What could make morality objective?

[henry quirk]

flash,

tantrum

You're right. I've kvetched enough.

[Age]

A man belongs to himself. (Or, as my good friend, age put it: A man is free).

I have NEVER and would NEVER "put it" NOR say, 'A man is free' without acknowledging that absolutely EVERY thing is free, including women and children. That is; until 'you', adult human beings, prison or contain things.

It seems I did you a terrible disservice Ken, apparently when Henry misrepresented your words he was actually stealing from your grand reputation to ennoble his own.

Maybe or maybe not. I do NOT know. And, I do NOT care either.

I was just POINTING OUT that when one wants to say how "I put things", then if they do NOT do it CORRECTLY, I will just CORRECT 'it', if I CHOOSE to do so.

You had legitimate grievance and I absolutely shouldn't have told you to fuck off and quit being a pissy little bitchboy over nothing.

My humblest and most grovelling apologies are yours.

I am ALLOWED to CORRECT and POINT OUT what 'you', human beings, SAY, and DO, Wrong.

Or, do 'you' BELIEVE otherwise?

As for YOUR ASSUMPTIONS about ANY thing else here they are of absolutely NO significance AT ALL.

By the way, you appear to be whining and whinging here about just being CORRECTED, ONCE AGAIN.

[Age]

a piss taking bastard who can't keep any conversation serious for five minutes

you left out lyin'

Okay then. Now your reputation. What is it? What is this treasure from which I have plundered?

Does the car owner have to explain to the car thief the nature of the car, or its value?

Of course not.

All he has to say is: it's mine, leave it be.

Here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of how and when one can STEAL some 'thing', and then just CLAIM, "This is MINE (now), leave it be". The EASE at which peoples in those old days, when this was being written, could and DID FOOL and DECEIVE "themselves" was completely AMAZING, compared to what 'we' KNOW is thee ACTUAL Truth, NOW.

This one here, known as "henry quirk", STOLE and continues to STEAL from "others", but then TELLS itself, "This is MINE (now)". And, what makes this even more CONTRADICTORY and RIDICULOUS is that this one ACTUALLY BELIEVES it can TAKE the 'life' of "another" if they 'touch' what 'it' calls is "its OWN stuff".

[Age]

It's why I like to make Henry...confess that (he) can't explain why it's immoral to shoot a dog (notoriously one of Kant's major problems too) in disloyal, unkind circumstances.

you've never done that, guy...quit makin' shit up

and: ain't nuthin' immoral in shootin' a dog (unless the dog belongs to someone else, cuz then it's a kind of theft)

You really just underlined my point for me there. You have a sad and inadequate moral theory that relies on leaving stuff out to maintain even a semblance of cohesion, and that's for the reasons I already gave.

What I leave out of my fairly robust and way more than adequate codification of fact and moral fact are non-persons like rocks, grass, and dogs. Morality is for men, not animals.

Nor for women and children.

"henry quirk's" 'morality' is for 'men' ONLY, correct?

And -- bringin' it round to the start -- you never had me confess that I can't explain why it's immoral to shoot a dog (cuz it's not, unless the dog belongs to another, then it's theft).

But when does "shooting a dog" become 'immoral' EXACTLY?

Can I go around SHOOTING dogs DEAD and this is NOT 'immoral', to you, UNTIL I find out A dog was, if it was, so-called "belonged to another"?

When does 'behavior' BECOME 'immoral', to you?

Also, when you say "another" do you only mean and refer to 'men' ONLY?

And, who or what DECIDES when a dog is OWNED, by 'another'? And, what MAKES a dog BELONG to "another"?

If YOUR 'moral fact' is ROBUST, as you SAY and like to BELIEVE 'it' is, then you being ABLE to answer these CLARIFYING questions would be EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY 'thing' to do.

If you're gonna drag me in to a continuation of a tired conversation: do it honestly, not with a lie.

[Age]

Did you not recently accuse Pete of being on the fence?

You are working some seriously self contradictory notion of facts that are true for some and false for others but still 'facts', moral objectivity that is dependent for that objectivity on these FSK things that are only objective on some bandwagon basis of shared subjectivity. Nobody can tell what your position is. And now you are being relatvist as well, but the relativism thing isn't a dilemma you can fix by just grabbing the bull by the horns, it's incoherent to be a relativist moral objectivist.

Nothing about it makes any sense. You have your own fences to get off.

