Bullfighting

[Sieguest]

You know, I think we need to put apart the scientific points of this conversation and look at this from a humanist, compassionate point of view. It's cruel to kill these animals the way we do for entertainment. I mean, how would you like it if some person came and forced you to fight to the death with another person?

I tend to keep my emotions out of topics of this sort. To entertain the argument for the approach you've taken, I've highlighted a key word in red.

What is "cruel" is completely up to an individual's interpretation. If the Spanish people thought that killing bulls was "cruel" then how come they have bullfighting in the first place? What's cruel to you may not be cruel to others, so to assert something as "cruel" in the objective sense doesn't get anywhere.

Also, what are you getting at with having a human vs. another human? As I pointed out earlier, bullfighting is not bull vs. bull.

If you want my honest answer. I'd just knock out the person that's trying to force me to fight, that and since humans are capable of a higher level of thinking, it's not beyond reason to have a talk with the other person you're forced to fight. If push comes to shove and I do end up having to fight, then I'll defend myself and fight.

 

[Fuelbi]

I tend to keep my emotions out of topics of this sort. To entertain the argument for the approach you've taken, I've highlighted a key word in red.

What is "cruel" is completely up to an individual's interpretation. If the Spanish people thought that killing bulls was "cruel" then how come they have bullfighting in the first place? What's cruel to you may not be cruel to others, so to assert something as "cruel" in the objective sense doesn't get anywhere.

Also, what are you getting at with having a human vs. another human? As I pointed out earlier, bullfighting is not bull vs. bull.

If you want my honest answer. I'd just knock out the person that's trying to force me to fight, that and since humans are capable of a higher level of thinking, it's not beyond reason to have a talk with the other person you're forced to fight. If push comes to shove and I do end up having to fight, then I'll defend myself and fight.

But the thing is that the meaning of words change over time. What was fun back then is too hurtful now

Well ok then, let's pit you up with a tiger against your will and see how you'd like it when you're mauled by it

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

NaCl won't be mauled by it.

NaCl has mad skillz.

Anyways, I'll back out and leave this to celebei vs. NaCl.

 

[Sieguest]

But the thing is that the meaning of words change over time. What was fun back then is too hurtful now

The meaning of the word "cruel" changes every second someone changes their interpretation of what it is in light of that, I don't see your point here. If what was cruel was really objective we wouldn't be having this tangent of the debate right now. In regards to your second sentence what one calls "fun" is also completely subjective. Tell a person from the Catalonia region that bullfighting isn't "fun" and he/she will think you are crazy. Or how some people believe sports are fun while other find it a waste of time. There is nothing objective as to what "fun" is.

When did something being hurtful determine how right or wrong something is? Pain is only a sensation that tells you that something undesirable is happening, not that something wrong (in the moral sense) is happening. There is no guaranteeing that pain will not be experienced. There is no "rights" to protect anything from pain. Violence is exceedingly abundant in the animal kingdom, so why exclude this one practice when there are many others that entail blood and death?

Well ok then, let's pit you up with a tiger against your will and see how you'd like it when you're mauled by it

I wouldn't like or dislike it because I would be dead.
Lame joking aside, the individual sentiment doesn't influence whether something is right or wrong, because these are subjective and completely up to the individual's interpretation. A masochist would enjoy getting mauled by a tiger since they derive pleasure from pain.

 

[Dre89]

1. Humans are considered to have rights, and are not allowed to be killed for any reason unless in self-defence.
2. Bulls can be killed for meat, but not for sport.
3. Humans have rights.
4. Humans cannot rightly be killed for either sport or meat.
Therefore- Bulls do not have rights.

Implications of anti-bull fighting argument:
1. A rock has no rights.
2. Even if an object has no rights, a human is not entitled to use it for whatever end they please.
Therefore- It is wrong to smash a rock.

