Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote

which strain of libertarianism do you find immoral, and why?

me: I find all the strains of consequentialist libertarianism wrong-headed

Consequentialist libertarianism sounds like a make-america-great-again rationalization for structural fascism: There will be across the board freedom and this will make all things better in the long run. Of course, this includes doing nothing at all at the government level to bring relief to the least advantaged. I am opposed to all libertarianism in its core concept (you would know better than I as to how this concept sliced up categorially) because I think government does indeed play an essential role in changing the ways a morally arbitrary social and economic order produces an outcome.

There may be compromises to this rather bare idea, but any condition one may lay on this to "makes things right" is going to be done at the sacrifice of part of this core idea, that is, it will be a compromised form of libertarianism, just as with, say, the public welfare and capitalism: the result is not capitalism, but welfare capitalism. The more you put conditions on an idea, the less it becomes what it is supposed to be.

And I am certainly in favor of this kind of thinking. I am neither socialist, nor capitalist, nor libertarian; I am for a compromise that leans rather strongly toward the wealthiest ten percent yielding a great deal of what is arguably their wealth, up to bring educational resources (and even social structural changes) into the quarters of the least advantaged.

Btw, while I think John Rawls' conclusions are right, if you've read him, I don't agree with his argument: one does not respond to the call to ethical behavior by inquiring into one's own best interests.

Consequentialist libertarianism sounds like a make-america-great-again rationalization for structural fascism: There will be across the board freedom and this will make all things better in the long run.

nah...their notion is utilitarian, really...they hawk the favorable consequences for individual freedom extendin' out things like, for example, universal guaranteed income...theirs is an economic/political/social libertarianism (and, frankly, isn't much different than a garden-variety socialism in proposed actions)...the libertarian party is filthy with these folks

deontological libertarianism (what I call natural rights libertarianism) is, as I say, a kind of moral realism...my own version is grounded in the fact a man (person) belongs to himself, is self-directing & self-responsible


Of course, this includes doing nothing at all at the government level to bring relief to the least advantaged.

the consequentialists are all for gov interventions; it's we deontologicalists who wanna reduce gov to an impotent minimum or eliminate it completely


I think government does indeed play an essential role in changing the ways amorally arbitrary social and economic order produces an outcome.

I'm reminded of the Bastiat quote: If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?

the disadvantaged, particularly here in 'murica, are so largely by way of their own bad choices...taxpayers, by way of the gov, ought not be pullin' their keisters out of fires they start for themselves

get thee to a charity, I say


I am for a compromise that leans rather strongly toward the wealthiest ten percent yielding a great deal of what is arguably their wealth, up to bring educational resources (and even social structural changes) into the quarters of the least advantaged.

me, I wanna break the back of state-capitalism by breakin' the back of the state

capitalism (free enterprise) unprotected leads to a flatter wealth curve (less for the top, more for the bottom) cuz free enterprise offers no bail-outs or insulation for big boys and throws up no restrictions to little guys...it's fair shakes all the way around...and a body has to work, not simply rake it in

henry quirk wrote

nah...their notion is utilitarian, really...they hawk the favorable consequences for individual freedom extendin' out things like, for example, universal guaranteed income...theirs is an economic/political/social libertarianism (and, frankly, isn't much different than a garden-variety socialism in proposed actions)...the libertarian party is filthy with these folks

deontological libertarianism (what I call natural rights libertarianism) is, as I say, a kind of moral realism...my own version is grounded in the fact a man (person) belongs to himself, is self-directing & self-responsible

I couldn't even begin to understand what self directing is. Is a self supposed to be some kind of sovereign agency free of influences of a lifetime of social conditioning? But to pull back from this, I have to say this really is what society tries so desperately to be: the freedom to let one's intelligence an talent fly. Most of the government intervention that liberals push are remedial: there are vast numbers who cannot even begin to dream of the slightest possibility of freedom. They're too busy making burgers at McDonalds or working nine to five somewhere else.

Rawls was right about fairness: it is not a free society if people have nothing say or think or create because they are so massively undereducated, which gives us things like Donald Trump. All in all, libertarians want what we all want, this kind of social and financial freedom (ill conceived freedoms, like the freedom to impose one's religious thinking on others falling by the wayside through a thorough education in the humanities. The art of philosophy should be taught in elementary school, if you ask me). But when oppression is systemically at work against so many, conditions make libertarianism look exactly like a call for a plutocratic fascism.


