Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

Circular is bad. Stop it.

Ohhh, you are smuggling in moral judgments there buddy.

Justify.

[henry quirk]

rape is a word we use in that language to describe sexual wrongdoings of a certain type

Yes. That's exactly how I used the word: as a descriptor for a particular wrong-doing.

[henry quirk]

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

This...

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.

...is the foundation.

[FlashDangerpants]

rape is a word we use in that language to describe sexual wrongdoings of a certain type

Yes. That's exactly how I used the word: as a descriptor for a particular wrong-doing.

so....
1... By defintion, rape is a wrongful act. This you have now agreed above.
2... To say that John raped Jane, one must already have judged John's activity wrongful (otherwise he simply had sex with Jane)
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.

[FlashDangerpants]

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

This...

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.

...is the foundation.

But that second bit doesn't work. If a man is property that belongs to himself, then his slave is property that belongs to him too. He is still property that belongs to him, he just has two of those now.

It turns out that other guy who also "knew" he was his own property was unaware that this is conditional on defensive skills he lacks. He has now had his property taken away.

[henry quirk]

To say that John raped Jane, one must *already have judged John's activity wrongful (otherwise he simply had sex with Jane)

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.

John was wrong when he treated Jane as a commodity.

[henry quirk]

If a man is property that belongs to himself, then his slave is property that belongs to him too.

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.

[FlashDangerpants]

rape is a word we use in that language to describe sexual wrongdoings of a certain type

Yes. That's exactly how I used the word: as a descriptor for a particular wrong-doing.

so....
1... By defintion, rape is a wrongful act. This you have now agreed above.
2... To say that John raped Jane, one must already have judged John's activity wrongful (otherwise he simply had sex with Jane)
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.

[FlashDangerpants]

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

This...

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.

...is the foundation.

But that second bit doesn't work. If a man is property that belongs to himself, then his slave is property that belongs to him too. He is still property that belongs to him, he just has two of those now.

It turns out that other guy who also "knew" he was his own property was unaware that this is conditional on defensive skills he lacks. He has now had his property taken away.

[henry quirk]

rape is a word we use in that language to describe sexual wrongdoings of a certain type

Yes. That's exactly how I used the word: as a descriptor for a particular wrong-doing.

[henry quirk]

If a man is property that belongs to himself, then his slave is property that belongs to him too.

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.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

[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.

'nuff said.

[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.



Your theory requires this reciprocity principle that you are aware of but try not to mention. When asked to explain where it comes from, you clearly cannot. Your theory is less good than you think it is. 'nuff said.

[Peter Holmes]

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.

Fuck off, troll. The burden of proof is yours, and you say there are moral facts. So prove they exist, or fuck off back under the rock whence you crawled.