The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force

[Moral Orel]

Since these moral conclusions derive from that particular person's feelings or attitudes, he admits that others may have contradictory conclusions based on their feelings that are as valid as his own. Thus, slavery is both moral and immoral in the subjectivist world.

Wrong. If I say that chocolate ice cream is delicious and you say that it is disgusting, it isn't both delicious and disgusting. All it means is that I like it and you don't. The truth is that delicious and disgusting aren't real properties of the thing itself.

The method is irrational, that is, it is based on feelings, not reason. One cannot argue against how another feels about morality.

Sure you can. If someone feels that harming others is bad, then we can reason about what causes harm.

 

[o_mlly]

Yet the question remains, is our modern system, of the minority asserting control over the majority, moral, or isn't it?

If morality is objective, then you can't equivocate, it either is or it isn't.

Is mom and dad acting immorally when they control their 5 children? No. The minority controlling the majority is not intrinsically evil. In the concrete, all human acts can be judged good or evil. In the concrete, the object of the act, the intent of the actor and pertinent circumstances are known. All three must be good in order for the act to be good. A defect in any one renders the act evil.

 

[o_mlly]

If I say that chocolate ice cream is delicious and you say that it is disgusting, it isn't both delicious and disgusting. All it means is that I like it and you don't. The truth is that delicious and disgusting aren't real properties of the thing itself.

Nonsense. Matters of taste are not matters of truth. The morality of a human act is a matter of truth. Your example simply underscores my point that moral subjectivism renders morality to be a matter of taste, ie., opinion.

Sure you can. If someone feels that harming others is bad, then we can reason about what causes harm.

Nope. I can argue about how one thinks because we both can appeal to the rules of logic or First Principles. I cannot argue against your feeling that chocolate ice cream is disgusting. In that statement, you are infallibly correct.

 

[Moral Orel]

Nonsense. Matters of taste are not matters of truth. The morality of a human act is a matter of truth.

Nope. Morality is subjective, it isn't a matter of truth.

Your example simply underscores my point that moral subjectivism renders morality to be a matter of taste, ie., opinion.

If you really understand that subjective morality is about taste and preferences then great. You then understand why your previous statements about things being both true and false are incorrect.

Nope. I can argue about how one thinks because we both can appeal to the rules of logic or First Principles. I cannot argue against your feeling that chocolate ice cream is disgusting. In that statement, you are infallibly correct.

First you can argue about the things that lead to good and bad feelings. Second, we can argue against your feelings; that's called cognitive psychology.

 

[o_mlly]

Morality is subjective, it isn't a matter of truth.

No need to repeat, I understand your opinion on the matter. Are you also of the opinion that truth is subjective, as in "true for you but not for me"? It is self-refuting to objectively claim that matters of truth are subjective.

If you really understand that subjective morality is about taste and preferences then great. You then understand why your previous statements about things being both true and false are incorrect.

Yes, I do really understand and my previous statements still stand.

First you can argue about the things that lead to good and bad feelings. Second, we can argue against your feelings; that's called cognitive psychology.

Why one feels the way they do about morality is a different question. That they feel morality is subjective rather than objective is the only question so far.

 

[Moral Orel]

No need to repeat, I understand your opinion on the matter. Are you also of the opinion that truth is subjective, as in "true for you but not for me"? It is self-refuting to objectively claim that matters of truth are subjective.

No, there are things that are a matter of truth. For instance, it is an objective fact that morals are subjective. You'll need to do more than assert it ain't.

Yes, I do really understand and my previous statements still stand.

Well you don't have any problem with a difference in our opinion on the taste of chocolate ice cream. So you must also believe that it is both delicious and disgusting then.

Why one feels the way they do about morality is a different question. That they feel morality is subjective rather than objective is the only question so far.

We're talking about what you can argue about if morality is subjective.

 

[o_mlly]

No, there are things that are a matter of truth. For instance, it is an objective fact that morals are subjective. You'll need to do more than assert it ain't.

If you objectively claim that morals are subjective then you have a rational argument in support. What exactly is that argument?

Well you don't have any problem with a difference in our opinion on the taste of chocolate ice cream. So you must also believe that it is both delicious and disgusting then.

Nice try but no brass ring. If I allow that we have a difference in matters of taste then I do objectively state that we disagree. Obviously, chocolate is superior in taste to vanilla. Chocolate is all that vanilla is and then some ... I think it's called cocoa.

We're talking about what you can argue about if morality is subjective.

What is there to be argued about? I've already allowed (several times) that I cannot argue about how you feel. Do you have a rational argument that morality is subjective? I'd like to read it.