As to the differences between libertarian thinkers, I do like natural libertarianism, putting aside whether any sense can be made "self directing selves". Yes, everyone empowered to conceive and realize their dreams; what an extraordinary possibility. No undue intrusions by government telling one how many wives or husbands they can have or forcing them to put their tax dollars to charitable works: They already understand and willingly contribute improving the lot of the least advantaged because they have had a proper education in the humanities. And because the general society has been relieved of structural poverty and ignorance, there are few left to be charitable about.

But this is in the distant future.

henry quirk wrote

the consequentialists are all for gov interventions; it's we deontologicalists who wanna reduce gov to an impotent minimum or eliminate it completely

Yes, one day after generations of infighting to give the least advantaged their due.

I'm reminded of the Bastiat quote: If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?

the disadvantaged, particularly here in 'murica, are so largely by way of their own bad choices...taxpayers, by way of the gov, ought not be pullin' their keisters out of fires they start for themselves

get thee to a charity, I say

Don't think in terms of good and bad people. It is an ideological struggle that people imperfectly execute.

As to bad choices, you have to play fair: If you're brought up in an environment where bring the most impressionable years are spent in a profound cultural, motivational, deficit, dominated by social resentment, dreadful parenting, aggression modeled routinely, and so on, by the time you become an agency of responsibility you are going to make the WORST choices, and you will live a life of the same deficits. It is called structural poverty and ignorance. Let's not forget that these influences oppress, and drugs offer immediate escape. this becomes a lifestyle by the time one is a teen.

me, I wanna break the back of state-capitalism by breakin' the back of the state

capitalism (free enterprise) unprotected leads to a flatter wealth curve (less for the top, more for the bottom) cuz free enterprise offers no bail-outs or insulation for big boys and throws up no restrictions to little guys...it's fair shakes all the way around...and a body has to work, not simply rake it in

Bail outs for large financial institutions is not the issue, though unrestrained banks made Bush the worst president in years. Such issues are THE issues of big and small government. They are practical issues. The matter that concerns me is the moral dimension of libertarianism: it is amoral. You said you don't favor consequetialism, but if you say free enterprise is attractive because it leads to a flatter wealth curve you are thinking in terms of consequences, which to me is just MAG talk: those thrown into poverty and ignorance are expendable. Keep in mind that it is not choice, not the will not to produce, but the deficit in preparatory education that makes such productivity impossible. Things will only work out once miserable lower end concedes, but they will not. Poverty turns to violence, crime. The future will only get worse, more crime, more prisons, more money needed to fund these: all because of the resistance to simply do the right thing.

Fair shakes? Define fair.

I couldn't even begin to understand what self directing is.

it's you choosin' to to do this instead of that, choosin' to go here instead of there, for reasons you suss out for yourself; it's the opposite of other-directed, where someone else decides where you go and what you do


I have to say this really is what society tries so desperately to be: the freedom to let one's intelligence an talent fly.

well, that depends on which society you're talkin' about...seems to me, the soviet union was never about freedom...'murican society on the other hand is about freedom (or is supposed to be)


Most of the government intervention that liberals push are remedial

that's their story, yeah...reality is: their remedial interventions trained generations to subsist and live on handouts...the left (and a sizable chunk of the right) would leash us, protect us, instead of just lettin' us be what comes natural: free


there are vast numbers who cannot even begin to dream of the slightest possibility of freedom. They're too busy making burgers at McDonalds or working nine to five somewhere else.

I'm thinkin' a whole whack of those wage slaves might disagree with you...they might ask, who are you to assess what I do and why I do it? who are you, they might ask, to assess I'm not free, not in control of my own affairs?

you're bein' paternalistic


it is not a free society if people have nothing say or think or create because they are so massively undereducated, which gives us things like Donald Trump.

what gave us ORANGE MAN is folks thinkin' they have a right (by virtue of their superior education, for example) to dictate to other folks what's best


All in all, libertarians want what we all want, this kind of social and financial freedom

the question is: how we arrive at such things

the consequentialist would would govern us into such things...the deontologicalist would reduce governance to a bare minimum, declarin' people are free to rise as they can and fall when they will...me, as a peculiar kind of deontologicalist (a natural rights libertarian minarchist) would have as, for example, constitution or charter...

