What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

It is, because you didn't provide evidence or reasons, but just gratuitously attached the terms "shallow and immoral" to anyone who is "conservative." By any fair assessment, that's an overly-broad, prejudiced and unsubstantiated claim. It's a character assassination, not a refutation.

Now, back to Roger Scruton. You accused him of being an "oppressor" and as such, worthy of being "dismissed" without so much as a look at what he said. I provided for you exactly what he said on the matter of "the heredity principle," and it did not at all justify your claim.

If I'm wrong about that, here it is again: show what's so immoral and oppressive about what he actually said:

"The final argument that impressed me was Burke’s response to the theory of the social contract. Although society can be seen as a contract, he argued, we must recognize that most parties to the contract are either dead or not yet born. The effect of the contemporary Rousseauist ideas of social contract was to place the present members of society in a position of dictatorial dominance over those who went before and those who came after them. Hence these ideas led directly to the massive squandering of inherited resources at the Revolution, and to the cultural and ecological vandalism that Burke was perhaps the first to recognize as the principal danger of modern politics. In Burke’s eyes the self-righteous contempt for ancestors which characterized the Revolutionaries was also a disinheriting of the unborn. Rightly understood, he argued, society is a partnership among the dead, the living, and the unborn, and without what he called the “hereditary principle,” according to which rights could be inherited as well as acquired, both the dead and the unborn would be disenfranchized. Indeed, respect for the dead was, in Burke’s view, the only real safeguard that the unborn could obtain, in a world that gave all its privileges to the living. His preferred vision of society was not as a contract, in fact, but as a trust, with the living members as trustees of an inheritance that they must strive to enhance and pass on."

Well? He wants us to consider the older generations and the generations to come, in our applications of the social contract. Show me the "oppression." Show me the "immorality."

Parties to the social contract? Which contract is that?

Rousseau's. He's explicitly mentioned above. Today, philosophers generally understand the concept as a general heuristic device (see "can be seen" above) for speaking of the terms on which any collocation of individuals gives up parts of its autonomy in order to negotiate social existence. You've never heard of it?

Burke had criticisms of the terms on which the "social contract" could be described. He thought that any fair conception of it ought to include the older generations and the yet-to-be-born ones.

And how can you argue with that? Are you going to argue that political arrangements today are to involve no moral responsibilities to your elders or to coming generations? Isn't that what they young are complaining about today, that the Boomers have destroyed their world ecologically, and left them environmental problems of a very serious order?

But if the social contract only involves people today, not the other generations, then such young people have no case. Is that what you want to say, that our generation gets to do whatever it wants, and our children be damned?

You've been straw-manning Scruton -- hopefully accidentally, not deliberately, but there it is, either way. He never said anything like what you accuse him of saying, at least in regard to the "hereditary principle." And now you're looking at the proof. If you can read, you know.

I wonder why you failed to quote the rest of my post, in which I explain - admittedly polemically - why Burke's and Scruton's conservatism is immoral.

Let me put it simply, so that your dishonesty will be more apparent. Our moral responsibility is to end the economic oppression and inequality that our ancestors suffered and struggled against, and to make a just world for all of our descendants, equally. Conservatives want to keep things as they are.

[Sculptor]

The entire history of human kind and their ancestors before the advent of so-called civilisation.

So "pre-history," you think? Even though we have no "history" of it to confirm that it was so amazingly wonderful then?

And you think it was a bad thing that civilization happened? And people did civilize, though they were better off without it, but just couldn't see that they were?

Roll, Sculpy, roll.

I did not say anything by way of judgement. I merely pointed out to you the error of your ideas.
You are not very bright.

[Immanuel Can]

I wonder why you failed to quote the rest of my post, in which I explain - admittedly polemically - why Burke's and Scruton's conservatism is immoral.

Because you didn't "explain" there, nor did you even explain Scruton's view correctly. All you did was rail against him, for reasons that had nothing to do with what he actually said.

All he said was, "Take older generations and those yet to come into your consideration in your political arrangements." That's an entirely unobjectionable view, it would seem.

