Do exactly what? What are you even responding to at this point? Are you making up your own meaning to my sentences now?

This is just an assertion. We don't have to get into the weeds on meta-ethics, but if you want to assert that it's ok to treat an individual as property because "subjective, tho," you're either going to need to concede that you would have to allow people to murder and/or demonstrate subjectivism.

But if you want to circumvent all that nonsense, I'm perfectly willing to have a conversation with you about your moral perspective and see if it can be applied consistently

I'm happy to hear an argument about any moral claims.

How fortunate that in a reality where moral opinions are just random chance and not based on anything real, we find ourselves in a society that matches your morality. There can't possibly be an underlying cause for societies making similar moral decisions

I'm just asking questions about your morality.

Either of this things should be true:

1. You have an argument against murder that you would want someone who thinks murder is ok to examine and possibly change their mind, in which case you should be equally open to arguments about treating non-human animals as property

2. You have no argument against murder because all morality is subjective and if some dude wants to murder someone that's their right and we should all get out of their face about it because maybe they're two seconds away from doubling the number of people they murder just to make up for your lack of murdering

Which would you say is closer to your position?

So you have no argument to those individuals who would murder? It's just, like, your opinion man, that murder is bad?

Obviousness is inconsistent with subjectivity

Yeah, you're talking psychology, but I think ethics is more important here. Why would it be ok to treat these individuals in ways we would not want to be treated?

I'm not sure why that would matter. If we can imagine ourselves in the animal's position, and recognize we wouldn't want this done to us, what is it that makes it ok to do it to them?

Then it does seem to be an assessment of someone's ability. There are mentally disabled humans with similar levels of intelligence to the animals we exploit for food. They would therefore have a similar chance to cure or discover something. Why shouldn't they also be treated as property?

I'm just trying to accurately describe our relationship with certain individuals.

Is our relationship with some non-human animals not one of ownership?

Why would species be morally-relevant?

Ok, so an individual's ability changes the value in not having them be property, and if the value in them not being property is low enough for the rest of society, then it's ok for them to be property?

Cool. I'm glad we agree. So why wouldn't that concept apply consistently to all beings with a subjective experience?

I'm talking about the specific change where we now recognize that humans shouldn't be property. Even if there are other issues around that change that might have been bad, do you agree that this specific change is progress?

Cool. Do you think that change represents moral progress?

I recognize that I'm phrasing the question differently in order to try to get to a relevant answer. I understand that these questions can be interpreted in different ways and recognize that you're trying to answer the exact question I'm asking. I appreciate the honesty.

I'm confused by this answer though. Do you, as the person you are today, think it's a good thing that slavery has been officially and largely abolished?

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that "waste" is fucked up, but owning another individual isn't.

I don't need to demonstrate that morality is objective in order to examine your reasoning. Why do you think it's ok for one individual to own another as property?

Ok, but what I'm essentially asking is

If you lived in a time when slavery was broadly considered ok, would you advocate that it stop or that it continue?

Cool. But it used to be considered ok to own humans as property, and not ok to help those humans escape from their owners.

Are you saying that at that time, it was actually good to own humans, and actually bad to help them escape?

Ok, this is a different argument, but I'm happy to discuss your perspective. You seem to be saying that if society generally says something is ok, that means it's actually ok. Did I get that right?

This is your opinion that morality is subjective. Are you now saying that some morality is subjective?

Similarly, someone could kill and eat a human, or enslave them, or sexually assault them without issue. I'm not sure you'd be talking about subjective morality if someone did those things

This is a different position than the one you presented to me in another reply. Here, you seem to be saying that anything other animals do is ok to do. Is that what you believe?

I see. So if someone believes something is ok to do, that means it's actually ok?

Yeah, I think that's a good description of the psychology, but not a good argument about morality. When we recognize that we're participating in something unethical, don't you think we should stop?