Moral Skepticism: The Honest Conclusion of Moral Relativism and Moral Language

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think it is all based on relative POV.. Take for example ; "Slavery and slave holders are evil." But everyone's ancestors were slave holders..everyone. So were everyone's ancestors evil?! Through the lenses of the better understanding of modern society, yes all our ancestors were evil. But from their own POV ..not so much.

I am not sure how you think this response shows morality to be relative nor am I sure you completely understand the concept of a moral fact. A moral fact is talking about a indicative moral proposition, or in other words a statement that is true or false independent of your perspective. If our ancestors thought is was morally good to own slaves, then they were mistaken. The very fact that the vast majority of people would call the abolishment of slavery moral progress, but how can something progress if there isn't some outside reference point to which it is progressing towards? I gave you an entire post about why morals are objective and I get maybe five simple assertions with no explanation ? Why quote the whole OP?

I'm on my phone it makes editing quotes unwieldy.

I think things like slavery, genocide , rape, cold blooded murder exc, would all be independent evils.

No matter how you dress it up in revisionist or "for the greater good" history.

What's the saying? "Even if you put a pig in a party dress, it's still a pig."


I don't think the sins of the past and our ancestors were ok just because they didn't know better.

I know you weren't directing this at me, but I wanted to give my take.

I don't disagree with you.

One thing to keep in mind is that our view of morality has been informed by conditions both unique to our era and fundamental to the human condition. Meaning that when we make statements like the above, we make them using our own relative morality. This cannot be helped.

The good news is that human beings throughout history have indeed shared much in common when it comes to morality, and where humans have committed atrocities, they have often known it, and there were often enough people present during that era who disagreed with what was happening to document it for posterity and perhaps, eventually, put an end to it.

I think just like technology, our morality has improved.

In the past we had Stone Age morality, just like we had Stone Age technology.

That doesn't mean the anchient tribes were right about fertility cults and human sacrifices. They were still wrong even if they had no way to know better.

Same with morality.. they were still rapists and murderers..even if everyone was doing it.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Bluesma

Slavery is being possessed as an object to be bought and sold, to do work without being paid. Relative morality means that an action can be good or bad depending upon the context and the individuals involved.

Yea but you didn't describe that kind of slavery. You described a slavery in which someone was not bought but willingly chose to enter into, and they were not treated like property but were treated with kindness. That is not what relative morality means. Even people who believe in objective moral values believe that what action is considered good or bad is dependent upon the context in which it is preformed. For example, I may say "murder is wrong". I use the word murder because that implies a specific form of the action of killing, and not the action of killing in general as there are times in which killing is morally acceptable but there is no time in which murder is acceptable. Relative morality in the ontological sense means that what is good or bad is defined by the individual or some people say it is relative to society.

It becomes a problem of interpretation of language. If the person is sold from one to another..... we have no term that differenciates an inner desire to be sold or bought.
We have no term to differenciate being a willing slave, or an unwilling slave.

We have no terminology for a content slave and a discontent slave.

The will of the individual plays into this concept of right or wrong. To create such terms, a culture must value individual will. But that complicates things. It makes it more difficult to make laws of ethic. Add to that the problematic of subconscious desires... you got a mess to sift through.

For my part, I have decided that the state, or religion, has it's obligation to go with the culture. But the individual has the right and ability to determine which culture is best adapted to their personal desires and will. Somewhere in there is indicated "Know thyself, and you shall know the world". (Eurythmics Sweet Dreams is playing behind this post).

a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

I understand what you're saying and I like that you're attempting to show a quasi-reality like a dream as something ephemeral like how physical reality is ephemeral (the big bang is evidence of the universe's early nonexistence), but somehow I feel you're missing a layer of abstraction here. Even in the dream the thing exists independent of any words you apply to it. The word that describes the thing is not the thing itself.