Our moral responsibility is to end the economic oppression and inequality that our ancestors suffered and struggled against, and to make a just world for all of our descendants, equally. Conservatives want to keep things as they are.

This is manifestly not correct -- especially in the Scruton case. He does not say "keep things as they are," but rather, essentially, "When you change things, make sure you reckon with the privileges and responsibilities you've inherited from the generations before you, and make sure you take due thought for the generations yet to come."

I fear, Pete, that you're so busy trying to paint Conservatism per se as totally evil that you've lost an ear for hearing those parts of what they are saying that are eminently reasonable. And you accuse them of not hearing your cries to end "economic oppression and inequality," and yet you don't hear their call for the responsibilities you have to those who came before and will come after.

I'm not asking you to BECOME conservative. I'm asking you, as a professed liberal, to hear the parts of what they say that are totally consonant with preventing oppression of other generations by THIS one. Fair enough?

PS -- Meanwhile, I'm surprised to find you using the words "our moral responsibility." After all, you have been adamantly insisting that no objective moral responsibility is possible -- so it turns your claim into nothing more than "Peter's subjective agreers want Peter's subjective disagreers to do whatever Peter subjectively wants them to do (that is, to "end" what he perceives as "inequality" or "oppression," but which is only subjectively so)."

To which the natural response would be, "So?"

[Immanuel Can]

I did not say anything by way of judgement.

No, of course not. The last thing I expect from you is any judgment.

[Peter Holmes]

I wonder why you failed to quote the rest of my post, in which I explain - admittedly polemically - why Burke's and Scruton's conservatism is immoral.

Because you didn't "explain" there, nor did you even explain Scruton's view correctly. All you did was rail against him, for reasons that had nothing to do with what he actually said.

All he said was, "Take older generations and those yet to come into your consideration in your political arrangements." That's an entirely unobjectionable view, it would seem.

Our moral responsibility is to end the economic oppression and inequality that our ancestors suffered and struggled against, and to make a just world for all of our descendants, equally. Conservatives want to keep things as they are.

This is manifestly not correct -- especially in the Scruton case. He does not say "keep things as they are," but rather, essentially, "When you change things, make sure you reckon with the privileges and responsibilities you've inherited from the generations before you, and make sure you take due thought for the generations yet to come."

I fear, Pete, that you're so busy trying to paint Conservatism per se as totally evil that you've lost an ear for hearing those parts of what they are saying that are eminently reasonable. And you accuse them of not hearing your cries to end "economic oppression and inequality," and yet you don't hear their call for the responsibilities you have to those who came before and will come after.

I'm not asking you to BECOME conservative. I'm asking you, as a professed liberal, to hear the parts of what they say that are totally consonant with preventing oppression of other generations by THIS one. Fair enough?

PS -- Meanwhile, I'm surprised to find you using the words "our moral responsibility." After all, you have been adamantly insisting that no objective moral responsibility is possible -- so it turns your claim into nothing more than "Peter's subjective agreers want Peter's subjective disagreers to do whatever Peter subjectively wants them to do (that is, to "end" what he perceives as "inequality" or "oppression," but which is only subjectively so)."

To which the natural response would be, "So?"

I'm pointing out what 'taking our ancestors and descendants into account' actually means when peddled by conservatives. You choose to ignore that, and the fact that conserving inequality is immoral. Conservatives don't like to have their immorality and hypocrisy exposed.

And I'm not bothering with your fatuous argument about morality. We've done that to death.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm pointing out what 'taking our ancestors and descendants into account' actually means when peddled by conservatives.

So...you don't listen to what they DO say; you just accuse them of actually meaning what they DON'T say...? Would it be fair of them to treat you that way?

conserving inequality

If there are any "conservatives" who do this, I have never met them. Just as there are loony Lefties, I'm sure you can find a few, if you turn up enough rocks...but I couldn't tell you where to look. However, to treat those cases as the majority or even the totality of conservatism wouldn't be honest. As for Roger Scruton, the view you criticize her was no part of his exposition, as you can clearly see.