I remember accusing Peter of being on the fence. I always try to explain things to myself and sometimes get it wrong. My most recent inconsistency is that existential will is so similar to classic Free Will, and I am partial to both existentialism's authenticity and also determinism. I am not a genius and take my ideas from others.

One solution to the above inconsistency is to be an existentialist for myself and take full responsibility for my actions while at the same time applying the tenets of determinism to everybody else. Regarding objective morality, this would mean that I blame myself for my own bad actions (objective morality) but extend deterministic blamelessness to others (morality is not objective but is circumstantial).

I can pitch some solutions that might work. That in itself might be a problem, because we are in danger of agreeing on some stuff and I am a moral skeptic of some sort....

Firstly I would suggest that there are some subjects which are the realm of pure reason and cannot (at least cannot yet) be applied in the realm of practical reason. Things like skepticism, Vertical Ambulance's obsession with antirealism, and also the free will question are examples. Practical reason is about what we as humans should do when we get out of bed in the morning, pure reason issues such as whether we should think very differently about what it is to be human and whether or not the bed is even there haven't been through the preliminary processes required to ready them for practical reason purposes. Think of this a pseudo-Wittgensteinian position where our way of being a human at all needs to be adressed first if this thing is going to change the way humans eat breakfast. Conversely, if that doesn't need to be done, then there is no moral impact to any of these things. If you agree, then good luck explainig that to VA.

For the other matter, I would avoid the solipsism inherent in applying different tests to yourself than to others, but I get the idea. I think the trick is to not fall for the idea that morality is a singular thing at all. Morality is a constantly churning form of social activities with a very ill defined set of available inputs.

Here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of just how REALLY LOST, CONFUSED, and MISLEAD adult human beings were, back in the days when this was being written.

The layer of reasoning that we apply on top of a bunch of our activities just helps us to talk about them in a context, but the context changes according to what we are trying to do at this minute, and the reasoning that we called on to inform some conversation yesterday can be completely discarded for today's new context.

This is because of ALL of your FAULTY and FLAWED so-called 'reasoning' that you continually USE.

If you just used sound AND valid 'reasoning' ONLY, then you would NOT have been so LOST and CONFUSED as you OBVIOUSLY ARE here.

You can see this around you every day, this forum contains some spectacular hypocrites who genuinely consider themselves the best among us.

VERY True, and this is partly WHY I USE 'this' forum. The VERY PROOFS of my CLAIMS lie WITHIN 'this forum'.

Our natural human desire is to fix broken things, and the underlying reasoning in our everyday moral conversations looks prima facie like a candidate.

But how could there be a so-called 'natural human desire' to "fix broken things", when there was absolutely NOTHING 'broken' UNTIL 'you', human beings, came into Existence?

There was, literally, NOTHING 'broken' UNTIL 'you', adult human beings, BROKE 'things'.

But you can't fix this logic unless you deal with that tangle of inputs, which is the basic thing that all the explicitly rigid moral philosophies do. So one set says the only moral concern is wellbing measured as the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Another says that the only concern is to follow correct rules. In doing this they all fall foul of something important, their recommendations are easily shown to be unjust or unfair, or unkind, because the list of these inputs is unquantifiable.

That's all I do when I see a new one of those things, I just look for which un-thing it is and then exploit that. It's why I like to make Henry and VA confess that they can't explain why it's immoral to shoot a dog (notoriously one of Kant's major problems too) in disloyal, unkind circumstances.

But it IS EXTREMELY EASY and SIMPLE to SHOW WHY it is, IRREFUTABLY, IMMORAL to shoot a dog.

But, some of 'you' will NOT be ABLE to SEE and UNDERSTAND 'this', and this is BECAUSE of the BELIEFS you have and hold onto.

Like Hume, and probably Sartre but I can't say for sure, I argue that if we can't convert practical reason into pure reason, we are making a poor decision when we try to ignore that and just treat it as pure reason anyway.

But 'you', human beings, can NOT find or uncover PURE REASON while you BELIEVE and ASSUME some 'things' are true.

So we can't usefully proceed until we understand the ways in which moral reason is required to be deductively weak, because it doesn't do what we need it to do at all without those weaknesses.

But the ONLY 'weaknesses' that exist are the ones that 'you', human beings, make up and imagine.

That's my version of moral skepticism stripped down to nuts and bolts.

But 'moral skepticism' does NOT REALLY have that much at all to do with 'morality', itself, and/or what ACTUALLY makes 'morality' OBJECTIVE.

And for what it's worth, half at least is stolen straight from Isiah Berlin, but he wouldn't agree exactly with my conclusion.

Okay.

