Is there Objective Morality?

[o_mlly]

You can decide if the example of the sleeping wife is or isn't as bad as the abducted girl. Or lying about Santa is or isn't as bad as cheating on your wife. There are an infinity of situations with regard to moral acts. They are all context specific.

We appear to have reached agreement on this. Well, except for you, I guess.

Who are "we"? You and the mouse in your pocket?

The thread's title is: "Is there Objective Morality?" Not: "Are immoral acts different in degree?"

Now, you may continue to waffle on the morality of rape or you can continue to deflect. Let's have your "context" in which you would recommend that one rape another as a good idea. Crickets, so far.

 

[stevevw]

Even though I agree truth and honesty are necessary in a debate, that is my subjective view; as is yours…… unless you have some objective proof. So how about it; can you prove truth and honesty is necessary in order to get to the truth of a debate? Or do you recognize this is just your subjective opinion.

So my evidence is 'Truth and Honesty' hold their ground as objective values even if you or I subjectively thought they could not in a debate seeking the truth of a matter.

Lets pretend your subjective view if that 'Truth and Honesty' are not necessary morals for a debate seeking the truth. Explain to me how you could still have a debate seeking the truth without 'Truth and Honesty'. If you can then you have just shown that subjective morals views about 'Truth and Honesty' are allowed in that debate.

And by the way; to be truthful and honest in no way means you will get to the truth of an argument/debate.

You don't need to find the truth of a matter in a debate. You just have to necessary have 'Truth and Honesty' as the rule and guide in your attempt to find the truth. Otherwise you can never question or challenge people in that debate as to whether they are telling the truth whether you found it or not.

It would also be objective mortality if it actually existed. Absolute morality is a thing because there are people who actually might believe this way. For objective morality it would have to be that way for everyone; which it is not.

I suggest you read up on the difference. Heres a snippet that shows how objective morality allows for changing circumstances which means it may be objectively OK to kill someone in certain situations like a crazed gunman about to shoot an innocent child. Whereas absolute morality meansyou can never kill even to save an innocent child.

Moral realism (objective morality) doesn’t necessarily imply moral universalism (moral absolutism). Many assume if your an moral realist (objectivist) you have to be an absolute moralist and assume unbreakable moral laws. This is the view that some action is always wrong according to a general principle.

For example Just because I am a moral objectivists doesn’t mean I'm going to think it is always wrong to kill. Circumstances can be seen to play a role for the moral realist (objectivists) in interpreting moral actions. For example

The moral objectivists could say the morally right decision would depend on the circumstances. Not just based on blantant and sweeping rules.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk88sZw4YhM

Footage can be altered; I’m not talking about that. Objective proof would involve taking the person up in a space craft with a window, allowing them to see themselves leave earth and get to a distance where the entire earth is visible with their own two eyes. This would be undeniable proof (unless they refuse to believe their own two eyes)

Again; I’m talking about being there to witness it with their own two eyes. The objective evidence was there, they just weren’t around to see it.

So are you saying that all the scientific evidence which doesnt involve having eye witnesses to the evenst themselves cannot be regarded as evdience. That would wipe out the majority of science. Evolution, the big band, the disoveries and activities on planets in our solar system like Mars right out to Pluto, distant stars, galaxies ect can no longer be regarded as objectively fact because no one can actually go there and see them for themselves.

My claim is subjective; not objective.

So therefore your claim that there are no objective morals can be treated as meaningless as far as it actaully having any fact/truth about it beyond you. It doesn't prove your claim so I don't need to take it seriously.

That’s why morality isn’t objective; because you can’t use objective measures to prove it.

So are you saying the only facts, and truth about something can only be made by science. We cannot argue for truth about a logical propsoition or situation. If I said that that we need to use the "truth" to find the "truth" thats not a logical fact. The proposition has no physical aspect to it yet it can be proven as a truthful claim.

But in a way we can also use observational evidence like science does to prove moral objectives by doing experiemnets with people interacting and seeing if certain truths apply and whether they can interact without those truths.

So for example if I said you need 2 people to have a debate thats a self-evdient truth. Using my "truth" and "honesty" again we could do an experiment with 2 people having a debate seeking the "TRuth" and see if they can have this debate without the moral values of "truth" and "honesty". That would then verify if its possible or not.

