What are "rights"?

[Curious George]

Here is what I actually said (#74):

. . . if there were no objective moral facts, there would not have been a Civil War, because there would not have been a rational reason for to engage in such a war.​

You honestly cannot see the error here?

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope, I have not claimed such premises do or do not exist. I have only claimed an argument was fallacious.

OR I am taking a fallacious argument and pointing out the fallacy. First you claimed it wasn't fallacious, now you claim that it was fallacious but it was okay because it wasn't meant to be logical in the first place?

What isn't clear. There is an example of a supposed objective fact that was not considered an objective fact for many many years. There was no agreement, total or widespread. Yet there is the fact. The idea that if something is objectively true it is or would be known is simply incorrect.

It seems we each take different inferences from SW's statement.
I allow greater leeway for informal speech, & don't treat it as
logically formal. I get the point I think she intends.
When she returns, she can illuminate things for us.

 

[Curious George]

It seems we each take different inferences from SW's statement.
I allow greater leeway for informal speech, & don't treat it as
logically formal. I get the point I think she intends.
When she returns, she can illuminate things for us.

But what of the point you yourself made? Essentially, you suggested that if there was an objective morality that you would expect to see wider agreement?

What evidence have you of this? It seems as though you are assuming that
1) An objective morality would be known if it exists
And
2) An objective morality if known by any is easily discernable by most.

This is a very problematic approach to objective morality. Morality, I think we can agree, is a complex subject that is heavily influenced by conceptions of ideas, including but not limited to good, bad, benefit, detriment, individual identity, group identity, and efficacy. These are only the first layer of abstract terms. From these we develop other abstract notions such as fairness, justice, liberty, moderation etc. If any framework of objective morality exists, I see no reason to assume that it is either known or easily discernable.

 

[Revoltingest]

But what of the point you yourself made? Essentially, you suggested that if there was an objective morality that you would expect to see wider agreement?

Aye, were it objective (like the laws of thermodynamics),
acceptance would be more universal than we see for morality.
What objective premises do you offer?

 

[Curious George]

Aye, were it objective (like the laws of thermodynamics),
acceptance would be more universal than we see for morality.
What objective premises do you offer?

When we're those laws of thermodynamics accepted? How long has humanity existed? So, we should for instance find objective morality as accepted as the laws of thermodynamics in 500 bc?

 

[Revoltingest]

When we're those laws of thermodynamics accepted? How long has humanity existed? So, we should for instance find objective morality as accepted as the laws of thermodynamics in 500 bc?

You ask questions, but without answering mine.
And questions do not establish objective morality.
Why believe in something unevidenced?

 

[Nous]

I merely applied your "reasoning" to the fact of the wide disagreement on the interpretation of quantum theory.

As I already noted several times on the this thread, the "disagreement argument" is not an argument against moral realism or for any form of moral anti-realism. Such "disagreement argument" was disposed of in the ethics literature long ago. The fact that people disagree about something does not mean that there is no objective fact about it.

I think this misses my point.

Be sure to alert me if you ever figure out that disagreement about something does not mean that there is no objective fact about it.

 

[Nous]

Here is what I actually said (#74):

. . . if there were no objective moral facts, there would not have been a Civil War, because there would not have been a rational reason for to engage in such a war.

You honestly cannot see the error here?

I'll just repeat: If you claim that there is something erroneous about my statement, then just give the rational reason for engaging in the Civil War if it were true that there is nothing objectively wrong about slavery.

I don't believe that I have misunderstood something about moral anti-realism or those espousing some form of moral anti-realism. You haven't pointed out any such error in my understanding or any logical error I've committed.

 

[Nous]

What this thread so beautifully illustrates is, as I have pointed out elsewhere, that it is province of moral realists to work against injustices such as slavery, Jim Crow laws, gender discrimination, laws denying same-sex couples the right to marry, etc., etc. The moral anti-realists obviously cannot think of any rational reason to try to correct injustices. There are no such rational reasons under the guise of moral anti-realism. Injustices and bigotry would flourish under moral anti-realists.

Equally unflattering, apparently moral anti-realists just have no ideas, are relegated to repeating pablum ad nauseam. It's like belief in determinism or disbelief in free will--it encourages complacency, inertia, and easy immoral behavior.

 

[Curious George]

I'll just repeat: If you claim that there is something erroneous about my statement, then just give the rational reason for engaging in the Civil War if it were true that there is nothing objectively wrong about slavery.

I don't believe that I have misunderstood something about moral anti-realism or those espousing some form of moral anti-realism. You haven't pointed out any such error in my understanding or any logical error I've committed.

Okay let us try again then.

John believes A is right.

Jack believes A is wrong.

They fight.

What in there entails that an objective morality actually exists? You seem to think that
1) They need a rational reason to fight
2) At least one of their beliefs must be objective.

To conclude that the Civil War would not have happened if objective morality did not exist is wrong.

 

[Curious George]

You ask questions, but without answering mine.
And questions do not establish objective morality.
Why believe in something unevidenced?

You really seem to want to twist my position into establishing objective morality, despite my insistence that I am not trying to establish objective morality. Is that perhaps because that is easier for you to argue than the simple question of whether or not SW or your statement was fallacious.

