Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

take any moral assertion - such as 'abortion is morally wrong' - and objectivists claim such as assertion has truth value - true or false - because it's supposed to be a fact that abortion really is or isn't morally wrong. It's bonkers, of course. And dangerous.

As a person (any person, every person) is free and has an inalienable natural right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property, takin' his life, outside of self-defense or defense of another, is unjust, is wrong.

If what a woman carries is a person then she has no claim on his life. takin' that life, outside of self-defense, is unjust, is wrong.

Now, pregnancy is unique in that one person (if it is a person) exists for a time inside another. While it's wrong to evict the indwelling person (if it is a person) who is the product of consensual sex, it's unreasonable to expect a rape victim carry the product of her violation.

I don't think it's unreasonable, however, to hold the woman, who consented to sex, morally accountable for the care of the person (if it is a person) she created and who is temporarily inside her, any more than it is to hold the mother of a six year old morally accountable for the care of her child.

I wasn't clear. The thing that's bonkers and dangerous is the delusion that there are moral facts - that a moral assertion such as 'abortion is wrong' makes a factual claim with a truth-value. It doesn't.

You explain your moral opinion perfectly rationally - and that's all we can do. But, as you know, others disagree with you and explain their opinion perfectly rationally. And this is possible precisely because there's no fact of the matter. Nothing in reality can settle the argument.

[henry quirk]

I wasn't clear.

No, you were...you always are.

*

The thing that's bonkers and dangerous is the delusion that there are moral facts - that a moral assertion such as 'abortion is wrong' makes a factual claim with a truth-value. It doesn't.

Asserting moral fact exists is no more or less dangerous than asserting there is no moral fact, man is not free, and man has no natural right to his life, liberty, or property.

*

But, as you know, others disagree with you and explain their opinion perfectly rationally.

I've yet to see a rational/reasonable defense of man is not free; man has no natural, inalienable claim to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

[Peter Holmes]

I wasn't clear.

No, you were...you always are.

*

The thing that's bonkers and dangerous is the delusion that there are moral facts - that a moral assertion such as 'abortion is wrong' makes a factual claim with a truth-value. It doesn't.

Asserting moral fact exists is no more or less dangerous than asserting there is no moral fact, man is not free, and man has no natural right to his life, liberty, or property.

*

But, as you know, others disagree with you and explain their opinion perfectly rationally.

I've yet to see a rational/reasonable defense of man is not free; man has no natural, inalienable claim to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

We've done this, Henry. The claim 'man is free and has a natural, inalienable right to his own, and no one else's, life, liberty and property' is not a moral assertion. It says nothing about moral rightness and wrongness. So an argument about its truth is not a moral argument at all.

[henry quirk]

It says nothing about moral rightness and wrongness.

Sure it does. If man is free, it's wrong to slave him; if man has a natural claim to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property, then it's wrong for someone lay claim to another's life, liberty, and property without just cause (self-defense, defense of another).

But, as you say We've done this, so there's no point in doin' it again.

[BigMike]

If man is free, it's wrong to slave him; if man has a natural claim to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property, then it's wrong for someone lay claim to another's life, liberty, and property without just cause (self-defense, defense of another).

And if man doesn't have such a natural claim, then it is not wrong for someone lay claim to another's life, liberty, and property without just cause (self-defense, defense of another)? The state of nature offers no such guarantees, claims, or rights. Even though these or similar rights became part of civilization over time, I think Hobbes' retrospective idea of the social contract explains why they exist in the first place. They are manufactured, and everyone must agree with them for them to function as intended.

[Peter Holmes]

If man is free, it's wrong to slave him; if man has a natural claim to his, and no other's life, liberty, and property, then it's wrong for someone lay claim to another's life, liberty, and property without just cause (self-defense, defense of another).

And if man doesn't have such a natural claim, then it is not wrong for someone lay claim to another's life, liberty, and property without just cause (self-defense, defense of another)? The state of nature offers no such guarantees, claims, or rights. Even though these or similar rights became part of civilization over time, I think Hobbes' retrospective idea of the social contract explains why they exist in the first place. They are manufactured, and everyone must agree with them for them to function as intended.

Agreed. The doctrine of natural rights is as confected as the doctrine of god-given rights. Rights are granted. and can be withdrawn - as the disaster in the US over abortion demonstrates. Rights are political - via state laws - and, ultimately, moral matters.

[henry quirk]

And if man doesn't have such a natural claim, then it is not wrong for someone lay claim to another's life, liberty, and property without just cause (self-defense, defense of another)?

If man has no natural claim to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property, then -- as (I believe it was) Crowley said -- Do as thy will is the whole of the law.

Does it seem to you, BM, that it's okay for someone to leash you simply becuz they want to and have the will and power to?

