What could make morality objective?

[henry quirk]

Now, suppose all people were selfish and violent. Would it be morally wrong to constrain or punish their selfishness and violence?

This raises a further question, Henry. Why would anybody be "selfish or violent" -- indeed, why would any human "selfishness or violence" exist, if human beings were intrinsically all light and jelly beans?

A free will chooses: selfishness over self-interest, offensive violence over defensive violence. Therein lies the immorality: choosin' to ignore what you know about your fellows and treatin' 'em as property or resource or plaything.

Me: intrinsically dark roasted & and caffeinated.

[Immanuel Can]

Now, suppose all people were selfish and violent. Would it be morally wrong to constrain or punish their selfishness and violence?

This raises a further question, Henry. Why would anybody be "selfish or violent" -- indeed, why would any human "selfishness or violence" exist, if human beings were intrinsically all light and jelly beans?

A free will chooses: selfishness over self-interest, offensive violence over defensive violence. Therein lies the immorality: choosin' to ignore what you know about your fellows and treatin' 'em as property or resource or plaything.

Me: intrinsically dark roasted & and caffeinated.

Yeah, I agree...to both.

But I can't figure out how Peter thinks "selfishness and violence" can even exist, if there's no propensity in human beings to choose those things. If that were the case, they simply wouldn't exist. Nobody would ever be "selfish" or "violent."

Peter also claims that "selfishness and violence" are not objectively bad. So I can't figure out how he can even justify asking you the question...after all, in his way of telling the story, "selfishness and violence" are only "bad" for someone who decides that they're 'bad."

[henry quirk]

Yeah, I agree...to both.




But I can't figure out how Peter thinks "selfishness and violence" can even exist, if there's no propensity in human beings to choose those things. If that were the case, they simply wouldn't exist. Nobody would ever be "selfish" or "violent."

Mebbe I misread him, but it seems to me he thinks we're nuthin' but brutes, violent smelly brutes who just happened on some made-up rules so that we won't kill and rape each other too much.


Peter also claims that "selfishness and violence" are not objectively bad. So I can't figure out how he can even justify asking you the question...after all, in his way of telling the story, "selfishness and violence" are only "bad" for someone who decides that they're 'bad."

Well, to be fair, I think he's just holdin' me to my own standard, like I would with the free speech snowflake who bashes a MAGA hat wearer upside the skull cuz, ya know, free speech. The difference bein': I'm the utterly self-consistent superman and the snowflake is just a violent smelly brute (and fat...them folks are all fat...lay off the 🥪 and and and why don't ya).

[Immanuel Can]

Mebbe I misread him, but it seems to me he thinks we're nuthin' but brutes, violent smelly brutes who just happened on some made-up rules so that we won't kill and rape each other too much.

Well, maybe that's what he thinks...but if he does, then why shouldn't those "violent, smelly brutes" who choose to "kill and rape" do it to their hearts' delight? He can argue that others won't let them, but maybe they will...they certainly do, in some societies.

Peter also claims that "selfishness and violence" are not objectively bad. So I can't figure out how he can even justify asking you the question...after all, in his way of telling the story, "selfishness and violence" are only "bad" for someone who decides that they're 'bad."

Well, to be fair, I think he's just holdin' me to my own standard, like I would with the free speech snowflake who bashes a MAGA hat wearer upside the skull cuz, ya know, free speech. The difference bein': I'm the utterly self-consistent superman and the snowflake is just a violent smelly brute (and fat...them folks are all fat...lay off the 🥪 and and and why don't ya).

I don't think so. After all, you're not the one who says morality is all subjective. If that's right, then Pete doesn't even believe in the meaning of those words, so it's hard to see how, in consistency, he can raise a question using them, even if you do.

As for the snowflake crowd, what I see is that they want to wear black, get into gangs, beat people up, break things, and shut down free speech. I don't see these roving gangs of "white supremacists" the snowflakes in the media assure us are rampaging across America in MAGA hats, and must be prevented by the screaming and crying of the snowflakes. They're kind of like the Jussie Smollett "white supremacists" -- fictitious, fraudulent, and only mentioned to make snowflakery seem important.

[RCSaunders]

Now, suppose all people were selfish and violent. Would it be morally wrong to constrain or punish their selfishness and violence?