 

[rvkevin]

1. Humans are considered to have rights, and are not allowed to be killed for any reason unless in self-defence.
2. Bulls can be killed for meat, but not for sport.
3. Humans have rights.
4. Humans cannot rightly be killed for either sport or meat.
Therefore- Bulls do not have rights.

It does not follow that they don't have the right to life that they have no rights at all. People can and are imprisoned for inhumane treatment of animals, so it is patently false to say that they have no rights.

 

[Dre89]

So we have the right to kill them, but not hurt them?

If something is allowed to be killed for meat, then that's not rights, because that is the biggest violation of any entity that has rights.

Saying that we can kill them for meat but use them for sport is purely selfish. It's ok to have the bull's rights violated when they have something to gain from then (meat), but then as soon as there is practice that they personally find disturbing, because they live in this modern bubble completely detached from nature where everything is done for us, all of a sudden the bull has rights again.

I could never take an animals right argument seriously from a westerner, because here we live so dettached from nature, we live in bubbles where we don't have to do anything for our food, we're blinded to the reality of nature, and as soon as we're exposed to that reality we're disturbed and campaign against it.

I'm curious to know how many animals rights activists there are in rural tribes where they need to hunt just to survive the day.

 

[Sieguest]

It does not follow that they don't have the right to life that they have no rights at all. People can and are imprisoned for inhumane treatment of animals, so it is patently false to say that they have no rights.

That's only because we've arbitrarily done so with a law system. The law system is moral beliefs being superimposed over a large population, not every person follows what those beliefs entail. Those who believe animals have no rights have a different belief concerning what is "right" and "wrong" when dealing with animals, so it is not exactly false to say that they have no rights.

The animal kingdom itself suggests animals don't have rights, the most obvious one being the right to life, but these rights of "fair treatment" and so on are also suggested not to exist. Else competition wouldn't exist, especially intra-specific competition.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

It does not follow that they don't have the right to life that they have no rights at all. People can and are imprisoned for inhumane treatment of animals, so it is patently false to say that they have no rights.

However, in other scenarios, such as getting beef, the person doesn't go to jail.

It's like saying "if you hang a person because you're angry at them, you'll go to jail, but if you shoot someone for their money, you won't" Is it still unfair that the person died?

 

[rvkevin]

What do you mean you say rights? If it is legal rights, then it is false as I mentioned before. If you are talking about moral precepts, I mentioned before the value of reducing harm and how it should be extolled over the value of loyalty. At a minimum, this would lead to reducing gratuitous suffering, which entails the banning of bullfights. Do you actually have an argument in favor of bullfights, or are you just going to claim that everything is culturally relative?

 

[Sieguest]

What do you mean you say rights? If it is legal rights, then it is false as I mentioned before. If you are talking about moral precepts, I mentioned before the value of reducing harm and how it should be extolled over the value of loyalty. At a minimum, this would lead to reducing gratuitous suffering, which entails the banning of bullfights.

I meant moral, but even on the legal side, that's assuming we're going by U.S. law, which isn't always the case. It's apparent that in Spain such a law has not been in place or else bullfighting wouldn't have been allowed in the first place. And with "reducing harm and how it should be extolled over loyalty" how do you explain the rest of the animal kingdom infringing upon each others "rights"?. What entitles anyone or thing to anything besides their own ability to obtain it and defend it? We're not guaranteed rights. In the U.S. you do not have all of your rights until age 18 (can't vote, cannot own property under your own name etc). Within certain U.S. states if you are convicted of a felony you lose some of your "rights". The point being, your "rights" are only there for as long as you can defend them, once a figure more powerful subjects you to its rule, you have no more "rights". Such being the case, we don't have rights, or if we do they are completely arbitrary.

Do you actually have an argument in favor of bullfights, or are you just going to claim that everything is culturally relative?

Do you actually have something that proves that animals have rights or are you just going to ask condescending questions about my approach to an argument? If I so choose to take the approach that it's culturally relative, what are you going to do about it? If you read any of my previous posts, I don't support, nor do I condemn bullfighting.

