What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

So, the factual assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' would be false - given the way we use those words in context - if the earth doesn't, in fact, orbit the sun. The feature of reality - the earth's orbiting the sun - if it does - is what makes the assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' true.

Now, could the moral assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' be false? If you think it could, what would have to be different about reality in order for it to be false?

I can no more answer that question than you can answer "What needs to be different about reality for Earth to NOT orbit the Sun?"

[Peter Holmes]

So, the factual assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' would be false - given the way we use those words in context - if the earth doesn't, in fact, orbit the sun. The feature of reality - the earth's orbiting the sun - if it does - is what makes the assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' true.

Now, could the moral assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' be false? If you think it could, what would have to be different about reality in order for it to be false?

[Skepdick]

Let me show you how semantic consistency works.

So, the factual assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' would be false - given the way we use those words in context - if the earth doesn't, in fact, orbit the sun. The feature of reality - the earth's orbiting the sun - if it does - is what makes the assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' true.

The factual assertion 'slavery is wrong' would be false - given the way that we use those words in context - if slavery isn't, in fact, wrong.
The feature of reality - the wrongness of slavery - if it is wrong - is what makes the assertion 'slavery is wrong' true.

Now, could the moral assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' be false? If you think it could, what would have to be different about reality in order for it to be false?

Now, could the factual assertion 'Earth orbits the Sun' be false? If you think it could, what would have to be different about reality in order for it to be false?

I keep pointing out your double-standard. You really don't need me in this conversation - I am adding nothing of value. All that remains is for you to internalise my feedback and correct your error. You have to change your own mind - I can't do it for you.

The wrongness of slavery is as objectively true as the Earth orbiting the Sun.

[Peter Holmes]

Let me show you how semantic consistency works.

So, the factual assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' would be false - given the way we use those words in context - if the earth doesn't, in fact, orbit the sun. The feature of reality - the earth's orbiting the sun - if it does - is what makes the assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' true.

The factual assertion 'slavery is wrong' would be false - given the way that we use those words in context - if slavery isn't, in fact, wrong.
The feature of reality - the wrongness of slavery - if it is wrong - is what makes the assertion 'slavery is wrong' true.

Now, could the moral assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' be false? If you think it could, what would have to be different about reality in order for it to be false?

Now, could the factual assertion 'Earth orbits the Sun' be false? If you think it could, what would have to be different about reality in order for it to be false?

I keep pointing out your double-standard. You really don't need me in this conversation - I am adding nothing of value. All that remains is for you to internalise my feedback and correct your error. You have to change your own mind - I can't do it for you.

Morality is objective.

I agree that you can't add anything to this conversation. So why not let someone else have a go?

So, the factual assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' would be false - given the way we use those words in context - if the earth doesn't, in fact, orbit the sun. The feature of reality - the earth's orbiting the sun - if it does - is what makes the assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' true.

Now, could the moral assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' be false? If you think it could, what would have to be different about reality in order for it to be false?

[Skepdick]

I agree that you can't add anything to this conversation. So why not let someone else have a go?

I am adding plenty to the conversation. I said that YOU don't need me. I can't add anything into a mind that's already full.

The wrongness of slavery is as objectively true as the Earth orbiting the Sun.

if one is a fact, then so is the other. If you insist on decoupling them and plead a distinction - the burden is on you.

[Peter Holmes]

So, the factual assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' would be false - given the way we use those words in context - if the earth doesn't, in fact, orbit the sun. The feature of reality - the earth's orbiting the sun - if it does - is what makes the assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' true.

Now, could the moral assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' be false? If you think it could, what would have to be different about reality in order for it to be false?

[Skepdick]

For posterity and consistency.

So, the factual assertion '̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶a̶r̶t̶h̶ ̶o̶r̶b̶i̶t̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶u̶n̶'̶ 'slavery is wrong' would be false - given the way we use those words in context - if ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶a̶r̶t̶h̶ ̶d̶o̶e̶s̶n̶'̶t̶,̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶f̶a̶c̶t̶,̶ ̶o̶r̶b̶i̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶u̶n̶.̶ if slavery isn't, in fact, not wrong. The feature of reality - t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶a̶r̶t̶h̶'̶s̶ ̶o̶r̶b̶i̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶u̶n̶ slavery's wrongness - if it ̶d̶o̶e̶s̶ is - is what makes the assertion '̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶a̶r̶t̶h̶ ̶o̶r̶b̶i̶t̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶u̶n̶'̶ 'slavery is wrong' true.

Now, could the ̶m̶o̶r̶a̶l̶ factual assertion '̶s̶l̶a̶v̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶w̶r̶o̶n̶g̶'̶ ̶ 'earth orbits the sun' be false? If you think it could, what would have to be different about reality in order for it to be false?

[Peter Holmes]

So, the factual assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' would be false - given the way we use those words in context - if the earth doesn't, in fact, orbit the sun. The feature of reality - the earth's orbiting the sun - if it does - is what makes the assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' true.