[Age]

I would have thought scepticism is mostly awareness of confirmation bias and awareness of illusions

No, that is far too tepid. Moral skepticism involves the status of moral claims, and specifically whether any of them can amount to facts, and if we can refer to them as knowledge.

Could 'moral claims' be 'moral facts', to you, and could you refer to them as knowledge?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Having a whole thing about free will and then applying to one human activity such as moral decision making is no better than getting confused trying to have a little bit of free will. If there is no free will then entire concept of what we are has to be junked and done over again BEFORE you can even move onto wondering whether moral vocabulary expresses any content at all let alone what that ought to be. It's a canard to insert it into this conversation.

What do you mean by, "If there is no free will"?

What do the words 'free will' even mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

These people in those days when this was being written REALLY did say the most ABSURD and RIDICULOUS 'things'. But this was NOT their fault as can be CLEARLY SEEN here they REALLY were so completely and utterly LOST and CONFUSED.

[Age]

I was just using you as an example.

You lied.

Actually I just didn't care. You can boast that you think you can prove that holding a dog down and shitting on its head isn't immoral if you prefer that to confessing that you can't explain why it is immoral and it makes precisely zero difference to me.

So if you are this pissed off then I appologise very very humbly, I didn't realise I was taking any of your property away.

You just LIED, and your INABILITY to just ADMIT this Fact, just PROVES more that you LIED, and maybe even INTENTIONALLY.

[Age]

You lied.

Actually I just didn't care. You can boast that you think you can prove that holding a dog down and shitting on its head isn't immoral if you prefer that to confessing that you can't explain why it is immoral and it makes precisely zero difference to me.

So if you are this pissed off then I appologise very very humbly, I didn't realise I was taking any of your property away.

Holdin' a dog down and crappin' on it is cruel, a sign of sadism, but it ain't immoral.

So, if 'cruelness' and/or 'sadism' is NOT involved in your view of 'morality' and 'immorality', then what EXACTLY is involved within your view of 'morality and immorality'?

You, lyin', to prove a point, impress a girl, or cuz you didn't care is immoral (and if you truly don't care then you're a sociopath on top of bein' a liar).

LOL So, to you, if a human being 'lies', then this is IMMORAL, but if a human being SHOOTS a dog DEAD or holds one down and "shits on its head", then this is NOT IMMORAL, to you.

Wow, some people, back in those days, REALLY did have the MOST ABSURD, LUDICROUS, and NONSENSICAL view of 'morality'.

And, if you'll piss on me for no reason, then you probably don't give a flip about the dog either.

WHY would you even think or BELIEVE that 'you' are some how 'better' than a 'dog'?

[Age]

Actually I just didn't care. You can boast that you think you can prove that holding a dog down and shitting on its head isn't immoral if you prefer that to confessing that you can't explain why it is immoral and it makes precisely zero difference to me.

So if you are this pissed off then I appologise very very humbly, I didn't realise I was taking any of your property away.

Holdin' a dog down and crappin' on it is cruel, a sign of sadism, but it ain't immoral.

You, lyin', to prove a point, impress a girl, or cuz you didn't care is immoral (and if you truly don't care then you're a sociopath on top of bein' a liar).

And, if you'll piss on me for no reason, then you probably don't give a flip about the dog either.

If cruelty isn't immoral, then dishonesty probably isn't either.

AGAIN, what is with the 'If'?

OF COURSE 'cruelty' AND 'dishonesty' are BOTH 'immoral'.

Sure, 'you', adult human beings, were REALLY NOT that STUPID, were 'you'?

[Skepdick]

download.jpg

Way to misunderstand the point.

Even if you could perfectly represent the entity in some format all you've done is you've made a copy of it. Thats what description does. It copies.

So how does a copy of morality help us with morality?

[Age]

You don't get my points in blue above?
Note my explanation above where Kant dealt with the issue in 3 phases.

P1 is raised within the conventional sense and sensibility where the majority of people will be driven psychologically to invent the noumena. So Kant made the assumption that the noumena exists [only to please his opponents not himself], but then only as a logical entity at the conventional level as a limit of negative employment [meaning one cannot claim it is something objectively real].

Note in the conventional sense, Kant himself raised the point, it is absurd to have appearance without something-that-appear. This is conventional logic. But logic is not reality!

P2 is subsequently in the next phase dealt within the Understanding and Pure Reason and justified as non existence as I had explained above.

Since P2 demonstrated the noumena is illusory, what is left that is real is the phenomena that can be verified and justified empirically as real via the scientific FSK.
There is nothing wrong with this argument at all.