*a man belongs to himself

*a man's life, liberty, and property are his

*a man's life, liberty, or property is only forfeit, in part or whole, if he knowingly, willingly, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property

such a charter would be the foundation of society & law


(ill conceived freedoms, like the freedom to impose one's religious thinking on others falling by the wayside through a thorough education in the humanities.

in 'murica, john is free to preach and sam is free to ignore him


The art of philosophy should be taught in elementary school, if you ask me).

I would prefer, instead, that folks be educated in the essentials (readin', writin', 'rithmetic) and that those folks should, as interest & inclination take them, pursue more on their own


But when oppression is systemically at work against so many, conditions make libertarianism look exactly like a call for a plutocratic fascism.

what oppression?

any libertarianism sanctionin' rule by the wealthy, by definition, is not libertarianism (lookin' at you, consequentialist)


Don't think in terms of good and bad people.

I never said bad choices come from bad people...good folks make bad choice too...my point: a man's choice is his, he ought to bear the consequences of his choices, not be shielded from them


As to bad choices, you have to play fair: If you're brought up in an environment where bring the most impressionable years are spent in a profound cultural, motivational, deficit, dominated by social resentment, dreadful parenting, aggression modeled routinely, and so on, by the time you become an agency of responsibility you are going to make the WORST choices, and you will live a life of the same deficits.

no matter the circumstances one arises from, after a certain point, one can't lay blame for one's bad choices on anyone cept one's self


It is called structural poverty and ignorance.

no, that's manure...john grows up poor and wantin'...you say john is locked into this (totally discountin' john's capacity to learn for himself, his capacity to move forward on his own, his capacity to self-determine)...I say john can do as he chooses, that his upbringin', his enviroment, are not determiners of who he is or what he can do


Let's not forget that these influences oppress, and drugs offer immediate escape. this becomes a lifestyle by the time one is a teen.

let's not forget that not every soul in poor circumstances becomes a junkie


Bail outs for large financial institutions is not the issue

well, I never mentioned banks...bailouts include corporations...and, in context, it is an issue

as a natural rights libertarian, I reckon funnelin' tax dollars to any business, large or small, for any reason, is wrong


The matter that concerns me is the moral dimension of libertarianism: it is amoral.

I can't disagree more...my own brand is eminently moral: it demand recognition of a man's ownness (that he belongs to himself) and declares use of a man as a resource or property is downright evil

can't get more moral than that


You said you don't favor consequetialism, but if you say free enterprise is attractive because it leads to a flatter wealth curve you are thinking in terms of consequences

what I said...

me, I wanna break the back of state-capitalism by breakin' the back of the state

capitalism (free enterprise) unprotected leads to a flatter wealth curve (less for the top, more for the bottom) cuz free enterprise offers no bail-outs or insulation for big boys and throws up no restrictions to little guys...it's fair shakes all the way around...and a body has to work, not simply rake it in

...which I thought was clear, but wasn't

clarifyin': free enterprise is unrestricted transaction...it's what comes natural to free men...the state, through it's interventions and regulatin', hobbles these transactions...moreover, the state can be skewed to favor the wealthy over the not wealthy (cuz the wealthy can buy legislation that favors them and freezes out competition)...so: it's not the flatter wealth curve that I champion but the unrestrcted, unprotected, transactions that favor or penalize no one...this is what I mean by fair shakes: everyone gets a shot...success & failure isn't predetermined..the lil guy gets to hawk his wares and services without havin' to make his way through a morass of regs; the big boy gets to hawk his wares and services without the shelter of the gov

Fact is an instance of truth, truth is one's individual perspective on reality and reality is consensus Truth. Or a fact is an expression of a part of reality.

henry quirk wrote

it's you choosin' to to do this instead of that, choosin' to go here instead of there, for reasons you suss out for yourself; it's the opposite of other-directed, where someone else decides where you go and what you do

