What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

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?

My point is that 'slavery is morally wrong' can't be false for exactly the same reason that it can't be true. It has no truth-value, because it doesn't claim something about reality that may or may not be the case. Other examples of non-factual assertions are: 'that painting is beautiful' and 'vanilla is the best flavour'.

'Why would X be immoral?' isn't a factual question, because 'X is immoral' isn't a factual claim.

[Immanuel Can]

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?

The answer to you question is above, Pete.

You say a claim can be true or false IF it refers to a feature of reality. Okay.

Take a statement like "Peter took Henry's car, which Henry loaned him, and drove it to Denver." That statement is all composed of facts: Did Peter, in fact, do that? It's verifiable. Was it, so far as human ownership goes, Henry's car? Yes. Did he loan it to Peter? Yes. Did Peter drive it? Yes. Did he drive it specifically to Denver? Yes. If all the above facts are true, then the statement is a true statement. It's 100% composed of facts. All "features of reality" conform to it.

Now consider a parallel instance: "Peter took God's world, which was provided to are a blessing to all, and used it as his dumpster." Again, only facts are involved, just as in the above statement. But if it was indeed God's world, then Peter violated the purpose for which God created that world, and thus did something immoral, and it's factually true that he violated the Creator's purpose, and deprived the "all" of what the Creator intended them to have. Thus, there's a moral fact entailed.

In that latter case, of course, there's a distinct advantage to clarity: that every single artifact in the statement was originally created by God. Thus, the purpose of every item was intrinsic to its existence: it was, as we say, not just "created" but in being created, it was "created FOR..." It was created for function X or function Y. To the extent, then, that each item and person fulfilled its intrinsic function, it was morally engaged. To the extent it did not fulfill its intrinsic function, it was immorally engaged.

Thus, morality and immorality are facts, and are features of the real world, and their truth value is established a specific feature of reality itself.

[henry quirk]

here's a question. If you think the assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' is true, do you think it could be false? And if so, what would have to be different - what would not be the case - in order for the assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' to be false?

As I say...

Well, up-thread, I offered a damned good line of reasoning on why ownness is real as fire or hunger or wind. You dismissed it without, I think, really considering or understanding my reasoning; certainly you never wrecked my reasoning, so, as I see it, my position stands (whether you like it or not).

...and...

Yeah, I offered a test, a means of falsification, in my reasoning which you never really tackled.

...all you need to is read the thread.

-----

RC,

In a roundabout way, I addressed your question about a person selling himself in my reasoning about why ownness is real and how to falsify ownness. As I say: read the thread.

-----

To any- and every-one,

Read the thread. It ain't ever gonna move forward or conclude if we keep layin' out arguments only to repeat them once, twice, three times (a lady) cuz everyone else just ignores what we've posted.

Like Pete, for example. I responded at length to him, and I might as well just have farted in an envelope and mailed it to the Pope for all the good it did me.

If I can work up some will, I'll start my own goddamned thread. I'll call it sumthin' like why ownness is a moral fact. Keep your eyes open for it (but don't hold your breath, cuz you might pass out, fall down, crack your skull wide open, and die).

[Peter Holmes]

here's a question. If you think the assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' is true, do you think it could be false? And if so, what would have to be different - what would not be the case - in order for the assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' to be false?

As I say...

Well, up-thread, I offered a damned good line of reasoning on why ownness is real as fire or hunger or wind. You dismissed it without, I think, really considering or understanding my reasoning; certainly you never wrecked my reasoning, so, as I see it, my position stands (whether you like it or not).

...and...

Yeah, I offered a test, a means of falsification, in my reasoning which you never really tackled.

...all you need to is read the thread.

-----

RC,

In a roundabout way, I addressed your question about a person selling himself in my reasoning about why ownness is real and how to falsify ownness. As I say: read the thread.

-----

To any- and every-one,

Read the thread. It ain't ever gonna move forward or conclude if we keep layin' out arguments only to repeat them once, twice, three times (a lady) cuz everyone else just ignores what we've posted.