Well I would not argue that the words are themselves the thing, but I do think that with precise language one can capture the essence of a thing, or in other words, using language one can convey an entire set of fundamental attributes necessary to that thing.

The key idea here is that words exist on multiple levels. There is word as category (chair meaning a device we sit on). The word as the identifier (my favorite chair I'm pointing to). The word as the actual thing itself independent an identifier (my favorite chair absent its essence because a chair is only describing a function - ex/ the chair could be in the fireplace as kindling). The bare thing (wood, metal, molecules, space). There are many more layers to this. An alien might look at a chair and think it's an abstract form of art or a type of table. Does that make sense? The word (chair) self-negates its current identity based simply on how we think about it.

When you say identity, I think of somethings fundamental set of attributes. If you and the alien are both examining the same object, irrespective of your perspectives of its pragmatic use, what makes the object what it is has not changed. There is difference between language being used differently, and the essence of a thing changing. I think when you speak in the realm of ontology very precise language is needed.

∀X: (E∨X) = E

The ∀ means "for all". The ∨ means "logical disjunction" which can be thought of as an "or". Thus if we take a tautology (E) and "or" it with any mathematical or symbolic object we get the tautology back.

This should hopefully make sense because we're effectively saying: for all "X", the "X" OR what provides us its identity is the identity. This is saying the same thing twice which of course is the definition of a tautology.

∀X: (E∨X) = E

The ∀ means "for all". The ∨ means "logical disjunction" which can be thought of as an "or". Thus if we take a tautology (E) and "or" it with any mathematical or symbolic object we get the tautology back.

This should hopefully make sense because we're effectively saying: for all "X", the "X" OR what provides us its identity is the identity. This is saying the same thing twice which of course is the definition of a tautology.

∀X: (E∧X) = X

The "∧" is a "logical conjunction" or an "and."

Here all we are saying is for any mathematical or symbolic object if we take the object and apply it to the identity we get the object back.

This means (E) or a tautology is like an "equality" operator. Thus when we apply (E) against "X" it gives us "X" back. The reason hopefully is straightforward enough, since all things are themselves.

This can of course be expressed as a simple function:

f(X)=(E∧X)

Thus f(X)→X.

So now to answer your question. When I said, "I think the idea of there being no tautological truth with regards to morality is effectively refuting the ability to define it in any meaningful way," what I meant was this:

Most objects on the surface level are easy to identify. A rock is an item composed of various minerals classified as igneous, sedimentary, or metamorphic.

So f(Rock)→Rock is fairly unambiguous as a classification tool though I am sure there are edge cases petrologists debate.

The problem is when we try f(Moral)→?

Many times we get an answer back that is inconsistent and instead is labeled "amoral".

Sorry bud, this is a little over my head. i don' know enough to be able to discern whether what you are saying is accurate or not haha.

That's what I meant when I said, "I believe moral relativism is more a statement that there is no tautological truth amongst the universal set, which comes across as ludicrous on the face of it when you consider a tautology is what gives us equality in the first place." Anyone who believes in moral relativism is saying that there is truth through conditionality, but no self evident truth about morality (in other words no universal or tautological truth about morality).

I don't feel like moral relativism is about truth at all. When the condition is the mind of the individual, there is nothing that can be said about the subject that is more or less true. I would argue that moral relativism is closer to the statement, "there are no moral truths."

Don't Christians base their moral foundation off of tautologies? For example, the statement God is Good, is no different from saying God is God, as if God were not Good he would not be God. All values are grounded this way for me. Fairness is Good because God is Fair. God's unchanging nature is the meter stick for morality, and as humans we are image bearers of God and recognize actions that are or are not inline with the nature of God due to our nature. This is what the Christian means when the speak of a law written on our hearts. Human's intrinsically recognize that which is inline with the nature of God, and the nature of God is by definition Good. I am also a proponent of the moral argument so if there were no God, I would be a moral nihilist, but then I would fall prey to the OP.

