What could make morality objective?

[Harbal]

Yes, but "you own yourself" is an adjectival clause

If you say it is, Belinda, I do not doubt that it is.

[Skepdick]

In the quoted text, "own" is functioning as a verb, not an adjective.

So rewrite the grammar and syntax while preserving the semantics.

What is the nature of the relationship between A and B?

Does A "own" B?
is A the owner of B?
Is B property of A?


Turn the verb into an adjective if you want to make an epistemic argument about the nature of "ownership".
Turn the verb into a noun if you want to make an ontological argument about the nature of "ownership".

That's the kind of thing someone who didn't know what they were talking about would say.

Are you even listening? Are you actually comprehending? I know exactly what I am talking about.

My knowledge is so exact that I am going to color-code my words so that your brain doesn't get confused; or lose track of the WHAT (that I am talking about). OK?

I am talking about the relation between Henry and himself.

Henry relates to himself.
Henry <-> himself.

OK. Got it? Great!

One way to express this relationship in English is the phrase "Henry owns himself.". Indeed "owns" acts as a verb!
Another way to express the exact same relationship in English is the phrase "Henry is his own.". And now it's an adjective.
Another way to express the exact same relationship is the phrase: The owner of Henry is himself. Look, it's a noun!

I am changing the syntax; and I am changing the grammar, but it has no effect on the semantics.

Now, here's my question. IF the relation exists. If the OWNERSHIP is a fact (and Peter holmes agrees that it's a fact) - a true feature of reality.

What; or where is that feature? What; or where is the ownership?

[Peter Holmes]

Yes, but "you own yourself" is an adjectival clause

If you say it is, Belinda, I do not doubt that it is.

It's not, because there's no such thing. A relative clause can be called an adjective or adjectival clause, but 'you own yourself' isn't a relative clause, which is subordinate. 'You own yourself' is a declarative main clause, SVO, where reflexive pronoun 'yourself' is the direct object of transitive verb 'own'. There's nothing adjectival in 'you own yourself'.

[Harbal]

My knowledge is so exact that I am going to color-code my words so that your brain doesn't get confused; or lose track of the WHAT (that I am talking about). OK?

I'm sorry, but I can't bear red. If you want me to read your post you are going to have to change your code to a different colour. The inoffensive green that I have substituted above would be acceptable.

[Skepdick]

My knowledge is so exact that I am going to color-code my words so that your brain doesn't get confused; or lose track of the WHAT (that I am talking about). OK?

I'm sorry, but I can't bear red. If you want me to read your post you are going to have to change your code to a different colour. The inoffensive green that I have substituted above would be acceptable.

Sure thing. Post updated in-place with all-new colors.

[Harbal]

Sure thing. Post updated in-place with all-new colors.

I know I'm being a nuisance, but I've gone off green now.

[Skepdick]

Sure thing. Post updated in-place with all-new colors.

I know I'm being a nuisance, but I've gone off green now.

Oh no! It happens with old age - you should get your eyes checked out.

No more colors - just look for the big words, OK?

In the quoted text, "own" is functioning as a verb, not an adjective.

So rewrite the grammar and syntax while preserving the semantics.

What is the nature of the relationship between A and B?

Does A "own" B?
is A the owner of B?
Is B property of A?


Turn the verb into an adjective if you want to make an epistemic argument about the nature of "ownership".
Turn the verb into a noun if you want to make an ontological argument about the nature of "ownership".

That's the kind of thing someone who didn't know what they were talking about would say.

Are you even listening? Are you actually comprehending? I know exactly what I am talking about.

My knowledge is so exact that I am going to color-code my words so that your brain doesn't get confused; or lose track of the WHAT (that I am talking about). OK?

I am talking about the relation between Henry and himself.

Henry relates to himself.
Henry <-> himself.

OK. Got it? Great!

One way to express this relationship in English is the phrase "Henry owns himself.". Indeed "owns" acts as a verb!
Another way to express the exact same relationship in English is the phrase "Henry is his own.". And now it's an adjective.
Another way to express the exact same relationship is the phrase: The owner of Henry is himself. Look, it's a noun!

I am changing the syntax; and I am changing the grammar, but it has no effect on the semantics.

Now, here's my question. IF the relation exists. If the OWNERSHIP is a fact (and Peter holmes agrees that it's a fact) - a true feature of reality.

What; or where is that feature? What; or where is the OWNERSHIP?

[Harbal]

Are you even listening? Are you actually comprehending? I know exactly what I am talking about.

My knowledge is so exact that I am going to color-code my words so that your brain doesn't get confused; or lose track of the WHAT (that I am talking about). OK?

I am talking about the relation between Henry and himself.

Henry relates to himself.
Henry <-> himself.

OK. Got it? Great!

One way to express this relationship in English is the phrase "Henry owns himself.". Indeed "owns" acts as a verb!
Another way to express the exact same relationship in English is the phrase "Henry is his own.". And now it's an adjective.
Another way to express the exact same relationship is the phrase: The owner of Henry is himself. Look, it's a noun!