Like Pete, for example. I responded at length to him, and I might as well just have farted in an envelope and mailed it to the Pope for all the good it did me.

If I can work up some will, I'll start my own goddamned thread. I'll call it sumthin' like why ownness is a moral fact. Keep your eyes open for it (but don't hold your breath, cuz you might pass out, fall down, crack your skull wide open, and die).

If I did ignore your argument - and I don't think I did - it was because it's unsound. And I've been showing you exactly why it's unsound, over and over again, and you've been too self-satisfied or dense to understand.

You have your theory - people own themselves, so it's morally wrong for them to be owned - and you're sticking to that, come hell or high water.

That you fail to understand that the claim 'people own themselves' does not, in any way, entail the claim 'people should own themselves' is your big block. When you recognise that, you'll be able to see your mistake. Till then, snuggle down with your delusion.

[Immanuel Can]

here's a question. If you think the assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' is true, do you think it could be false? And if so, what would have to be different - what would not be the case - in order for the assertion 'slavery is morally wrong' to be false?

As I say...

Well, up-thread, I offered a damned good line of reasoning on why ownness is real as fire or hunger or wind. You dismissed it without, I think, really considering or understanding my reasoning; certainly you never wrecked my reasoning, so, as I see it, my position stands (whether you like it or not).

...and...

Yeah, I offered a test, a means of falsification, in my reasoning which you never really tackled.

...all you need to is read the thread.

Is this the argument again, Henry?

As I pointed out up-thread, some things are real unambiguously, like a stone; some things are real but only exist when certain conditions are in place, like fire; some things are real but only exist in a certain context, like my hunger.

I believe morality (the rightness or wrongness of an action) is real, not like the stone, but like fire and hunger.

Morality exists only in certain conditions, only in a certain context. The conditions are man's universal nature (his intrinsic desire to be his own, for example). The context is the individual (as he forms intent and acts).

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.

To leash a man is a violation of him because he belongs only to himself.

[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?

The answer to you question is above, Pete.

You say a claim can be true or false IF it refers to a feature of reality. Okay.

Take a statement like "Peter took Henry's car, which Henry loaned him, and drove it to Denver." That statement is all composed of facts: Did Peter, in fact, do that? It's verifiable. Was it, so far as human ownership goes, Henry's car? Yes. Did he loan it to Peter? Yes. Did Peter drive it? Yes. Did he drive it specifically to Denver? Yes. If all the above facts are true, then the statement is a true statement. It's 100% composed of facts. All "features of reality" conform to it.

Now consider a parallel instance: "Peter took God's world, which was provided to are a blessing to all, and used it as his dumpster." Again, only facts are involved, just as in the above statement. But if it was indeed God's world, then Peter violated the purpose for which God created that world, and thus did something immoral, and it's factually true that he violated the Creator's purpose, and deprived the "all" of what the Creator intended them to have. Thus, there's a moral fact entailed.

In that latter case, of course, there's a distinct advantage to clarity: that every single artifact in the statement was originally created by God. Thus, the purpose of every item was intrinsic to its existence: it was, as we say, not just "created" but in being created, it was "created FOR..." It was created for function X or function Y. To the extent, then, that each item and person fulfilled its intrinsic function, it was morally engaged. To the extent it did not fulfill its intrinsic function, it was immorally engaged.

Thus, morality and immorality are facts, and are features of the real world, and their truth value is established a specific feature of reality itself.

Specious claptrap, amounting to: 'a god thinks X is morally wrong, so X is morally wrong'. All the rubbish about the god creating everything for a purpose - blah, blah, blah - does nothing to improve this ridiculous - and morally degenerate - claim.

Derivation: This god thinks slavery is not morally wrong, so slavery is not morally wrong.

(Insert 'oppressing women', 'persecuting homosexuals and witches', 'substitutional human sacrifice' - or any Judaeo-Christian moral abomination of your choice.)

[RCSaunders]

How do we know a person "owns" anything?

If that's a problem for you, how do you explain, "thou shalt not steal?" May one take anything they like since it's not possible to know if anyone owns it or not?