 

[rvkevin]

And with "reducing harm and how it should be extolled over loyalty" how do you explain the rest of the animal kingdom infringing upon each others "rights"?

I'm not sure why the question would be a serious problem for my stance. Humans and animals differ in significant ways when it comes to making moral decisions. The ability to "predict" the future and see if the consequences of an action are good or bad is necessary for determining what action is the best action. Some minimum level of intelligence is required to compare and contrast these different options. Animals lack these qualities that are required to make moral decisions.

Do you actually have something that proves that animals have rights or are you just going to ask condescending questions about my approach to an argument?

I don't need to show that animals have rights in order to show that we should ban bullfights. My argument entailed the banning of bullfights without even considering the well-being or "rights" of bulls, it actually focuses on the well-being of humans.

Think of it this way:
1. If X increases human well-being, we should value X and extol others to value X.
2. The value of reducing harm increases human well-being,
3. Therefore, we should value reducing harm and extol others to value reducing harm.

4. The value of reducing harm entails we should stop gratuitous suffering.
5. Bullfighting is a source of gratuitous suffering.
6. Therefore, we should stop bullfights.

 

[Sieguest]

[/color]I'm not sure why the question would be a serious problem for my stance. Humans and animals differ in significant ways when it comes to making moral decisions. The ability to "predict" the future and see if the consequences of an action are good or bad is necessary for determining what action is the best action. Some minimum level of intelligence is required to compare and contrast these different options. Animals lack these qualities that are required to make moral decisions.

Because rights dictate what actions should and should not be done. If animals really have rights, then would they not respect these rights amongst themselves? If otherwise it shows that the animal kingdom makes no room for rights as killing and inflicting pain upon another animal is a normal part of the ecosystem maintaining a suitable population. Whether or not we make a conscious effort doesn't change the idea behind rights.

I don't need to show that animals have rights in order to show that we should ban bullfights. My argument entailed the banning of bullfights without even considering the well-being or "rights" of bulls, it actually focuses on the well-being of humans.

Think of it this way:
1. If X increases human well-being, we should value X and extol others to value X.
2. The value of reducing harm increases human well-being,
3. Therefore, we should value reducing harm and extol others to value reducing harm.

4. The value of reducing harm entails we should stop gratuitous suffering.
5. Bullfighting is a source of gratuitous suffering.
6. Therefore, we should stop bullfights.

There is nothing to gain from humans to stop bullfighting other than a loss of entertainment and one more bull being kept alive for who knows what reason maybe a surplus of one for beef but then that eventually regulates itself once the people go back to their norms. On the other half of the token: Bullfighting is a source of pleasure (for the Spanish); Humans seek pleasure, so it would be in our best interest to continue bullfighting.

 

[rvkevin]

If animals really have rights, then would they not respect these rights amongst themselves?

They would not for the reasons mentioned above.

There is nothing to gain from humans to stop bullfighting

Agreed, humans won't benefit from stopping bullfights, but that point is irrelevant to my argument. Which part do you object to and why?

On the other half of the token: Bullfighting is a source of pleasure (for the Spanish); Humans seek pleasure, so it would be in our best interest to continue bullfighting.

X is a source of pleasure for group Y; Humans seek pleasure, so it would be in [their] best interest to continue X. Pick any crime, big or small, and this will justify it. Unless you think that crimes contribute to human well-being, this reason is bunk.

 

[Sieguest]

They would not for the reasons mentioned above.

So would not rights be an arbitrary measure taken by humans to protect animals?

Agreed, humans won't benefit from stopping bullfights, but that point is irrelevant to my argument. Which part do you object to and why?

4. The value of reducing harm entails we should stop gratuitous suffering.
5. Bullfighting is a source of gratuitous suffering.
6. Therefore, we should stop bullfights.