You have to put a little more thought into it than that. Once you've been through a childhood of conditioning, your possibilities are laid before accordingly. Consider: slavery ended in 1865. So did this mean the slaves were all free to go to Harvard? You've got to take this kind of thing seriously: we don't live In a culture; rather, we are the embodiment of our culture, and "where you go and what you do" as you say, is not simply determined by magically affirming "you're free". I saw 30 year old men at 11 am on a week day just hanging out on street corners. Do you think they were born with this in their DNA? Society MAKES us prior to any adult choices, and by then, it's too late.

that's their story, yeah...reality is: their remedial interventions trained generations to subsist and live on handouts...the left (and a sizable chunk of the right) would leash us, protect us, instead of just lettin' us be what comes natural: free

It is impossible to think "natural" in this context. It has no meaning. the language I speak, the institutions I am part of, the values I have, and so on are all assimilated at a very young age. The handouts liberals want are, a) a compromise to conservatives who want to give up NOTHING in the way of the education revolution that is needed, and b) a way to compensate for the vast differences in economic advantages. Look, go the route of libertarians and it is like saying, there you are in your impoverished world. Either you can scratch out a living or you can't. I, on the other hand, had parents that were professionals, provided and cared for me, modeled prosocial values, and so on. And as to to you those who have to struggle through their poverty, too bad: I've got mine and taught for you.

Reminds me of Jeb Bush at a rally in florida once who bellowed: these liberals want nothing but handouts! Bush, a man who has everything handed to him his whole life! The hypocrisy simply staggering. Now, you could actually affirm this, I know. Just piss on the poor, who cares. But then, well, you would not be a moral person in a rather definitive way.

I'm thinkin' a whole whack of those wage slaves might disagree with you...they might ask, who are you to assess what I do and why I do it? who are you, they might ask, to assess I'm not free, not in control of my own affairs?

you're bein' paternalistic

The question is not what they would think at all. They might also think a good way to get rich is to steal cars. The argument is arbitrary as to what should rule judgment on this matter. we are trying to reason out how things should go in terms of government policies regarding redressing social inequalities and ideas are only as good as they are arguable, defensible. WHO presents them is quite irrelevant.

what gave us ORANGE MAN is folks thinkin' they have a right (by virtue of their superior education, for example) to dictate to other folks what's best

And it is not about folks thinking one way or the other. It is about what can be sustained in a moral argument. Also, the orange man would probably side with you on this matter, as to conservatives in general surely you are aware that all he wanted to do was cut spending. He woudl have tried to eradicate social security, the EPA, the FDA, HUD and so on; indeed Trump, if he had his way, would be a libertarian, for his social/religious "principles" he only uses as leverage against the religious right for their vote. He HAS no ethics himself and would give one scintilla about social values.

the question is: how we arrive at such things

the consequentialist would would govern us into such things...the deontologicalist would reduce governance to a bare minimum, declarin' people are free to rise as they can and fall when they will...me, as a peculiar kind of deontologicalist (a natural rights libertarian minarchist) would have as, for example, constitution or charter...

Too vague. The question is what would you do with the billionaires? Do they "deserve" this> How so? the money they have comes from where, and how should it be distributed according to a system of taxation? Is Marx right when he says most of that money literally belongs to the workers and Gates and Murdoch (I spit at the mere mention of Murdoch) and the lot of them take this money and put it into their pockets? No one is defending communism here, but that is not the point. The point is, with this monumental, galactic, massive disparity of the distribution of wealth in the US (and elsewhere), what does a libertarian like your self say should be the rule regarding wealth and earning? Libertarians typically say, leave people alone to earn as they will. But this dismisses the idea that in permitting wealth to move int his way is already a system of distribution. Their is nothing free or natural about this, rather it is a decision put the wealth in the hands of the few. "Natural" has nothing to do with it.
*a man belongs to himself

*a man's life, liberty, and property are his

*a man's life, liberty, or property is only forfeit, in part or whole, if he knowingly, willingly, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property

such a charter would be the foundation of society & law

Just a vacuous cliche. You have to ground your political beliefs in moral argument. Remember: the laws we have are very often not meant to be morally defensible at all. They are mostly pragmatic. I argue, "well, I am a citizen of this country, and am therefore endowed with the rights granted to me accordingly. You, on the other hand, are a wretched and oppressed illegal immigrant: out you go! I have the right to stay, but this is given not based on anything I've done, but by accident of birth. How is it that an accident of birth translates into a right to a superior standard of living?