Fortunately, except for you, most people know what belongs to other people.

[Immanuel Can]

Specious claptrap, amounting to: 'a god thinks X is morally wrong, so X is morally wrong'. All the rubbish about the god creating everything for a purpose - blah, blah, blah - does nothing to improve this ridiculous - and morally degenerate - claim.

Are you really unable to extrapolate logically from a hypothetical?

I think maybe you're just avoiding the question, Pete. Nobody's asking you to believe anything; it's asking you to figure out what would be true IF something you don't believe is true.

Derivation: This god thinks slavery is not morally wrong, so slavery is not morally wrong.

I don't have any problem entertaining a hypothetical, Pete.

Well, the term "slavery" implies that the Creator has NOT organized the world in that way, and that you realize He hasn't. So in order to present a dilemma, you'd need to eliminate the "loaded" term there, from the way you phrase the question.

Now we're talking about a hypothetical, counterfactual case in which the Creator makes some entities with the express value of being, say, workers, like worker-bees in a hive.

A strange world, perhaps, but not one in which being a worker-bee would be immoral, anymore than being the Queen 'bee' would be morally meritorious.

But now, look at your claim: "morally-degenerate," you say. But you also say that's objectively not true. It's only Peter's subjective opinion, you say...so how do you allow yourself to indulge in pejoratives in which you actually don't believe anyone else is obligated to participate? You're using value-laden terms, while absolutely insisting that there are no objective values.

You can't even "keep faith" with your own view, it seems.

[Immanuel Can]

How do we know a person "owns" anything?

If that's a problem for you,

Not even a bit.

A Theist can simply point, as Locke did, to property rights being an automatic corollary of "The Great Day," to use Locke's term, the fact that God calls all men to account for what they do on Earth. Men have life from God, liberty in order to have accountability, and property in order to have that with which to actualize their accountability, in Locke's description: "life, liberty and property."..all in a single, logical package.

But you don't believe that, so you can't apply to that for such a solution. So to what will you apply? Again, you come into the world with nothing, and you leave with nothing -- how are you magically granted this thing called "ownership" in the interim? And not just granted it, but granted it in such a way that you feel you can claim it as a sort of right?

[Peter Holmes]

Specious claptrap, amounting to: 'a god thinks X is morally wrong, so X is morally wrong'. All the rubbish about the god creating everything for a purpose - blah, blah, blah - does nothing to improve this ridiculous - and morally degenerate - claim.

Are you really unable to extrapolate logically from a hypothetical?

I think maybe you're just avoiding the question, Pete. Nobody's asking you to believe anything; it's asking you to figure out what would be true IF something you don't believe is true.

Derivation: This god thinks slavery is not morally wrong, so slavery is not morally wrong.

I don't have any problem entertaining a hypothetical, Pete.

Well, the term "slavery" implies that the Creator has NOT organized the world in that way, and that you realize He hasn't. So in order to present a dilemma, you'd need to eliminate the "loaded" term there, from the way you phrase the question.

Now we're talking about a hypothetical, counterfactual case in which the Creator makes some entities with the express value of being, say, workers, like worker-bees in a hive.

A strange world, perhaps, but not one in which being a worker-bee would be immoral, anymore than being the Queen 'bee' would be morally meritorious.

But now, look at your claim: "morally-degenerate," you say. But you also say that's objectively not true. It's only Peter's subjective opinion, you say...so how do you allow yourself to indulge in pejoratives in which you actually don't believe anyone else is obligated to participate? You're using value-laden terms, while absolutely insisting that there are no objective values.

You can't even "keep faith" with your own view, it seems.

You're not addressing the issue, and I'm bored yet again with this argument. You haven't shown how the consequent - 'then morality is objective' - follows from any antecedent - 'If there is a god...' So your hypothetical is incoherent, how ever you formulate it.

[Immanuel Can]

You're not addressing the issue,

Wow. Talk about projection!

