Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 6:32 am
Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 10:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:40 am
An example of a moral fact is, "slavery is absolutely immoral and no human ought to enslave [own] another human".
Not according to Aristotle.
Why is slavery wrong?
Slavery had happened and still exists in some forms.
My emphasis here is with reference with chattel slavery where a human person is commercially own and can be traded like any goods.
Do you think Aristotle would voluntarily have agreed to be enslaved as a chattel?
No because he knew that he was superior in mind he thought deserved to be enslaved.
Would you voluntarily accept to be enslaved as a chattel?
Would any normal person accept voluntarily be enslaved as a chattel?
Show me evidence where normal persons had accepted voluntarily [unconditionally] to be owned [enslaved] as a chattel by another human?
This is an empty line of questioning. To a degree we all accept that when we sign up for a job. The armed forces of the world are much the same- reuqiring a buy-out, or denial of freedom.
I submit that no one would ever want to be a slave, yet we all to some degree submit to authority.
You've yet to address my question.
Of all normal humans, nobody would be wrong if they answer 'No' to the above
Only a pervert would answer yes to the above.
No, That is your opinion. You do not get to say what is "normal". Are you saying that slavery is not wrong to people that are not normal?
Thus by induction just like any scientific facts,
"no humans will volunteer to be enslaved and own as a chattel' is in chatttel slavery,
since this is universal and accepted by all, it is an objective fact, i.e. intersubjective.
within a moral framework and system,
'enslavement of a human is immoral' is an objective moral fact.
Induction is not good enough to make a thing an objective truth. Indiction is about probability and the evidence remaining the same. Cultural differences mean that those things that you think are constant were not in ancient times.
There were cultural contexts where selling yourself or a family member into slavery was a good idea- often the best option for life.
So no you have not made your case that slavery is objectively wrong.
You and I can agree that slavery is wrong -
in our opinions.
THe biggest flaw in your arguments is that you assume that if everyone (except the abnormal, subnormal) agrees that makes it an objective fact. This is simply not the case. FOr objectivity the case has to be made that a thing is true
regardless of people's agreement.
THere is nothing to stop you making a moral code justified by principles of agreement, but you do not get to append the word objective on to any thing you call a "fact".
Let us consider the question. Does god exist? 100 years ago 99% would say yes, and those that did not were traduced as evil, heathen, savage, or in your words "NOT NORMAL". From this you are saying that god exists is an objective fact.
Are you willing to state that?
Now the arguement that slavery is morally justified has been made and agreed upon by all cultures until perhaps the last 300 years when it was brought into question. So common place was it that even Jesus has slaves to wash he feet and he said not one word against slavery though, you would think ,it being so ghastly that the baby Jesus would have had some harsh words against the practice.
Yet the trade in the "Christian" British Empire thrived until it was abolished as late as 1807. And the ownership of humans throughout the empire was legal until 1833.
It was generally agreed that slavery was of a benefit to those that were less capable of civilisation than white people.
By your measure rightness of the practice slavery was an objective moral fact. And it was not just the whites. Moulay Ismail is famous for using the Barbary "pirates" to collect slaves for him. He was thought to have a million such people under the yoke throughout his dynasty.
Slavery has been practiced since the ealiest times, and considered a just spoil of war. Spartans kept an entire population (helots) enslaved,.
We all agree that "might is right", and so by your measure the apartheid and enlavement of the helots was a morally justified objective fact.