Only people who do not look at the objective evidence deny objective events.

The question would be why don't they look at the objective evidence.

How do people deny gravity? Do they know what gravity is?

People know what gravity is when they fall down, when they jump off something high and crash to the ground hurting themselves. So people try to defy gravity by jumping off high places and they fall and get hurt or die. Otherwise they would have realized the dangers and not done it.

IF morality were objective; but it is not.

So if there are no objective morals then how do we know rape is wrong.

How? Please explain how someone can stand 250,000 miles away from Earth and call it flat? Explain how someone can look at scientific proof and deny it? Please explain how someone can stand next to the tree on my front lawn and say it does not exist?

The first thing you have to do is tell me if there are such people that will deny objective physical evdience despite seeing it for themselves.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Which premise in which argument are you referring to?

Is there Objective Morality?

 

[partinobodycular]

Explain to me how you could still have a debate seeking the truth without 'Truth and Honesty'.

Sorry, I haven't had time to read all the prior posts, but I wanted to address this one point.

Don't you realize that you've added a qualifier to the definition of "debate", you've specifically defined it as a discussion seeking the truth? Which has been my point all along, once you define the preferred outcome then actions can be objectively judged by whether or not they tend toward that outcome. For example, if my objective is to lose weight, then actions can be judged by whether or not they tend toward losing weight. If they do, then they're "good", and if they don't then they're "bad".

This makes morality subjective, because good and bad aren't attributes that are intrinsic to the action itself, they're dependent upon the preferred outcome. Not even God Himself, if He exists, can make an action intrinsically good or bad. It's only against God's intended outcome that an action can be judged as either good or bad.

 

[stevevw]

If you turn the telescope around and look down the other end you might see that it's a moral law because of the practical implications (as I've been explaining re reciprocal altruism). Which leads to punishment and feelings of guilt. It's not a moral law and there are practical implications as well as.

I thought that might have been the light-bulb moment for you when you realised that you can't separate the two. If you could, then moral acts wouldn't be context dependent. And you earlier agreed that they were.

Yes I agree but I am not sure what you mean by "context dependent". Because I think different moral situations are only context dependent in that we can compare those moral acts to determine certain things like how much they have changed, have they improved or not in that sense.

But you cannot apply the reasoning to determine the objective moral truth in the particular scenario of the Naz/Jews to all other situations and then make lying ok. It doesnt work that way. Each scenario has its own particular objective truth that applies to it and this cannot apply to any other lying situation (or any situation for that matter) unless its reasoned in.

As far as I can see all reasoning whether evolution or religion point to life being precious, the premium moral truth. Humans intuitively know that there are certain moral truths and this is one of them by logic and reason and intuition. When there is a convergence of reaoning and intuition for a particular moral truth it can be a pretty justified truth. So therefore it stands on its own feet, independnet of human subjective.

The point is its not my subjective moral view. Its no ones moral view. People may choose to go with that view and other may choose not to. But there is justification to believe the moral view "to save life" for that situation and for others similar ones where it can be reasoned sure can stand objectively true.

 

[stevevw]

Sorry, I haven't had time to read all the prior posts, but I wanted to address this one point.

Don't you realize that you've added a qualifier to the definition of "debate", you've specifically defined it as a discussion seeking the truth? Which has been my point all along, once you define the preferred outcome then actions can be objectively judged by whether or not they tend toward that outcome. For example, if my objective is to lose weight, then actions can be judged by whether or not they tend toward losing weight. If they do, then they're "good", and if they don't then they're "bad".

This makes morality subjective, because good and bad aren't attributes that are intrinsic to the action itself, they're dependent upon the preferred outcome. Not even God Himself, if He exists, can make an action intrinsically good or bad. It's only against God's intended outcome that an action can be judged as either good or bad.

I agree and it can get complicated because you then can go into arguements about whether God or a god or transcient being can be the result of objective morals or the other way around.

But we can also make a good arguement based on logic, reason and intuition (and because as humans we know there are certain moral truth about (right and wrong) we dont have to bring God in but the reasons can converge which can tell us its a pretty safe bet. The moral truth value stands on its own feet. We are justified to believe that truth until there is another reason (a defeater) that comes along and defeats this belief. And thats what should be expected if there are moral truths. They should have a convergence of value.

 

[o_mlly]

Is there Objective Morality?