I find that interesting. Do you think the Christian God will stop human reproduction at some point? If not, assuming people continue to procreate, that's the equivalent of an infinite series.

I do believe that human procreation ends at some point, the speculation comes from:

34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

The actual process in those verses is left unexplained. However, you can not multiply a value by nothing and get more. If I have two fishes, someone has to find other existent fishes to add up to 4000. If your conception of God is that he's not a trickster then somehow more fishes had to have been added that weren't there. 2 + 0 = 2; 2 + 3998 = 4000. 3998 macroscopic objects coming from nothing is logically impossible in our reality.

I agree the process is left unexplained, but if it occurred it could not have occurred in a logically impossible way, which is why I used the analogy of cell replication as a possible alternative. Taking an existing substance and copying it or multiplying it is not logically contradictory in any way especially if the nature of reality is not physical but virtual. Though I am not sure where I stand on the nature of reality at the moment. Waiting on more science.

a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Tom knows David loves Manchester United. Presented with the opposite statement he correctly saw this was a contradiction. This is allowed though. David wasn't lying. It was a true contradiction, not a false contradiction like Tom suspected. The truth status was honestly assigned to a new category.

I hate to say it but Tom didn't correctly see a true contradiction, but rather what Tom saw was a change of preference. The correct way to phrase this would be Tom knew a week ago David was a fan of Man U. Tom did not know of the situation that had made David change his mind. Quite often people forget the last portion of the law of non-contradiction, which says that something cannot be both A and Not A "at the same time and in the same way." David did not say I love Man U and I do not love Man U," but rather David loved Man U and now David does not love Man U. No contradiction there. Tom was mistaken, which is why the proposition can still be true.

The change was a contradiction. The contradiction is what acted as a transitive tool to convert an object to something else.

A change of mind is not a contradiction due to what I mentioned above, though I think what you are getting at is that the the situation that caused the change of mind is the second element of transitive sequence and serves as a connection point between two opposite categories.

To be very clear here, two doesn't and never becomes four thousand in a mathematical operation. Two is two. Two gets added to another number, 3998, to give a new value that equals 4000. The only way for 2 to literally become 4000 is if there's such a thing as a true contradiction.

I was using the word becomes in the sense of increases to. Like I said if the fish scenario occurred, I think it was simply taking existing information and copying it, which is not logically impossible by any means.

It is for this exact reason why fish multiplying with nothing else present is nonsensical. It's a contradiction of what 2 is. Two fish are two fish.

Well no one is saying the fish multiplied without cause. I would say there was what Aristotle would call an efficient cause involved, and one can think of plenty of scenarios in which the agent involved has the ability to manipulate physics at will and can multiply fish. So while creation without cause is indeed a silly idea, creation due to efficient cause is not as easy to dismiss.

Meaning if a contradiction being sometimes true doesn't make sense to you, then fishes multiplying without fish eggs or an advanced bio-genetic engineering plant on hand shouldn't make much sense either.

Or maybe the agent involved doesn't need either of those things because he can manipulate the laws of nature? What if he momentarily changed the fish so that it asexually reproduced an entire fish. Again this brings me back to thoughts of virtual reality or even dream reality. If matter at its core is nothing but information then the addition of information into the system from some outside force again is not logically contradictory. Though again I am not sure I am ready to argue for information being the base component of reality haha.

a reply to: Bluesma

It becomes a problem of interpretation of language. If the person is sold from one to another..... we have no term that differenciates an inner desire to be sold or bought. We have no term to differenciate being a willing slave, or an unwilling slave. We have no terminology for a content slave and a discontent slave.

Yet we do have the ability to recognize the distinction between "willing" and "unwilling, "content" and discontent", and "the desire to be property" and "the desire to be free."

The will of the individual plays into this concept of right or wrong. To create such terms, a culture must value individual will.

