Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

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.

VA is similarly muddled: confusing the moral and non-moral (instrumental) uses of 'ought'. It's classic equivocation.

[henry quirk]

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

Says WHO?

You do. If not: sell yourself.

[BigMike]

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

Says WHO?

You do. If not: sell yourself.

Is he not adorable?

[Harbal]

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.

Well, if your argument is that a right is granted by a deity, and I don't accept the existence of deities, there is no common ground for us to argue from, and so argument is pointless. Now that I know the grounds of your argument, I won't pursue it any further. The fault is mine, I must not have been paying enough attention to what has already been said.

[henry quirk]

Says WHO?

You do. If not: sell yourself.

Is he not adorable?

Yes, I am.

Anyway: we both know you won't sell yourself, and we both know you'd fight like the devil to keep the leash off your neck...just like everyone else.

Why?

[henry quirk]

Well, if your argument is that a right is granted by a deity, and I don't accept the existence of deities, there is no common ground for us to argue from,

You don't have to believe in God to recognize you have a natural right to your life, liberty, and property.

Or, do you mean to say you don't?

[Harbal]

You don't have to believe in God to recognize you have a natural right to your life, liberty, and property.

Or, do you mean to say you don't?

I don't understand the concept of "natural right". There are natural impulses and aversions in the sense that I am a creature of nature and possess these things, so that I would resist having my life taken from me by virtue of them, but they are not rights. Rights are simply agreements made between human beings. If you were alone in a forest, and just about to be eaten by a bear, in what sense would you have the right not to be eaten by it?

[henry quirk]

You don't have to believe in God to recognize you have a natural right to your life, liberty, and property.

Or, do you mean to say you don't?

I don't understand the concept of "natural right". There are natural impulses and aversions in the sense that I am a creature of nature and possess these things, so that I would resist having my life taken from me by virtue of them, but they are not rights. Rights are simply agreements made between human beings. If you were alone in a forest, and just about to be eaten by a bear, in what sense would you have the right not to be eaten by it?

C'mon, H, is your life, liberty, and property yours?

And : bears, like hurricanes and earthquakes, are not moral entities. But I'd fight the fucker just the same to stay alive, becuz it's my life.

[Peter Holmes]

Henry

So, 'You don't have to believe in God to recognize you have a natural right to your life, liberty, and property.'

And 'Nature is not the source of natural rights.'

So where do these supposed rights come from? Could it be that some people scratch around for bs reasons to justify their beliefs? Do you think that could be a possibility?

Btw, it's okay to have moral beliefs. Most of us do. And many people have irrational beliefs - deists among them.

[henry quirk]

Could it be that some people scratch around for bs reasons to justify their beliefs? Do you think that could be a possibility?

Sure. Commies, for example, come up with all kinda of crap to justify leashin' folks.

On the matter, however, of anyone, every one, knowin' his life, liberty, and property is his and no one else's , there's no need to come up with crap. In fact, as the commie does, you have to come up with crap to deny what I call natural rights.

[Harbal]

C'mon, H, is your life, liberty, and property yours?

What I think you mean is that these things are mine according to some mutual understanding between myself and other human beings. My right to keep possession of these things would be a human right, not a natural right. I have an entitlement to keep possession of property because the other people in my society have agreed to my right to own it, and the institution of the law has been created to protect that right. If society grants me a right, and someone violates it, I can appeal to the law, but if I think I have a right that hasn't been granted to me by society, to whom do I appeal in that case?

And : bears, like hurricanes and earthquakes, are not moral entities.

So now you are talking about rights by virtue of morality. Morality is not a law of nature, it is only a part of human nature. And how can you be sure that a bear is not a moral entity? Bears are carnivores; you could say that nature has granted them the right to feed on other living creatures, including henry quirks, but even bears will draw the line at eating theit mates, or their own offspring. What inhibits them from doing that if not some kind of bear morality?

But I'd fight the fucker just the same to stay alive, becuz it's my life.

You would fight because of your survival instict, regardless of any rights you think you may or may not have.

[henry quirk]

Harbal,

Your life -- just your life -- is it yours?

[Peter Holmes]

Could it be that some people scratch around for bs reasons to justify their beliefs? Do you think that could be a possibility?

Sure. Commies, for example, come up with all kinda of crap to justify leashin' folks.

On the matter, however, of anyone, every one, knowin' his life, liberty, and property is his and no one else's , there's no need to come up with crap. In fact, as the commie does, you have to come up with crap to deny what I call natural rights.

But you say they don't come from nature, and you don't need to believe they come from some absentee god. So where do they come from?

Of course, you can stay in the corner you've been backed into, shoulder your AR15, and shoot any efking liberal-marxist-commie coming to rob you of your delusion. The S-Trumpet Solution.

[henry quirk]

Could it be that some people scratch around for bs reasons to justify their beliefs? Do you think that could be a possibility?

Sure. Commies, for example, come up with all kinda of crap to justify leashin' folks.

On the matter, however, of anyone, every one, knowin' his life, liberty, and property is his and no one else's , there's no need to come up with crap. In fact, as the commie does, you have to come up with crap to deny what I call natural rights.

But you say they don't come from nature, and you don't need to believe they come from some absentee god. So where do they come from?

When I say not from nature I mean natural rights aren't granted by nature any more than they're granted by The State. They are natural to a person. However, I see the difficulty: if someone only sees natural forces and allows for nuthin' more they might not get what I'm sayin' (that natural rights aren't bestowed by men or nature).

No, you don't have to believe in God to recognize natural rights, but one irrevocably leads to the other. I'm a good example: it was recognizin' I have natural rights and am a free will that led me from atheism to deism, not the other way around.

I spent a lotta years as an atheist beievin' at the same time, I had a right to my life, liberty, and property, and that I was a free will. The contradiction between these positions was untenable. I can't deny what is evident (I, like everyone, am a free will with a natural right to my life, liberty, and property) so I had to, grudgingly at the time, accept the other.

[henry quirk]

AR15

Stoeger coach gun.