Philosophy Now Forum

CIN wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 7:37 pm I don't think slavery IS always wrong — not if the slaves are happy. In fact if they're happy, I think slavery is right — for them. Can you find an example that might better serve your purpose?

You don't seem to understand 'What is Morality and Ethics".

Morality and Ethics involved Universal Principles applicable to ALL humans.

As an analogy from Biology, it is a Universal Principle in Biology and human nature, that ALL humans ought to breathe without exception.
This oughtness to breathe do not need enforcement but is spontaneous else the person will suffer pains.
There are exceptions where 'some' humans may choose to commit suicide via asphyxiation, but such minor exceptions do not deny the existence of the Universal Principle of Human Nature, that "ALL humans ought to breathe."

Similarly, Morality and Ethics involved Universal Principles applicable to ALL humans.
As such, since Morality involves Universals and Slavery is one of the Moral Elements,
so, 'No humans ought to enslave another' is the Universal Principle applicable to ALL Humans,
otherwise, the universal principle would be "Humans ought to enslave another" which is abhorrent!

There will be humans who want to enslave other humans and some humans want to be enslave by others, and these has to be taken as exceptions to the Universal Principle and must be investigated to why they are the exceptions and therefrom be mitigated.

Since 'No humans ought to enslave another' is the Universal Principle applicable to ALL Humans, it is objective, i.e. independent of any individual's belief, opinions and judgment.

To be objective and as a fact, the above universal principle must be empirically verifiable and justifiable with reinforcement by philosophical arguments.

In addition, this objective moral fact must not be enforced nor imposed on any individual as EXTERNAL authoritative Laws, rules, commands, and the like.
They are merely to be used as a Guide for the individual to improve his moral competence.

The above is applicable to all moral elements to be recognized as moral facts, thus objective moral facts.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 10:26 pm

CIN wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 7:37 pm Peter, I'd like to take you right back to the start of this thread and make a comment on your very first post.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jul 14, 2018 10:29 am It seems to me this question - which has emerged from discussion of my post 'Is morality objective or subjective?' - is the crux in the disagreement between objectivists and subjectivists.

An objection to moral subjectivism is that, if moral values and judgements are matters of opinion, we can't know if they're correct. For example, we can't know if slavery is right or wrong, and can't therefore morally condemn those who think slavery is justifiable. That's just their opinion, and we can't say which opinion is correct or true.

But this assumes that there is indeed something to be known: an object of some kind that verifies the assertion slavery is wrong and falsifies the assertion slavery is right - or, perhaps, vice versa. But what is the object that makes moral judgements objective - matters of fact - and therefore true or false?

It can't be slavery itself, because that would also be the object of the assertion slavery is right - so we're back to square one. And it can't be the wrongness of slavery. To say the assertion slavery is wrong is justified (shown to be true) by the objective wrongness of slavery is circular, and so no justification at all.

So what is it that moral objectivists claim about moral judgements that makes them objective - matters of fact, falsifiable and independent from judgement, belief or opinion?

Does any moral objectivist here have an answer that doesn't beg the question?

I don't think slavery IS always wrong — not if the slaves are happy. In fact if they're happy, I think slavery is right — for them. Can you find an example that might better serve your purpose?

Thanks, but the example used is irrelevant. I'm not arguing here for the moral wrongness of slavery - though i think it is always wrong.

My point is that whether slavery (or anything else) is morally right or wrong - and always or only sometimes - is a matter of belief, judgement or opinion, which is subjective. There's no moral fact of the matter - which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

But 'morality', like a LOT of other things, can be 'subjective, 'objective' AND both 'subjective' and 'objective'.

But, while 'you', "peter holmes", HOLD ONTO 'your' VERY OWN 'subjective' points of views and BELIEFS, 'you' will NEVER be able to LEARN and thus come to KNOW and UNDERSTAND this IRREFUTABLE Fact.

