Take Back Our Country

[seer]

Again - not the argument I was making. I have not made that claim.

Variation on Technique #2

Technique #1 - "inherent" is used here in place of "absolute" or "objective." So this is another variation on "subjective morals aren't objective" and "relative morals aren't absolute."

We've agreed on this several times now.

Yes - moral and legal frameworks get into particulars. Our discussion, thus far, has been on the viability of relative/subjective moral frameworks. The last sentence is an odd one - but I think it's a variation on Technique #1

Then Carp, I have no real idea what you overall point is. Let's try this: If something is relative it does not make in necessarily meaningful or meaningless. Do we agree?

[carpedm9587]

Then Carp, I have no real idea what you overall point is. Let's try this: If something is relative it does not make in necessarily meaningful or meaningless. Do we agree?

Meaning does not arise from whether or not something is relative OR subjective. Meaning is a function of a sentient mind. Literally, it means, "what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action." Meaning is always relative, simply because it is a function of a sentient mind and is derived by that mind.

[seer]

Meaning does not arise from whether or not something is relative OR subjective. Meaning is a function of a sentient mind. Literally, it means, "what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action." Meaning is always relative, simply because it is a function of a sentient mind and is derived by that mind.

I think we are on the same page; that if something is relative it does not make in necessarily meaningful or meaningless. So how does that play into the question as to whether relative ethics are meaningful or not?

[carpedm9587]

I think we are on the same page; that if something is relative it does not make in necessarily meaningful or meaningless. So how does that play into the question as to whether relative ethics are meaningful or not?

First, I think you are using "relative" when you mean "subjective." Every moral framework is subjective to the individual that formulates it. That means that any moral assessment will be relative to the individual making it and the actor being assessed.

That means subjective moral frameworks are meaningful to those who hold them. Those who do not will not find the position meaningful until they are convinced, if that is possible. For some (e.g., my discussions about homosexuality with Sparko and CP), there is no avenue for convincing because the underlying values are misaligned, and any attempt to point out logical inconsistencies is overwhelmed by the "god says so" argument. So there is unlikely to be any convincing. That leaves the other avenues for handling mismatched morality, and the moral framework I hold (with respect to that subject) will remain meaningless to them. For others, discussion is possible and there are several avenues open to "convince." Success is never assured.

[seer]

First, I think you are using "relative" when you mean "subjective." Every moral framework is subjective to the individual that formulates it. That means that any moral assessment will be relative to the individual making it and the actor being assessed.

That means subjective moral frameworks are meaningful to those who hold them. Those who do not will not find the position meaningful until they are convinced, if that is possible. For some (e.g., my discussions about homosexuality with Sparko and CP), there is no avenue for convincing because the underlying values are misaligned, and any attempt to point out logical inconsistencies is overwhelmed by the "god says so" argument. So there is unlikely to be any convincing. That leaves the other avenues for handling mismatched morality, and the moral framework I hold (with respect to that subject) will remain meaningless to them. For others, discussion is possible and there are several avenues open to "convince." Success is never assured.

Carp, I'm really trying hard to (and I'm not kidding) understand how your bringing up special relativity plays into the question as to whether relative ethics are meaningful or not?

[carpedm9587]

Carp, I'm really trying hard to (and I'm not kidding) understand how your bringing up special relativity plays into the question as to whether relative ethics are meaningful or not?

I brought it up to show that YOUR claim that "morality is meaningless if is it subjective/relative" is not a sustainable claim. I brought up the analogy to legal systems for the same reason.

Clearly, humanity is replete with subjective/relative constructs that are perfectly meaningful and useful. That does not "prove" relative/subjective morality is "meaningful." It refutes your claim that it's NOT solely because it's relative/subjective.

And special relativity is also a useful mechanism for understanding how relative/subjective morality actually functions. The two are analogous in multiple ways.

[seer]

I brought it up to show that YOUR claim that "morality is meaningless if is it subjective/relative" is not a sustainable claim. I brought up the analogy to legal systems for the same reason.

But bringing up special relativity has nothing to do with whether relative ethics are meaningful or not.

Clearly, humanity is replete with subjective/relative constructs that are perfectly meaningful and useful. That does not "prove" relative/subjective morality is "meaningful." It refutes your claim that it's NOT solely because it's relative/subjective.

But unlike with special relativity, whether one finds relative ethics meaningful, or not, is grounded in personal or collective preference - correct? If the moral realist believes that relative ethics are meaningless then he is no more wrong than one who finds meaning in them. If the realist believes that relative morality is meaningless, he is not wrong. Then how can you claim that he is wrong? His claim is just as "sustainable" (or not) as yours.

[carpedm9587]

But bringing up special relativity has nothing to do with whether relative ethics are meaningful or not.

Your claim has been, repeatedly, that subjective/relative morality is meaningless solely because it is subjective/relative. I showed you other subjective/relative things that are not considered meaningless to show you that your argument has no weight.

But unlike with special relativity, whether one finds relative ethics meaningful, or not, is grounded in personal or collective preference - correct?

Subjective morality is grounded is subjectively grounded in what a person values, and relatively applied to observed moral actions.
Relativity is grounded in subjectively selected moral frameworks, and relatively applied to observed objects.