If the argument begins with an a priori premise then one might propose that innately we know that an innocent person's has a right to their bodily integrity. (Note that the source for this first premise is not argued to be in God's design of human nature or acquired via evolution only that it is a fact.) The argument based on innate knowledge is a rational argument that concludes to the same fact, ie., rape is objectively immoral.

To make what most would consider self-evident even more so, please consider the following:

• Human beings are social creatures.
• Societal norms which ease the challenges of coexistence are good.
• Societies with limited resources ought to develop norms of conduct that promote harmonious living and minimize needless conflict and suffering.
• In such a society an innocent one would have a right to their bodily integrity.
• Rape violates one's bodily integrity.
• Rape is objectively immoral.

 

[partinobodycular]

But we can also make a good arguement based on logic, reason and intuition (and because as humans we know there are certain moral truth about (right and wrong) we dont have to bring God in but the reasons can converge which can tell us its a pretty safe bet.

Forgive me, but this is where I think that you're being slightly deceptive. But I don't think that it's intentional. You're committing what I like to describe as linguistic sleight of hand, you're relying upon the listener to provide a context that's not actually there. You're specifying an action, that by itself is neither good nor bad, and then relying upon the listener to add that context for you, as if the listener has some innate God given sense of morality.

People have an innate sense about a lot of things, and we refer to such sentiments as being subjective. Now it doesn't matter how universal that innate sense is, it's still subjective. We as humans, can't by mere consensus, make something objectively true.

It's very poor reasoning to assume that because most people believe something, that it must be true. It's much more likely that it means that they have a shared history, which has ingrained in them a common sense of morality. It's not that morals are objectively true, it's just that we agree that they're true, and there's a big difference.

 

[partinobodycular]

To make what most would consider self-evident even more so, please consider the following:

• Human beings are social creatures.
• Societal norms which ease the challenges of coexistence are good.
• Societies with limited resources ought to develop norms of conduct that promote harmonious living and minimize needless conflict and suffering.
• In such a society an innocent one would have a right to their bodily integrity.
• Rape violates one's bodily integrity.
• Rape is objectively immoral.

The first one is true, the rest are just a series of assumptions, and the last one is a complete non sequitor.

There are a LOT of social creatures out there, are you arguing that all of them share our same sense of morality?

If not, then the rest of your premises don't follow from the first one.

 

[Ken-1122]

So my evidence is 'Truth and Honesty' hold their ground as objective values even if you or I subjectively thought they could not in a debate seeking the truth of a matter.

Lets pretend your subjective view if that 'Truth and Honesty' are not necessary morals for a debate seeking the truth. Explain to me how you could still have a debate seeking the truth without 'Truth and Honesty'. If you can then you have just shown that subjective morals views about 'Truth and Honesty' are allowed in that debate.

Okay. Let’s say you and I are in a debate over taxes. I feel the flat tax is fair, you say the progressive tax is fair. I tell a story of me and my brother buying land when were fresh out of High School, before marriages, careers, etc. As we grow older, my brother takes vacations, gets married, has children, and is struggling to get buy due to the expense of having a family and the lifestyle he has chosen so he has little money. I on the other hand lived a very frugal lifestyle, saved and invested my money instead of spending it like my brother did so I eventually become a millionaire. A big tax comes on the land that has to be paid, and the way I tell the story is that my brother thinks I should pay the majority of the taxes because I can afford it, he can’t. I feel because he owns as much land as I own, he should pay the same taxes I pay. But the reality is, even though we did buy land, he is not struggling and had no problem paying the taxes; but I embellished on the story in order to make a point about the tax systems; the story at hand. This embellishment is untrue, false, and dishonest, yet it does not prevent me from making the point about flat tax vs progress tax systems.

You don't need to find the truth of a matter in a debate. You just have to necessary have 'Truth and Honesty' as the rule and guide in your attempt to find the truth. Otherwise you can never question or challenge people in that debate as to whether they are telling the truth whether you found it or not.

Per the example above, truth and honesty is not a necessary guide or rule in any kind of a debate

I will respond to the rest later

 

[o_mlly]

There are a LOT of social creatures out there, are you arguing that all of them share our same sense of morality?

Just the one's that have the ability to reason. And, as shown in some of the posts, that excludes some human beings.

The first one is true, the rest are just a series of assumptions, and the last one is a complete non sequitor.