"The final argument that impressed me was Burke’s response to the theory of the social contract. Although society can be seen as a contract, he argued, we must recognize that most parties to the contract are either dead or not yet born. The effect of the contemporary Rousseauist ideas of social contract was to place the present members of society in a position of dictatorial dominance over those who went before and those who came after them. Hence these ideas led directly to the massive squandering of inherited resources at the Revolution, and to the cultural and ecological vandalism that Burke was perhaps the first to recognize as the principal danger of modern politics. In Burke’s eyes the self-righteous contempt for ancestors which characterized the Revolutionaries was also a disinheriting of the unborn. Rightly understood, he argued, society is a partnership among the dead, the living, and the unborn, and without what he called the “hereditary principle,” according to which rights could be inherited as well as acquired, both the dead and the unborn would be disenfranchized. Indeed, respect for the dead was, in Burke’s view, the only real safeguard that the unborn could obtain, in a world that gave all its privileges to the living. His preferred vision of society was not as a contract, in fact, but as a trust, with the living members as trustees of an inheritance that they must strive to enhance and pass on."

conserving inequality is immoral.

But you don't believe anything is objective immoral, Pete. You deny, repeatedly, that that is even possible.

I mean, what is this OP about, except that you deny that conservatism, or liberalism, or Communism, or any other -ism, is capable of being objectively moral or immoral?

[uwot]

All he said was, "Take older generations and those yet to come into your consideration in your political arrangements." That's an entirely unobjectionable view, it would seem... Are you going to argue that political arrangements today are to involve no moral responsibilities to your elders or to coming generations?

Mr Can, you apparently don't understand that Scruton was not talking about the elderly, but the deceased. As it says in the quote you provided: "we must recognize that most parties to the contract are either dead or not yet born." The passage ends with, "His preferred vision of society was not as a contract, in fact, but as a trust, with the living members as trustees of an inheritance that they must strive to enhance and pass on." But that doesn't get us anywhere, because for people like Scruton, inheritance means personal wealth and for others it's things like the NHS.

[RCSaunders]

Identify them. Where do they live?

Why?

Because I know you cannot.

Analytically or synthetically? Do you know it by definition (which would be certain) or by observation (which would make it contingent, and in your view, only statistically probable)? I do not think your view of knowledge would allow you to say you know I cannot, possibly you strongly suspect it. That suspicion is based on your own ignorance. As I said, just because you are unaware of something does not mean it is not true, or to use a metaphor you should like, just because you've never seen a black swan does not mean there aren't any.

You never did say whether you had ever heard about hawala before I mentioned it?

If morality is subjective or merely a social construct ...

I stopped reading here because I do not know how to deal with someone else's bad memory. I have never said or thought morality was a, "social construct." I don't even mean the same thing by morality that you do. I have made it perfectly clear that, the principles that determine how an individual must live one's life are objective, whatever you choose to call them.

But you forget...I'm a Theist, ...

Not even for a second. It's the only thing, short of dementia or psychosis, that could explain your gullibility and beliefs.

But I am pointing out to you that without such laws, you have absolutely no recourse. You are on your own. At least those who recognize the rule of law can sue their governments, or protest the violation of their property rights. And sometimes they win.

Someday you will have forced on you the fact that you are on your own. The government is not going to look out for you or protect you. I have no intention of disabusing you of your naive faith in an agency run by the very kind of people you think that agency is supposed to protect you from.

But the individualist has nothing. His "rights" can be violated anytime, because he has none he can claim. And his objections have no standing to be heard.

When did you become a Randian? "Rights," are those fictional things Objectivists and libertarians believe individuals have a claim to simply because they were born, like a birth-right or endowment of God. There are no such things as rights.

About refusing to compromise:

Seems bad not to be able to compromise? Absolutely. It makes everyone around such a person dislike him and refuse to make deals with him, because they never get any concessions from him at all.

Well, of course, the most important thing is that people like you.

But your description is definitely me. If your son wants date my daughter and keep her out all night I would not compromise and say, OK, but only half the night. In fact I would probably not let him take her out at all after that. He'd really dislike me. But, maybe not at first, but long term, my daughter would love me. But then I'm not a gutless wishy-washy father who calls surrender to other's feelings and opinions, "compromise."