"Selfish," and, "violent," are contradictions. It is never in anyone's self-interest to use force against others. You may be confusing hedonism (whatever gives me pleasure is the good) with rational self-interest (whatever meets the requirements of my nature as a rational volitional being) is the good.

[Immanuel Can]

Now, suppose all people were selfish and violent. Would it be morally wrong to constrain or punish their selfishness and violence?

"Selfish," and, "violent," are contradictions. It is never in anyone's self-interest to use force against others. You may be confusing hedonism (whatever gives me pleasure is the good) with rational self-interest (whatever meets the requirements of my nature as a rational volitional being) is the good.

The problem there, RC, is that "rational" describes only a process, not a content. "Rationality" only tells us how to think consistently and coherently once we've already got the basic facts in place...it doesn't tell us anything about what those facts may be.

One can only be "rational on the basis of X or Y." Not just purely "rational" on no basis at all.

So, we might say, it is irrational for an agoraphobic person to stay locked in her house, but perfectly rational for a person who sees there are thugs in the streets to stay locked in hers. "Rationality" itself has nothing to say about all "staying in the house." And it cannot tell us if there are people in the street, or who they are. For that, we would have to look out and decide.

Your view is entirely dependent on two things...not only whatever view of "human nature" a person takes, but on your ability to prove that it is appropriate to act on that supposed "nature," rather than to resist or modify it. So if human nature is intrinsically selfish, that doesn't show we do well to be selfish; what it begs is the question, is selfishness a desirable or undesirable feature of human nature, and should we resist it or amplify it?

[henry quirk]

Now, suppose all people were selfish and violent. Would it be morally wrong to constrain or punish their selfishness and violence?

"Selfish," and, "violent," are contradictions. It is never in anyone's self-interest to use force against others. You may be confusing hedonism (whatever gives me pleasure is the good) with rational self-interest (whatever meets the requirements of my nature as a rational volitional being) is the good.

First: the question you attribute to me is Pete's.

Second: Break into my house at 2am and watch how much productive, motivated by self-interest and in defense of my kid, violence I throw your way.

Third: If you read the thread, you'll see who's confused (it ain't me).

Fourth: I'm not a hedonist.

Fifth: self-interest is wonderful; selfishness, not so much.


no mea culpa?

why I am not surprised...

[Peter Holmes]

Yeah, I agree...to both.




But I can't figure out how Peter thinks "selfishness and violence" can even exist, if there's no propensity in human beings to choose those things. If that were the case, they simply wouldn't exist. Nobody would ever be "selfish" or "violent."

Mebbe I misread him, but it seems to me he thinks we're nuthin' but brutes, violent smelly brutes who just happened on some made-up rules so that we won't kill and rape each other too much.


Peter also claims that "selfishness and violence" are not objectively bad. So I can't figure out how he can even justify asking you the question...after all, in his way of telling the story, "selfishness and violence" are only "bad" for someone who decides that they're 'bad."

Well, to be fair, I think he's just holdin' me to my own standard, like I would with the free speech snowflake who bashes a MAGA hat wearer upside the skull cuz, ya know, free speech. The difference bein': I'm the utterly self-consistent superman and the snowflake is just a violent smelly brute (and fat...them folks are all fat...lay off the 🥪 and and and why don't ya).

If you clowns have finished misrepresenting my argument, perhaps we can get back to Henry's claim, that morality is objective (independent from judgement, belief or opinion) because it comes from, or is based on, human nature.

1 I recommend a quick check on the naturalistic fallacy and the appeal to nature fallacy. They may give you pause.
2 Claims about supposed facts of 'human nature' are notoriously hard to substantiate and evaluate.
3 And anyway, no fact of any kind entails a moral conclusion. (By all means, present a valid and sound inference with factual premises and concluding with a moral assertion that you think doesn't beg the question - and we can discuss that.)

[henry quirk]

Ain't nuthin' to discuss, Pete.

I answered your question, meeting all the conditions embedded in the question.

You don't have to agree with my answer, or acknowledge I'm right (as Mannie points out up-thread, it's just a possible answer), but you can't deny: I've answered your question, and I've met your conditions.

[RCSaunders]

Now, suppose all people were selfish and violent. Would it be morally wrong to constrain or punish their selfishness and violence?

"Selfish," and, "violent," are contradictions. It is never in anyone's self-interest to use force against others. You may be confusing hedonism (whatever gives me pleasure is the good) with rational self-interest (whatever meets the requirements of my nature as a rational volitional being) is the good.

