An infinite series of finite causes.

[seer]

And that "universal truth" is....?

Unalienable Rights... But you knew that, so why be coy?

And American law is just that - the opinion of Americans expressed as law.

Their claim was universal. And the basis for the freedoms we all enjoy today. What has moral relativism given the world?

Technique #3 - yet again...

Call it what you will Carp, it is still true in your world that the Nazi is well within his epistemic rights to throw Jewish children into ovens.

[carpedm9587]

Unalienable Rights... But you knew that, so why be coy?

Actually, I had no idea what you were referring to. "Inalienable rights" refers to rights that cannot be "given away or taken away." As theists, I can see how they came to this language. It does not mean it is correct. In the subjectivist/relativist framework, rights are commonly held, or not commonly held. Those that are widely held might be considered "inalienable," by virtue of the fact that humans do not want to see these rights forsworn for themselves.

Their claim was universal. And the basis for the freedoms we all enjoy today. What has moral relativism given the world?

Since we are all moral relativists, everything we currently enjoy,

Call it what you will Carp, it is still true in your world that the Nazi is well within his epistemic rights to throw Jewish children into ovens.

Technique #3 - and still without any real content.

[shunyadragon]

I have not made a false statement. You, on the hand, have not owned up to yours.

In the thread that you falsified information and in this thread that you claimed to "do science" for a living.



Freshman level of college is about 8-10 years beyond your understandings.

False statement: Scientific point: Currently science says the universe has a beginning.

[seer]

Actually, I had no idea what you were referring to. "Inalienable rights" refers to rights that cannot be "given away or taken away." As theists, I can see how they came to this language. It does not mean it is correct. In the subjectivist/relativist framework, rights are commonly held, or not commonly held. Those that are widely held might be considered "inalienable," by virtue of the fact that humans do not want to see these rights forsworn for themselves.

That would not make them Unalienable by any stretch...

Since we are all moral relativists, everything we currently enjoy.

False, to be a moral relativist you have to ascribe to the theory. That does not change the fact the basis for the freedoms we all enjoy today are grounded in universal moral truth.

Technique #3 - and still without any real content.

If you think that the fact that the Nazi is well within his epistemic rights to throw Jewish children into ovens is without real content then you are more far gone than I realized.

[Tassman]

Nonsense Tass, the USA is one of the greatest countries in History, many of the very things you depend on today were invented here, if not invented mass produced here for the world. This "arsenal of democracy" stopped imperialism, fascism and communism from taking the world. What has your country given the world beside The Dr Blake Mysteries, and wool? And what has Norway given the world in comparison to the U.S. And they can thank us later for the freedom they enjoy today.

The USA has given the world a lot, as have many of the other great powers such as the UK, e.g. many of the concepts embodied in the U.S. Constitution—such as the separation and delegation of powers between three branches of government derive from English common law and the parliamentary system. But the US is a declining power and has a lot to learn from secular nations not bogged down by religious ideology impacting negatively upon civil legislation. .

[Tassman]

Ok...perhaps this is an error in how I was using absolute. Science has one answer not several but you are correct that they are falsifiable so they would not be absolute in the sense that they could never change.

Exactly right. Whereas theological arguments based on scriptural revelation are absolute.

Sure but again, this is not your problem...it is the problem for the person using the argument.

It’s also a problem for those supporting those using the argument.

Question: How is this any different than you attributing skepticism for the multiverse theory to those who are holding on to religious ideas?

No they don't. I have actually already gone into the science about how they come to the idea of the multiverse (at least for string theory and QM). If you think that is solid ground for such a radical idea, then you have more faith in the multiverse than I do.

And again, multiverse is literally causing people to question if we need empirical validation in order for a theory to be counted as science. Do you really want to go down that road?

If so, then astrology and ID will rightfully start claiming that they are also science by this new definition. This is my biggest problem with the multiverse.

Empirical validation is the gold standard of course and may well be able to be implemented in due course by methods currently unavailable to science. But in terms of scientific induction multiverse theory remains the best available option in several scientific disciplines as previously listed. There is no comparison with ID or astrology.

No, they are arguing the that BB theory is the most successful theory to explain the beginning of the universe so far. And they are correct.

BB Theory is fine as far as it goes but it does not answer what occurred before ‘inflation’ began, because the laws of nature break down during the Planck Epoch’. What happened during this period cannot be empirically validated either, just as the multiverse cannot be validated.

[seer]

The USA has given the world a lot, as have many of the other great powers such as the UK, e.g. many of the concepts embodied in the U.S. Constitution—such as the separation and delegation of powers between three branches of government derive from English common law and the parliamentary system. But the US is a declining power and has a lot to learn from secular nations not bogged down by religious ideology impacting negatively upon civil legislation. .

