Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

Here's an ejaculation from an intellectual retard, who's shtick is nothing but the subjectivity and re-definability of all identities and categories.

'If morality is subjective - we can re-define words AND the law however the fuck we want!'

Deny the consequent: we can't re-define words and the law - therefore: morality is objective.

Fucking moron.

Fuck off, troll. The burden is all on you to jsutify your definitions and laws. Here they are, before you. They stand as fact. The culmination of 13.8 years of evolution. Don't bother with nitpicking the exceptions, go for the mountain not the molehill.

It's on you to explain the systemic behaviour.

Why do you accept the definition?
Why does anyone accept the definition?
Why should anyone accept the definition?
Why do we accept the definition?

And please explain what the "false" in logic means, troll.
If there is no objective moral standard then the distinction between "true" and "false" is confusing me.

So it's true to say that you are Peter Holmes.
And it's false to say that you are Peter Holmes.

No time for fucking trolls. The time to be total dicks to skeptics has arrived.

[FlashDangerpants]

And anyone who can't flat-out say rape is morally wrong, all the time, everywhere, for everyone, is a coward and hypocrite.

'nuff said.

*the author removed his post, so I removed his name

You are both clumsy idiots.

1. By defintion, rape is a wrongful act of sexual aggression (and similarly by definition murder is a wrongful act of killing).
2. In order to say "John raped Jane", or "Fred murdered Mary" one must first judge that John and Fred were commiting wrongful deeds, after which John's sex act is counted as rape and Fred's act of killing is counted as murder.
3. It is therefore redundant to argue that rape is wrong in the same way that nobody needs to argue that below is down or that left is not right. Rape and murder, being wrongful by definition are tautologically wrong. It is meaningless to doubt that they are wrong and equally meaningless to try to prove that they are wrong.

In case you hadn't noticed, lots of people disagree about which sex acts are rape (and then which of those are "rape rape"), just as there is regular disagreement about which killings are murders.

This can happen because the sex act that isn't wrongful isn't rape, not because some rapes are right and some rapes are wrong.

Here's a clumsily idiotic point. Lawfulness and moral rightness/wrongness are completely and utterly different issues. For example, the fact that capital punishment may be legal doesn't make it a fact that capital punishment may be morally right. And the Nazi slaughter of the jews was 'legal'. Iow, wtf?

I wrote "wrongful" not "unlawful". When I am using a legalistic definition I will let you know.

The point stands that it is meaningless to judge a sex act as a rape without first judging it to be wrongful. In the same way, if you happened to be one of those nazis doing the killings, you would go to great lengths to call them something other than murder, given that murder presupposes judgment of wrongness. We don't often call the slaughter of cows to make burgers 'murder', why do you suppose that is?

Capital punishment is something that you would seemingly describe as murder (assuming that you are opposed to it on grounds that you consider it wrongful) but Henry would likely go to lengths to avoid calling by that name. In contrast, you I think don't call abortion 'baby-murder', most likely you would contend that a zygote is not a baby and an abortion is not a murder? I have it on good authority that IC holds that it is the murder of a baby though because he is morally opposed to it. The word 'murder' nearly always signifies moral opposition and in those cases where it does not, is typically deployed ironically because of that freighting.

If my reasoning has been erroneous, you can show it to be so by supporting the right of a mother-to-be to become a mother-no-longer-to-be via means of bloody murder.

[Skepdick]

The point stands that it is meaningless to judge a sex act as a rape without first judging it to be wrongful.

It is just as nonsensical to produce legal definitions containing the word "wrong" for acts that you don't deem wrongful.

[henry quirk]

Now, what fact - what feature of reality - can we point out to settle the disagreement?

The only one that applies to everyone...

A person, any person, every person knows his life, liberty, and property are his and no other's. If this is true for him, then it's true for all other persons. This means it's wrong to slave or be slaved, wrong to rape or be raped, wrong to murder or be murdered, wrong to steal or be stolen from, wrong to defraud or be defrauded.

Even the slaver, the rapist, the murderer, the thief, and the liar recognizes his life, liberty, and property are his and would not willingly submit to slavery, rape, murder, theft, or defrauding.

[FlashDangerpants]

If this is true for him, then it's true for all other persons.

Two things then.
1. Some dude knowing a thing.
2. Some ex-nihilo principle of reciprocity.

The same dude can know that "his life, liberty, and property are his and no other's" and then from that infer some other principle such as he ought to enlarge his property by ruling over others.

[Skepdick]

If this is true for him, then it's true for all other persons.

Two things then.
1. Some dude knowing a thing.
2. Some ex-nihilo principle of reciprocity.

