What could make morality objective?

[henry quirk]

That's a cop out.

No, it's acknowledgment I can't convince you moral fact exists.


If killing a human can be murder, why can killing a cow never be murder? And is that a fact, or a matter of opinion?

As I see it: if the cow is a person, don't eat it, cuz it's wrong to eat persons, as fact.


If it's because a cow isn't a person, why is killing a non-person never murder? And is that a fact, or a matter of opinion?

As I see it: only a person belongs to himself. Non-persons (cows, or tables) can't self-own. Fact.


Vegans say meat and milk are murder. You say this is nonsense and they're misguided - as a matter of fact.

As I see it, as an omnivore: diet is amoral. Declarin' meat is murder denigrates the meaning of murder and elevates bio-machinery. Fact.


Okay, demonstrate that. Or don't, because you can't

My argument would be a simple variation of what I've already laid out (ownness), which I think is solid but which you dismiss, so why dance 'round the Mulberry bush again?


Hide behind a jokey distraction.

Unclench your sphincter, Pete: you'll live longer.

[henry quirk]

Not only legalities,

Okay, externalities then.

You source personhood in externalities; I source personhood in the person.

You can read my posts scattered throughout this thread (in particular, the one related to ownness which isn't too far up-thread...that one links to my red meat thread) if you wanna get a sense of what I'm talkin' about.

[Belinda]

Not only legalities,

Okay, externalities then.

You source personhood in externalities; I source personhood in the person.

You can read my posts scattered throughout this thread (in particular, the one related to ownness which isn't too far up-thread...that one links to my red meat thread) if you wanna get a sense of what I'm talkin' about.

But Henry, how can you know for sure who is or is not a person? Maybe someone says "only human beings are persons and all human beings are persons". This is probably what most people do believe.
The thing is, where do moral beliefs come from?

[henry quirk]

But Henry, how can you know for sure who is or is not a person?

Damned good question. What are your criteria?


Maybe someone says "only human beings are persons and all human beings are persons".

At the moment: I think that's a well-grounded assertion. What do you think?


This is probably what most people do believe.

With good reason, I think.


The thing is, where do moral beliefs come from?

As I say: ownness is inherent, we recognize it, codify it (and make mistakes regardin' it).

[Peter Holmes]

That's a cop out.

No, it's acknowledgment I can't convince you moral fact exists.


If killing a human can be murder, why can killing a cow never be murder? And is that a fact, or a matter of opinion?

As I see it: if the cow is a person, don't eat it, cuz it's wrong to eat persons, as fact.


If it's because a cow isn't a person, why is killing a non-person never murder? And is that a fact, or a matter of opinion?

As I see it: only a person belongs to himself. Non-persons (cows, or tables) can't self-own. Fact.


Vegans say meat and milk are murder. You say this is nonsense and they're misguided - as a matter of fact.

As I see it, as an omnivore: diet is amoral. Declarin' meat is murder denigrates the meaning of murder and elevates bio-machinery. Fact.


Okay, demonstrate that. Or don't, because you can't

My argument would be a simple variation of what I've already laid out (ownness), which I think is solid but which you dismiss, so why dance 'round the Mulberry bush again?


Hide behind a jokey distraction.

Unclench your sphincter, Pete: you'll live longer.

This is one long cop out.

If a thing is a fact, 'as I see it' is irrelevant.

You say it's a fact that only a human being can be murdered. And you have no justification for that claim. Nada. It's just 'as you see it'.

Me - when someone shows me that what I believe is wrong, I change my mind, cos that's the rational thing to do.

Moral realists and objectivists have absolutely nothing to justify their belief that there are moral facts - but it makes absolutely no difference. And that's the mark of a religious belief. To which you're welcome. Relaxed sphincters all round.

[henry quirk]

If a thing is a fact, 'as I see it' is irrelevant.

As I see it is a conversational tool, a turn of phrase: nuthin' more or less.


you have no justification for that claim.

I disagree. I've laid it out, it's solid, you dismiss it. That's okay, Pete: I dismissed your empty position five seconds after I read it.

[Peter Holmes]

If a thing is a fact, 'as I see it' is irrelevant.

As I see it is a conversational tool, a turn of phrase: nuthin' more or less.


you have no justification for that claim.

I disagree. I've laid it out, it's solid, you dismiss it. That's okay, Pete: I dismissed your empty position five seconds after I read it.

'People own themselves; therefore it's morally wrong to own people.'

'Cows aren't persons and don't own themselves; therefore it's not morally wrong to eat them.'

The moral consequents don't follow. Negating them produces no contradiction, so there's no deductive entailment.

It's as solid as an extremely unsolid thing.

[henry quirk]

You're just wrong, Henry.

Nah, I'm right, not that you'll ever admit it, or even admit to the possibility.

This...

Me - when someone shows me that what I believe is wrong, I change my mind, cos that's the rational thing to do.

...just isn't true. The thread overflows with examples of your bein' closed on the subject. That is: this thread was never about you examining the evidence; the thread -- a vanity exercise -- is only you, sayin' no.

Anyway, that's how I see it...

[Peter Holmes]

You're just wrong, Henry.

Nah, I'm right, not that you'll ever admit it, or even admit to the possibility.

This...

Me - when someone shows me that what I believe is wrong, I change my mind, cos that's the rational thing to do.

...just isn't true. The thread overflows with examples of your bein' closed on the subject. That is: this thread was never about you examining the evidence; the thread -- a vanity exercise -- is only you, sayin' no.

Anyway, that's how I see it...

Okay. As I see it, no one's demonstrated the existence of real moral things, and therefore moral facts. It's just been one long parade of unsound arguments and zilch evidence - objectivist butt hurt vanity. Nothing does or could make morality objective.

On to fresh fields and pastures new.

[henry quirk]

bye

[Skepdick]

You want to know what an immoral douchebag looks like?

Somebody who knows the answer but asks the question anyway. Thereby pretending to be "open to debate".

Nothing does or could make morality objective.

Peter never thought his mind could be changed - he just wanted to waste your time trying.

[Peter Holmes]

bye

Bye. Immoral douchebag signing off.

Otoh - why should the butt-hurt losers close down the discussion?

if anyone has evidence and a sound argument for moral objectivity, please join in. Those two things will always win out in the end.

[Skepdick]

Otoh - why should the butt-hurt losers close down the discussion?

It was a discussion?

Nothing does or could make morality objective.

[henry quirk]

an immoral douchebag

Yeah, I don't think Pete is that.


waste your time

It wasn't a waste: the conversation/debate sharpened my thinkin' on the subject.

[Belinda]

Henry Quirk wrote:

As I say: ownness is inherent, we recognize it, codify it (and make mistakes regardin' it).

How do you know "ownness" is not learned from other people? Did you learn "ownness" from your parents, or maybe also the boys you went around with during your youth?