The problem there, RC, is that "rational" describes only a process, not a content. "Rationality" only tells us how to think consistently and coherently once we've already got the basic facts in place...it doesn't tell us anything about what those facts may be.

One can only be "rational on the basis of X or Y." Not just purely "rational" on no basis at all.

It is only a problem for someone who does not know what reason is or what a rational being is.

The basic facts in place are that a human being must live by conscious choice, and his only means of making right choices is to know what is good (benevolent) for the kind of being he is. Like any organsim, what determines what will be benevolent is his own nature--just as a fish's nature requires it to live in water, and a carnivores nature requires it to eat meat, and those as well as all organisms have the exact abilities required to fulfill the requirements of their natures, human beings have the exact abilities required to fulfill the requirements of their nature--a mind, which is intellectual, the ability to gain and hold knowledge; rational, the ability to use knowledge to determine what to do to live as his nature requires; and volitional, which means he must use his rational faculty to use knowledge, to determine what actions will fulfill the requirements of his nature and which will violate them. The mind is the only faculty one has for discovering what he must do to even live at all, which he must do if he is to live well.

The following is from a book I wrote some years ago. It describes what is appropriate to the life of a human being in terms of the concept, "normality."

Normal Human Behavior

The question of normality in humans is complicated by the fact that humans are volitional beings. The behavior of all other creatures is determined directly by their nature. Human behavior is determined by their nature only to the extent that some behavior is required but no specific behavior is directly determined.

Does that mean man can do just anything? No, because man does have a specific nature, and whatever behavior is chosen must conform to that nature. For example, the unique psychological characteristic of human nature is volition, the ability and necessity to choose. Normal human behavior must conform to the requirements of this aspect of his nature:

• The ability (and necessity) to choose. A human being can do nothing except by conscious choice, therefore all a human being is or does, his success or failure, his happiness or lack of it, his very life is determined by what he chooses. The necessity to choose cannot be escaped and neither can the consequences of those choices, or his responsibility for them.
• The ability (and necessity) to acquire knowledge. A human being can make choices only if he knows what choices are available and has some way of knowing what the consequences of those choices are. A human being must therefore seek knowledge, and neither pretend to knowledge he does not have, or attempt to evade knowledge he does have.
• The ability (and necessity) to create. A human being must create by productive effort what is required by his nature to live and enjoy his life. What is required for a human to live and enjoy his life is not provided by nature. Nature provides the resources, but discovering those resources and how to use them to fulfill his desires, and the act of finding and using them is productive effort.

A man may choose not to fulfill the requirements of his psychological nature, but he cannot live normally that way. It is not normal for a human being to live as a parasite, stealing or mooching from others who produce what his life requires, like a bloodsucker or louse. It is not normal for a human being to live as a pet or a slave of others, living on handouts from those he acts to please. It is not normal for a human being to live like a plant, depending on accident or luck, waiting for nature, fortune, or God to provide the things he needs to live and enjoy his life. Those ways of living are normal for some organism, because it is their nature; it is not man's nature, however, and no man living contrary to his nature can live successfully or enjoy his life.

Your view is entirely dependent on two things...not only whatever view of "human nature" a person takes, but on your ability to prove that it is appropriate to act on that supposed "nature," rather than to resist or modify it.

Prove to whom? You keep saying that, but no one has to prove to anyone else their own life is theirs to live as they choose for their own self-interest. If their life is not their own, then whoever or whatever claims it is theirs is obliged to prove it, like it or lump it.

So if human nature is intrinsically selfish, that doesn't show we do well to be selfish; what it begs is the question, is selfishness a desirable or undesirable feature of human nature, and should we resist it or amplify it?

Human life is not behaviorally intrinsic anything. All creatures (except human beings) have intrinsic behavioral natures: predators are vicious, ruminants are generally gentle, most dogs are social, most cats are solitary, and those animals instinctive nature determines their behavior. Human beings have no inborn behavior patterns, they are only born with the necessity to learn what is appropriate for the kind of being they are, and choose (or not) to live in a way that leads to their survival (or not). You may call those who count their own lives as their primary value, "selfish," if you like, but it is certainly not intrinsic, else most of mankind would not be throwing their lives away pursuing irrational values (like altruistic self-sacrifice or hedonistic self-destruction).