This part right here. It's not gratuitous if it has a purpose, that purpose being entertainment. Also I believe a part of human-well being is a good mood. Humans get no benefit from stopping it, but humans (at least some) do get a benefit from continuing it.

X is a source of pleasure for group Y; Humans seek pleasure, so it would be in [their] best interest to continue X. Pick any crime, big or small, and this will justify it. Unless you think that crimes contribute to human well-being, this reason is bunk.

However group Y has infringed on no real "rights". Depending on where the action takes place that group has to deal with the much larger majority. Taking the U.S. as an example, the reason why laws aren't broken by every person is not because it is a crime to do so, but because of the subsequent consequences. It's not in their best interest to carry out the action even if they would obtain pleasure for that brief period of time, because in the end it is a detriment to their well being. Bullfighting has no such adverse consequence when it occurs so it is in human's best interest to continue as they fulfill a search for pleasure and there is no adverse consequence afterward.

 

[rvkevin]

1. It is part of our values that we have attained in order to increase our own well-being. As I said earlier, there are many characteristics that humans have that separate us from the animal kingdom when making moral decisions. Just because other animals don't share these features, does not decrease our obligation to use them responsibly.

2. It is gratuitous if the end could be fulfilled using a means that has less suffering. In this sense, it is gratuitous. For example, gladiator fights serve a purpose of entertaining the crowd. If this end could be fulfilled by a different means that did not result in the death of the players, such as football, then that means is preferable to gladiator fights since it would reduce the amount of suffering. In this sense, gladiator fights are a source of gratuitous suffering. The same could be said for bullfights.

3. So, its acceptable as long as the group has not infringed on anyone's real "rights"? I'm not sure what real "rights" would refer to, but I suppose that you are referring to the law. In that case, my point stands, some of the greatest crimes of humanity have been from state sponsored action and this argument would justify their actions. If the government is bigoted against a certain race or religion, they are justified, by this line of reasoning, to continue to silence and "stomp out" the minority.

 

[Sieguest]

1. It is part of our values that we have attained in order to increase our own well-being. As I said earlier, there are many characteristics that humans have that separate us from the animal kingdom when making moral decisions. Just because other animals don't share these features, does not decrease our obligation to use them responsibly.

This also means that the morals in question are not objective, someone who doesn't believe the same as you doesn't have the same obligation you put upon yourself.

2. It is gratuitous if the end could be fulfilled using a means that has less suffering. In this sense, it is gratuitous. For example, gladiator fights serve a purpose of entertaining the crowd. If this end could be fulfilled by a different means that did not result in the death of the players, such as football, then that means is preferable to gladiator fights since it would reduce the amount of suffering. In this sense, gladiator fights are a source of gratuitous suffering. The same could be said for bullfights.

We're using two different definitions of the word gratuitous.

3. So, its acceptable as long as the group has not infringed on anyone's real "rights"? I'm not sure what real "rights" would refer to, but I suppose that you are referring to the law. In that case, my point stands, some of the greatest crimes of humanity have been from state sponsored action and this argument would justify their actions. If the government is bigoted against a certain race or religion, they are justified, by this line of reasoning, to continue to silence and "stomp out" the minority.

I'm not referring to the law when I say "real rights". I'm not referring to anything really since "real rights" don't exist. It would be acceptable if it didn't infringe upon anyone's real rights, but since those don't exist those actions could be acceptable. You definitely can't say that they're "wrong" and state that as a fact.

An action is only acceptable as long as the person receiving the action allows it to be so. Example being slavery. In the U.S., people in the north saw it as revolting, those in the south saw it as the cornerstone of their economy and that it would be an injustice to take it away. If an objective wrong truly existed, why did the south engage in slavery in the first place?The action was acceptable to them, but once slaves started taking effective action, along with assistance from the north. They slowly began to show that such an act is not acceptable to them and they changed it (albeit over a very long period of time). The south saw this changing as "wrong" but others didn't. It's obvious that slavery was definitely not in the best interest of mankind, that can be proven. But it can't be called "wrong" as a fact.