I answered your hypothetical, quite explicitly, actually. You can see above. Meanwhile, you haven't even tried to answer mine. Nor have you responded to the question of how you, the subjectivist, explain to yourself your justification for terms like "morally degenerate," which contradict your own claim, since they require an objective judgment.

And yet I'm the one who's "not addressing the issue"?

[Peter Holmes]

You're not addressing the issue,

Wow. Talk about projection!

I answered your hypothetical, quite explicitly, actually. You can see above. Meanwhile, you haven't even tried to answer mine. Nor have you responded to the question of how you, the subjectivist, explain to yourself your justification for terms like "morally degenerate," which contradict your own claim, since they require an objective judgment.

And yet I'm the one who's "not addressing the issue"?

Don't be obtuse. Any expression of a value-judgement is 'in my opinion'. So, in my opinion, believing X is morally right or wrong just because a god says it is - is morally degenerate. And the nauseating moral dissonance of Christians trying to defend the wickedness of their invented bible-god is evidence of that degenerate moral abnegation.

[Immanuel Can]

Any expression of a value-judgement is 'in my opinion'.

Right. And that "opinion" has no objective referent whatsoever; so it means only "This is what Peter happens, at this moment, to feel like."

So, in my opinion, believing X is morally right or wrong just because a god says it is - is morally degenerate.

Can't be, objectively.

So all you're really saying is, "Peter feels he doesn't like believing..." It cannot actually BE "morally wrong," far less "degenerate" (presumably from some higher state, which also doesn't objectively exist), and there is no content at all in the adjective "morally" that is not also in the phrase "Peter feels like..."

You are, by you own admission, Peter, talking about nothing at all objectively true. You're just emoting, without the slightest pretext for anyone else having to think you are talking about more than your temporary feelings.

[Immanuel Can]

The police are the most dangerous criminals

I have to tell you a story about something that happened to one of my friends. I just heard about it today, and oddly enough, it's topical. And I swear I'm not making it up.

My friend is a high school teacher in the town where I live. A few months ago, something truly terrible happened to a man with whom she works. His four-year-old daughter died. She had a little fever, and was laid down to rest -- she never woke up. As you can imagine, the man and his wife were shattered.

Every day, the little girl was in the custom of going to the window, to look out and blow kisses at her father. She put her little face and lips against the glass. And after her death, the print of her little face and lips were still on the front window of their house.

Of course, they could not bear to clean the window. Who could?

They mentioned it to a neighbour, a good-hearted sort who really wanted to do something. So he called the local police station. He explained the situation to the desk sergeant, and asked, is there anyone there who would be willing to come down and take a "fingerprint" of the little girl's face, so the family could keep it forever?

A policeman called them back. He said, "I'll come on one condition; I just want to do it anonymously. I want no thanks, I just want the chance to help the family."

Which he did.

We still don't know who he was. But the family has a permanent print of their little daughter's kiss, to keep forever.

Enough said?

[Sculptor]

The police are the most dangerous criminals

I have to tell you a story about something that happened to one of my friends. I just heard about it today, and oddly enough, it's topical. And I swear I'm not making it up.

My friend is a high school teacher in the town where I live. A few months ago, something truly terrible happened to a man with whom she works. His four-year-old daughter died. She had a little fever, and was laid down to rest -- she never woke up. As you can imagine, the man and his wife were shattered.

Every day, the little girl was in the custom of going to the window, to look out and blow kisses at her father. She put her little face and lips against the glass. And after her death, the print of her little face and lips were still on the front window of their house.

Of course, they could not bear to clean the window. Who could?

They mentioned it to a neighbour, a good-hearted sort who really wanted to do something. So he called the local police station. He explained the situation to the desk sergeant, and asked, is there anyone there who would be willing to come down and take a "fingerprint" of the little girl's face, so the family could keep it forever?

A policeman called them back. He said, "I'll come on one condition; I just want to do it anonymously. I want no thanks, I just want the chance to help the family."

Which he did.

We still don't know who he was. But the family has a permanent print of their little daughter's kiss, to keep forever.

Enough said?

Police kill 1000 people a year.
Nuff said.