My comments have only been directed to the latter of these two arguments. Specifically that you and SW were in error in your assertions regarding what to anticipate if objective morality did or did not exist. Therefore I am not asking anyone to believe in anything unevidenced, I am not trying to defend or attack objective morality. When your questions are on topic and not trying to get me to take a position which I have not taken, I will offer an answer.

 

[Nous]

Okay let us try again then.

John believes A is right.

Jack believes A is wrong.

They fight.

Is one of these supposed to be a moral anti-realist? Which one? Why would a moral anti-realist fight about whether something is right or wrong? The moral nihilist does not believe that any act is wrong, and the relativist did not believe that slavery in the Confederate states was wrong.

 

[Curious George]

Is one of these supposed to be a moral anti-realist? Which one? Why would a moral anti-realist fight about whether something is right or wrong? The moral nihilist does not believe that any act is wrong, and the relativist did not believe that slavery in the Confederate states was wrong.

Both could be moral anti-realists or both could be moral realists. It doesn't actually matter. Imagine both are moral realists first. Just because they believe that A is objectively right or wrong does not mean they are correct. If they are not correct they may still fight and this does nothing to prove moral objectivity.

A moral anti-realist could/would fight over something because they believed that doing so benefited them in some way and it was not wrong for them to do so.

 

[Nous]

Both could be moral anti-realists or both could be moral realists. It doesn't actually matter. Imagine both are moral realists first. Just because they believe that A is objectively right or wrong does not mean they are correct.

That is correct. It only subsequently occurred to me that you were not responding to my original question or the statement I made after that.

My original question was (#61):

My question here is for everyone who has expressed or believes any such thing as that the term “rights” is not a method or an attempt to communicate some objective moral fact. That is, my question is for everyone here who has expressed something to the effect that the term “rights” does not and cannot possibly refer to something beyond what a government can bestow.

If that were true (that the term “rights” does not and cannot possibly refer to something beyond what a government can bestow), then why fight a bloody, horrible, expensive war such as the US Civil War in order to secure the fundamental human rights of slaves? What possible rational reason would there be for such a war, if there were nothing immoral about depriving those slaves of fundamental human rights such as life, liberty and property or the pursuit of happiness?​

My subsequent statement on the matter was (#74):

. . . if there were no objective moral facts, there would not have been a Civil War, because there would not have been a rational reason for to engage in such a war.​

Now answer my question.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And you still haven't been able to articulate a rational reason for engaging in the Civil War if it were true that there is nothing immoral about slavery. Right?

I have. You have done nothing more than say "they fought to end slavery, so slavery must be bad." It ignores the fact the "other side" did not agree, and to them morality and rights were different. This is the only example you've given, the only thing you've stated, and you have offered nothing beyond this.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yet that is not what you said.
You said:
"If that were objective, then both sides would have agreed from the start and not only would slavery have come to an end upon America's sovereignty, it never would have existed in the first place."

That does not follow. You were in error.

I am being consistent. I said there is no objective morality, and that if there were objective morality then both sides on the Civil War would have been in agreement and the war would not have been fought, because either both sides would have stated slavery is ok and rights do not apply to black people or they both would have agreed slavery is wrong. And their is still the issue that rights were still not equally applied to all during the Reconstruction Era, and it would take about a century after the Civil War before African Americans were legally and equally entitled to the full rights bestowed upon American citizens.

 

[Nous]

And you still haven't been able to articulate a rational reason for engaging in the Civil War if it were true that there is nothing immoral about slavery. Right?

I have.

Then I just didn't see it. You should have no problem quoting it or stating it again. What would be a rational reason to engage in the Civil War if it were true that there is nothing immoral about slavery?

 

[Revoltingest]

You really seem to want to twist my position into establishing objective morality.....

I'll stop doing that then.
But I really don't understand what you're pursuing then.

 

[Curious George]

I am being consistent. I said there is no objective morality, and that if there were objective morality then both sides on the Civil War would have been in agreement and the war would not have been fought, because either both sides would have stated slavery is ok and rights do not apply to black people or they both would have agreed slavery is wrong. And their is still the issue that rights were still not equally applied to all during the Reconstruction Era, and it would take about a century after the Civil War before African Americans were legally and equally entitled to the full rights bestowed upon American citizens.

This does not mean that there is no such thing as moral objectivity. Suppose for instance that moral objectivity exists. Suppose it is objectively morally wrong for me to eat potatoes. That such a moral fact exist entails neither that I cannot eat potatoes or that I do not know that I ought not eat potatoes.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am being consistent. I said there is no objective morality, and that if there were objective morality then both sides on the Civil War would have been in agreement and the war would not have been fought, because either both sides would have stated slavery is ok and rights do not apply to black people or they both would have agreed slavery is wrong. And their is still the issue that rights were still not equally applied to all during the Reconstruction Era, and it would take about a century after the Civil War before African Americans were legally and equally entitled to the full rights bestowed upon American citizens.

I wonder if people don't realize that morality in that time was deeply divided about slavery?
Without any objective basis, it's a perfect example of morality's lacking objectively verifiable
premises. But I suspect that some who might agree with you on this are just seeking a win
based upon some perceived illogical structure, ie, avoiding agreement because it's a habit
to argue for a win (even if the battle is imagined). It strikes me as pointless bickering.

For a girlie, you have an organized mind.