The biggest difference to be made is that acting in best interest can not be equated to making an objective morality.

 

[rvkevin]

1. What do you mean by objective vs. subjective? Depending on the meanings, my view of morality is both subjective and objective. Subjective in the sense that it utilizes the subjective preferences of individuals and objective in the sense that their are objectively correct answers to moral problems. When I say that morality is objective, I mean that some people can be incorrect in their analysis of moral claims. If they believe different from me, then either I am or they are wrong. It doesn't matter if they believe different than me, just whether or not they are correct, but their case has yet to be demonstrated and an error has yet to be pointed out in mine.

2. Used the second definition. It is unwarranted, as in, it lacks moral justification.

3. Your use of the word "wrong" is questionable. I already mentioned that it may be a meaningless term without a further structure. Right and wrong are just shorthand expressions, they are meaningless without the thing that they reference to. Like in the chess example, answering "is this a good move?/should I move here?" is dependent upon a certain framework; a framework that includes the rules of chess, the desire to win, etc. Saying "that is a good move/yes, you should" is meaningless without reference to the above framework.

Similarly, we have some givens and constrictions in the morality framework, we all have certain desires that are shared with each other (pain avoidance) and some that aren't (hobbies), the restrictions of the physical world, etc. In this framework, there are objectively correct and wrong answers. When you use the terms " right and wrong" outside of any such framework, it is meaningless, but that is not how I use the term.

An action is only acceptable as long as the person receiving the action allows it to be so.

This isn't so clear to me. What does it mean to allow it to be so? Does a prisoner allow it to be so to be imprisoned? If that is the case, then it is also correct to imprison innocent people because they allow it to be so. Or do you mean it as in they don't object to it? If so, then prisoners would not allow it to be so, in which case it is not correct to imprison guilty people. Either it is morally incorrect to imprison guilty people, or it is morally correct to imprison innocent people. One or the other has to be correct by the given criteria. Unless you think this to be the case, I won't waste any more time continuing from this faulty criteria. You also seem to be conflating descriptive morality and normative morality. I'm referring to normative morality, not descriptive.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

Not to be too off-topic, but Kevin, are you implying it is morally wrong to imprison an innocent person who wants to know what it is like to live in a prison? Must they commit a felony first?

 

[rvkevin]

Not to be too off-topic, but Kevin, are you implying it is morally wrong to imprison an innocent person who wants to know what it is like to live in a prison? Must they commit a felony first?

No, it would be an innocent person who objects to being in prison. Similar to how it is acceptable to imprison a guilty person because they allow it to be so (they don't have the force to avoid it), it would then be acceptable to imprison an innocent person because they allow it to be so (they don't have the force to avoid it). If Halite is actually arguing that might makes right, then he should have no problem accepting that it is morally correct to imprison an innocent person who objects to being imprisoned. I'm just asking him if he actually holds such a position.

 

[Sieguest]

1. What do you mean by objective vs. subjective? Depending on the meanings, my view of morality is both subjective and objective. Subjective in the sense that it utilizes the subjective preferences of individuals and objective in the sense that their are objectively correct answers to moral problems. When I say that morality is objective, I mean that some people can be incorrect in their analysis of moral claims. If they believe different from me, then either I am or they are wrong. It doesn't matter if they believe different than me, just whether or not they are correct, but their case has yet to be demonstrated and an error has yet to be pointed out in mine.

So prove to me then how murder is wrong without using anything that one may place as subjective. I'd wager to say that you can't, and that's exactly my point.

2. Used the second definition. It is unwarranted, as in, it lacks moral justification.

Again, how is it "wrong". There is nothing definite saying it is other than one's values. It is justified in that it serves in the best interest of people. No adverse effects come upon mankind with bullfighting going on.