'your' INABILITY to back up and support YOUR OWN 'subjective' CLAIMS is FURTHER PROOF of this.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 9:58 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 10:26 pm

CIN wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 7:37 pm Peter, I'd like to take you right back to the start of this thread and make a comment on your very first post.


I don't think slavery IS always wrong — not if the slaves are happy. In fact if they're happy, I think slavery is right — for them. Can you find an example that might better serve your purpose?

Thanks, but the example used is irrelevant. I'm not arguing here for the moral wrongness of slavery - though i think it is always wrong.

My point is that whether slavery (or anything else) is morally right or wrong - and always or only sometimes - is a matter of belief, judgement or opinion, which is subjective. There's no moral fact of the matter - which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

But 'morality', like a LOT of other things, can be 'subjective, 'objective' AND both 'subjective' and 'objective'.

But, while 'you', "peter holmes", HOLD ONTO 'your' VERY OWN 'subjective' points of views and BELIEFS, 'you' will NEVER be able to LEARN and thus come to KNOW and UNDERSTAND this IRREFUTABLE Fact.

'your' INABILITY to back up and support YOUR OWN 'subjective' CLAIMS is FURTHER PROOF of this.

So. You say it's an irrefutable fact that a lot of things can be subjective, objective, and both at the same time.

And is that claim an irrefutable fact - a true factual assertion, regardless of opinion?

You're talking drivel.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 5:46 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 9:58 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 10:26 pm
Thanks, but the example used is irrelevant. I'm not arguing here for the moral wrongness of slavery - though i think it is always wrong.

My point is that whether slavery (or anything else) is morally right or wrong - and always or only sometimes - is a matter of belief, judgement or opinion, which is subjective. There's no moral fact of the matter - which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

But 'morality', like a LOT of other things, can be 'subjective, 'objective' AND both 'subjective' and 'objective'.

But, while 'you', "peter holmes", HOLD ONTO 'your' VERY OWN 'subjective' points of views and BELIEFS, 'you' will NEVER be able to LEARN and thus come to KNOW and UNDERSTAND this IRREFUTABLE Fact.

'your' INABILITY to back up and support YOUR OWN 'subjective' CLAIMS is FURTHER PROOF of this.

So. You say it's an irrefutable fact that a lot of things can be subjective, objective, and both at the same time.

And is that claim an irrefutable fact - a true factual assertion, regardless of opinion?

But you STILL do NOT understand "peter holmes".

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 5:46 pm You're talking drivel.

And you are NOT, right?

Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 12:22 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 5:46 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 9:58 am

But 'morality', like a LOT of other things, can be 'subjective, 'objective' AND both 'subjective' and 'objective'.

But, while 'you', "peter holmes", HOLD ONTO 'your' VERY OWN 'subjective' points of views and BELIEFS, 'you' will NEVER be able to LEARN and thus come to KNOW and UNDERSTAND this IRREFUTABLE Fact.

'your' INABILITY to back up and support YOUR OWN 'subjective' CLAIMS is FURTHER PROOF of this.

So. You say it's an irrefutable fact that a lot of things can be subjective, objective, and both at the same time.

And is that claim an irrefutable fact - a true factual assertion, regardless of opinion?

But you STILL do NOT understand "peter holmes".

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 5:46 pm You're talking drivel.

And you are NOT, right?

Right.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 9:08 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 12:22 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 5:46 pm
So. You say it's an irrefutable fact that a lot of things can be subjective, objective, and both at the same time.

And is that claim an irrefutable fact - a true factual assertion, regardless of opinion?

But you STILL do NOT understand "peter holmes".

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 5:46 pm You're talking drivel.

And you are NOT, right?

Right.

LOL

Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 9:13 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 9:08 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 12:22 am

But you STILL do NOT understand "peter holmes".


And you are NOT, right?

Right.

LOL

Yawn.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 9:28 am

Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 9:13 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 9:08 am
Right.