There's an estimated 40 million folks in the world, slaved: not a one believes their bein' slaved is right or moral or appropriate. Every last one knows he's bein' wronged.

*

The state of nature offers no such guarantees, claims, or rights.

Nature is not the source of natural rights.

*

Even though these or similar rights became part of civilization over time, I think Hobbes' retrospective idea of the social contract explains why they exist in the first place. They are manufactured, and everyone must agree with them for them to function as intended.

Sure, we craft privilege which can be taken away as surely as it is given. Natural rights, on the other hand, can't be given or taken, can't be created or nullified by other men. They can only be violated.

[FlashDangerpants]

If man has no natural claim to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property, then -- as (I believe it was) Crowley said -- Do as thy will is the whole of the law.

Does it seem to you, BM, that it's okay for someone to leash you simply becuz they want to and have the will and power to?

In that part you are arguing from ought to is.

There's an estimated 40 million folks in the world, slaved: not a one believes their bein' slaved is right or moral or appropriate. Every last one knows he's bein' wronged.

And that's just bandwagon fallacy.

[henry quirk]

In that part you are arguing from ought to is.

And that's just bandwagon fallacy.

I don't know what all that means.

I do know I am a free man with an inalienable right to my, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. You are a free man with an inalienable right to your, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

You ought not screw around with my life, liberty, or property without just cause. I ought not screw around with your life, liberty, or property without just cause.

Just cause: self-defense, defense of another.

But, you know what I think, flash, just as I know what you think. We don't agree.

I don't imagine me and BM will either, but a lil back & forth with him can't hurt.

[FlashDangerpants]

In that part you are arguing from ought to is.

And that's just bandwagon fallacy.

I don't know what all that means.

If that is true, after a decade or two of arguing about philosophy, then you might not be cut out for this stuff.

[Harbal]

Does it seem to you, BM, that it's okay for someone to leash you simply becuz they want to and have the will and power to?

It might be perfectly okay with the guy who leashes you, and okay with everyone else, apart from you.

Natural rights, on the other hand, can't be given or taken, can't be created or nullified by other men. They can only be violated.

So where does a natural right come from? What you call a natural right is no more than your own feeling of what is right or wrong. That isn't a natural right, it's merely a henry quirk right, which may or may not carry weight in the eyes of others.

[BigMike]

Does it seem to you, BM, that it's okay for someone to leash you simply becuz they want to and have the will and power to?

It depends. If people don't honor the social contract, why should I? In that case I would kill, steal, and leash like everybody else. To survive, I would have to do so, despite the fact that existence would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

The state of nature offers no such guarantees, claims, or rights.

Nature is not the source of natural rights.

What natural rights are you talking about?

[henry quirk]

It might be perfectly okay with the guy who leashes you, and okay with everyone else, apart from you.

Obviously. Folks get murdered, raped, robbed, slaved, etc. all the time.

Not seein' this as a refutation of natural rights: only an evidence that man, as a free will, can do wrong.

So where does a natural right come from? What you call a natural right is no more than your own feeling of what is right or wrong. That isn't a natural right, it's merely a henry quirk right, which may or may not carry weight in the eyes of others.

No, it's not just me. It's also you, and flash, and pete and any other, every other, person who's ever lived, who lives, who will live.

As I say elsewhere, multiple times: everyone, any one, knows his life, liberty, and property is his, and everyone takes offense at bein' violated. Even the slaver finds the idea of his bein' the slave repugnant.

As for where it comes from: I'm a deist, I believe it comes from The Creator. But, it could be just a particularly narrow form of survival trait, just a brute fact about a particular kind of very smart monkey. Even so, if it is just a survival trait, well, C. George Boeree sez it better than me...

What is refered to as the naturalistic fallacy ("you can't draw a moral 'ought' from a natural 'is'") is itself fallacious: "ought" derives neatly from syllogisms that begin with a principle, even if that principle is naturalistic. So, for example, if a creature has the desire to live, then avoiding imminent danger is what it ought to do. If a creature has nurturant instincts, then anything done to promote the welfare of its infants is what it ought to do. That the principle is relative to the creature and its circumstances is irrelevant. No one is claiming that the creature "ought" to desire to live or "ought" to have one instinct or another - only that, given those desires or instincts, an "ought" (in fact, many "oughts") is the logical consequence.

I, again, however, am a deist: I don't believe this universal intuition of natural rights is just a survival trait.

[henry quirk]

I would kill, steal, and leash like everybody else.

Hell of an admission. for candidness. If no one is around, do you steal or kill now?

*

What natural rights are you talking about?

You have a natural right to your life, liberty, and property and no one else's.

[BigMike]

You have a natural right to your life, liberty, and property and no one else's.

Says WHO?