3. Your use of the word "wrong" is questionable. I already mentioned that it may be a meaningless term without a further structure. Right and wrong are just shorthand expressions, they are meaningless without the thing that they reference to. Like in the chess example, answering "is this a good move?/should I move here?" is dependent upon a certain framework; a framework that includes the rules of chess, the desire to win, etc. Saying "that is a good move/yes, you should" is meaningless without reference to the above framework.

Similarly, we have some givens and constrictions in the morality framework, we all have certain desires that are shared with each other (pain avoidance) and some that aren't (hobbies), the restrictions of the physical world, etc. In this framework, there are objectively correct and wrong answers. When you use the terms " right and wrong" outside of any such framework, it is meaningless, but that is not how I use the term.

What about a Masochist? They seek pain to get pleasure. But humans do seek pleasure. Using your logic then, would it not be right for humans to engage in activities that bring them pleasure?

This isn't so clear to me. What does it mean to allow it to be so? Does a prisoner allow it to be so to be imprisoned? If that is the case, then it is also correct to imprison innocent people because they allow it to be so. Or do you mean it as in they don't object to it? If so, then prisoners would not allow it to be so, in which case it is not correct to imprison guilty people. Either it is morally incorrect to imprison guilty people, or it is morally correct to imprison innocent people. One or the other has to be correct by the given criteria. Unless you think this to be the case, I won't waste any more time continuing from this faulty criteria. You also seem to be conflating descriptive morality and normative morality. I'm referring to normative morality, not descriptive.

I am not equating acceptable to being morally right. I am saying that the action can't be morally wrong. If the action was objectively wrong, then why did it happen in the first place? The first instance you used is correct. If someone allows an action to happen to them, it is acceptable. Whether it is or is not in everyone's best interest is a different story.
And what exactly is normative morality vs. descriptive morality?

No, it would be an innocent person who objects to being in prison. Similar to how it is acceptable to imprison a guilty person because they allow it to be so (they don't have the force to avoid it), it would then be acceptable to imprison an innocent person because they allow it to be so (they don't have the force to avoid it). If Halite is actually arguing that might makes right, then he should have no problem accepting that it is morally correct to imprison an innocent person who objects to being imprisoned. I'm just asking him if he actually holds such a position.

Who is Halite?

 

[rvkevin]

So prove to me then how murder is wrong without using anything that one may place as subjective. I'd wager to say that you can't, and that's exactly my point.

And I've never claimed that I never used subjective values. Morality is based on the interaction of groups and groups are, by nature, subjective. You restricted the answer to not include the solution. Its like asking, "without referencing the number four, what's 2+2?" I'd wager you can't, so "Ha!" Your point is null, not being able to do so with such a restriction has no weight on whether there is an objective answer whether or not murder is wrong.

Again, how is it "wrong". There is nothing definite saying it is other than one's values. It is justified in that it serves in the best interest of people. No adverse effects come upon mankind with bullfighting going on.

You're under the assumption that there is no other cost in continuing the bullfights, whereas I am considerably less decided so. This line of reasoning extols the value of loyalty, and the notion that might makes right, which may manifest in the form of negative extranalities.

If the action was objectively wrong, then why did it happen in the first place?

2+2=5 is objectively wrong, it does not mean that someone can't make a mistake. Or ask someone "what is (5431545x97646135478)^2?" I bet they will get it wrong, that doesn't mean there is not a correct answer to it. When I say objective, all I mean is that there are correct and incorrect answers to moral questions, not that we have all the answers or that to the ones we know already, that everyone knows them. In short, I would say it happened because they thought the above values you are proposing were good and were ignorant that they are not.

And what exactly is normative morality vs. descriptive morality?

Descriptive morality describes what people think is right and wrong. For example, it was thought that slavery was morally correct. Normative morality prescribes right and wrong. For any given scenario, it would prescribe the correct action, what you should or should not do. For example, slavery is and was always wrong.