PH:If there are no noumena, of what are phenomena phenomena?
As I had stated the term phenomena can be very misleading.
What we have are emergence[s] from the top-down approach and they can be verified and justified as real within the credible scientific FSK.


Nope!
I've never described noumena as merely unobserved things.
Note how I explained it above.
I'd referenced Kant on how he defined what is noumena and its limited use B307 which I had done many times in this forum.

Whatever the unobserved thing it must be empirical possibility to be experienced and be verified and justified within a credible FSK.
The noumena [a mere logical entity] is like an unobservable square-circle.

Note this thread which relevant to you and the above issue.

Humans are more Animal than being more Human.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34333&p=559300#p559300

Sigh. If there are no noumena, then what we call reality does not consist of phenomena. It consists of features of reality that are or (in the past) were the case. My dog is a dog, not the appearance of a dog-in-itself that doesn't exist. And empirical evidence for the existence of my dog within a credible FSK is evidence for the existence of a dog, not the appearance of a dog-in-itself that doesn't exist.

In reality there is no real noumena as demonstrated by Kant.

However the way you go about claiming about reality as a philosophical realist you are assuming noumena exist, thus begging the question.

PH:It consists of features of reality that are or (in the past) were the case.
I have been asking you what is THAT-REALITY that is independent of the human conditions and has features.

'THAT-REALITY' is OBVIOUSLY VERY, VERY DIFFERENT from 'that' 'reality' you BELIEVE exists.

You KNOW the one, 'that' 'reality' when you say, "what we call reality".

Also, 'THAT' 'Reality' is the ONE that EXISTS if 'you', human beings, are existing or NOT.

THE One where there EXISTS a Universe, which IS eternal AND infinite by the way. THE Reality IS thee Universe EXISTS whether human beings exist or do NOT exist.

Also, 'I', and "others", have been TELLING and SHOWING 'you' 'THAT' (other) 'Reality'. But, 'you' are too BLIND and DEAF to HEAR and SEE thee True Reality of 'things' here "veritas aequitas".

And empirical evidence for the existence of my dog within a credible FSK is evidence for the existence of a dog, not the appearance of a dog-in-itself that doesn't exist.

Yes the real existence of a dog is not the appearance of that-dog-that-is-appearing to you.

If that dog is related to a credible FSK [as you claimed above] & since a FSK is always human conditioned,
then, the existence of that dog has to be conditioned upon human conditions, i.e. in compliance with the anti-realists' claim.

If you claim that dog is related to a credible FSK,
and insist on a philosophical realist's position [not human conditioned],
then you have made a false claim,
because a FSK is always human conditioned.

Then YOUR so-called "fsk" could be completely AND utterly FLAWED and FAULTY. So, there is NO use relying on 'it'. YOUR 'fsk' is just a WASTE OF TIME, especially considering the Fact that we can just LOOK AT and OBSERVE what is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True INSTEAD.

The point is, your dog which is not-the-appearance-of-the-dog is a feature of reality that is independent of the human conditions, description, opinions and beliefs.
In this case, your dog exists independent of the human conditions and that can only be a dog-existing-by-itself which is the same as dog-in-itself or a noumenon-dog.

Note
Which is the "Real" Apple?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34186
The empirical evidence for the existence of the apple on the table within a credible FSK cannot confirm a 'real' independent apple of as per your expectation or claim.

OTOH, the philosophical anti-realist [Kantian] will claim his dog is not-the-appearance-of-the-dog but his real dog emerges and is entangled in reality with himself, other humans collectively and all things within reality.
Your problem and bottleneck of knowledge is your inability to grasp the concepts of "emerges and is entangled in reality with everything"

But, besides 'you', who else says that your OWN concept of 'emerge' and/or 'entangled' is the true, right, and/or correct 'concept', which "others" are MEANT to GRASP?

Also, WHY NOT just EXPLAIN what your OWN views and concepts of 'emerges' and/or 'entangled' BETTER so that THOSE views and concepts can be GRASPED more easily AND simply?

You can keep blathering in defence of Kant's ridiculous idea. But, anyway, it does nothing to establish the existence of moral rightness and wrongness as features of reality that are or were the case. Your invented morality FSK is a joke - and one day you'll get it.

I suggest we leave it here, because we're going around in circles, getting nowhere.

You are insulting your own intelligence when you insist Kant's idea is ridiculous especially when you have the inability to understand [not even to agree] his views.