How do creatures that have no "congenital defect" even make such choices? After all, the defect cannot be theirs, so it must come from outside of them. From whence does it come?

A wrong choice is not a, "defect."

Well, then, why do you call it "wrong'? It can't be, since it has no defect.

That's a tough one for you, huh? I'll try to take it slow, with examples:
1. You take a multiple choice test and you choose the answer you think is correct, but it isn't. Wrong choice.
2. You are in a strange city and the instructions you were given were unclear. You choose to turn onto the street you were told to take but it is the wrong one. Wrong choice.
3. In high school you decide on a certain career and pursue it successfully, but after a while you realize you are not really fulfilled in the work you chose to pursue. Wrong choice.

If there was no possibility of making wrong choices, it would not be a choice.

I agree with this. But it's not the problem you've created for yourself. You've asserted that "wrong" and "bad" thing, like government's stealing people's property, actually happen -- but you have no ability to explain from whence such impulses originate, because you've said human beings aren't flawed in the first place.

Put it this way: there are people who are stronger than you, or who can amass more power than you, by many means (carrying a gun, raising a mob, catching you unawares, waiting until you are old, or sleeping...). Such people often want to make "individual choices" you will find odious or downright harmful to your welfare (like the drug addict who would immediately rob you to get money for a hit, say, or the man who envies you your wife, or would harm your child; and if not them, then the unscrupulous government that would tax you to death -- that one, you surely believe in).

That's a pretty good description of the way life is under every government that has ever existed, which obviously didn't prevent any of those things, and more often than not, was complicit in them. So what's you question?

My question is very straightforward: since such people can "individually choose" to do such things to you, on what basis do you object? You have no rights, according to your worldview, and no objective moral values you can ground in reality, so on what rational basis do you complain or protest the alleged injustice there?

The story as you're telling it now goes like this: "People are not morally flawed, but somehow they still manage to do intrinsically bad things. I'm an individual, and do not believe in rights or laws, but I believe the government is in violation of something when they take my stuff."

That doesn't add up yet. I'm waiting for the missing piece. Here it is: In your view, how do intrinsically "good' people end up becoming objectively "bad"?

I have to admit all this up to the end bewildered me. I had an inkling of the problem when you connected, "'wrong' and 'bad,'" in the same phrase, but it is now perfectly clear that your whole question is based on your belief in intrinsic values. No one is intrinsically good or bad. and there are no such things as, intrinsically bad things. Intrinsicism is superstitious religious rot. If that is your premise, no rational discussion of your question is possible.

[Immanuel Can]

Why?

Because I know you cannot.

Analytically or synthetically?

Probabilistically.

I would be most surprised if you could name even one such society. And you haven't...whereas, if you had, you'd have refuted my case instantly. So the reasonable estimate is that you cannot.

I have made it perfectly clear that, the principles that determine how an individual must live one's life are objective, whatever you choose to call them.

And yet, you've denied there's any such basis. Your claim is, thus stated, gratuitous.

But the individualist has nothing. His "rights" can be violated anytime, because he has none he can claim. And his objections have no standing to be heard.

When did you become a Randian?

????

"Rights," are those fictional things

I know you say you believe that...but I think you don't. The reason I think you don't is that you still seem to believe you have a "right" not to be interfered with. But if there are no "rights," you do not have any such "right" at all. And the powerful or the many have the power to deprive you of anything they wish...and then you have not even the ghost of a basis on which to complain.

About refusing to compromise:

Seems bad not to be able to compromise? Absolutely. It makes everyone around such a person dislike him and refuse to make deals with him, because they never get any concessions from him at all.

Well, of course, the most important thing is that people like you.

Something's wrong with the syntax of that sentence. I can't discern your meaning there, RC.

How do creatures that have no "congenital defect" even make such choices? After all, the defect cannot be theirs, so it must come from outside of them. From whence does it come?

Well, then, why do you call it "wrong'? It can't be, since it has no defect.

That's a tough one for you, huh? I'll try to take it slow, with examples:
1. You take a multiple choice test and you choose the answer you think is correct, but it isn't. Wrong choice.
2. You are in a strange city and the instructions you were given were unclear. You choose to turn onto the street you were told to take but it is the wrong one. Wrong choice.
3. In high school you decide on a certain career and pursue it successfully, but after a while you realize you are not really fulfilled in the work you chose to pursue. Wrong choice.