It doesn't,. really. As an accident, it is simply morally arbitrary. Of course, it would be highly impractical not to have laws about immigration. But it is the pragmatics that make the decision. SHouldn't pretend my rights are somehow grounded in morality. They're not.

And patriotism is divisive hogwash. Just thought I'd throw that in.

odysseus wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 4:08 am Just a vacuous cliche. You have to ground your political beliefs in moral argument.

How do you ground moral arguments? How do you ground any arguments?

Skepdick wrote
How do you ground moral arguments? How do you ground any arguments?

First, commit to thinking ideas through. Political ideas are morally ideas as well as practical ideas. These are tied to each other. We cannot, to put it tersely, simply implement a utopia because the world of practical matters does not allow. People will not, or cannot cooperate fir this. So, we have to consider it a work in progress, government, its role in our lives re. taxation, intervention, freedoms, agencies needed, what is necessary, merely desirable, how well a thing can be defended, fought over, and on and on. It is a struggle to reconcile what want to do with what we should do and with what we can do. That's government and politics.

we are all different. I am now very convinced, given the support for trump, that there are hard wired differences among people that figure significantly in the opposing political camps of conservatism and liberalism. There are lots, many more than I imagined, who, were they alive in the 1930's would have drooled at the thought of joining the Schutzstaffel. I used to think conservatives were just nice people who couldn't bear the social changes of modernity and who couldn't get past the idea of abortion as killing babies (which is not a light issue issue at all. I understand this, even if I am pro choice); now I think many of them just want to put their boot on the necks of people they hate.

Anyway, grounding an argument begins with arguing and discovering. Where to start? Ethics and pragmatics. Ethics first: we have to know what it means to do the right thing before we can argue about how it has to be compromised.

odysseus wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:45 pm First, commit to thinking ideas through. Political ideas are morally ideas as well as practical ideas. These are tied to each other. We cannot, to put it tersely, simply implement a utopia because the world of practical matters does not allow. People will not, or cannot cooperate fir this. So, we have to consider it a work in progress, government, its role in our lives re. taxation, intervention, freedoms, agencies needed, what is necessary, merely desirable, how well a thing can be defended, fought over, and on and on. It is a struggle to reconcile what want to do with what we should do and with what we can do. That's government and politics.

I can't commit to any such thing, without having a good reason a priori. What are the criteria for success/failure?

If you can't even tell me that then you are engaging in thinking for thinking's sake. This is an unbounded exercise - it's an infinite rabbit hole.

odysseus wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:45 pm we are all different. I am now very convinced, given the support for trump, that there are hard wired differences among people that figure significantly in the opposing political camps of conservatism and liberalism. There are lots, many more than I imagined, who, were they alive in the 1930's would have drooled at the thought of joining the Schutzstaffel. I used to think conservatives were just nice people who couldn't bear the social changes of modernity and who couldn't get past the idea of abortion as killing babies (which is not a light issue issue at all. I understand this, even if I am pro choice); now I think many of them just want to put their boot on the necks of people they hate.

How have you gone from politics/ethics/morality to psychologically profiling conservatives?

odysseus wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:45 pm Anyway, grounding an argument begins with arguing and discovering. Where to start?

No. It doesn't. It starts with the question "What's arguing for?"

odysseus wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:45 pm Ethics and pragmatics. Ethics first: we have to know what it means to do the right thing before we can argue about how it has to be compromised.

You are doing the entire process ass-backwards. "What it means to do the right thing" is supposed to be the last thing we arrive at, not the first.

The first thing we are supposed to arrive at is a definition of the problem.