Nonsense Tass, we are not a declining power, we are still the most powerful nation on earth, and still one of the most religious. And I was speaking of human rights, the Founders did not ground rights in the majority or the government. But in a transcendent deity.

[carpedm9587]

That would not make them Unalienable by any stretch...

Clearly not to you.

False, to be a moral relativist you have to ascribe to the theory. That does not change the fact the basis for the freedoms we all enjoy today are grounded in universal moral truth.

No - to be a moral relativist - you have to practice moral relativism. Everyone does.

Look, you may not want to call yourself a carpenter if you make your living in woodcraft, but it doesn't mean you're not a carpenter. You can call yourself a plumber every day of the week, it doesn't make you one if you regularly work with wood. Likewise, a person can call themselves a moral objectivist/absolutist every day of the week, but if they are practicing moral relativism/subjectivism, they are a moral relativist/subjectivist. I have never met anyone who is not, in reality, practicing moral relativism/subjectivism - including yourself. You can dress it up any way you wish, but your moral framework is grounded in your subjective valuing of your "god," and your subjective interpretation of what this "god" wills - which was actually written down by men. You cannot escape moral relativism/subjectivism.

If you think that the fact that the Nazi is well within his epistemic rights to throw Jewish children into ovens is without real content then you are more far gone than I realized.

You do love Technique #3. Unfortunately, and argument from outrage is just not an argument. I see the Nazi throwing Jews into ovens as no different from you disrespecting/disparaging the LGBTQ community or anyone else who has come to a subjective conclusion that "X is right." Each person see's their own moral framework as "right" by definition. If they didn't, they would have a different one. That does not make them "right" in any absolute sense. They may go to their graves believing they were acting morally, as you undoubtedly will about the LGBTQ community. Meanwhile, the rest of us will work to minimize the effect of the actions of those we consider to be immoral, including both the Nazi and you.

And yes, I know your response will be: but we have no argument for making that case, because there is no moral absolute (Technique #1). Unfortunately for you, we do have an argument. It's just not an absolute/objective one. It's a subjective one - just as the legal system is subjective, and quite rational/logical.

[JimL]

Clearly not to you.



No - to be a moral relativist - you have to practice moral relativism. Everyone does.

Look, you may not want to call yourself a carpenter if you make your living in woodcraft, but it doesn't mean you're not a carpenter. You can call yourself a plumber every day of the week, it doesn't make you one if you regularly work with wood. Likewise, a person can call themselves a moral objectivist/absolutist every day of the week, but if they are practicing moral relativism/subjectivism, they are a moral relativist/subjectivist. I have never met anyone who is not, in reality, practicing moral relativism/subjectivism - including yourself. You can dress it up any way you wish, but your moral framework is grounded in your subjective valuing of your "god," and your subjective interpretation of what this "god" wills - which was actually written down by men. You cannot escape moral relativism/subjectivism.



You do love Technique #3. Unfortunately, and argument from outrage is just not an argument. I see the Nazi throwing Jews into ovens as no different from you disrespecting/disparaging the LGBTQ community or anyone else who has come to a subjective conclusion that "X is right." Each person see's their own moral framework as "right" by definition. If they didn't, they would have a different one. That does not make them "right" in any absolute sense. They may go to their graves believing they were acting morally, as you undoubtedly will about the LGBTQ community. Meanwhile, the rest of us will work to minimize the effect of the actions of those we consider to be immoral, including both the Nazi and you.

And yes, I know your response will be: but we have no argument for making that case, because there is no moral absolute (Technique #1). Unfortunately for you, we do have an argument. It's just not an absolute/objective one. It's a subjective one - just as the legal system is subjective, and quite rational/logical.

Are you not arguing, that there is an objective right and wrong, that the more rational and logical moral conclusion is the more objectively true moral conclusion?

[carpedm9587]

Are you not arguing, that there is an objective right and wrong, that the more rational and logical moral conclusion is the more objectively true moral conclusion?

No - I'm not.

[JimL]

No - I'm not.

Sorry carpe, but it sounds to me as though you are. Sounds as though you are saying that the Nazi's, and that those who disrespect/disparage the LGBTQ community, are wrong, and that we who disagree with them are right based on right rationalization and logic.

[carpedm9587]

Sorry carpe, but it sounds to me as though you are. Sounds as though you are saying that the Nazi's, and that those who disrespect/disparage the LGBTQ community, are wrong, and that we who disagree with them are right based on right rationalization and logic.

They are wrong in my moral framework. They are wrong in the moral frameworks of most humans. For the Nazi's gassing Jewish children, that "wrongness" is based in what most humans value (life) and the social contract (i.e., the golden rule). If we did not value life, we most likely would not define that action as "wrong." So, for the Nazi's, there are a few possibilities:

1) They do not value life (in which case we can have a discussion with them about why they do not value life)
2) They value life, but do not see Jewish children as living or as human (odd, but possible, so we would have to make the case for why Jewish children are also human life)
3) They value life, but have an error in their reasoning that leads them to the position that "taking life is OK." (so we tackle that logical flaw).
4) They value life, and even have a moral code prohibiting taking life, but are not living up to their own moral code (so we can approach it logically from the inconsistency).