 

[partinobodycular]

The minority controlling the majority is not intrinsically evil.

So the minority controlling the majority isn't intrinsically evil, but slavery is.

What makes slavery intrinsically evil?

 

[Bradskii]

Nonsense. Matters of taste are not matters of truth. The morality of a human act is a matter of truth. Your example simply underscores my point that moral subjectivism renders morality to be a matter of taste, ie., opinion.

So if you were trying to decide which is the morally correct answer when you have the choice of saving one of two groups of people, then it would be nonsensical to suggest that the right answer is just a matter of opinion. A matter of taste. Like...I dunno...preferring Jagermeister to Sambuca.

Makes sense.

 

[Moral Orel]

If you objectively claim that morals are subjective then you have a rational argument in support. What exactly is that argument?

I'd rather help you understand what it actually means for morality to be subjective. Most of your objections clearly come from a place of misunderstanding. For starters, there are no true moral statements, and there are no false moral statements. There is no "should" or "ought". Most folks can't wrap their heads around things like this and insist on keeping at least some of the baggage of objective morality. Like when folks say that "morals are both true and false". No, they're neither.

Nice try but no brass ring. If I allow that we have a difference in matters of taste then I do objectively state that we disagree. Obviously, chocolate is superior in taste to vanilla. Chocolate is all that vanilla is and then some ... I think it's called cocoa.

I'm hoping this is snark.

What is there to be argued about? I've already allowed (several times) that I cannot argue about how you feel. Do you have a rational argument that morality is subjective? I'd like to read it.

Yes you can argue about how someone feels. You're not "allowing that I cannot argue", you're making that claim and I'm refuting it. It's called cognitive psychology. It is literally talking people out of bad feelings.

But aside from that, most moral issues are argued via the appeal to emotion fallacy. It doesn't make it a sound argument, no. But it's very persuasive. So you can argue poorly but effectively.

 

[o_mlly]

So the minority controlling the majority isn't intrinsically evil, but slavery is.

What makes slavery intrinsically evil?

Radical forms of slavery, ie., absolute bondage, that deprive human beings of all personal rights are never morally permissible as such forms of slavery violate the natural law.

More or less moderate forms of subjection and servitude, eg., serfdom, will always accompany the human condition in which those who are subject to others retain their personal rights.

I'd rather help you understand what it actually means for morality to be subjective. Most of your objections clearly come from a place of misunderstanding. For starters, there are no true moral statements, and there are no false moral statements. There is no "should" or "ought". Most folks can't wrap their heads around things like this and insist on keeping at least some of the baggage of objective morality. Like when folks say that "morals are both true and false". No, they're neither.

The above is not an argument but a restatement of your opinion, ie., feeling. Do you have an argument to support your claim:

it is an objective fact that morals are subjective.

I'm hoping this is snark.

I suppose that would be a matter of taste, don't you agree?

Yes you can argue about how someone feels. You're not "allowing that I cannot argue", you're making that claim and I'm refuting it. It's called cognitive psychology. It is literally talking people out of bad feelings.

But aside from that, most moral issues are argued via the appeal to emotion fallacy. It doesn't make it a sound argument, no. But it's very persuasive. So you can argue poorly but effectively.

"Talking people out of bad feelings" implies a negative judgement on the part of the person who is doing the talking. On what basis can such a judgement be made? Only if there is an objective standard that the "bad feeler" is not aware of or ignores. In either instance, any progress in moving the "bad feeler" to a change will be a rational exchange, not emotional. The first step for the therapist is to move the person from emotion to rationality.

 

[partinobodycular]

Radical forms of slavery, ie., absolute bondage, that deprive human beings of all personal rights are never morally permissible as such forms of slavery violate the natural law.

More or less moderate forms of subjection and servitude, eg., serfdom, will always accompany the human condition in which those who are subject to others retain their personal rights.

Natural law, really??? How is that anything more than "what seems right to me"?

I fail to see how slavery deprives people of "all" personal rights. It certainly doesn't. Heck, in many cultures, even today, arranged marriages deprive people of more personal rights than slavery does.

Nope, I don't see how "natural law" is anything more than Catholicism's version of "because I say so".

 

[o_mlly]

Natural law, really??? How is that anything more than "what seems right to me"?

Well, we are relieved that you were not the judge at Nuremberg. Nazis argued that killing all those Jews seemed right to them.

I fail to see how slavery deprives people of "all" personal rights.

Which personal rights do you think slavery does not deprive one of?

 

[partinobodycular]

Which personal rights do you think slavery does not deprive one of?