WHY do you FOLLOW the views of "another" RELIGIOUSLY, just like "others" FOLLOW the views of "others" in books like the bible AND the koran RELIGIOUSLY?

You are SHOWING and PROVING just how 'you' are RELIGIOUS BELIEVER, just like ALL of the other ones ARE.

Show me where my argument is wrong?

SHOW what your 'argument' is EXACTLY, so we do NOT get accused of 'strawman' in ANY way, then we WILL SHOW 'you' EXACTLY WHERE your argument is Wrong.

Whatever I have presented re Kant is supported by solid, sound and rational arguments.

So, WHY THEN are you having so much TROUBLE here?

What EXACTLY is Wrong here?

Notably, whatever is real [actual or speculated] is supported by empirical verification and justifications plus philosophical reasonings without any speculation of any illusory mystical tripe.

So, WHY are some of your writings BUILT UPON 'illusory mystical tripe'?

The argument for my objective moral principles is based on the above same "supported by empirical verification and justifications plus philosophical reasonings without any speculation of any illusory mystical tripe."

LOL You are JOKING here, right?

Why is "morality FSK" a joke when there are some many FSKs [many are not credible] which are accepted by various people and surely yourself.
In addition, I am claiming my proposed Morality FSK is has near credibility as the scientific FSK.
Your inability to understand the concept of a FSK [model, system, paradigm, methodology, frame, conceptual framework,] is a joke on yourself.

Okay, if you say and believe so.

[Age]

If cruelty isn't immoral, then dishonesty probably isn't either.

Morality is for man, not animals.

Noted your confidence in the above and you are definitely on the right path.

Animals (also called Metazoa) are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms in the biological kingdom Animalia.
With few exceptions, animals consume organic material, breathe oxygen, are able to move, can reproduce sexually, and go through an ontogenetic stage in which their body consists of a hollow sphere of cells, the blastula, during embryonic development.
Over 1.5 million living animal species have been described—of which around 1 million are insects—but it has been estimated there are over 7 million animal species in total.
Animals range in length from 8.5 micrometres (0.00033 in) to 33.6 metres (110 ft).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal

Here is ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of how BELIEFS BLINDED these human beings from, and to, thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

BOTH of these human beings have FORGOTTEN, or just can NOT SEE, that 'man' is ALSO AN ANIMAL, just like 'woman' and 'children' are, AS WELL.

So, if 'morality' is for 'man', but NOT for 'woman', 'children', and ALL of the OTHER 'animals', then would one be correct in that what we have here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of the gendered 'male', of the species 'human being', thinking or BELIEVING that 'it', the male gendered ones, are MORE SPECIAL or BETTER than EVERY other 'thing'?

If morality is extended to animals then humans with inherent moral impulse would not and should not kill animals for food, kill them as pests, or even accidentally killing them.

Talk about being BLINDED, by one's OWN GREEDINESS and SELFISHNESS.

EVERY 'animal' does what it NEEDS in order to survive.

At the rate 'you', adult human beings, THINK ABOUT 'things', and in the way that you do, then it is NO wonder WHY 'you', STILL, had NOT YET worked out what is ACTUALLY Right AND Wrong in Life, in the days when this was being written.

In addition, humans should not be owning and keeping animals as pets.

Here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of saying some 'thing' that may well be True, but using 'it' to 'try to' "justify" a TOTALLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect DISTORTED BELIEF one is holding onto.

What you are essentially saying here is; BECAUSE we MISTREAT and ABUSE 'animals', then this is BECAUSE 'morality', itself, does NOT extend to "them".

Talk about "justifying", "minimizing", and "rationalizing" ones Wrong and DAMAGING behaviors in the HIGHEST FORM possible.

If this issue was NOT so SERIOUS, then the STUPIDITY and ABSURDITY of your CLAIM here would be ABSOLUTELY HYSTERICAL. BUT, this here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of the lengths these adult human beings would go to TRY TO "justify" their Wrong behaviors.

The concern for the cruelty to animals is more about the humans committing such acts which are reflected in their mental states of psychopathy, etc. which is a potential for harm to humans.
Thus the concern of morality is more to to the human then to the animals.
When we improve the moral competence of those humans, then humans will not have impulse to harm thus will not commit cruelty to humans thus not to animals as well.

Since morality is not extended to animals, humans can choose to kill animals /insects that are harmful to humans, destroy crops, etc. while protecting those animals that are useful to humans in whatever [direct and indirect] ways.