Clearly, even the atheist philosopher's arguments on the objectivity of morality cannot convince you so I leave you to your nihilistic unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[partinobodycular]

Clearly, even the atheist philosopher's arguments on the objectivity of morality cannot convince you so I leave you to your nihilistic unsubstantiated opinion.

Well, I'm feeling feisty, so I' think I'll press the issue.

One thing that I'll agree on is that a functioning society must have a set of "oughts and naughts". Things that the members of that society should do, and the things that they shouldn't. And we can think of those oughts and naughts as constituting that particular society's distinct set of morals.

Now unless every social group on the planet has the exact same set of morals, then morals aren't objective, they're unique to the society in which they exist.

Just the one's that have the ability to reason. And, as shown in some of the posts, that excludes some human beings.

I'm curious, would you include me among the one's who can reason, or the one's who can't?

 

[Bradskii]

Whose "we"? You and the mouse in your pocket?

The thread's title is: "Is there Objective Morality?" Not: "Are immoral acts different in degree?"

Now, you may continue to waffle on the morality of rape or you can continue to deflect. Let's have your "context" in which you would recommend that one rape another as a good idea.

I can give you a convoluted story about the sleeping wife in which she is happy the act took place (house fire, man dies, she finds she's pregnant). So now we have an example that we can file at one end of the spectrum and we have another case of abduction and gang rape which we can file at the other end.

As with any act, there is an infinite variety between what we personally will describe as being good and what we personally believe is bad. But you live in this black and white world where everything is neatly delineated. It's either in this column or that one and no discussion will be entered into.

Fair enough. But it's your decision as to whether it goes in the Morally Good column or the Morally Bad one. There'll be a tremendous amount of agreement, but that's not going to indicate that the act is objectively good or bad. That will only show that people agree one way or the other. But this is your whole argument: 'I can nominate an act that is morally bad and you have no way of arguing against that fact, therefore it must be objectively bad'. That's it. You've presented nothing else.

Do you have anything else..?

 

[Bradskii]

Each scenario has its own particular objective truth that applies to it....

What I'm going to propose leads on from the fact that there is an infnite spectrum of morality in that some acts we'd all agree are bad in some circumstances and not so in another. And it's obviously true that there will be some acts in some circumstances that will have excellent arguments for it being either (we've agreed to discard the deontological position that some will hold to which would make this scenario moot).

Now, on the understanding that you're not going to argue that you are omniscient, then you either have to make an arbitrary decision that it's objectively good or bad - which would make nonsense the claim that it is objective, or you are going to have to declare 'I don't know'.

So that's what you say. And let's suggest that everyone else on the planet says it's good. Are you then going to take the position that it's unknowable just because you can't decide? Or do you accede to everyone else's decision and call it objectively good?

 

[Kylie]

Kindly reference the post numbers for those arguments.

101, 149, 162, 220, 222, 223, 228, 229, 241, 261, 262, 270, 275, 277, 279, 281, 304, and many others. I have 127 posts in this thread, and I'm not going to go through them all.

I already have: "black" and "white". You're incorrect on referring to wavelengths as measurable properties of black or white. The correspondence of a color to a specific wavelength is called spectral color. White and black are excluded from this definition because they do not have specific wavelengths. White is not defined as a color because it is the sum of all possible colors. Black is not defined as a color because it is the absence of light, and therefore color.

It is the very nature of "black" and "white" (not in any measurable property) that make the existence of either an objective fact. So its is with the morality of rape as defined.

You do realise we can measure the AMOUNT of reflected light as well as the wavelength, yes?

 

[Ken-1122]

I suggest you read up on the difference. Heres a snippet that shows how objective morality allows for changing circumstances which means it may be objectively OK to kill someone in certain situations like a crazed gunman about to shoot an innocent child. Whereas absolute morality meansyou can never kill even to save an innocent child.

Moral realism (objective morality) doesn’t necessarily imply moral universalism (moral absolutism). Many assume if your an moral realist (objectivist) you have to be an absolute moralist and assume unbreakable moral laws. This is the view that some action is always wrong according to a general principle.

