Is morality just a subset of reason?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Premise 1 = An American ground invasion will be difficult and costly in lives.
Premise 2 = We want to minimize that.
Conclusion = It is moral to bomb the Japanese.

'ucking hell.
Whatever happened to thou shalt not kill?

Premise one is not relevant. The Russians had just taken Manchuria from the Japanese in a weekend with the largest army every assembled in history. The annihilation of Japan was just a few days away. Japanese leaders who know what they are talking about gave this as their reason for capitulation to the US, thinking that they would be offered much better terms.

Here's another logical sequence that explains Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

1 We have just spent $2 billion dollars on these bombs, and do not yet know how effective they are.
2 As we need to justify that enormous expense we need to drop the bombs before the end of the war.
3 Oh shit the Russians are about to end the war: therefore we ned to quickly drop them on areas of dense non-military towns.

[Immanuel Can]

'ucking hell.
Whatever happened to thou shalt not kill?

Remember? You said it wasn't objectively true -- just like all morality, you said.

If you're now unhappy with the implications of your position, you are, of course, free to change it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

'ucking hell.
Whatever happened to thou shalt not kill?

Remember? You said it wasn't objectively true -- just like all morality, you said.

If you're now unhappy with the implications of your position, you are, of course, free to change it.

Well Duhh

YOU said is was objectively true. Not me!!

And fuck no. It is not objectively true. All moral law is based on what people feel about a situation, not about objective truth. It's about what people want from life.
Belief is an aspiration it has not ontological status beyond that.

I sense that you have given up on your claims.

This is true party from what you have written here, and partly because you chose to ignore the following: (which I wrote after your demand that I prove slavery wrong.)

I feel deeply sorry for you.
You are obviously a person with a brain, and know how to use it. But the moment you bring god into the conversation you loose all sense of proportion and reason. You last offering (above) is a sad reflection to deal with salient points that I have made; not "yammering". This is just a reflection of your failure.

I cannot prove that slavery is right or wrong. I can offer you opinions as to the effects of slavery on the economy and the well being of the slaves and the slavers. But it is absurd to try to prove it one way or the other. It all depends on what you feel is important.
The fact is that there are currently more slaves on the planet than at any time in history.
In Biblical times slavery was morally justified and perfectly legal, yet your "god" said nothing whatever against the practice. On the contrary, there are many references to douloi , in the bible, and their status goes unchallenged.

I try to live by the principle of equality of opportunity, and inalienable rights to freedom. From those premises it is easy enough to show how slavery transgresses these position; but it is even easier to demonstrate that these are not natural rights in any sense.
None of this has anything to do with the object/subject argument.

I believe slavery is wrong. That does not make it wrong, but only wrong in my eyes. I am willing to join with others to bring about the end, but I'm too smart to think there is some absolute proscription of slavery, or that a person has a natural right to freedom.
These things need to be reestablished with each generation.

[Immanuel Can]

I cannot prove that slavery is right or wrong.

Well, that's forthcoming. Good for you for admitting it. That's courage.

I can. But I have the premises to do it.

I can offer you opinions as to the effects of slavery on the economy and the well being of the slaves and the slavers. But it is absurd to try to prove it one way or the other. It all depends on what you feel is important.

Let me double-check, then. You're willing to stand on the position that there has been no human rights abuse to persons of colour in North American history? Or presumably to the aboriginals, or to women, or children...since all of these purported abuses have been approved by the society of the time?

Just asking.

None of this has anything to do with the object/subject argument.

Of course it does. You're seeing if you can live with the logical implications of moral subjectivism, and we're doing it by testing it against the kinds of things that people generally today would recognize as "immoral." That's why slavery and so on are such excellent test cases.

And so far, you say you can.

But now we are left with nothing but moral solipsism, or cultural relativism at best. So all "human rights" are now assailable, and you're aware it's a problem; but you're also willing to swallow that pill, it would seem.

I wonder if everyone is.

[Immanuel Can]

I sense that you have given up on your claims.

I can't see why you think so.

I'm not the one advocating slavery as a moral option for those who want it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I cannot prove that slavery is right or wrong.

Well, that's forthcoming. Good for you for admitting it. That's courage.

I can. But I have the premises to do it.

I can offer you opinions as to the effects of slavery on the economy and the well being of the slaves and the slavers. But it is absurd to try to prove it one way or the other. It all depends on what you feel is important.