LOL

Yawn.

LOL

What makes 'morality' 'objective' is the EXACT SAME thing that makes other things 'objective', OBVIOUSLY.

It REALLY does NOT get ANY SIMPLER and EASIER than this.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 9:34 am What makes 'morality' 'objective' is the EXACT SAME thing that makes other things 'objective', OBVIOUSLY.

It REALLY does NOT get ANY SIMPLER and EASIER than this.

I agree, sort of. However I rather " What makes 'morality' 'subjective' is the EXACT SAME thing that makes other things 'subjective', OBVIOUSLY. "

Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 9:34 am What makes 'morality' 'objective' is the EXACT SAME thing that makes other things 'objective', OBVIOUSLY.

It REALLY does NOT get ANY SIMPLER and EASIER than this.

Sigh. Okay. But what we call objectivity is all about what we call facts. So what makes something a fact, or a matter of fact?

For example, do you think the chemical constitution of water is a fact, or a matter of fact? And if so, why? And if not, why not?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 2:50 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 9:34 am What makes 'morality' 'objective' is the EXACT SAME thing that makes other things 'objective', OBVIOUSLY.

It REALLY does NOT get ANY SIMPLER and EASIER than this.

Sigh. Okay. But what we call objectivity is all about what we call facts.

When 'you' say 'we' who EXACTLY are 'you' meaning and referring to?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 2:50 pm So what makes something a fact, or a matter of fact?

'we' have ALREADY gone through this.

The EXACT SAME thing that makes 'objectivity', objectivity.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 2:50 pm For example, do you think the chemical constitution of water is a fact, or a matter of fact? And if so, why? And if not, why not?

This question is POINTLESS, that is; UNTIL the time 'you' SEEK OUT and GAIN CLARITY to what a 'fact' IS, EXACTLY, from my point of view, or, 'you' TELL 'us' what a 'fact' IS, EXACTLY, from 'your' point of view.

AFTER 'you' do.

Do 'you' think or BELIEVE the chemical constitution of water is a fact, or a matter of fact?

If yes, then WHY?

But, if no, then WHY NOT?

Also, as someone else has ALREADY POINTED OUT to 'you', WHY STOP at the 'chemical constitution' of 'water'?

Do 'you' think or BELIEVE that the 'constitution' of the 'chemical constitution' of 'water' is a fact, or a matter of fact?

If yes, then WHY?

But, if no, then WHY NOT?

And then so on and so on. Until 'you' get to the FINAL 'thing', and then is that A fact, or a matter of fact?

If yes, then WHY?

But, if no, then WHY NOT?

WHEN, and IF, 'you' EVER get to UNDERSTAND WHY and/or WHY NOT, then 'you', HOPEFULLY, WILL START SEEING and UNDERSTANDING what I HAVE BEEN SAYING and POINTING OUT, ALREADY, about HOW Truth, OBJECTIVITY, and Facts are FOUND, DISCOVERED, and/or KNOWN.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 10:26 pm

CIN wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 7:37 pm Peter, I'd like to take you right back to the start of this thread and make a comment on your very first post.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jul 14, 2018 10:29 am It seems to me this question - which has emerged from discussion of my post 'Is morality objective or subjective?' - is the crux in the disagreement between objectivists and subjectivists.

An objection to moral subjectivism is that, if moral values and judgements are matters of opinion, we can't know if they're correct. For example, we can't know if slavery is right or wrong, and can't therefore morally condemn those who think slavery is justifiable. That's just their opinion, and we can't say which opinion is correct or true.

But this assumes that there is indeed something to be known: an object of some kind that verifies the assertion slavery is wrong and falsifies the assertion slavery is right - or, perhaps, vice versa. But what is the object that makes moral judgements objective - matters of fact - and therefore true or false?

It can't be slavery itself, because that would also be the object of the assertion slavery is right - so we're back to square one. And it can't be the wrongness of slavery. To say the assertion slavery is wrong is justified (shown to be true) by the objective wrongness of slavery is circular, and so no justification at all.