#1 is silly, because multiple choice tests are thoroughly unreliable. The "right" choice often turns out to be only the one that was in the designer's head at the time, and more than one answer is actually reasonable, in many cases. So good teachers don't even use such tests. Ever.

#2 means only "wrong for purpose," but has no implication of "morally wrong," so it's irrelevant to the present discussion.

#3 means only "subjectively wrong," so has no implication of "morally wrong" either.

But we're discussing the question of how something as morally wrong as you believe government confiscation of property to be can be actually morally wrong. It isn't wrong in the sense of "wrong for purpose," because it works fine for them. It isn't "wrong" in the sense of "subjectively wrong," because they don't think it's wrong at all, even if you do.

If there was no possibility of making wrong choices, it would not be a choice.

I agree with this. But it's not the problem you've created for yourself. You've asserted that "wrong" and "bad" thing, like government's stealing people's property, actually happen -- but you have no ability to explain from whence such impulses originate, because you've said human beings aren't flawed in the first place.

...it is now perfectly clear that your whole question is based on your belief in intrinsic values.

It is you who call them "objective." You wrote above,

"I have made it perfectly clear that, the principles that determine how an individual must live one's life are objective"

"Perfectly clear," you say. That's pretty darn clear.

[henry quirk]

A man belongs to himself; his life, his liberty, his property.

A man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit -- in part or whole -- when he knowingly, willingly, deprives another -- in part or whole -- of life, or liberty, or property.

Start with these; end with these.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Theism generates pseudo-morality that is highly subjective in relation to specific theism.

If this sentence actually meant anything, I might even know how to respond.

I have explained in in the link above, i.e. repeated,

The Theistic Morality Model is Pseudo-Morality
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28896

The Christian God issued a command 'Thou Shall Not Kill' but,
the Islamic God - Allah, condone Muslims to kill non-Muslims upon the slightest threat to the religion.

Right. So the Islamic "god" is not actually God. I agree: it's not.

That's pretty straightforward.

When and where did I say the Islamic God is not 'actually' God within the theistic perspective?

Re Theism, the Islamic God and the Christian God is the same Monotheistic God as defined within this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

If you [& theists] insist the Islamic God is not actually God, then you are subjecting 'God' to subjectivism, i.e. who is actually God is subject to the respective believers beliefs.
WHO ARE YOU to insists Muslims are not theists?
Where is your argument for the above?

[RCSaunders]

Nothing here is worth commenting on. You insist on misrepresenting what I say, then address your remarks to that, such as:

I would be most surprised if you could name even one such society.

I never mentioned, suggested, or implied, "a society," is what I was describing and anyone with a fourth grade level of reading comprehension could not possibly have made that mistake.

I know it is going to be a shock to you, but there a millions of people in this world who work, do business, and socialize with one another every day without any "legitimate social rules," "bill of rights," "rule of law," or "agreed-upon procedures' which they are compelled to comply with by some agency of force.

Where is the word, "society," there?

I will tell you this: many live in the United States and South America, Costa Rica is very popular with many, some even in Venezuela. A few live in Europe, and quite a few live in Africa (but not South Africa any longer for obvious reasons), a surprising number (especially from Europe) live in the Middle East, (esp. Bahrain and the UAE), and perhaps the largest number of them live in Asian countries like, Hong Kong, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines (even mainland China) and a great many more do not actually live, (as in having permanent residence or citizenship of), "someplace," but wherever they are at any moment most free to live and do their business.

Is there even a hint that I am talking about any kind of, "society," there?

I have made it perfectly clear that, the principles that determine how an individual must live one's life are objective, whatever you choose to call them.

And yet, you've denied there's any such basis. Your claim is, thus stated, gratuitous.

No, I've denied the superstitious nonsense you think is required for principles to be objective.

"Rights," are those fictional things

I know you say you believe that...but I think you don't.

Think what you like. I see no reason to answer any further questions you might have since you are not going to believe what I say. Why would I lie about a thing like that?