Now, could the moral assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' be false? If you think it could, what would have to be different about reality in order for it to be false?

[Skepdick]

At this point, anybody who is not intellectually dishonest can see this.

The wrongness of slavery is as objectively true as the Earth orbiting the Sun.

Peter probably believes it too, but he's too embarrassed to admit he was wrong.

So, the factual assertion '̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶a̶r̶t̶h̶ ̶o̶r̶b̶i̶t̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶u̶n̶'̶ ̶ 'slavery is wrong' would be false - given the way we use those words in context - if ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶a̶r̶t̶h̶ ̶d̶o̶e̶s̶n̶'̶t̶,̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶f̶a̶c̶t̶,̶ ̶o̶r̶b̶i̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶u̶n̶, slavery isn't, in fact, wrong. The feature of reality - t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶a̶r̶t̶h̶'̶s̶ ̶o̶r̶b̶i̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶u̶n̶ the wrongness of slavery - if it ̶d̶o̶e̶s̶ is - is what makes the assertion '̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶a̶r̶t̶h̶ ̶o̶r̶b̶i̶t̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶u̶n̶'̶ ̶ true.

Now, could the ̶m̶o̶r̶a̶l̶ factual assertion ̶'̶s̶l̶a̶v̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶w̶r̶o̶n̶g̶'̶ earth orbits the sun be false? If you think it could, what would have to be different about reality in order for it to be false?

[RCSaunders]

It's no hyperbole!

I've told you a million times...no, a billion...never use hyperbole!

There's no need to exaggerate. You've blown this all out of proportion----
probably.

[Peter Holmes]

Just a reminder for the hard of understanding. Features of reality, such as the earth's orbiting the sun, have no truth-value. They just are or were, neither true nor false, because reality isn't linguistic. Only factual assertions - typically linguistic expressions - are true or false.

What makes what we call a factual assertion - such as 'the earth orbits the sun' - what we call true, is that it describes a feature of reality that is the case. What we call the earth does, in reality, what we call orbit what we call the sun - so the factual assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' is true, given the way we use those words in context.

So, the factual assertion 'the earth orbits the sun' would be false - given the way we use those words in context - if the earth doesn't, in fact, orbit the sun.

Now, could the moral assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' be false? If you think it could, what would have to be different about reality in order for it to be false? Is there a feature of reality, like the earth's orbiting the sun, that is the moral wrongness of slavery, that, if it is the case, makes the assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' true, the absence of which would mean the assertion is false?

Just droning 'slavery is morally wrong' doesn't demonstrate that the moral wrongness of slavery actually exists as a feature of reality - like the earth's orbiting the sun.

[RCSaunders]

To anyone on this thread:

Most of the discussion, though interesting, is not getting far because a fundamental question is being ignored. Before and moral and ethical values can even be discussed, what values actually are needs to be identified

To that End, I've posted an article, Values. I'd appreciate any comments, suggestions, criticisms, or questions.

Thanks. Is there a chance you could boil down your argument to a few premises, and maybe a conclusion?

The thing is, Peter, it's already condensed. It's not a simple subject that can be addressed in a few sentences without being ambiguous. The article is not long and can be read in five minutes at the most.

[RCSaunders]

Peter and Henry,

Now, could the moral assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' be false? If you think it could, what would have to be different about reality in order for it to be false?

A thought on slavery:

Henry takes the position that slavery is wrong because an individual owns one's self. If someone owns something, it is theirs to use or dispose of in any way they choose: they can use it, destroy it, give it away, or sell it. So why would it be immoral if someone chose to sell themselves into slavery, in exchange for be being provided food, clothing, shelter, and medical attention, for example?

[Immanuel Can]

It's no hyperbole!

I've told you a million times...no, a billion...never use hyperbole!

There's no need to exaggerate. You've blown this all out of proportion----
probably.

[Immanuel Can]

Peter and Henry,

Now, could the moral assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' be false? If you think it could, what would have to be different about reality in order for it to be false?

A thought on slavery:

Henry takes the position that slavery is wrong because an individual owns one's self. If someone owns something, it is theirs to use or dispose of in any way they choose: they can use it, destroy it, give it away, or sell it. So why would it be immoral if someone chose to sell themselves into slavery, in exchange for be being provided food, clothing, shelter, and medical attention, for example?

I think maybe fundamental to the word "slavery" is the absence of choice. What you're speaking about is more like a rather unbalanced contract, but one could sign it if one wished, as you imply, without it perhaps meriting the word "immoral." Maybe we'd rather say one side "took advantage" of the other, but not that one was actually "enslaved." After all, it was voluntary.

But perhaps we should back the truck up one step. How do we know a person "owns" anything? After all, we come into this world naked, and leave it with nothing as well. In the brief interim between womb and tomb, by what legitimacy to we acquire things in such a way that, at least temporarily, they become "ours" and nobody else can legitimately deprive us of them?

If we can't explain "ownership," then how do we explain the phrase, "owns oneself"?