Once you've been through a childhood of conditioning...

so: man is nuthin' but programmed response...man, the bio-robot

I, of course, disagree


It is impossible to think "natural" in this context...

so: man, the bio-robot mired in the great machine, fufillin' his appointed role

I, of course, disagree


we are trying to reason out how things should go in terms of government policies regarding redressing social inequalities and ideas are only as good as they are arguable, defensible.

oh, I've done that for you already: a man is his own, no one is obligated to provide for him beyond what they choose, takin' what's his to give to another without his sanction is not compassion or servicin' the greater good: it's just theft...compassion is an individual matter, an idiosyncratic matter: who is deservin' and who is not is assessed by the one who has and who is lookin' to share

government has no place in this


The question is what would you do with the billionaire?

if he played square, by the rules: leave him be

'we'll change the rules, then!'

no...end the rules, remove his purchased favor by the government, strip away his insulations...let his wealth and his capacity to generate wealth assume natural places accordin' to supply & demand

then, hat in hand, you can go plead for donations to address all that institutional equality that doesn't exist cept as folks are willin' to pretend it does

btw: envy is an ugly thing...just sayin'


You have to ground your political beliefs in moral argument.

did that already: a man belongs to himself (fact), it's wrong to use him as property or resource (moral fact)

odysseus wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:45 pm

Skepdick wrote
How do you ground moral arguments? How do you ground any arguments?

First, commit to thinking ideas through. Political ideas are morally ideas as well as practical ideas. These are tied to each other. We cannot, to put it tersely, simply implement a utopia because the world of practical matters does not allow. People will not, or cannot cooperate fir this. So, we have to consider it a work in progress, government, its role in our lives re. taxation, intervention, freedoms, agencies needed, what is necessary, merely desirable, how well a thing can be defended, fought over, and on and on. It is a struggle to reconcile what want to do with what we should do and with what we can do. That's government and politics.

Brainwise, morality is independent of Politics.
Politics merely adopts and adapts inherent moral principles in political governance.

we are all different. I am now very convinced, given the support for trump, that there are hard wired differences among people that figure significantly in the opposing political camps of conservatism and liberalism. There are lots, many more than I imagined, who, were they alive in the 1930's would have drooled at the thought of joining the Schutzstaffel. I used to think conservatives were just nice people who couldn't bear the social changes of modernity and who couldn't get past the idea of abortion as killing babies (which is not a light issue issue at all. I understand this, even if I am pro choice); now I think many of them just want to put their boot on the necks of people they hate.

There is more to the above extremes examples you are focusing on.

If you were to read Jonathan Haidt's
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-D ... 0307455777

he demonstrated, on average, the conservatives are more broad-minded than liberals.

If you watch the video, you'll see that Haidt's thesis is that we humans all have five foundations of morality – five sources of intuitions and emotions that drive everything we do:

• Harm/Care
  Fairness/Reciprocity
  In-Group/Loyalty
  Authority/Respect
  Purity/Sanctity

Both conservatives and liberals all agree on the first two points; but the real trouble comes on the final three. As Haidt said in regard to those points, "We can say that liberals have a kind of a two-channel, or two-foundation morality. Conservatives have more of a five-foundation, or five-channel morality."
https://www.wired.com/2012/10/the-psych ... ervatives/

Jonathan Haidt: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc

Claim: a woman belongs to herself (fact)...

{False, because it's an opinion, not a fact.]

... so it's wrong to use her as property or resource (moral fact).

[Invalid, because it doesn't follow from the premise. And false, because it's an opinion, not a fact, let alone a moral fact.]

Interesting implication: a woman belongs to herself, so it's wrong for anyone to use her body as property or resource without her consent.

To repeat: whatever facts or opinions we use to justify a moral opinion, it remains an opinion; and others can use the same facts differently, or different facts, to justify a different moral opinion. That's our inescapable moral predicament. And it's why our moral values and rules can and sometimes do change over time - examples being our attitude towards slavery, racism, sexism, sexuality and gender difference, and so on.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 9:49 am To repeat: whatever facts or opinions we use to justify a moral opinion, it remains an opinion; and others can use the same facts differently, or different facts, to justify a different moral opinion. That's our inescapable moral predicament.

What incoherent nonsense. Please demonstrate how one might use the fact that murder is wrong to justify murder.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 9:49 am And it's why our moral values and rules can and sometimes do change over time - examples being our attitude towards slavery, racism, sexism, sexuality and gender difference, and so on.

Have you noticed that the change goes only one way? Show me a society which re-admitted slavery or murder in their common laws.

Almost like society learns over time or something. Like an adaptive system.

it's an opinion, not a fact

good job, pete...here, have a