I am changing the syntax; and I am changing the grammar, but it has no effect on the semantics.

Now, here's my question. IF the relation exists. If the OWNERSHIP is a fact (and Peter holmes agrees that it's a fact) - a true feature of reality.

What; or where is that feature? What; or where is the OWNERSHIP?

I feel intimidated by the size of those words, so I am going to run away from the argument. You have defeated me.

[Belinda]

Yes, but "you own yourself" is an adjectival clause

If you say it is, Belinda, I do not doubt that it is.

It's not, because there's no such thing. A relative clause can be called an adjective or adjectival clause, but 'you own yourself' isn't a relative clause, which is subordinate. 'You own yourself' is a declarative main clause, SVO, where reflexive pronoun 'yourself' is the direct object of transitive verb 'own'. There's nothing adjectival in 'you own yourself'.

You could be right, but I have forgotten what the sentence is that we are discussing.

[Skepdick]

I feel intimidated by the size of those words, so I am going to run away from the argument. You have defeated me.

Defeat/victory is never the point :/

Human interaction is not meant to be a zero-sum game.

[Veritas Aequitas]

'I own X' is a factual assertion. So it has a truth-value, because I either do or don't own X. But it has no moral entailment, such as in: 'I own X; therefore I should own X'. For example, there are situations in which, arguably, I shouldn't own X.

Now, for X, substitute 'my self' - and the absence of moral entailment is identical. To claim moral entailment uniquely for ownership of the human self (whatever 'I own myself' means), is to engage in special pleading.

Meanwhile, an appeal to intuition - 'we know this intuitively' - is always a last resort when valid and sound argument is missing. It's as useless as an appeal to natural rights.

You need to apply the Principle of Charity here.

What Henry's 'I own myself' basically meant is 'no human can own myself' i.e. only 'I can own myself' so, no human ought to own another human' which is reduced to "all humans are free", thus, slavery is immoral.

This ultimate state of 'freedom' [inherent in human nature] has moral entailment which can be verified and justified empirically to physical neural states, neural algorithms, neurons, genes, DNA and quarks.
These are objective and since are identified with the moral potential and function, they are objective moral facts.

[FlashDangerpants]

'I own X' is a factual assertion. So it has a truth-value, because I either do or don't own X. But it has no moral entailment, such as in: 'I own X; therefore I should own X'. For example, there are situations in which, arguably, I shouldn't own X.

Now, for X, substitute 'my self' - and the absence of moral entailment is identical. To claim moral entailment uniquely for ownership of the human self (whatever 'I own myself' means), is to engage in special pleading.

Meanwhile, an appeal to intuition - 'we know this intuitively' - is always a last resort when valid and sound argument is missing. It's as useless as an appeal to natural rights.

You need to apply the Principle of Charity here.

What Henry's 'I own myself' basically meant is 'no human can own myself' i.e. only 'I can own myself' so, no human ought to own another human' which is reduced to "all humans are free", thus, slavery is immoral.

This ultimate state of 'freedom' [inherent in human nature] has moral entailment which can be verified and justified empirically to physical neural states, neural algorithms, neurons, genes, DNA and quarks.
These are objective and since are identified with the moral potential and function, they are objective moral facts.

That's not charitable, that's casually dismissing Henry's openly and repeatedly stated intent to found the whole moral edifice upon the self-ownership principle. His self ownership thing isn't just about why slavery is wrong, it's supposed to fully explain why murder, lying, and stealing are wrong as well.

It's sort of weirdly funny, the closest thing Henry ever got to respect for his actual theory came from me. his allies have only ever offered belly rubs while they neuter his words to make him their own acolyte.

[Peter Holmes]

This ultimate state of 'freedom' [inherent in human nature] has moral entailment which can be verified and justified empirically to physical neural states, neural algorithms, neurons, genes, DNA and quarks.
These are objective and since are identified with the moral potential and function, they are objective moral facts.

Reading this is like stumbling through fog and bumping into things. Here are some of them.

1 There's an ultimate state of freedom inherent in human nature.

This is mystical claptrap, for which there's no empirical evidence whatsoever. After another bong, we'll be resonating with the cosmos.

2 This ultimate state of freedom inherent in human nature is a premise that entails a moral conclusion.

What moral conclusion? And how does the premise entail it? Even if true, no non-moral premise can entail a moral conclusion.

3 This unspecified and anyway invalid moral conclusion 'can be be verified and justified empirically to [by?]' physical things in human brains: 'neural states, neural algorithms, neurons, genes, DNA and quarks'.

Twaddle. Outside language, physical things aren't premises in arguments. Neurons, DNA and quarks aren't premises any more than dogs are. And it makes no sense to say that physical things are objective. The fog thickens.

The conceptual mess here is profound, and seemingly irremediable.

[Skepdick]

The conceptual mess here is profound, and seemingly irremediable.

Medice, cura te ipsum!

[Harbal]

Medice, cura te ipsum!

Ooh, Latin; you must really know your stuff.