It seems to me that your argument reduces to slavery is right, if and only if one willingly and happily becomes a slave. But surely there is a difference between willingly and happily being treated as someones property, and unwillingly and unhappily being treated as someones property. Though I think the better argument would be slavery is not immoral, if and only if the slave willingly and happily becomes a slave. It seems we have the ability to discern the difference and verbalize with the words in place. I see no need for new terms as the phrase, "discontent slave," or whatever one you choose would simply be the definition of the new term. The problem people have with slavery is that is violated the free will or volition of an individual. Free will is an inalienable part of man's nature in the same manner as his reason. The argument from inalienability does not refer to a moral objection to a man who wishes to dispossess himself of free will; it refers to the impossibility of his doing so. In your version of slavery, the persons free will is never violated as they freely choose to be property and the moment they don't want to be property but are forced to be it becomes a moral issue.

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Bluesma

Okay but you have totally changed actions, context, and intent in this scenario. That would not be a slave in the same sense of forced labor

Slavery is being possessed as an object to be bought and sold, to do work without being paid.
Relative morality means that an action can be good or bad depending upon the context and the individuals involved.

No, it doesn't. How hard is this to grasp?

Relative morality means there is ultimately no good and no bad.

"Relative color means that that a single object can be blue or red or any color depending on context, perspective, preference, etc."

"Relative numbers means that a single object can be one or four or any number, depending on context, perspective, preference, etc."

"Relative weight means a single object can weigh 10 or 200 pounds or any weight depending on context, perspective, preference, etc."

In every case, there is no actual color, there is no actual number, there is no actual weight. These things are what's called a "standard", or what's called a "category." Without these things called "categories" or "standards" that apply equally to things they're meant to describe, the descriptions are meaningless. I guess some people just can't wrap their minds around the actual stuff that they preach.

a reply to: Talorc

Relative morality means there really is no morality either, just personal codes of behavior.

What good is it to say, "X is always wrong for me" but then to admit that morality is relative?

That means that when confronted with the knowledge that someone else does not find X to be wrong at all, you will allow that X is OK for that person because who are you to judge. In that case, is not always wrong for you. X is only wrong if you do X, but not wrong if another person does X. Therefore, X is not actually wrong. It's just not something you would do which is something else entirely. Things you personally won't do are things that are neither right nor wrong, they simply are things you don't do, especially if you find it permissible for someone else to do them.

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Bluesma

Slavery is being possessed as an object to be bought and sold, to do work without being paid. Relative morality means that an action can be good or bad depending upon the context and the individuals involved.

Yea but you didn't describe that kind of slavery. You described a slavery in which someone was not bought but willingly chose to enter into, and they were not treated like property but were treated with kindness. That is not what relative morality means. Even people who believe in objective moral values believe that what action is considered good or bad is dependent upon the context in which it is preformed. For example, I may say "murder is wrong". I use the word murder because that implies a specific form of the action of killing, and not the action of killing in general as there are times in which killing is morally acceptable but there is no time in which murder is acceptable. Relative morality in the ontological sense means that what is good or bad is defined by the individual or some people say it is relative to society.

It becomes a problem of interpretation of language. If the person is sold from one to another..... we have no term that differenciates an inner desire to be sold or bought.
We have no term to differenciate being a willing slave, or an unwilling slave.

We have no terminology for a content slave and a discontent slave.

The will of the individual plays into this concept of right or wrong. To create such terms, a culture must value individual will. But that complicates things. It makes it more difficult to make laws of ethic. Add to that the problematic of subconscious desires... you got a mess to sift through.

For my part, I have decided that the state, or religion, has it's obligation to go with the culture. But the individual has the right and ability to determine which culture is best adapted to their personal desires and will. Somewhere in there is indicated "Know thyself, and you shall know the world". (Eurythmics Sweet Dreams is playing behind this post).

I would say there are no terms for willing slaves because there are none...

Or at least so few there was never a need for a word to describe it. It is so rare it has never come up.

