Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

I see that's your assumption. I see no reason to think it's true. So why should I concede it? And I can see huge, huge problems with it, problems so bad that you probably can see them, too.

It permits slavery and rape, so long as a society agrees with those practices. Revenge rapes in Pakistan are considered moral and virtuous ways to defend family honour. In Somalia, Saudi, Yemen and other such countries, slavery is routine and socially embraced. And in the Democrat South, even in the States, slavery was once a prized way of life.

We don't allow slavery in Northern Europe and America any more, and i think it inconceivable that we ever will. Something seems to be preventing it.

Not true, actually. We don't socially approve it, but we do allow it, in the sense that it goes on pretty much unchecked. A lot of it today is child and sex slavery, rather than traditional "minority-based" slavery, but it's there, and more abundant than at any time in history.

But you're right about this much: in public, we condemn it. And yet that doesn't seem to amount to much, in practice. What's missing?

Saying something does not make it so, IC. I'm sure you know that, but I think you sometimes forget that the rest of us know it, too.

[Immanuel Can]

I also have some advantages on my side....

• I can easily account for the differing moral views that we do see in our society (like when some people think a tax is justified while others see the same thing as tyranny and theft.

But you have to think they're all just delusions, unfortunately.

• I can easily account for why rape and murder are uncontroversially bad today.

Actually, you can't. For rape and murder are approved in various societies, so you'd have to say they're neither good nor bad...they just depend on what the society thinks.

• I can easily account for why murder id often allowed in the Bible and marriage is sometimes the punishment for rape.

Well, you're going to have a hard time with that, as it's not what the Bible says, actually.

• I can easily account for why future generations are going to judge us rather harshly even though you and I can't guess what they will be judging us for (environmental shit and animal rights spring to mind but I could well wide of the mark).

Actually, you'd have to think their judgment matters not at all. They don't exist yet, and our current society approves of what is being done. What interest is it to us, in a sociological-relativist world, what future generations think? Who gave them privilege?

It permits slavery and rape, so long as a society agrees with those practices. Revenge rapes in Pakistan are considered moral and virtuous ways to defend family honour. In Somalia, Saudi, Yemen and other such countries, slavery is routine and socially embraced. And in the Democrat South, even in the States, slavery was once a prized way of life.

So you see, I'm not arguing ought to is. I'm simply pointing out the logical and necessary consequences of social relativism, and seeing how strong your commitment to that "description" is. And if you're prepared to bestow it with the status of "descriptively right," then you have to be fine with slavery and rape, too. They can't be "wrong" in any sense stronger than a local and contingent one.

You are question-begging...

Not a bit of it. These are realities. If sociological relativism is true, then revenge rape isn't wrong for Pakistanis, and slavery isn't wrong in the Middle East or China. And neither will be wrong if, in Western Europe or North America, a society arises that approves them.

You'd also have to say that slavery was right in the old Democrat South.

Their societies approve those things.

[Immanuel Can]

We don't allow slavery in Northern Europe and America any more, and i think it inconceivable that we ever will. Something seems to be preventing it.

Not true, actually. We don't socially approve it, but we do allow it, in the sense that it goes on pretty much unchecked. A lot of it today is child and sex slavery, rather than traditional "minority-based" slavery, but it's there, and more abundant than at any time in history.

But you're right about this much: in public, we condemn it. And yet that doesn't seem to amount to much, in practice. What's missing?

Saying something does not make it so, IC.

Saying what? Slavery is worse in today's world than it's been at any time in history. See: https://www.walkfree.org/reports/global ... very-2022/.

[FlashDangerpants]

I also have some advantages on my side....

• I can easily account for the differing moral views that we do see in our society (like when some people think a tax is justified while others see the same thing as tyranny and theft.

But you have to think they're all just delusions, unfortunately.

• I can easily account for why rape and murder are uncontroversially bad today.

Actually, you can't. For rape and murder are approved in various societies, so you'd have to say they're neither good nor bad...they just depend on what the society thinks.

• I can easily account for why murder id often allowed in the Bible and marriage is sometimes the punishment for rape.

Well, you're going to have a hard time with that, as it's not what the Bible says, actually.

• I can easily account for why future generations are going to judge us rather harshly even though you and I can't guess what they will be judging us for (environmental shit and animal rights spring to mind but I could well wide of the mark).

Actually, you'd have to think their judgment matters not at all. They don't exist yet, and our current society approves of what is being done. What interest is it to us, in a sociological-relativist world, what future generations think? Who gave them privilege?

It permits slavery and rape, so long as a society agrees with those practices. Revenge rapes in Pakistan are considered moral and virtuous ways to defend family honour. In Somalia, Saudi, Yemen and other such countries, slavery is routine and socially embraced. And in the Democrat South, even in the States, slavery was once a prized way of life.

So you see, I'm not arguing ought to is. I'm simply pointing out the logical and necessary consequences of social relativism, and seeing how strong your commitment to that "description" is. And if you're prepared to bestow it with the status of "descriptively right," then you have to be fine with slavery and rape, too. They can't be "wrong" in any sense stronger than a local and contingent one.

