useless claim. It isn't empirical evidence for the moral wrongness of slavery. Your claim is ridiculous and your argument absurd. But hey, why not keep going?

[henry quirk]

Ask yourself why you don't want anyone to have complete control over your body. Is it because 'a person owns herself'? Or is it because you just don't?

Each man belongs to himself. It's not an opinion or baseless feelin'. It's fact.

That's how I see it.

I gather baseless feelin' is sufficient for you?


A person owns herself. A person wants to own herself. Therefore a person should own herself. Why does the moral conclusion follow?

As I see it: Pete is his, he belongs to himself, therfore: it's just plain wrong for another to lay claim to him.

I know you disagree; I'm okay with that; not interested in a re-do. No, I wanted to know the basis of a moral non-realist's claim to himself, and -- now -- I do.

Thanks.


If a person doesn't own or want to own herself, would it follow that a person shouldn't own herself?

No such person exists. As I say elsewhere: even the slaver, the one who treats others as property to be bought and sold, doesn't see himself as anything but his own.

[RCSaunders]

If a person doesn't own or want to own herself, would it follow that a person shouldn't own herself?

No such person exists. ...

I don't think that is true unless you assume all those who claim otherwise are lying. I know a few and have heard of countless others who have gladly surrendered their lives to other individuals or causes. Many conservative Christians consider themselves, "slaves of God," (their language) and want it that way, and there are many religious sects in which individuals gladly enslave themselves to their church or religious leaders. All throughout history there have been those who have chosen the security of slavery rather than be fully responsible for their own lives. I think many individuals who love the regimentation of the military. which tells them what to do, what to wear, and when to do it, are of that psychology. What many people mean by an ordered society is one in which everyone is told what to do and not to do, which they gratefully surrender their own self-direction to for the sake of ease and security.

While and individual may give up their autonomy, what they cannot give up is the responsibility for the life that is theirs, whether they want it or not.

[henry quirk]

If a person doesn't own or want to own herself, would it follow that a person shouldn't own herself?

No such person exists. ...

I don't think that is true unless you assume all those who claim otherwise are lying. I know a few and have heard of countless others who have gladly surrendered their lives to other individuals or causes. Many conservative Christians consider themselves, "slaves of God," (their language) and want it that way, and there are many religious sects in which individuals gladly enslave themselves to their church or religious leaders. All throughout history there have been those who have chosen the security of slavery rather than be fully responsible for their own lives. I think many individuals who love the regimentation of the military. which tells them what to do, what to wear, and when to do it, are of that psychology. What many people mean by an ordered society is one in which everyone is told what to do and not to do, which they gratefully surrender their own self-direction to for the sake of ease and security.

While and individual may give up their autonomy, what they cannot give up is the responsibility for the life that is theirs, whether they want it or not.

folks choosin' to adhere to a discipline or choosin' security over a more risky life might be weak, but they ain't slaves, and not a one of 'em, includin' the slaves of god see themselves as property

as I understand it: to be a slave of god is to subordinate to the creator of the universe and to be among that creator's most favored...doesn't sound like slavery to me

sects and whatnot, where members seem to subordinate to the leader, mostly seem to be exercises in a roundabout self interest: these members believe they get to heaven or nirvana by way of that leader...they sacrifice today to get paradise tomorrow...again: doesn't sound like slavery to me

folks who join up: most do so to ensure liberty for the nation...sacrifice in service to an ideal doesn't sound like slavery to me

some who join up do so cuz they lack direction...they sacrifice today to gain self-control tomorrow...doesn't sound like slavery to me

now: I'm not sayin' any of the folks above are right; I am sayin' not a one believes himself to be a slave...everyone of 'em would reject your assessment of their choices