Who is Halite?

A reference to your old name. Some used salt, my preferred term is halite.

Note: I'm starting to repeat myself, so unless there is further progression or new points, I won't be responding to responses.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

@Kevin's 60: The fact that they object to it means that they don't allow it. Someone could not allow something and still have it happen by force. However, this is not the topic, so I guess I'll back off of that for now.

 

[Sieguest]

And I've never claimed that I never used subjective values. Morality is based on the interaction of groups and groups are, by nature, subjective. You restricted the answer to not include the solution. Its like asking, "without referencing the number four, what's 2+2?" I'd wager you can't, so "Ha!" Your point is null, not being able to do so with such a restriction has no weight on whether there is an objective answer whether or not murder is wrong.

Actually it does. Because if you base an answer off of something subjective, then one who believes differently isn't wrong. If you hold one value over another. Then that's your preference. You may have facts that support why you hold a certain value higher than others, but as it is, the importance of certain values over others is up to personal interpretation. So to turn around and say that what someone believes is "wrong" because of a certain value you uphold higher than another unlike the someone you're talking to is just trying to superimpose said values onto another person.

Whether or not an action is in the best interest of others is different from whether an action is "right" or "wrong". Example being anything of moral consequence. Let's say Hitler: Hitler believed his "Final Solution" was right, those close to Hitler believed he was right. Others believed he was wrong, and Hitler along with who was with them believed those calling him wrong were wrong. Both sides could throw around "it's not impossible to make a mistake" and use that to justify why they believe the other side is wrong. That rebuttal gets no where. The killing of another human is not in the best interest of mankind.

You're under the assumption that there is no other cost in continuing the bullfights, whereas I am considerably less decided so. This line of reasoning extols the value of loyalty, and the notion that might makes right, which may manifest in the form of negative extranalities.

Doesn't might make right in a sense? If someone can overpower another and subjugate them to their will. The the dominator can superimpose their ideas on the overpowered. If no one can stop the dominator, then does not the dominator's word become the standard? Such as with the United States. The U.S. does what it does because it has the power to do so. If by somehow cataclysmic off happening another country overpowers the U.S. and takes it over can they not superimpose their values onto us? What becomes "right" just got changed.

2+2=5 is objectively wrong, it does not mean that someone can't make a mistake. Or ask someone "what is (5431545x97646135478)^2?" I bet they will get it wrong, that doesn't mean there is not a correct answer to it. When I say objective, all I mean is that there are correct and incorrect answers to moral questions, not that we have all the answers or that to the ones we know already, that everyone knows them. In short, I would say it happened because they thought the above values you are proposing were good and were ignorant that they are not.

All of those answers are backed by calculations. What calculation backs up a personal value? Also, math=/=morality. Math isn't based off of how people gauge certain values. Morality is.

Descriptive morality describes what people think is right and wrong. For example, it was thought that slavery was morally correct. Normative morality prescribes right and wrong. For any given scenario, it would prescribe the correct action, what you should or should not do. For example, slavery is and was always wrong.

So prove it. The reasons supporting these assertions all come from values one upholds. One could bring up economic facts that show how slavery was a detriment to economy compared how it works today and try and assert that slavery is wrong. But that's completely outside of morality. It does nothing to prove that slavery is morally wrong, nor would any other historical fact we could dig up. It just shows that slavery isn't in best interest.

And before one says that I'm dodging around the word wrong by using best interest. That's not true either: If I bought an Ice Cream with the dollar I just made instead of putting it into the bank to build interest, was I wrong in buying the Ice Cream? No. But it wasn't in my best interest when I could stick it in the bank, collect interest on it and eventually get two ice creams.

A reference to your old name. Some used salt, my preferred term is halite.

Note: I'm starting to repeat myself, so unless there is further progression or new points, I won't be responding to responses.

Clever. o.o

Fair enough. (Late response for the win)