Following this so-called "logic", of yours, since 'morality' is not extended to 'human beings', as evidenced by the 'holocaust', human beings can choose to kill those 'human beings', which are PERCEIVED to be 'harmful' to human beings, like for example; "jews", "sinti-roma", "slavs", "homosexuals", and political enemies". In other words 'you', human beings, could KILL absolutely ANY one or ANY 'thing', which 'you' each IMAGINED was a 'threat' to 'you'.

Which the ABSURDITY and RIDICULOUSNESS of this SHOULD speak VERY LOUDLY and CLEARLY here.

[Age]

The claim that morality is for man, not animals, is about as clear a demonstration of the subjectivity of morality that there can be.

It's nothing but an opinion - and an utterly appalling and disgusting one at that, in my opinion.

And absolutely nothing in reality can show that opinion to be true or false, because moral assertions do not make factual claims with a truth-value that's independent from opinion.

But this is just your OWN 'opinion'. And, to you, absolutely NOTHING in 'reality' can show (YOUR) 'opinion' here to be true nor false.

So, WHY even 'bother' expressing this opinion of YOURS here.

For all we know 'moral assertions' might make 'factual claims' with a 'truth-value that is independent', from (your) 'opinion' here.

In Fact I KNOW, IRREFUTABLY, EXACTLY how to make 'moral assertions, which are Factual claims with truth-value that can NOT be REFUTED.

But while you HOLD ONTO and MAINTAIN your current BELIEFS and OPINIONS here you will NEVER be able to SEE and UNDERSTAND this Factual CLAIM here.

All we can do is express the opinion and explain why we hold it.

Well we KNOW your opinion here, now will you explain WHY you continue to HOLD ONTO such an opinion, (which by the way can be PROVED False and Wrong anyway).

Claim: cruelty to animals is morally wrong. Claim: cruelty to animals is not morally wrong.

If it's possible (rationally) for two people to hold directly contradictory moral opinions, those opinions can't be matters of fact that can be settled by an appeal to evidence.

But ALL 'matters of fact' are NEVER 'settled' by 'evidence'. ALL 'matters of facts' evolve around and are 'settled' ON ACTUAL 'proofs' and NOT 'evidence' AT ALL.

There are no moral facts, so morality isn't and can't be objective.

But this is just your 'opinion' ONLY, and so NOT a 'fact' AT ALL, correct?

It really is simple - if distressing for moral objectivists/egotists.

Yes it really is VERY SIMPLE, your CLAIM that; "There are NO moral facts", is just YOUR 'opinion', and, according to YOU ALL 'opinions' are NOT 'facts' AT ALL.

So, your CLAIM here is just an 'opinion' and thus NOT a 'fact' AT ALL.

Therefore, what you have accomplished here is PROVING that what you are CLAIMING is NOT a 'factual truth' AT ALL.

[Age]

If cruelty isn't immoral, then dishonesty probably isn't either.

Morality is for man, not animals.

We can do that later. Explain why lying is morally wrong.

WHY 'lying' is (morally) Wrong is for the same reason WHY ALL Wrong behaviors are Wrong.

Or confess that you can't get that from a source of nothing other than "man owns himself".

As I explained already, your moral thing is just another example of one of these reductive moral theories that attempts to recreate the entire gumbo of moral everything from a single ingredient. If you have nothing but freedom is good to work with, then you left out lying is bad and hypocrisy is wrong.

[Age]

We can do that later. Explain why lying is morally wrong. Or confess that you can't get that from a source of nothing other than "man owns himself".

As I explained already, your moral thing is just another example of one of these reductive moral theories that attempts to recreate the entire gumbo of moral everything from a single ingredient. If you have nothing but freedom is good to work with, then you left out lying is bad and hypocrisy is wrong.

It's so lame watching the sophists struggle for control of the narrative.

Why don't YOU explain why a non-reductive moral theory is better than a reductive one.
Why don't YOU explain why an objective moral theory is beter than a subjective one.

NO 'theory' is better than another one. EVERY 'theory' is just someone guess or presumption about what COULD BE true, right, and/or correct.

Why don't you tell us what standards; or authority you are implicitly appealing to in evaluating and rejecting moral theories?

Thee ACTUAL Truth Itself is what ALL theories are evaluated, and rejected, on.

It's just boresome watching you self-appoint yourself as the arbiter without making your criteria explicit.

The criteria, like what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, and what is ACTUALLY Right and Wrong, is ALL based on AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE.

As has ALREADY been PROVED, IRREFUTABLY, True, Right, AND Correct. But just NOT to ALL of 'you', YET.