henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 10:58 pm
I have a question for all the moral subjectivists (so, moral objectivists, stand down). It's one I've asked before.
Why is slavery wrong?
Don't tell me you think it's wrong. Tell me
why you think it's wrong. Give me your reasoning, please.
I think Henry's right to insist on trying to answer this - and any other - moral question.
'Slavery is morally wrong because...'
The answer may be another moral assertion - such as '...because it's morally wrong to own a human being as property' or '...because it's morally wrong to deprive someone of their liberty and autonomy - unless there's a good reason to do so' - and so on.
But that just puts the problem back: 'Why is it morally wrong to own a human being as property?' And this can go on for ever, unless it reaches a terminal moral assertion - which, of course, just provokes the same question: 'Why is X morally wrong?'
And this is where moral objectivists and realists conclude that it's
just a fact that X is morally wrong. Which doesn't deflect the same question: 'Why is it a fact that X is morally wrong?'
To get out of this bind, some objectivists offer a non-moral answer or explanation for a moral question. For example: 'Slavery is morally wrong because...a person owns herself'. (And there are any number of such non-moral answers, including theistic ones about a supposed god's plan and wishes.)
But now the problem is that the reason offered doesn't answer the question. It merely makes a moral assumption, such as: 'Slavery is morally wrong because it's morally wrong to own something that belongs to someone else'. So we're back into the same regress of moral assertions.
Conclusion. At the end or bottom of
any moral argument, there
must be a moral assertion expressing a moral belief, judgement or opinion. Which is therefore subjective. Which is why morality is and must be subjective. Ain't no way out of it.