Let me double-check, then. You're willing to stand on the position that there has been no human rights abuse to persons of colour in North American history? Or presumably to the aboriginals, or to women, or children...since all of these purported abuses have been approved by the society of the time?

Just asking.

Duh no. Human Rights are not established from objective principles, but from the aspirations of people who have the power to do so.

None of this has anything to do with the object/subject argument.

Of course it does. You're seeing if you can live with the logical implications of moral subjectivism, and we're doing it by testing it against the kinds of things that people generally today would recognize as "immoral." That's why slavery and so on are such excellent test cases.

You do not know what objective truth means.


And so far, you say you can.

But now we are left with nothing but moral solipsism, or cultural relativism at best. So all "human rights" are now assailable, and you're aware it's a problem; but you're also willing to swallow that pill, it would seem.

I wonder if everyone is.

No I am bolstered by the truth that what I want from human society is not objectively or absolutely true, but with each generation needs to be argued and fought for. The establishments of the UN charter of Human Rights, is a waste of time without the will and the power to impose those rights on governments which have signed them, but refused to bring them about. These rights do not exist expcet in the minds of those that wish they were true. How is that objective?

Cultural relativism is not relevant here.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I sense that you have given up on your claims.

I can't see why you think so.

I'm not the one advocating slavery as a moral option for those who want it.

Neither am I dickwad.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I'm still waiting for your proof that slavery is objectively wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not the one advocating slavery as a moral option for those who want it.

Neither am I.

*Ahem*

And I quote:

That does not make it wrong, but only wrong in my eyes. I am willing to join with others to bring about the end, but I'm too smart to think there is some absolute proscription of slavery, or that a person has a natural right to freedom.

Call the police. Somebody's been impersonating you, and saying things you now say you didn't say.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm still waiting for your proof that slavery is objectively wrong.

Oh, you want one? Read John Locke. I agree with his rationale.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I'm not the one advocating slavery as a moral option for those who want it.

Neither am I.

*Ahem*

And I quote:

That does not make it wrong, but only wrong in my eyes. I am willing to join with others to bring about the end, but I'm too smart to think there is some absolute proscription of slavery, or that a person has a natural right to freedom.

Call the police. Somebody's been impersonating you, and saying things you now say you didn't say.

That does not mean that I give licence to anyone who wants to enslave.
It's simply an acknowledgement that most people in history believe slavery is just; I don't.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I'm still waiting for your proof that slavery is objectively wrong.

Oh, you want one? Read John Locke. I agree with his rationale.

John Locke makes a case against slavery. He does not pretend it is objectively wrong.
He makes a plea for natural rights.
So what.
What is your proof?

And you have made a value judgement in agreeing with his rationale. You can't believe in any moral law without making value judgements: QED objectivity has nothing to do with that.

But you have to do more than sit on your spotty behind and pretend you can prove the slavers wrong. You have also to convince them.

[Immanuel Can]

John Locke makes a case against slavery. He does not pretend it is objectively wrong. He makes a plea for natural rights.

Wow. You didn't even read him. Yes, he talks about natural rights...but did you pay the slightest attention to where and how he thinks we get them? All his arguments apply to all human beings equally, without distinction of race, culture or gender. But you've got to read, or you'll never know.

And you have made a value judgement in agreeing with his rationale.

Of course! Don't you know that Ethics is all about value judgments? But "value judgment" doesn't mean "gratuitous affirmation."

Wow.

You can't believe in any moral law without making value judgements: QED objectivity has nothing to do with that.

Totally question-begging. Objectivity of values is the issue we are debating. You don't get to rule arbitrarily: you have to prove your point.

Tell me this, then: what do you regard a matter of "objectivity," as you understand it? Give me something you think you know "objectively."

But you have to do more than sit on your spotty behind and pretend you can prove the slavers wrong. You have also to convince them.

This is why solipsistic, "subjective" morality is impotent. It can't convince anyone of anything.

[Hobbes' Choice]

You are faking it.
Give me your proof or fuck off.
I was reading Locke when you were in short trousers.

[Immanuel Can]

I've done option number one...and option number two is a suggestion clearly worthy of your character, but no thanks.

We're done. I'm reminded of the proverbial dictum about the wise disposition of jewelry, and shall act accordingly.