There confusion comes in when 2 "sides" are considered with one being the abused and the other the abuser. ....
Well on the one hand, I can tell you are really reading what I write. Thank you. On the other hand, you still aren't grasping the glaring contradiction in-your-words. Because notice in the above quote from you, that you are STILL "smuggling in objective moral absolutes" through the back door. When you say "abuse" vs "abuser", then gee, what's wrong with abusing another person ? The person who is doing the abusing is getting his jollies. He happens to subjectively prefer it. So why are you choosing one person's preference over the other ? It's simple: Because you are subscribing to an objective moral scoring card. So when are you going to shout from the mountain tops that you have been coverted ??
. There need not be 2 sides considered else a double standard could occur. .....
Huh ? I lost ya here bro. In the case of the enslav
ed vs the enslav
er, and abus
ed vs the abus
er, there IS INDEED "2 sides" to those happen-stances/situations. So I am not sure what you are driving at here.
.... The only side that is to be analyzed to determine whether humans consider something as good is that of the affected .....
Remember, the affect
OR considered his actions "good" in the above scenario. Why are you only considering the wishes of the affect
ED ? Why not consider the wishes of the affect
OR ? I know the answer to that !! : It's because T.O.T. has introduced (smuggled in through the back door) an objective moral absolute ! When is he going to admit it ? And shout from the mountain tops that he's been converted ? :/
...... It wouldn't matter if I liked kicking people in the groin, instead it would matter if I liked being kicked in the groin. That is what would be helpful in determining whether groin kicks to humans are good or bad. .....
Is this standard (in your quote above of evaluating/deciding ) a "subjective/relative " standard ? Or an objective standard ? If it's an objective standard, then : YAHOO ! Shout it from the mountain tops that you have been converted ! [And don't worry : I have no desire to kick you in the groin ! ]
..... Even those that would enslave would be against being enslaved themselves ....
Notice the words put in bold : "... would be
against...". Well gee, the other person "... would be
FOR..." enslaving people. So why does one side's preference win out over the other ? Spoiler alert : BECAUSE THERE'S AN OBJECTIVE MORAL STANDARD that is OUTSIDE of
EITHER of them. Presto, you've been converted . Shout it from the mountain tops !