Is Slavery Moral?

[cvanwey]

I think we're still waiting for you do defend your position. Or is it not defensible? (I'm beginning to see your reluctance in stating it at all, but still willing to persevere)

-----> still moving forward.

sounds good, 'keep moving forward'

 

[Belk]

If he's incapable of defending his position it seems silly for him to expect others to defend theirs.

That does not answer the question I asked. Why would he need to defend his position in order for you to defend yours?

 

[Phil 1:21]

sounds good, 'keep moving forward'

I haven't given up on you yet. God never gave up on me. It would still be interesting to hear you try to defend your position. I believe some good would come from it.

 

[Phil 1:21]

That does not answer the question I asked. Why would he need to defend his position in order for you to defend yours?

Perhaps you could show me where I stated he "needed" to do something. Thanks.

 

[Belk]

We haven't seen that it is grounded in ourselves either.

We have not? It seems to me that if we are the only things exhibiting Y then that would be a rather big clue Y originates with us. Admittedly that is not definitive but we lack any other evidence that I am aware of?

We have the intuition that they are objective and authoritative. If those intuitions are true then they couldn't be grounded in us.

We have a lot of intuitions that are incorrect though. That is why we have developed systems to see if our intuitions are correct. None of those systems has shown us any evidence that these things are objective.

 

[Belk]

Perhaps you could show me where I stated he "needed" to do something. Thanks.

You need me to go back and quote where you said you would defend your position as soon as he defended his? OK. Fourth paragraph down.

@cvanwey,

So to recap how we got here…

You don’t believe in objective morality, rather stating that morality is subjective and a matter of personal opinion (#588).

You believe that “[morality] is defined by the ability to distinguish between right and wrong,” which really didn’t address the question asked. But for the sake of progress I allowed the pivot from “moral or immoral” to “right and wrong.” (#592)

When asked the basis upon which you personally distinguish between right and wrong (really “moral or immoral”), after much prodding the best you could state was consequentialism (#615) which holds that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences (the definition of consequentialism). In other words, the end justifies the means.

Seems terribly little progress for how many posts we’ve made, but I’m a patient person. So then, given this and your previous statement that you personally find slavery immoral, I’ll be happy to state and defend my position as soon as you defend yours.

[edit: I see HypnoToad made an awesome post right above mine. You may want to review it before defending your position.]

(we’re still moving forward)

 

[cvanwey]

I think this confuses moral ontology with moral knowledge. Moral values may have ontic grounding outside ourselves, while our moral knowledge is retained in ourselves.
It would certainly not be classified as objective, as objective is mind independent and this is mind dependent.

As stated countless times now, morals are subjective. Neither of you seem to get this... And neither of you seem to get that you are also appealing to the subjective writings of a long-ago written book (and passing them off as objective).

This is my point...

 

[Phil 1:21]

You need me to go back and quote where you said you would defend your position as soon as he defended his? OK. Fourth paragraph down.

So nothing about me telling him he "needed" to do anything? Thanks.

 

[Phil 1:21]

As stated countless times now, morals are subjective. Neither of you seem to get this... And neither of you seem to get that you are also appealing to the subjective writings of a long-ago written book (and passing them off as objective).

This is my point...

So because you feel morality is subjective anything stating otherwise must therefore also be subjective? That explains a few things.

 

[cvanwey]

So because you feel morality is subjective anything stating otherwise must therefore also be subjective? That explains a few things.

One thing that is NOT explained, is your position. But thanks.... for nothing...

 

[Phil 1:21]

One thing that is NOT explained, is your position. But thanks.... for nothing...

I'll be happy to state and defend mine just as soon as you defend yours.

 

[Belk]

Your assumption of the word "need" does not constitute my use of it.

I did not claim you used the word "Need". That does not change the meaning of it in the English language.

 

[Sanoy]

We have not? It seems to me that if we are the only things exhibiting Y then that would be a rather big clue Y originates with us. Admittedly that is not definitive but we lack any other evidence that I am aware of?



We have a lot of intuitions that are incorrect though. That is why we have developed systems to see if our intuitions are correct. None of those systems has shown us any evidence that these things are objective.

Why have we not seen it grounded in us? Because there hasn't been a successful theory of consciousness under naturalism. I imagine a theory would have to be formulated for that to determine where our moral grounding is. I think your reasoning makes sense here, but it pales in comparison to the moral forcefulness of our intuition which is binding and coercive.

How would those systems show they are objective? Those are material empirical systems and if these things are grounded objectively then they wouldn't be observable through that.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I did not claim you used the word "Need". That does not change the meaning of it in the English language.

Your assumption is duly noted.

 

[Belk]

Why have we not seen it grounded in us? Because there hasn't been a successful theory of consciousness under naturalism. I imagine a theory would have to be formulated for that to determine where our moral grounding is. I think your reasoning makes sense here, but it pales in comparison to the moral forcefulness of our intuition.

I disagree. Claiming, in essence, "this feels right" carries very little weight as it has been shown to be a very poor method of explaining reality. As far as requiring a theory of consciousness in order to determine what our moral grounding is I am not certain that is correct. It seems to me that this is much more in the realm of evolutionary psychology.

How would those systems show they are objective? Those are material empirical systems and if these things are grounded objectively then they wouldn't be observable through that.

Those are the only objective things of which I am aware. Can you show evidence for anything objective that is not material and demonstrated through empirical means?

 

[Belk]

Your assumption is duly noted.

It is not an assumption. You clearly stated it.

 

[Phil 1:21]

It is not an assumption. You clearly stated it.

In your opinion. Also duly noted.

 

[Belk]

In your opinion. Also duly noted.

Are you seriously going to try to pretend that "need" does not mean contingency?

 

[Phil 1:21]

Are you seriously going to try to pretend that "need" does not mean contingency?

Your assumptions are duly noted.

 

[Belk]

Your assumptions are duly noted.

As is your inability to defend your position. Toodle pipsky.