Moral realism

[Nubclear]

Really? But what if I want to be enslaved? By the logic "It is wrong because you wouldn't want to be enslaved!", since I do want to be enslaved, it is no longer wrong...for me. But if it isn't wrong for some specific person, then it doesn't seem to have an objective basis, but merely a widespread subjective basis.

I'd say that morality is nothing but a product of our evolution as a species, and of social indoctrination. As such, slavery isn't "wrong" in an objective sense, but merely in the sense that I am revolted by it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Subjective morality changes, objective morality does not. If slavery is immoral it doesn't become moral when I say so.

Who decides what is or is not moral? King, government, the majority? Seems to me the closest we can possibly come to an "objective" definition of morality are the ~universalities we share. If not for cultural brainwashing no one wants to be murdered or enslaved or mistreated, but to be free and respected. The Golden Rule is about a universality we share with the goal of reciprocity.
All other matters of morality in dispute take a back seat to the set of universalities that enjoy ~unanimous support.

slavery wrong, always wrong - not because some people say so, but because nobody wants to be enslaved

The problem is that you can't take what people say at face value. You might say that the death penalty is moral, but if you were an innocent man facing the death penalty you might say something different.

Assume that the death penalty just became a law and no innocent people were put to death yet, so everyone agreed that it was a moral law. Then one day an innocent man was sentenced to death and he decided that the death penalyt was immoral.

It's incredible that you think that just making ones mind up about something changes the reality of it.