The same dude can know that "his life, liberty, and property are his and no other's" and then from that infer some other principle such as he ought to enlarge his property by ruling over others.

Still won't tell us why you think your society's definition is not wrong, eh?

[henry quirk]

one must first judge[/b] that John and Fred were commiting wrongful deeds, after which John's sex act is counted as rape and Fred's act of killing is counted as murder.

No. When John violated Jane, and when Fred unjustly killed Mary, wrongs were done. Morality is not rooted in legislation, the application of legislation, or the ruling of a judge or jury.

John was wrong when he treated Jane as a commodity. Fred was wrong when he stole Mary's life.

We, the community, with our legislation and our courts, may be called to judge John and Fred. Within the context of our legislation and courts, we may find both not guilty. This doesn't mean either is morally absolved. John is a rapist; Fred is murderer. The objective morality of Natural Law & Rights condemned them from the start.

[henry quirk]

If this is true for him, then it's true for all other persons.

Two things then.
1. *Some dude knowing a thing.
2. Some ex-nihilo principle of reciprocity.

The same dude can know that "his life, liberty, and property are his and no other's" and then from that infer some other principle such as he ought to enlarge his property by **ruling over others.

*All dudes and dudettes, every where and when.

**

[FlashDangerpants]

one must first judge[/b] that John and Fred were commiting wrongful deeds, after which John's sex act is counted as rape and Fred's act of killing is counted as murder.

No. When John violated Jane, and when Fred unjustly killed Mary, wrongs were done. Morality is not rooted in legislation, the application of legislation, or the ruling of a judge or jury.

John was wrong when he treated Jane as a commodity. Fred was wrong when he stole Mary's life.

We, the community, with our legislation and our courts, may be called to judge John and Fred. Within the context of our legislation and courts, we may find both not guilty. This doesn't mean either is morally absolved. John is a rapist; Fred is murderer. The objective morality of Natural Law & Rights condemned them from the start.

Are you capable of judging the distance between your ears and your nose or do you need a judge to do that for you?

I was not presenting a legalistic argument, I was saying that the term "rape" as a word that we use includes the judgment of wrongness.

[FlashDangerpants]

If this is true for him, then it's true for all other persons.

Two things then.
1. *Some dude knowing a thing.
2. Some ex-nihilo principle of reciprocity.

The same dude can know that "his life, liberty, and property are his and no other's" and then from that infer some other principle such as he ought to enlarge his property by **ruling over others.

*All dudes and dudettes, every where and when.

**

I am asking where this principle of reciprocity is getting smuggled in from. If, for the sake of argument, I decide that I am some sort of property with a circular belongs-to relationship with myself, that is all I must decide. I don't have to decide that you are my equal any more than I might decide that the strong rule the weak.

[Skepdick]

I am asking where this principle of reciprocity is getting smuggled in from. If, for the sake of argument, I decide that I am some sort of property with a circular belongs-to relationship with myself, that is all I must decide. I don't have to decide that you are my equal any more than I might decide that the strong rule the weak.

And I am asking where the principle of "falsehood" is being smuggled in on a monist/naturalist/ontological worldview.

But hey! Lets keep pretending.

[henry quirk]

I was not presenting a legalistic argument, I was saying that the term "rape" as a word that we use includes the judgment of wrongness.

I didn't comment on your definition and I didn't adopt your definition.

John raped Jane. He willfully ignored her exclusive moral claim to herself. Full stop.

[henry quirk]

principle of reciprocity

A person, any person, every person knows his life, liberty, and property are his and no other's. If this is true for him, then it's true for all other persons.

I don't have to decide that you are my equal any more than I might decide that the strong rule the weak.

If you intend on being moral, yeah, you do.

[FlashDangerpants]

I was not presenting a legalistic argument, I was saying that the term "rape" as a word that we use includes the judgment of wrongness.

I didn't comment on your definition and I didn't adopt your definition.

You speak English, rape is a word we use in that language to describe sexual wrongdoings of a certain type. You would have to adopt some alternative definition to evade this if you are mad enough to do that for the sake of internet points. That those wrongdoings are wrong to do is analytic, if the word is used at all the judgment applies.

[FlashDangerpants]

principle of reciprocity

A person, any person, every person knows his life, liberty, and property are his and no other's. If this is true for him, then it's true for all other persons.

I don't have to decide that you are my equal any more than I might decide that the strong rule the weak.

If you intend on being moral, yeah, you do.

You cannot have the foundation of all morality being dependent on "If you intend on being moral, yeah, you do." That's circular.

Circular is bad. Stop it.