[RCSaunders]

Now, suppose all people were selfish and violent. Would it be morally wrong to constrain or punish their selfishness and violence?

"Selfish," and, "violent," are contradictions. It is never in anyone's self-interest to use force against others. You may be confusing hedonism (whatever gives me pleasure is the good) with rational self-interest (whatever meets the requirements of my nature as a rational volitional being) is the good.

First: the question you attribute to me is Pete's.

I had no intention of attributing the idea to you. I'm not interested in personalities, only ideas. Sorry if you're offended by that. It was unintended. I was fooled by IC's post:

Now, suppose all people were selfish and violent. Would it be morally wrong to constrain or punish their selfishness and violence?

...which attributes the quote to you. Sorry!

Second: Break into my house at 2am and watch how much productive, motivated by self-interest and in defense of my kid, violence I throw your way.

That's the point, Henry. No rational individual pursuing his own self interest will ever be a threat to you, your house, or yours. And, by the way, by, "use force against others," I only mean offensively. Using force in defense is not really, "against others," it is "against the use of force," by others for one's own protection. That use of force is not only justified but would be immoral not to use when necessary.

Third: If you read the thread, you'll see who's confused (it ain't me).

Well I happen to agree with the fact that moral principles are objective, and that it is human nature (as well as the nature of the world we live in) that determines those principles. But I do not exactly agree with the following:

"Simply: it is wrong to enslave a man because it is not in his nature (not in the nature of any person) to be property."

That makes moral principles based on what is good or bad for others. Slavery is certainly immoral, not because the enslaved do not like it, but because it is a violation of the requirements of one's own nature as a rational volitional being. Slavery would be wrong even if the slaves absolutely adored their condition. One who seeks anything at the cost of another, even a willing victim, is still a thief or parasite.

Fourth: I'm not a hedonist.

I never said you were. I only said whoever wrote: "Now, suppose all people were selfish and violent. Would it be morally wrong to constrain or punish their selfishness and violence?" might be confusing hedonism with self-interest.

Fifth: self-interest is wonderful; selfishness, not so much.

I think you have fallen for the altruist's rhetorical trick here. As soon as you mention anything that is truly in your self-interest, the altruist will inform you it's selfish.

I'm not interested in debating words, but if you think there is a difference between, "selfish," and, "self-interest," I'd really like to know what you think the difference is.

no mea culpa?
why I am not surprised...

Well whatever it is you think I should apologize for, I herewith beg your forgiveness, though, so help me, I have no idea what my offense was supposed to be.

[Immanuel Can]

"Selfish," and, "violent," are contradictions. It is never in anyone's self-interest to use force against others. You may be confusing hedonism (whatever gives me pleasure is the good) with rational self-interest (whatever meets the requirements of my nature as a rational volitional being) is the good.

The problem there, RC, is that "rational" describes only a process, not a content. "Rationality" only tells us how to think consistently and coherently once we've already got the basic facts in place...it doesn't tell us anything about what those facts may be.

One can only be "rational on the basis of X or Y." Not just purely "rational" on no basis at all.

It is only a problem for someone who does not know what reason is or what a rational being is.

Quite the opposite is true.

"Rational" is what anybody is who follows through on the logic of their own ontological beliefs. However, the ontology is up for debate. People who fail to see that imagine that everybody who disagrees with them must necessarily be "irrational." But this is their folly. For they mistake their own chosen ontological suppositions for the only ones possible. And thus, they cannot even imagine why anybody sensible would think differently than they do.

But they do.

Your view is entirely dependent on two things...not only whatever view of "human nature" a person takes, but on your ability to prove that it is appropriate to act on that supposed "nature," rather than to resist or modify it.

Prove to whom?

To yourself, if to no one else: because beliefs you have no rational grounds to explain to yourself are exposed to yourself thereby as irrational beliefs. But also, to prove to anybody who is skeptical that you are right.

You keep saying that, but no one has to prove to anyone else their own life is theirs to live as they choose for their own self-interest.

They can only fool themselves. They neither created themselves nor, barring suicide, choose the time and circumstances of their own end; and in the middle, most of their circumstances are not within their control. Much, in life, is a "given," a set of circumstances with which the autonomous individual must learn to interact, if he is to find any success in his personal choices.