For example Just because I am a moral objectivists doesn’t mean I'm going to think it is always wrong to kill. Circumstances can be seen to play a role for the moral realist (objectivists) in interpreting moral actions. For example

The moral objectivists could say the morally right decision would depend on the circumstances. Not just based on blantant and sweeping rules.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk88sZw4YhM

All this video does is explain what a moral realist believes. He doesn’t provide a shred of evidence that there is any merit to their claims. I also noticed you misquoted what was in the video. You said
“Just because I am a moral objectivist doesn’t mean I will think it is always wrong to kill”
When the video actually says
“just because I am a moral realist doesn’t mean I will think it is always wrong to kill”.
You and I are discussion moral objectivity, but the video is about moral realism.

So are you saying that all the scientific evidence which doesnt involve having eye witnesses to the evenst themselves cannot be regarded as evdience.

No I am not saying that. I am also not making the claim that all science evidence is objective either.

So therefore your claim that there are no objective morals can be treated as meaningless as far as it actaully having any fact/truth about it beyond you. It doesn't prove your claim so I don't need to take it seriously.

I would never expect you to believe me because I tell you my claim is beyond me, I expect you to believe me because I bring a compelling argument to the table convincing you of the truth.

So are you saying the only facts, and truth about something can only be made by science.

Again; I’ve never suggested everything under the umbrella of science is based on objective facts.

The question would be why don't they look at the objective evidence.

Perhaps they have no means to get to the evidence.

People know what gravity is when they fall down, when they jump off something high and crash to the ground hurting themselves. So people try to defy gravity by jumping off high places and they fall and get hurt or die. Otherwise they would have realized the dangers and not done it.

I doubt people jumping from something high and hurting themselves were trying to defy gravity.

So if there are no objective morals then how do we know rape is wrong.

Everything under the category of rape isn’t always wrong.

The first thing you have to do is tell me if there are such people that will deny objective physical evdience despite seeing it for themselves.

You are the one making the claim of such people; not me.

 

[stevevw]

Forgive me, but this is where I think that you're being slightly deceptive. But I don't think that it's intentional. You're committing what I like to describe as linguistic sleight of hand, you're relying upon the listener to provide a context that's not actually there.

I am not sure what you mean. The person listening in this case is the objective moral sceptic. The context has been provided each time by me such as using ' Honesty to find the truth of a matter' or sometimes by the listener as in the “whether it’s OK to lie to protect someone from death".

You're specifying an action, that by itself is neither good nor bad, and then relying upon the listener to add that context for you, as if the listener has some innate God given sense of morality.

Can you elaborate a bit more because I am not sure I understand what you mean? As far as I have been doing its showing with specific examples how there can be a moral truth that applies to what is the best action to take.

Much of the time people do have an intuitive insight into what that moral truth is. But the moral doesn’t stand alone on people’s intuition. There is also a practical and necessary element where the in many cases the moral truth is the only way people can behave if they want to achieve "the truth" for example by having to use "Honesty “and the "Truth" regardless of subjective views.

But it can also be supported by reason, rational thought which deduces its an independent moral truth because it doesn’t rely on humans but is self-evident and true in itself.

People have an innate sense about a lot of things, and we refer to such sentiments as being subjective. Now it doesn't matter how universal that innate sense is, it's still subjective. We as humans, can't by mere consensus, make something objectively true.

Actually intuition can be quite reliable as a basis for believing what we know about something because it’s not an unsupported feeling or subjective opinion but based on experience and constantly assessing and testing that experience which allows us to form pretty strong beliefs about what’s going on.

For example our intuition tells us that the physical world is really true (our reality) as we experience and we are not living in some simulation experiment or part of a multiverse. We cannot possible have objective evidence of this as we cannot step outside ourselves and our reality to test this. But through our sense experience of reality and how it works on us and others can be justified to believe that there is only one reality and its not a simulation.

It’s the same for morality. We see how morality works through our experience of it and on others, how people react and we are constantly assessing how morality works. So our intuition is the culmination of our experiences about morality and we seem to all come to a pretty similar conclusion that there are certain moral truths. So like the physical world we are justified to believe what we experience and how people live out morality that this is really how morality is (moral realism).

It's very poor reasoning to assume that because most people believe something, that it must be true. It's much more likely that it means that they have a shared history, which has ingrained in them a common sense of morality. It's not that morals are objectively true, it's just that we agree that they're true, and there's a big difference.

