Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 6:28 pm

You are talking about like or dislike when you ask me to find a man who craves slavery.

No, I'm not.

Again...

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).


Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).


Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

Dude, these are just a set of statements and not proof.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 5:26 pm That is moral objectivism, mind-independent moral facts, which is different from moral realism which states that there are only moral facts.

I looked around at various sources and some say moral obj and moral real. the same, and others say they are different. It does seem like both are saying that it is objective true that some X is immoral and some other X is moral.

The rule of thumb[/url] prohibits people from interpersonal conflict.

The rule of thumb has been made by humans. It is either statistical or consensus based.

What I am saying is a like is a fact that we can establish a moral fact from it. I am not talking about objectivism. Of course, a like just allows things on a personal level so we respect the rule of thumb.

Who is 'we'?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 7:00 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 6:14 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 6:09 pm

I told you that is not true.
Even in our own culture people chose a slave mentality even though they are "free" and in ancient Rome being a slave could be much better since you had the protection of the master, as I said above.
If people do not like to be slaves, then why do they love the Queen and vote Conservative against their own interests?

It is just a matter of time until people realize what is wrong or right. You don't like slavery, how about rape?

This like slavery is currently out of favour, but was not in the past, and is far more common than you think.

You seem to be assuming that morality is predicated on a thought that if it is wrong for anyone it has to be wrong for everyone, yet this has never been the basis.
Morality has always been very partial offering out its gift to some and not others.

How about rape?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 7:14 pm
How about rape?

The word rape includes a judgment of the act (at least now), but the act of what many Westerners would call rape is judged by some, clearly, as ok. How do we demonstrate to them that it is a fact that it is wrong? Especially if they have a different moral system.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 7:14 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 5:26 pm That is moral objectivism, mind-independent moral facts, which is different from moral realism which states that there are only moral facts.

I looked around at various sources and some say moral obj and moral real. the same, and others say they are different. It does seem like both are saying that it is objective true that some X is immoral and some other X is moral.

Yes, people have different opinions about these two.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 7:14 pm

The rule of thumb[/url] prohibits people from interpersonal conflict.

The rule of thumb has been made by humans. It is either statistical or consensus based.

It is neither.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 7:14 pm

What I am saying is a like is a fact that we can establish a moral fact from it. I am not talking about objectivism. Of course, a like just allows things on a personal level so we respect the rule of thumb.

Who is 'we'?

Those who accept the rule.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 7:16 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 7:14 pm
How about rape?

The word rape includes a judgment of the act (at least now), but the act of what many Westerners would call rape is judged by some, clearly, as ok. How do we demonstrate to them that it is a fact that it is wrong? Especially if they have a different moral system.

It is about like and dislike my friend. The victim of rape dislikes the act so it is not allowed. It is healthy sex if both persons like and agree with it. Do they want a demonstration? Beat them to death.

The measure of change is not time.

I guess we'll just have to disagree.

if God is the creator of everything then there was a point that there was God only and nothing else.

Mebbe so.

But an apple as you said before has a set of properties that is mind-independent. Isn't it?

Yep.

-----

Dude, these are just a set of statements and not proof.

I think the proof, and the test of the proof, is right there, but -- instead of rehashin' -- let me ask: what would stand as proof to you?

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 7:30 pm
Those who accept the rule.

That sounds like a custom
or in any case not a moral fact. It's a fact that that group follows an idea about behavior. The the rule itself is not a fact.
Or no more than 'My friends and I love Dungeons and Dragons'. That could be a fact, that they love it. But it's not a moral fact. The loving it is not correct or more correct that disliking D and D.

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 7:35 pm It is about like and dislike my friend. The victim of rape dislikes the act so it is not allowed. It is healthy sex if both persons like and agree with it. Do they want a demonstration? Beat them to death.

And he people who dislike being flirted with without getting sex?
(and look, I hate rape, it's not that I want to create a defense of it. My point is that you don't have any way to dismiss other likes and dislikes. They would also be moral facts.
And there are plenty of victim blaming cultural patterns. Where their likes and dislikes do not consider a forced sexual experience necessarily rape at all. They have their likes and dislikes.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 7:41 pm

The measure of change is not time.

I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Could there be a change/act without before and after?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 7:41 pm

if God is the creator of everything then there was a point that there was God only and nothing else.

Mebbe so.

No, certainly so. If things existed with God at a point then what was the need for God?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 7:41 pm

But an apple as you said before has a set of properties that is mind-independent. Isn't it?

Yep.

-----

So a bat also sees a yellow apple yellow?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 7:41 pm

Dude, these are just a set of statements and not proof.

I think the proof, and the test of the proof, is right there, but -- instead of rehashin' -- let me ask: what would stand as proof to you?

A proof is a set of statements, premises, and conclusion, in which premises are evidently true (like there is motion) or proof for each premise is given, and the conclusion follows from the premises.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 8:09 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 7:30 pm
Those who accept the rule.