Even those treated well wouldn't resign their children to the yoke of slavery.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Bluesma

Slavery is being possessed as an object to be bought and sold, to do work without being paid. Relative morality means that an action can be good or bad depending upon the context and the individuals involved.

Yea but you didn't describe that kind of slavery. You described a slavery in which someone was not bought but willingly chose to enter into, and they were not treated like property but were treated with kindness. That is not what relative morality means. Even people who believe in objective moral values believe that what action is considered good or bad is dependent upon the context in which it is preformed. For example, I may say "murder is wrong". I use the word murder because that implies a specific form of the action of killing, and not the action of killing in general as there are times in which killing is morally acceptable but there is no time in which murder is acceptable. Relative morality in the ontological sense means that what is good or bad is defined by the individual or some people say it is relative to society.

It becomes a problem of interpretation of language. If the person is sold from one to another..... we have no term that differenciates an inner desire to be sold or bought.
We have no term to differenciate being a willing slave, or an unwilling slave.

We have no terminology for a content slave and a discontent slave.

The will of the individual plays into this concept of right or wrong. To create such terms, a culture must value individual will. But that complicates things. It makes it more difficult to make laws of ethic. Add to that the problematic of subconscious desires... you got a mess to sift through.

For my part, I have decided that the state, or religion, has it's obligation to go with the culture. But the individual has the right and ability to determine which culture is best adapted to their personal desires and will. Somewhere in there is indicated "Know thyself, and you shall know the world". (Eurythmics Sweet Dreams is playing behind this post).

I would say there are no terms for willing slaves because there are none...

Or at least so few there was never a need for a word to describe it. It is so rare it has never come up.

Even those treated well wouldn't resign their children to the yoke of slavery.

You are mistaken. I know many (women in particular) who have chosen this life (and encourage their children to also). Yet we don't call it slavery, because we don't want to screw up our moral judgement upon the concept. We want to feel we're in control and have everything figured out.

originally posted by: Talorc

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Bluesma

Okay but you have totally changed actions, context, and intent in this scenario. That would not be a slave in the same sense of forced labor

Slavery is being possessed as an object to be bought and sold, to do work without being paid.
Relative morality means that an action can be good or bad depending upon the context and the individuals involved.

No, it doesn't. How hard is this to grasp?

Relative morality means there is ultimately no good and no bad.

WTF? I not only understand this, it is absolutely undeniable in my perspective. Why are you explaining this to me??? (and so rudely?)

I don't believe in good and evil. I believe in preferences. That's all. That is the idea I was trying to explain to another who believes in inherent meaning.

I believe we each ascribe meaning to things - we attach positive or negative meaning to ideas and things.

Example:
What we call an apple remains an apple at all times. It is neither good nor bad.
An apple being "good" or "bad" is only a personal judgement made by each individual depending who they are, what they feel like, where they are, etc. A person may have a preference for the taste of apples, deeming it "good"... but while they have a toothache and can't chew, they might deem it "bad". Context and relation impacts our judgement and the meaning we attach.

I still consider it as an individual action of meaning attachment if it is a value they've picked up from a collective agreement (ones culture, religion....).

I guess some people just can't wrap their minds around the actual stuff that they preach.

......and some people choose to misinterpret others in whatever ways suits them and makes them feel good in contrast.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Bluesma


Yet we do have the ability to recognize the distinction between "willing" and "unwilling, "content" and discontent", and "the desire to be property" and "the desire to be free."

The ability is constantly hampered by personal bias. For example, a typical american bias is the idea that "all humans are obsessed with the desire to be free at all times".
This is a fallacy. This is what hampers their ability to recognize humans in a state of insecurity and desire for protection. (freedom and security being opposites). This can be a bias which even causes repression of ones own desires for protection. The extreme value attached to freedom is cultural, not inherent.

The argument from inalienability does not refer to a moral objection to a man who wishes to dispossess himself of free will; it refers to the impossibility of his doing so. In your version of slavery, the persons free will is never violated as they freely choose to be property and the moment they don't want to be property but are forced to be it becomes a moral issue.