Slavery doesn't by necessity deprive people of any rights other than perhaps the right to choose who to work for. It just doesn't by necessity deprive them of any other rights. None.

So it's not "slavery" per se, that's immoral, it's something else. You've simply conflated slavery with inhuman bondage and the deprivation of human rights. Whatever you think those are. By your reasoning I could argue that marriage is immoral, because in some cultures a married woman isn't allowed to ever have their face uncovered, or go out in public unaccompanied by a male relative. Talk about bondage and the deprivation of human rights.

No, there's nothing immoral about slavery. You've just taken your preconceptions and biases and used them as justification for vilifying something you don't personally like.

 

[o_mlly]

Slavery doesn't by necessity deprive people of any rights other than perhaps the right to choose who to work for. It just doesn't by necessity deprive them of any other rights. None.

? How naive can one be?

This image is not the cabin layout for Celebrity's newest cruise ship. And these passengers did not have the right to move about the ship.

And this image is not just an employment agency's ad of the resumes of its clients. "

Yikes. Get a history book.

 

[partinobodycular]

Yikes. Get a history book.

It's you that don't seem to understand, you're taking the worst example that you can find and using it as a blanket indictment of slavery. Like I say, I can do the same thing with marriage. That doesn't make marriage immoral.

And I can do this with capitalism, or socialism, or even religion. You can't look at the worst example of something and decide therefore that it's intrinsically evil. Slavery isn't intrinsically evil.

The evil that you're seeing is men's greed and inhumanity, not slavery. Just as our modern system of the minority controlling the majority isn't intrinsically evil, it's men's greed that's intrinsically evil.

 

[Moral Orel]

The above is not an argument but a restatement of your opinion, ie., feeling.

No, it's defining subjective morality. I'm not going to argue for subjective morality until you understand it. I'm addressing your objections to subjective morality first. Maybe once you get it, I'll argue for why it's true.

I suppose that would be a matter of taste, don't you agree?

No. Either you really believe that flavors can be objectively good or bad, or you were making a joke. I'm hoping it is a joke to distract from your original claim that subjectivists think moral statements are simultaneously true and false, but I can't be sure.

"Talking people out of bad feelings" implies a negative judgement on the part of the person who is doing the talking. On what basis can such a judgement be made? Only if there is an objective standard that the "bad feeler" is not aware of or ignores.

People come to therapy with problems they want solved. The therapist doesn't have to identify the bad feelings; it's the patient that tells the therapist what they don't want to feel.

In either instance, any progress in moving the "bad feeler" to a change will be a rational exchange, not emotional. The first step for the therapist is to move the person from emotion to rationality.

Emotions are irrational, but there are factual statements that can be made about the emotions themselves and their causes. The same exact things occur in discussions on morality.

 

[o_mlly]

No, it's defining subjective morality.

For the third time, I know what it means. And for the third time, what we're looking for is your argument to support your claim that:

...it is an objective fact that morals are subjective.

We have to assume that you really don't have an argument, do you? So what is gratuitously offered may just as gratuitously be rejected.

So, let's sum up. You're OK with the Holocaust and slavery too. Is that right?

Seems you've done a 180 turn on this issue of slavery:

Owning people is bad. Context doesn't matter sometimes. The reason you own people doesn't matter.

Well, your post from that thread sounds hard-core morally objective on the normal understanding of slavery as humans treated as chattel.

It's you that don't seem to understand, you're taking the worst example that you can find and using it as a blanket indictment of slavery. ... No, there's nothing immoral about slavery.

I'm using the normally understood definition of slavery. You, on the other hand, must contrive some new nuanced definition of the word in a pretty feeble attempt to justify a "slavery-lite".

And I can do this with capitalism, or socialism, or even religion.

No, you can't.

 

[o_mlly]

Either you really believe that flavors can be objectively good or bad, or you were making a joke. I'm hoping it is a joke to distract from your original claim that subjectivists think moral statements are simultaneously true and false, but I can't be sure.

Matters of taste are subjective. Moral subjectivism feels morality is just a matter of taste as well.

People come to therapy with problems they want solved. The therapist doesn't have to identify the bad feelings; it's the patient that tells the therapist what they don't want to feel. ...Emotions are irrational, but there are factual statements that can be made about the emotions themselves and their causes. The same exact things occur in discussions on morality.

I think you missed the point. The therapist who is treating a moral subjectivist cannot make any progress until the moral subjectivist departs from their emotion (feeling) driven conclusion to a rational attitude about morality.

 

[durangodawood]

There might be objective morals.

But it seems doubtful given that no one has been able to show them after all this time.