At the end of the day, if we are not able to sway their moral code or their actions, we have exhausted the "convince" option, which means we will then either isolate/separate (which the U.S. attempted to do for a long time), or contend (which is what happened when the U.S. entered WWII).

None of that is dependent on moral "absolutes" or "objective moral codes."

A similar path can be traced for bigotry against the LGBTQ community. Seer is a good case in point. He reserves his highest valuing for his god. He has subjectively elected to align his moral code to the one he believes this god wants. He has subjectively interpreted this code to lead him to believe that bigotry against the LGBTQ community is a "moral good," and justifies it using this causal chain. So I can:

1) Try to convince him that valuing god is not a good idea (not likely to be successful)
2) Try to convince him that aligning his moral code to what he believes this god wants is not a good idea (also not likely to be successful)
3) Try to convince him that he has misinterpreted what this god wants (based on previous discussions, also not likely to be successful)

Having exhausted the possibility of "convince," what is left is to "isolate/separate" and/or to contend. Isolation/separation will happen naturally as more and more people shift their moral codes to see bigotry against the LGBTQ community as a "moral evil." Contend is happening publicly in the legal system as rights are being granted. If Seer and I lived in the same place and participated in the same community activities and groups, contending would also take the form of doing everything in my power to prevent his bigotry against the LGBTQ community to impact/infect communitty organizations. If we were friends, it would also take the form of prohibiting from voicing those views if/when he visited my home. I have a few good friends who are like Seer, and they know that this is not a topic they want to raise around me or in my home, and they respect that.

[JimL]

They are wrong in my moral framework. They are wrong in the moral frameworks of most humans. For the Nazi's gassing Jewish children, that "wrongness" is based in what most humans value (life) and the social contract (i.e., the golden rule). If we did not value life, we most likely would not define that action as "wrong." So, for the Nazi's, there are a few possibilities:

1) They do not value life (in which case we can have a discussion with them about why they do not value life)
2) They value life, but do not see Jewish children as living or as human (odd, but possible, so we would have to make the case for why Jewish children are also human life)
3) They value life, but have an error in their reasoning that leads them to the position that "taking life is OK." (so we tackle that logical flaw).
4) They value life, and even have a moral code prohibiting taking life, but are not living up to their own moral code (so we can approach it logically from the inconsistency).

At the end of the day, if we are not able to sway their moral code or their actions, we have exhausted the "convince" option, which means we will then either isolate/separate (which the U.S. attempted to do for a long time), or contend (which is what happened when the U.S. entered WWII).

None of that is dependent on moral "absolutes" or "objective moral codes."

By swaying them, do you mean to suggest that we convince them that we are in some sense right in our understanding that their moral code and actions are wrong? If so, then in what sense is it that we would be right and they would be wrong?

[seer]

1) They do not value life (in which case we can have a discussion with them about why they do not value life)
2) They value life, but do not see Jewish children as living or as human (odd, but possible, so we would have to make the case for why Jewish children are also human life)
3) They value life, but have an error in their reasoning that leads them to the position that "taking life is OK." (so we tackle that logical flaw).
4) They value life, and even have a moral code prohibiting taking life, but are not living up to their own moral code (so we can approach it logically from the inconsistency).

Or they simply value some lives over others, perfectly rational.

[carpedm9587]

By swaying them, do you mean to suggest that we convince them that we are in some sense right in our understanding that their moral code and actions are wrong? If so, then in what sense is it that we would be right and they would be wrong?

"Swaying" them is an attempt to get them to value as I value so they will derive the same moral code I have derived. For that to happen, they have to see a benefit to themselves from "valuing X." If I cannot help them find one, they will not value X.

If someone's moral code does not align with mine, then I will, by definition, see their moral code as "flawed" or "wrong." After all, I cannot hold two contradictory moral positions simultaneously. It is also possible they will make the same judgment of me.

Seer's bigotry against the LGBTQ community is a perfect case in point. He values something I do not (his god). It drives his moral code - leaving him seeing me as "immoral" or "wrong" to support the LGBTQ community, and I see him as immoral/wrong to take bigoted stances against them. Unless we can align our valuing, or I can somehow show hm an error in his reasoning from what he values to his moral framework, we are going to continue to evaluate one another as wrong/immoral. It is possible there is no resolution to that, which means we can exhaust the "convince" without resolution. That takes us to isolate/separate or contend to determine who's moral code will become part of our society's expressed moral code, which means it will likely be enforced in law.