The biggest problem is that the word doesn't apply to a material object, then the whole thing is easier to discuss.
We must agree upon a definition of the word before discussing the value we each attach to it.

Marriage, for some people, can be entering into willing slavery. Call it willing or unwilling, it remains slavery (in their cases). But attaching willing and unwilling is a tricky thing for us to judge of another- claim to know what is going on in their head. Especially as subconscious desires (repressed...)come into play.

originally posted by: Bluesma
Marriage, for some people, can be entering into willing slavery. Call it willing or unwilling, it remains slavery (in their cases). But attaching willing and unwilling is a tricky thing for us to judge of another- claim to know what is going on in their head. Especially as subconscious desires (repressed...)come into play.

But surely marriage is a contractual agreement, as is indentured servitude, between two parties with clearly defined terms including how the contract can be severed. By nature it is a mutual exchange, even if historically one party had greater rights than the other. Marriage particularly does not imply ownership over either party and assuming that divorce and or annullment are available and socially acceptable, then the contract can be broken by either party and considered nil and void. A slave, by definition, has no legal rights and is property.

I understand that it is a standard feminist proposition to equate marriage with slavery, although indentured servitude would be a better comparison, but it rests upon a tenuous footing unless marriage/indentured servitude has been forced or if it is difficult to impossible for one or more parties to end the contract, otherwise it is an agreement between two (or more) signatories. Therefore to equate marriage with slavery rests upon a formal fallacy, surely?

I could say that I consider marriage to be wrong because it fails to renumerate me adequately for my labour, and it is therefore comparable to slavery in that the slave is not renumerated too, but as long as I have the choice to enter into marriage, a choice I would not have, by definition, with actual slavery, I am not a slave, I just feel like one, however I can, at any time, choose to break that contract, a slave cannot.

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Bluesma

Slavery is being possessed as an object to be bought and sold, to do work without being paid. Relative morality means that an action can be good or bad depending upon the context and the individuals involved.

Yea but you didn't describe that kind of slavery. You described a slavery in which someone was not bought but willingly chose to enter into, and they were not treated like property but were treated with kindness. That is not what relative morality means. Even people who believe in objective moral values believe that what action is considered good or bad is dependent upon the context in which it is preformed. For example, I may say "murder is wrong". I use the word murder because that implies a specific form of the action of killing, and not the action of killing in general as there are times in which killing is morally acceptable but there is no time in which murder is acceptable. Relative morality in the ontological sense means that what is good or bad is defined by the individual or some people say it is relative to society.

It becomes a problem of interpretation of language. If the person is sold from one to another..... we have no term that differenciates an inner desire to be sold or bought.
We have no term to differenciate being a willing slave, or an unwilling slave.

We have no terminology for a content slave and a discontent slave.

The will of the individual plays into this concept of right or wrong. To create such terms, a culture must value individual will. But that complicates things. It makes it more difficult to make laws of ethic. Add to that the problematic of subconscious desires... you got a mess to sift through.

For my part, I have decided that the state, or religion, has it's obligation to go with the culture. But the individual has the right and ability to determine which culture is best adapted to their personal desires and will. Somewhere in there is indicated "Know thyself, and you shall know the world". (Eurythmics Sweet Dreams is playing behind this post).

I would say there are no terms for willing slaves because there are none...

Or at least so few there was never a need for a word to describe it. It is so rare it has never come up.

Even those treated well wouldn't resign their children to the yoke of slavery.

You are mistaken. I know many (women in particular) who have chosen this life (and encourage their children to also). Yet we don't call it slavery, because we don't want to screw up our moral judgement upon the concept. We want to feel we're in control and have everything figured out.

That's not chattel slavery.

a reply to: Bluesma

Sorry.