You are question-begging...

Not a bit of it. These are realities. If sociological relativism is true, then revenge rape isn't wrong for Pakistanis, and slavery isn't wrong in the Middle East or China. And neither will be wrong if, in Western Europe or North America, a society arises that approves them.

You'd also have to say that slavery was right in the old Democrat South.

Their societies approve those things.

You are still just assuming moral realism and saying that everything else is bad for not being real enough for you. You seem not to understand that this is ineffective as a logical move.

I don't know how to make you understand what a descriptive account is as opposed to your prescriptive one. You simply insist on a prescriptive approach without offering anything except your own bewilderment as an argument. A descriptive account doesn't change things, prescriptive approaches do that. So "if you say X you must change your beliefs about Y" doesn't work as a counter to a descriptive account as it would to a prescriptive one. Is this really so impossible for you to get?

[Harbal]

Not true, actually. We don't socially approve it, but we do allow it, in the sense that it goes on pretty much unchecked. A lot of it today is child and sex slavery, rather than traditional "minority-based" slavery, but it's there, and more abundant than at any time in history.

But you're right about this much: in public, we condemn it. And yet that doesn't seem to amount to much, in practice. What's missing?

Saying something does not make it so, IC.

Saying what? Slavery is worse in today's world than it's been at any time in history. See: https://www.walkfree.org/reports/global ... very-2022/.

I don't know what the link is, but I wouldn't dream of clicking on it. I know that honest argument isn't your thing, IC, but couldn't you, for once, make an exception when the subject is morality?

[Immanuel Can]

You are still just assuming moral realism and saying that everything else is bad for not being real enough for you.

Not at all. I'm just pointing out what sociological relativism implies, considered as itself. I've said nothing at all, yet, in defense of moral realism. I could, but I have not.

I'm just asking if you're really prepared to pay the price of being a sociological relativist. Rape, slavery, no longer prohibitable. That's what you have to believe.

[Immanuel Can]

Saying something does not make it so, IC.

Saying what? Slavery is worse in today's world than it's been at any time in history. See: https://www.walkfree.org/reports/global ... very-2022/.

I don't know what the link is, but I wouldn't dream of clicking on it.

It's a very Leftist site, actually. So you can be quite certain they're not campaigning for me. They'll just tell you what you say you "wouldn't dream" of realizing.

[FlashDangerpants]

You are still just assuming moral realism and saying that everything else is bad for not being real enough for you.

Not at all. I'm just pointing out what sociological relativism implies, considered as itself. I've said nothing at all, yet, in defense of moral realism. I could, but I have not.

I'm just asking if you're really prepared to pay the price of being a sociological relativist. Rape, slavery, no longer prohibitable. That's what you have to believe.

Yet again.... As I have already told you, this is a descriptive account of the workings of the everyday normal human social practice of moralising that everyone including me and you is part of. So we all get to continue judging, arguing, debating and all the other stuff too. Among those other things there are prohibiting, banning, making laws against and so on.

So this price you think there is for realtivism is not there. You have no grounds for saying "Rape, slavery, no longer prohibitable" you are just too confused to understand this.

[Harbal]

Saying what? Slavery is worse in today's world than it's been at any time in history. See: https://www.walkfree.org/reports/global ... very-2022/.

I don't know what the link is, but I wouldn't dream of clicking on it.

It's a very Leftist site, actually. So you can be quite certain they're not campaigning for me. They'll just tell you what you say you "wouldn't dream" of realizing.

No, IC, I'm not playing your silly game; I can only put up with having my intelligence insulted for so long.

[Harbal]

You are still just assuming moral realism and saying that everything else is bad for not being real enough for you.

Not at all. I'm just pointing out what sociological relativism implies, considered as itself. I've said nothing at all, yet, in defense of moral realism. I could, but I have not.

I'm just asking if you're really prepared to pay the price of being a sociological relativist. Rape, slavery, no longer prohibitable. That's what you have to believe.

Yet again.... As I have already told you, this is a descriptive account of the workings of the everyday normal human social practice of moralising that everyone including me and you is part of. So we all get to continue judging, arguing, debating and all the other stuff too. Among those other things there are prohibiting, banning, making laws against and so on.

So this price you think there is for realtivism is not there. You have no grounds for saying "Rape, slavery, no longer prohibitable" you are just too confused to understand this.

[Immanuel Can]

You are still just assuming moral realism and saying that everything else is bad for not being real enough for you.

Not at all. I'm just pointing out what sociological relativism implies, considered as itself. I've said nothing at all, yet, in defense of moral realism. I could, but I have not.

I'm just asking if you're really prepared to pay the price of being a sociological relativist. Rape, slavery, no longer prohibitable. That's what you have to believe.

Yet again.... As I have already told you, this is a descriptive account of the workings of the everyday normal human social practice of moralising that everyone including me and you is part of.