Seems bad not to be able to compromise? Absolutely. It makes everyone around such a person dislike him and refuse to make deals with him, because they never get any concessions from him at all.

Well, of course, the most important thing is that people like you.

Something's wrong with the syntax of that sentence. I can't discern your meaning there, RC.

Really!? It was sarcasm. I meant it to point out exactly what is wrong with your view of compromise. Whether or not anyone else likes you or not is totally irrelevant to principles. In your view, it is perfectly alright to sacrifice one individual's objective interest's for the sake of someone else's feelings, else they might not like you.

...it is now perfectly clear that your whole question is based on your belief in intrinsic values.

It is you who call them "objective." You wrote above,

"I have made it perfectly clear that, the principles that determine how an individual must live one's life are objective"

"Perfectly clear," you say. That's pretty darn clear.

Duh! Except in your personal lexicon of superstitious definitions, "objective," does not and cannot mean, "intrinsic," especially in terms of values.

The rest is not for you. You don't believe I mean what I say, anyway, so just ignore the rest. The rest is for anyone who chooses to evade the disastrously mistaken view of, "intrinsic," values.

All value terms, good, bad, right, wrong, important, and unimportant, for example, are terms of relationship. Things only have a value relative to some objective, purpose, end, or goal, relative to which a thing has a positive value if it furthers the objective and a negative value if it diminishes or prevents the objective. Nothing is just, good, bad, right, or wrong, in itself, and things only have such values if they are, good, bad, right, or wrong for something to someone, because human beings are the only beings capable of having objectives, purposes, ends, or goals.

But values are not arbitrary. No matter what one's objectives, purposes, ends, or goals, are, if they are to be achieved or realized, one cannot do just anything and expect them to happen. There is a real world with a specific nature that determines the relationships between actions and the consequences of those actions. If any objective is to be realized it can only be achieved by actions that the nature of reality itself make necessary and possible for that achievement.

Objective values are those that recognize the relationship between reality's limits and chosen objectives. An objective value identifies what kind of behavior will result in the achievement of any goal or objective. For any specific objective, "what is," (the nature of reality) determines what must (or ought to be) done to achieve that objective.

[Immanuel Can]

The Christian God issued a command 'Thou Shall Not Kill' but,
the Islamic God - Allah, condone Muslims to kill non-Muslims upon the slightest threat to the religion.

Right. So the Islamic "god" is not actually God. I agree: it's not.

That's pretty straightforward.

When and where did I say the Islamic God is not 'actually' God within the theistic perspective?

Above. You said that one God says "Do not kill," and the other says "Kill non-Muslims upon the slightest threat..." If you believe that, you do not believe they are talking about the same "god." They are talking about two different ones.

It's just as if I said, "VA is a tall male," and "VA is a short female." The logical and inevitable conclusion to such a contradiction is that we are talking about two different people called "VA."

WHO ARE YOU to insists Muslims are not theists?

I didn't.

You pointed out that their beliefs contradict Christian beliefs. So you realize that the god the Muslims describe is not the God Christians describe.

Easy.

[Immanuel Can]

I know it is going to be a shock to you, but there a millions of people in this world who work, do business, and socialize with one another every day without any "legitimate social rules," "bill of rights," "rule of law," or "agreed-upon procedures' which they are compelled to comply with by some agency of force.

Where is the word, "society," there?

Now, now, RC...stop being bombastic.

You said there are "millions of people" who do all these social functions, such as "do business, socialize...etc." (see above) But, you say, they do so without such things as legitimate social rules and bills of rights or laws. I just want to know where these people live. It's not in North America: they have constitutions, laws, and agreed upon procedures, which are backed by the authorities. It's also not in any of the countries of Central or South America, for the same reason. It's not in Europe or the UK. It's not in Asia. It's not in Africa. So just where is this magical place? I just want to know where you found these "millions of people" living with no laws, regulations, constitutions, and so on.

I have made it perfectly clear that, the principles that determine how an individual must live one's life are objective, whatever you choose to call them.

And yet, you've denied there's any such basis. Your claim is, thus stated, gratuitous.