It’s like the chicken and the egg scenario. Did we invent morality and by coincident like convergent evolution many people and cultures just happen to live by similar moral truths. Or is there some moral truths out there that we discover like physical laws that we cannot help but see them the same way.

In reality I don't think the argument for 'like behaviour' works either way. Claiming that objective morality can be accounted for because people just happen to see morals the same way is also a logical fallacy.

But I think the argument for objective morality is more than just "we happen to live like there are moral truths so therefore there must be moral truths". A reasoned and logical argument can also be made for objective morality when people live those morals as per the example of "honesty” and "truth" in debates to find the truth of a matter.

We can show that humans cannot function in certain situations without treating morals objectively. As mentioned the morals stand independent of peoples views and are moral truths in themselves.

 

[stevevw]

Okay. Let’s say you and I are in a debate over taxes. I feel the flat tax is fair, you say the progressive tax is fair. I tell a story of me and my brother buying land when were fresh out of High School, before marriages, careers, etc. As we grow older, my brother takes vacations, gets married, has children, and is struggling to get buy due to the expense of having a family and the lifestyle he has chosen so he has little money. I on the other hand lived a very frugal lifestyle, saved and invested my money instead of spending it like my brother did so I eventually become a millionaire. A big tax comes on the land that has to be paid, and the way I tell the story is that my brother thinks I should pay the majority of the taxes because I can afford it, he can’t. I feel because he owns as much land as I own, he should pay the same taxes I pay. But the reality is, even though we did buy land, he is not struggling and had no problem paying the taxes; but I embellished on the story in order to make a point about the tax systems; the story at hand. This embellishment is untrue, false, and dishonest, yet it does not prevent me from making the point about flat tax vs progress tax systems.

So therefore you have used a make believe example to explain how the tax system has affected each person and the land you both own. But this is not the point. People use made up scenarios to explain things.

The point is you are both trying to find the 'Truth" of the matter you are arguing about. You both have your own truth (subjectivity) but there is also a truth independent of both of you that can be found to settle the matter. This happens in mediations and all the time. It may be hard to find sometimes but there is a truth to be found.

That truth is around the issue of what is the right thing to do about who should pay the land tax. Each person has their own circumstances that need to be taken into consideration. But when that truth is found by reasoning and logic it will stand independent of both of you.

Per the example above, truth and honesty is not a necessary guide or rule in any kind of a debate

If for example you take the moral values of 'truth and honesty' out of your scenario then there is no way any of you can find the truth about who should pay the land tax.

The brother can keep making excuses and even lie about he should not pay the tax and you could never challenge him on any of that like you said and rightly so that "both of you should pay the tax because both of you own the land".

But you could not use that reasoning to support your case because there is no 'truth and honesty' as a rule and guide. The discussion will end up being claim and counter claim going around in circles.

I will respond to the rest later

No worries

 

[o_mlly]

Do you have anything else..?

That's not the question. The question is: Do you have anything? You know, like an example of a "good" rape?

If "there is an infinite variety" of circumstances for any act as you claim, surely it would be an easy task for you to provide just one "good" rape case.

Of course, the claim, "As with any act, there is an infinite variety", is nonsense.

So, do you have anything?

 

[o_mlly]

101, 149, 162, 220, 222, 223, 228, 229, 241, 261, 262, 270, 275, 277, 279, 281, 304, and many others. I have 127 posts in this thread, and I'm not going to go through them all.

Thank you.

Examining your first reference:

I'd define objective as "a fundamental aspect of reality, not something that exists just because someone says so."

So I'd ask, if there is a fundamental morality, where does it come from? Most believers I've spoken to have said God, but in that case they are saying that objective morality is just what God says, but objectivity needs something more than just "someone says," even if that someone is God.

Restating your first sentence as a conditional: If morality, distinguishing good and bad human acts, is based on fundamental aspects of reality then morality is objective.

Facts:

• Man is a social or gregarious animal. He naturally needs to live in association with other human beings in organized societies.
• Unlike other animals whose social structure is determined by the instincts of the species, human societies are voluntarily formed and conventionally instituted.
• The forms of human governments are products of rational and free, not instinctive, determination.
  
• Man being political by nature needs political liberty in order to live humanly well.
  
• Man has a natural right to political liberty.
• Depriving innocent and rational human beings of political liberty, as slaves are, is wrong, ie., objectively immoral.