So you say. I don't dispute that you say it. You've given no reason for us to suppose your description is accurate, but I'm not even disputing that it is. I'm just asking if you think you can live with the consequences, if it is.

You have no grounds for saying "Rape, slavery, no longer prohibitable"

It's the opposite, actually: being a sociological relativist, you have no possibility of saying there are any reasons why rape and slavery are actually wrong. If a society approves them, they're as good (or as bad) as charity and freedom, according to what sociological relativism requires.

[FlashDangerpants]

Not at all. I'm just pointing out what sociological relativism implies, considered as itself. I've said nothing at all, yet, in defense of moral realism. I could, but I have not.

I'm just asking if you're really prepared to pay the price of being a sociological relativist. Rape, slavery, no longer prohibitable. That's what you have to believe.

Yet again.... As I have already told you, this is a descriptive account of the workings of the everyday normal human social practice of moralising that everyone including me and you is part of.

So you say. I don't dispute that you say it. You've given no reason for us to suppose your description is accurate, but I'm not even disputing that it is. I'm just asking if you think you can live with the consequences, if it is.

You have no grounds for saying "Rape, slavery, no longer prohibitable"

It's the opposite, actually: being a sociological relativist, you have no possibility of saying there are any reasons why rape and slavery are actually wrong. If a society approves them, they're as good (or as bad) as charity and freedom, according to what sociological relativism requires.

Yet again.... As I have already told you, this is a descriptive account of the workings of the everyday normal human social practice of moralising that everyone including me and you is part of. So we all get to continue judging, arguing, debating and all the other stuff too. Among those other things there are prohibiting, banning, making laws against and so on.

So this price you think there is for realtivism is not there. You have no grounds for saying "Rape, slavery, no longer prohibitable" you are just too confused to understand this.

[Immanuel Can]

Yet again.... As I have already told you, this is a descriptive account of the workings of the everyday normal human social practice of moralising that everyone including me and you is part of.

So you say. I don't dispute that you say it. You've given no reason for us to suppose your description is accurate, but I'm not even disputing that it is. I'm just asking if you think you can live with the consequences, if it is.

You have no grounds for saying "Rape, slavery, no longer prohibitable"

It's the opposite, actually: being a sociological relativist, you have no possibility of saying there are any reasons why rape and slavery are actually wrong. If a society approves them, they're as good (or as bad) as charity and freedom, according to what sociological relativism requires.

Yet again.... As I have already told you, this is a descriptive account of the workings of the everyday normal human social practice of moralising

No, this is your description of what you would like to think is going on. There is no evidence supplied by you that suggests it's true.

And, since you won't accept the logical outcome of sociological relativism, you can go on...but you are not rationally consistent in so doing, and nobody can hold out a hope that you will be successful, on the basis of nothing more than sociological relativism, in preventing anything at all, no matter how general the intuition that it is evil....not slavery, or rape, or murder, or anything else a person might want to think is evil. And your own society is free, at any moment's notice, to begin to practice or advocate for these things, and you'll not have a rejoinder anybody can believe.

Somebody is indeed confused. It's the one who cannot follow her assertions to their logical and necessary outcomes.

[FlashDangerpants]

So you say. I don't dispute that you say it. You've given no reason for us to suppose your description is accurate, but I'm not even disputing that it is. I'm just asking if you think you can live with the consequences, if it is.

It's the opposite, actually: being a sociological relativist, you have no possibility of saying there are any reasons why rape and slavery are actually wrong. If a society approves them, they're as good (or as bad) as charity and freedom, according to what sociological relativism requires.

Yet again.... As I have already told you, this is a descriptive account of the workings of the everyday normal human social practice of moralising

No, this is your description of what you would like to think is going on. There is no evidence supplied by you that suggests it's true.

And, since you won't accept the logical outcome of sociological relativism, you can go on...but you are not rationally consistent in so doing, and nobody can hold out a hope that you will be successful, on the basis of nothing more than sociological relativism, in preventing anything at all, no matter how general the intuition that it is evil....not slavery, or rape, or murder, or anything else a person might want to think is evil. And your own society is free, at any moment's notice, to begin to practice or advocate for these things, and you'll not have a rejoinder anybody can believe.

Somebody is indeed confused. It's the one who cannot follow her assertions to their logical and necessary outcomes.

My point that what I describe does permit us to do all the moral activities that we are used to stands. And your claim that we can't does not.

Beyond that, there's not much point bothering to do this with you, you are only going to keep quoting half my argument and ignoring the rest because that's all you ever really do.

[Atla]

Saying what? Slavery is worse in today's world than it's been at any time in history. See: https://www.walkfree.org/reports/global ... very-2022/.

Obviously your link completely demolishes your claim too, it says less than 1% are slaves worldwide.
I looked at vague estimates of slavery before 1900, it was probably somewhere around 10-20%.
What did you hope to achieve by writing down this blatant lie, I wonder?