That's not what you said, however. You said good and bad depend on context and the individuals involved. This is the whole point of the OP, which he apparently hasn't gotten across to you. That the language we use implies an objective moral sense.

Since good and bad are just make-believe concepts, why do you keep using those words? Just expunge them from your vocabulary entirely, it'll be far more consistent with what you believe.

a reply to: Bluesma

Then if you want to expunge the vocabulary of morality and its shackles, you would need to live in an animalistic/naturalistic state.

How do the animals live? That is true freedom from the constraints and obligations of morals and ethics and the perceptions of right and wrong. That is life by pure instinctual drive.

Rape, murder, slavery, cannibalism, pedophilia ... all those other less than savory aspects of the human condition that are also found in nature (because they are) we can give full reign to and stop worrying about because we are now living by nature and our instincts alone. Those things no longer matter and they no longer have value or judgement attached. Right?

I'm sure you wouldn't mind that society at all, but it's what you say you believe in.

a reply to: Bluesma

The ability is constantly hampered by personal bias. For example, a typical american bias is the idea that "all humans are obsessed with the desire to be free at all times".
This is a fallacy. This is what hampers their ability to recognize humans in a state of insecurity and desire for protection. (freedom and security being opposites). This can be a bias which even causes repression of ones own desires for protection. The extreme value attached to freedom is cultural, not inherent.

This is all a non sequitur. Nothing about competing biases hampers the ability of one to recognize the distinction between a willing and unwilling action. This is why even the rapist can recognize the action of rape. If you think I am wrong and that this is not a non sequitur then please explain how the bias you claim american people have, makes the distinction between desire to be free and the desire to be property any less objective.

The biggest problem is that the word doesn't apply to a material object, then the whole thing is easier to discuss. We must agree upon a definition of the word before discussing the value we each attach to it.

If "the word" is referring to free will, I think its pretty obvious that free will is not a word that applies to objects, but rather it is a word that can only apply to true agents. I say true agents because proponents of irrational views like hard naturalism and physical ism cannot justify the belief in true agency and therefore must deny the existence of free will. However the moment one does that they have cut out all reason for discourse as everything one does and says is not a choice or reasoned decision but rather one predetermined by environment and biological factors at hand. Not sure if you were talking about that or slavery. Either way both are words that only apply to free agents. You cannot say one man enslaved another man and expect to make sense of it, if a man is simply a bag of flesh fizzing to his DNA, then given the conditions at hand there could have been no other result. How can one blame Luis Garavito for murdering 138 people if Garavito never had a choice in the matter? Any type of justice system becomes absurd.

a reply to: Talorc

This is the whole point of the OP, which he apparently hasn't gotten across to you. That the language we use implies an objective moral sense. Since good and bad are just make-believe concepts, why do you keep using those words? Just expunge them from your vocabulary entirely, it'll be far more consistent with what you believe.

I've actually tried to take this argument one step farther, and make the strong claim that if objective morality were not real, then humans could not possibly conceive of such a category as "moral issues," which obviously includes the terms good and bad as those words would be subsets of "moral issues." Though you're right he must first understand the concept of relative before he can even make it close to there.

a reply to: ketsuko

Then if you want to expunge the vocabulary of morality and its shackles, you would need to live in an animalistic/naturalistic state. How do the animals live? That is true freedom from the constraints and obligations of morals and ethics and the perceptions of right and wrong. That is life by pure instinctual drive. Rape, murder, slavery, cannibalism, pedophilia ... all those other less than savory aspects of the human condition that are also found in nature (because they are) we can give full reign to and stop worrying about because we are now living by nature and our instincts alone. Those things no longer matter and they no longer have value or judgement attached. Right? I'm sure you wouldn't mind that society at all, but it's what you say you believe in.