No, I've denied the superstitious nonsense you think is required for principles to be objective.

Denial is facile, if you have no grounds to back any claim of objectivity yourself. For then, even if you were right, you would be no better off than before -- your own claim to "objectivity" would still be false. It's like saying, "I burned your house down, therefore mine becomes fireproof."

A proper answer would be to this: what are your own grounds of moral objectivity?

"Rights," are those fictional things

I know you say you believe that...but I think you don't.

Think what you like. I see no reason to answer any further questions you might have since you are not going to believe what I say. Why would I lie about a thing like that?

I'm not saying you're lying. I think you genuinely don't see the logical implications of your own belief. That's quite different. If "rights are fictional," as you say, then you have no right to be left alone, no right to your property, no right to self determination or autonomy, and no right not to be oppressed by any government.

That's all very obvious. You can't both deny the possibly of rights, and get mad when you don't get such rights. That would be silly. You weren't owed your freedom, so how can you be mad if you don't get it?

Seems bad not to be able to compromise? Absolutely. It makes everyone around such a person dislike him and refuse to make deals with him, because they never get any concessions from him at all.

Well, of course, the most important thing is that people like you.

Something's wrong with the syntax of that sentence. I can't discern your meaning there, RC.

Really!? It was sarcasm.

Hard to convey in print. Tone doesn't always come through. It just looked like a grammatical error.

Whether or not anyone else likes you or not is totally irrelevant to principles.

Of course. But you have provided no legitimative basis for your principles -- such as that individuals are owed freedom -- so everything is irrelevant to them.

In your view, it is perfectly alright to sacrifice one individual's objective interest's for the sake of someone else's feelings, else they might not like you.

Not at all. In my view, one compromises out of respect for the dignity and personhood of others, and to negotiate terms on which people can live together with mutual respect and mutual working. In short, once compromises in order to live in a society. It's inevitable, unless you want to be a hermit, because nobody will work with a man who makes no compromises.

...it is now perfectly clear that your whole question is based on your belief in intrinsic values.

It is you who call them "objective." You wrote above,

"I have made it perfectly clear that, the principles that determine how an individual must live one's life are objective"

"Perfectly clear," you say. That's pretty darn clear.

Duh! Except in your personal lexicon of superstitious definitions, "objective," does not and cannot mean, "intrinsic," especially in terms of values.

Objective values are intrinsic, by definition. Subjective ones are not.

The rest is for anyone who chooses to evade the disastrously mistaken view of, "intrinsic," values.

All value terms, good, bad, right, wrong, important, and unimportant, for example, are terms of relationship. Things only have a value relative to some objective,

Aha! There it is!

I've got it now.

1. I'm talking about morals being "objective," as in them being "real," or "stable," or "intrinsic."

2. But you're making the mistake of thinking that "having a value relative to some goal" makes a moral "objective."

It doesn't. To "have an objective," and "to be objectively real" are two very different things. So whenever you've been speaking of "objective morality," you've equivocated your terms. What you should be saying in order to describe your real view is, "Morality is relative and subjective; but the people who have it have a goal or purpose in mind, when they invent their entirely fictions thing called 'morality.'"

Just take out the word "objective," which you've equivocated accidentally, and you'll make your real meaning plain. You're not a believer in objective (i.e. intrinsically real and obligatory) morality at all. You're just a believer that morality has objectives (i.e. all the people who fool themselves about these 'morals' do so with some particular goals and purposes in view).

Now we're fine. I see where you are.

[RCSaunders]

So just where is this magical place? I just want to know where you found these "millions of people" living with no laws, regulations, constitutions, and so on.

Don't worry about it, IC. There is no such place and I never said or suggested there was. If all those I described were in one place it might be a society (and among themselves there is one) but you'd be terrified to live in such a society and among such people, because there would be no one there to tell you what to do, how live, and pick up after you.

You're not a believer in objective (i.e. intrinsically real and obligatory) morality at all.

You are absolutely right. I have no use for that religious twaddle.

If your idea of morality is some kind of obligation imposed on human beings by some authority, it is an evil the world and mankind would be better off without. Nothing good has ever come from that view, but endless evil has.