That sounds like a custom
or in any case not a moral fact. It's a fact that that group follows an idea about behavior. The rule itself is not a fact.

The rule is not a fact. That is true. The fact is derived from like or dislike. The fact together with the rule makes a society stable.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 8:09 pm Or no more than 'My friends and I love Dungeons and Dragons'. That could be a fact, that they love it. But it's not a moral fact. The loving it is not correct or more correct that disliking D and D.

We are talking about morality which matters when there is an interpersonal conflict. You might like to harm someone, but the other person dislikes it, the rule of thumb then resolves the situation. You have no right to harm another person.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 8:12 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 7:35 pm It is about like and dislike my friend. The victim of rape dislikes the act so it is not allowed. It is healthy sex if both persons like and agree with it. Do they want a demonstration? Beat them to death.

And he people who dislike being flirted with without getting sex?
(and look, I hate rape, it's not that I want to create a defense of it. My point is that you don't have any way to dismiss other likes and dislikes. They would also be moral facts.
And there are plenty of victim blaming cultural patterns. Where their likes and dislikes do not consider a forced sexual experience necessarily rape at all. They have their likes and dislikes.

It is the rule of thumb together with likes or dislikes that define what we are allowed to do and what we are not allowed to do.

Could there be a change/act without before and after?

Without time? As I say: time is measurement...if there's change, there's the possibility of measurement.

If things existed with God at a point then what was the need for God?

Hell if I know. I'm a deist, I have no holy book or holy men to advise me.

So a bat also sees a yellow apple yellow?

If it has the capacity, sure. Why wouldn't it?

A proof is a set of statements, premises, and conclusion, in which premises are evidently true (like there is motion) or proof for each premise is given, and the conclusion follows from the premises.

I know all this. If a man belongs to himself, therefore it's wrong to slave him isn't sufficient, then what proof would be to get your agreement?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 10:31 pm

Could there be a change/act without before and after?

Without time? As I say: time is measurement...if there's change, there's the possibility of measurement.

What do you mean that time is a measure of change?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 10:31 pm

If things existed with God at a point then what was the need for God?

Hell if I know. I'm a deist, I have no holy book or holy men to advise me.

It is a matter of logic. You don't need a holy book.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 10:31 pm

So a bat also sees a yellow apple yellow?

If it has the capacity, sure. Why wouldn't it?

A bat does not have the capacity to see a yellow apple as yellow yet it experiences it!

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue May 03, 2022 10:31 pm

A proof is a set of statements, premises, and conclusion, in which premises are evidently true (like there is motion) or proof for each premise is given, and the conclusion follows from the premises.

I know all this. If a man belongs to himself, therefore it's wrong to slave him isn't sufficient, then what proof would be to get your agreement?

Can you prove your premise?: A man belongs to himself.

What do you mean that time is a measure of change?

Didn't I go over this? Anyway, time is not on my hit parade of things to go round & round about. I'm leavin' this topic be.

It is a matter of logic. You don't need a holy book.

For me, God isn't about faith or logic. He seems to me, as I reverse-engineer things, to be an explanation for certain aspects or characteristics of man. I have certain ideas regardin' him, some firmer than others. That he was alone before Creation or surrounded by pre-existing substance or keepin' company with a whole slew of fellow Creators, none of that has much interest for me as a topic either.

A bat does not have the capacity to see a yellow apple as yellow yet it experiences it!

Are bats blind? That's news to me. Doesn't matter though. Helen Keller was blind and deaf and she apprehended the world as well as you or I (with a somewhat more limited set of avenues than you or I, of course).

Can you prove your premise?: A man belongs to himself.

Absolutely. I can ask you, or anyone (and I mean anyone, anywhere), are you meant to be property?.

100% of the time, you, or anyone, will say not no, but hell no.

This is not a cultural thing or a preference: it's what every respondent knows about himself. He knows he belongs to himself (and he knows it's wrong to leash him...as I say: even the slaver knows this...hell, even sculptor as he (mis)educates us all on how roman slaves wanted to be slaves, knows he is his own and that it would be wrong to leash him...hell, all the amoralists in-forum know this).

In a world of huge difference and schism, this self-knowledge is the one thing all men, anywhere, any time, have in common.

No matter how high or low, how rich or poor, how smart or stupid, how (supposedly) amoral or moral: each and every one knows he belongs to himself. It's his nature. He cannot naturally crave the leash.

As I say: Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

It's self-evident.

If you find even *one person who sez yeah, I'm meant to be property, who truly believes this, then my notions are falsified.




*now, you have to play fair...even a crazy person knows he is his own...he is crazy though: his responses may not correspond to the question, so you'd have to control for that and other idiosyncrasies of understanding (for example, a devout Christian may say he's God's property...this is somewhat different, though, than sayin' other men ought to own you)