You may take notice that the evil things you mentioned like rape, murder, slavery, cannibalism are perversions of perfectly acceptable impulses. Rape and pedophilia are perversions of our sexual instinct, murder a perversion of our fighting instinct, cannibalism a perversion of the instinct for food, and so on. C.S. Lewis would say that all of our instincts are good at times and bad at others. He relates our instincts to the keys on a keyboard, while relating the moral law to a piece of sheet music which tells you which note to play at a given time.

originally posted by: Anaana


But surely marriage is a contractual agreement, as is indentured servitude, between two parties with clearly defined terms including how the contract can be severed. By nature it is a mutual exchange, even if historically one party had greater rights than the other. Marriage particularly does not imply ownership over either party and assuming that divorce and or annullment are available and socially acceptable, then the contract can be broken by either party and considered nil and void. A slave, by definition, has no legal rights and is property.

I know women here who were sold to be married at fourteen years of age. It might be a contractual agreement, but her agreement and consent was not asked for nor necessary.
In most of their cases (except one) they cannot drive, and in fact only leave the home to do chores which are necessary for the work she must do for the husband, and children. (shopping for food, in particular).

They do not live in their country of origin, and here they have the right to divorce, they have available aid from a system that holds such situations as unethical, and yet.... why do they stay? The complexities of a human mind are not so easy to catagorize. There are a whole lot of internal ambiguities and contrasting desires that come into play.
You can choose to call that "not slavery" if you will, because there is a possibility of escape which she has chosen to decline. Whatever. I think the focus upon the moral language is exaggerated.
Yes, it is a term which implicates a moral judgement upon the act.

But at any moment, one can choose to look at it's objective definition as well.
Just as I have brought up before, in terms like "manipulate". Which means to handle, control, move or influence.
One particular culture can associate negative judgement upon the word.... but at any moment you are free to remember that you manipulate your car as as well as your children, your dog, your keyboard, your employees ....
You are a manipulator. Is it constructive for you to consider that necessarily a bad thing?
Depends upon what you want to achieve.

People attach ethical meaning according to their intents.

A thing can be considered "good" or "bad" in relation to a certain goal or intent. To put water on a stove is a good thing if you intend to boil an egg, or it can be a bad thing if you intend to make ice cubes.

I understand that it is a standard feminist proposition to equate marriage with slavery, although indentured servitude would be a better comparison, but it rests upon a tenuous footing unless marriage/indentured servitude has been forced or if it is difficult to impossible for one or more parties to end the contract, otherwise it is an agreement between two (or more) signatories. Therefore to equate marriage with slavery rests upon a formal fallacy, surely?

Ick.... that almost sounds like you accuse me of being a feminist. I can assure you I am not.
I don't know. You do as you wish. These women are in something I do consider as defined by "slavery"-
Just not with your added morality to it.

Isn't this what the Americans are trying to say when they repeat the currently popular "It is what it is" ?
I don't want to use such trendy phrases.....but yeah. I guess I relate to that.

originally posted by: Talorc
a reply to: Bluesma

Sorry.

That's not what you said, however. You said good and bad depend on context and the individuals involved. This is the whole point of the OP, which he apparently hasn't gotten across to you. That the language we use implies an objective moral sense.

Since good and bad are just make-believe concepts, why do you keep using those words? Just expunge them from your vocabulary entirely, it'll be far more consistent with what you believe.

Good and bad, as moral judgements, depend upon context. That is exactly what I said. They don't exist objectively - they are judgements made by a human mind, according to it's intents and goals.

We use language that implies moral judgements often, yes. That doesn't mean because WE attached a moral judgement that it exists objectively, or in some inherent way.

Yet, I place some value on those judgements we make, not as universal or static indicators of what things are, but rather as indicators of who we are and where we are going, what we are creating (as individuals as well as collectives).

I see no reason to not use words simply because I perceive no inherent meaning or value- because I am a human. I have goals, intents, objectives, in which applying meaning serves a purpose for me, as doing so does for others.

Personally, I continue to attach moral judgements to things and actions, yet I am keenly aware that is what I am doing. I am not perceiving some sort of invisible universal law or something.