You, for example, have not chosen your ethnicity, your gender, your parentage, the situation of your birth, your family, your early education, your physiological particulars, your potential limit level of talent in mathematics or art or music, the colour of your own eyes, your maximal height and weight, your potential for athleticism, your biological predisposition for diseases like cancer, the specific people who you will meet and not meet, and so on. All those are circumstances you just have to accept, and then figure out how to work with or work around, to get what you hope to get out of life.

So if human nature is intrinsically selfish, that doesn't show we do well to be selfish; what it begs is the question, is selfishness a desirable or undesirable feature of human nature, and should we resist it or amplify it?

Human life is not behaviorally intrinsic anything.

Well, Rand thought it was inherently at least supposed to be rational, and rational meant "self-interested." So human beings, according to Rand, if they are being what human beings are supposed to be, are motivated by "rational selfishness." So she disagreed with you about that. She thought human nature, rightly interpreted, had at leas that one intrinsic property.

It seems you're not such a Randian after all, then.

[henry quirk]

which attributes the quote to you. Sorry!

No worries...I'm a prickly sumbitch sometimes.

[Peter Holmes]

Ain't nuthin' to discuss, Pete.

I answered your question, meeting all the conditions embedded in the question.

You don't have to agree with my answer, or acknowledge I'm right (as Mannie points out up-thread, it's just a possible answer), but you can't deny: I've answered your question, and I've met your conditions.

Well, 'squarkleblob' also answers my question, in the sense that it's a reply.

You haven't shown that morality is objective, and you haven't shown what could make morality objective. So no, you haven't met the (not my!) conditions for objectivity.

Your argument is as follows.

P1 If x is contrary to human nature, then x is morally wrong.
P2 X is contrary to human nature.
C Therefore x is morally wrong.

And the question you haven't addressed is this: why is it morally wrong to act contrary to human nature? Is there some fact (feature of reality) that justifies that claim? Or is it really just a moral judgement?

But we seem to have said all we can say about this - so thanks for the craic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ain't nuthin' to discuss, Pete.

I answered your question, meeting all the conditions embedded in the question.

You don't have to agree with my answer, or acknowledge I'm right (as Mannie points out up-thread, it's just a possible answer), but you can't deny: I've answered your question, and I've met your conditions.

Well, 'squarkleblob' also answers my question, in the sense that it's a reply.

You haven't shown that morality is objective, and you haven't shown what could make morality objective. So no, you haven't met the (not my!) conditions for objectivity.

Your argument is as follows.

P1 If x is contrary to human nature, then x is morally wrong.
P2 X is contrary to human nature.
C Therefore x is morally wrong.

And the question you haven't addressed is this: why is it morally wrong to act contrary to human nature? Is there some fact (feature of reality) that justifies that claim? Or is it really just a moral judgement?

But we seem to have said all we can say about this - so thanks for the craic.

Henry had provided the basis, but you are not getting it.
He has presented his argument loosely which can be formally constructed in the following format;

• P1 Whatever is contrary to human nature, then it is morally wrong.
  P2 X is contrary to human nature as justified with empirical evidences and its possibilities.
  C Therefore x is morally wrong.

X in this case is 'chattel slavery' is contrary to human nature.
Henry did ask, 'show me a sane human who want to be a slave to another human being'.
If we are to review the whole of the database of human knowledge to date, there is no evidence a sane human would volunteer freely to be a slave to another human being.

One confirmation is to do a poll by asking every human being whether they will volunteer to be a chattel slave to another human.
We don't have such actual polling but intuitively and from common sense, we know the answer, i.e. no sane human will volunteer to be a chattel to another human.
I suggested you start asking the question with yourself as a human being, then extend out to your nearest relatives, associates, etc.

I believe the answer is so obvious that no big extensive polls are done on this question of whether anyone would volunteer to be enslaved by another human being.

While actual polling of ALL humans are not available at present, the secondary supporting evidence is from the status of ratification UN UDHR Declaration on Slavery by recognized nations.
The UN UHDR on slavery has been accepted [ratified] by all recognized nations on Earth after much resistance for various rogue nations.
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetai ... &clang=_en
Many nations has enacted strict laws to abolish all forms of slavery [as defined] while some are still dilly dallying on it.

Note I am not arguing for the existence of an ontological objective moral law on slavery.

What I have is an objective moral law on "slavery is wrong" based on empirical evidence and intersubjective consensus of human beings.