So what is it that moral objectivists claim about moral judgements that makes them objective - matters of fact, falsifiable and independent from judgement, belief or opinion?

Does any moral objectivist here have an answer that doesn't beg the question?

I don't think slavery IS always wrong — not if the slaves are happy. In fact if they're happy, I think slavery is right — for them. Can you find an example that might better serve your purpose?

Thanks, but the example used is irrelevant. I'm not arguing here for the moral wrongness of slavery - though i think it is always wrong.

My point is that whether slavery (or anything else) is morally right or wrong - and always or only sometimes - is a matter of belief, judgement or opinion, which is subjective. There's no moral fact of the matter - which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

So you say 'I think slavery is always wrong', and then you say that this is a matter of 'belief, judgement or opinion', implying that this is your belief.
Usually when people say that they believe slavery is wrong, they mean that they believe it is OBJECTIVELY wrong.
Since you don't believe in objective morality, that can't be what you mean when you say 'I think slavery is wrong'. So what DO you mean?

CIN wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 1:17 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 10:26 pm

CIN wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 7:37 pm Peter, I'd like to take you right back to the start of this thread and make a comment on your very first post.


I don't think slavery IS always wrong — not if the slaves are happy. In fact if they're happy, I think slavery is right — for them. Can you find an example that might better serve your purpose?

Thanks, but the example used is irrelevant. I'm not arguing here for the moral wrongness of slavery - though i think it is always wrong.

My point is that whether slavery (or anything else) is morally right or wrong - and always or only sometimes - is a matter of belief, judgement or opinion, which is subjective. There's no moral fact of the matter - which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

So you say 'I think slavery is always wrong', and then you say that this is a matter of 'belief, judgement or opinion', implying that this is your belief.
Usually when people say that they believe slavery is wrong, they mean that they believe it is OBJECTIVELY wrong.
Since you don't believe in objective morality, that can't be what you mean when you say 'I think slavery is wrong'. So what DO you mean?

Have you considered that morality might be an invention not a discovery?

CIN wrote: ↑Sat Dec 10, 2022 1:17 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 10:26 pm

CIN wrote: ↑Thu Dec 01, 2022 7:37 pm Peter, I'd like to take you right back to the start of this thread and make a comment on your very first post.


I don't think slavery IS always wrong — not if the slaves are happy. In fact if they're happy, I think slavery is right — for them. Can you find an example that might better serve your purpose?

Thanks, but the example used is irrelevant. I'm not arguing here for the moral wrongness of slavery - though i think it is always wrong.

My point is that whether slavery (or anything else) is morally right or wrong - and always or only sometimes - is a matter of belief, judgement or opinion, which is subjective. There's no moral fact of the matter - which is why morality isn't and can't be objective.

So you say 'I think slavery is always wrong', and then you say that this is a matter of 'belief, judgement or opinion', implying that this is your belief.
Usually when people say that they believe slavery is wrong, they mean that they believe it is OBJECTIVELY wrong.
Since you don't believe in objective morality, that can't be what you mean when you say 'I think slavery is wrong'. So what DO you mean?

Suppose two people are arguing about a painting. One says it's beautiful, and the other says it's ugly. Would it be reasonable for the admirer to claim the painting is objectively beautiful, or the detractor that it's objectively ugly? What facts could either point to in order to settle the argument? And if there aren't any, does that mean that what each person says is meaningless?

The expression 'objectively beautiful/ugly' is as incoherent as the expression 'subjectively beautiful/ugly'. And exactly the same incoherence appears in the expressions 'objectively morally right/wrong' and 'subjectively morally right/wrong'.

We can usually explain why we think a thing is beautiful or ugly, or why we think an action is morally right or wrong. But to believe those are properties that exist 'factually' - independent from opinion - is a delusion.