If the moral realist believes that relative ethics are meaningless then he is no more wrong than one who finds meaning in them.

No more or less "objectively wrong" because an objective assessment of a subjective framework is meaningless. (and you just went back to Technique #1).
It's like saying, "the person who observed the car moving at 25 MPH is no more or less wrong than the person who observed the car moving at 35 MPH.

Of course not. The entire system is subjective/relative.

If the realist believes that relative morality is meaningless, he is not wrong.

Yes - he is. "Meaningless" means "devoid of meaning." Clearly the subjective moral framework is meaningful to the person who holds it.

Then how can you claim that he is wrong?

Wrong about what?

His claim is just as "sustainable" (or not) as yours.

You are trying to make an equality where the very concept of an equality is meaningless. In relativity, the car can be moving at 35 MPH AND 25 MPH, and both can be correct at the same time, if the assessments have been done from different frames of reference. Relative/subjective morality is identical.

Case in point:

Michel believes taking a stand against same-sex marriage is morally wrong.
Sparko believes taking a stand against same-sex marriage is morally right.

Both statements are true, and that is how each sees it. Unless one convinces the other, both will continue to see this act according to their own moral framework. Michel will see it as immoral for everyone everywhere. Sparko will see it as moral for everyone everywhere.

[Tassman]

Tass and I do not agree on the nature of morality. I see him as clinging to the need for an "absolute" and "objective" source for morality, so he is essentially replacing "god" with "evolution."

Sigh! You misunderstand my basis of morality and you've done this before. Again, if you are asking what determines MORALITY. The Theists, of course, will say God. The philosophical naturalist will say the natural evolution of human behaviour to ensure the survival of the family and community and cooperation so that the human species survives. The latter is my position. There is nothing "absolute" and "objective" about this other than the evolved instinct of all living creatures to survive.

[seer]

No more or less "objectively wrong" because an objective assessment of a subjective framework is meaningless. (and you just went back to Technique #1).
It's like saying, "the person who observed the car moving at 25 MPH is no more or less wrong than the person who observed the car moving at 35 MPH.

Of course not. The entire system is subjective/relative.

Yes - he is. "Meaningless" means "devoid of meaning." Clearly the subjective moral framework is meaningful to the person who holds it.

Michel believes taking a stand against same-sex marriage is morally wrong.
Sparko believes taking a stand against same-sex marriage is morally right.

Both statements are true, and that is how each sees it.

So after all this it comes down to personal preference. One man finds moral relativism meaningful, one man finds it meaningless. And BOTH statements are true!

[carpedm9587]

So after all this it comes down to personal preference. One man finds moral relativism meaningful, one man finds it meaningless. And BOTH statements are true!

I have never said anything other than morality is a form of personal preference. It is the term we use for the personal preferences we associate with a) actions, and b) our most deeply held valuing. For anything we value, we have "ought" and "ought not" categories of behavior. It ranges from the most deeply held (I value life) to the most trivially held (I value the taste of good pizza). Each of these suggests "ought" and "ought not" behavior. The term "morality" is typically used for the things on the high end of that spectrum.

Indeed, as I write this, I realize there is a very clear line for when our "behavior preference" begins being called "morality." It occurs when we find the behavior so important that we believe all sentient beings should be acting in concert with that behavioral norm. That happens when we believe the underlying value is something that is so vital it needs to be protected and nurtured. Life. Liberty. Happiness. Trust.

[Sparko]

I brought it up to show that YOUR claim that "morality is meaningless if is it subjective/relative" is not a sustainable claim. I brought up the analogy to legal systems for the same reason.

Clearly, humanity is replete with subjective/relative constructs that are perfectly meaningful and useful. That does not "prove" relative/subjective morality is "meaningful." It refutes your claim that it's NOT solely because it's relative/subjective.

And special relativity is also a useful mechanism for understanding how relative/subjective morality actually functions. The two are analogous in multiple ways.

Again, two people moving at different speeds and measuring different speeds is not special relativity. That is basic newtonian physics. If you have two cars going 30MPH according to their speedometers at each other, they will each see the other moving at 60MPH at them and a third observer standing on the side of the road would see each moving at 30MPH. Basic newtonian physics. Special Relativity would say that time would slow for each one causing the actual measured speed to be NOT 60MPH but something slightly different.

But your analogy still doesn't prove "meaning" in the sense seer was talking about. He is saying that what you believe morally has no meaning as far as he is concerned morally. Unless of course you are imposing your morality at him.

It is like he is saying the best speed to travel is 30MPH! And you say no, the best speed is 35MPH! Neither of you could claim to be "correct" and claim what your think is the best speed should mean something to the other person. If speed is relative, then whatever speed you choose is the best one for you. Personal preference.

Now if you impose an objective speed rule on that and we have a speed limit of 30MPH, then Seer can indeed claim that 30MPH is the best speed and if you are traveling at 35MPH you are wrong.

[carpedm9587]

Again, two people moving at different speeds and measuring different speeds is not special relativity. That is basic newtonian physics. If you have two cars going 30MPH according to their speedometers at each other, they will each see the other moving at 60MPH at them and a third observer standing on the side of the road would see each moving at 30MPH. Basic newtonian physics. Special Relativity would say that time would slow for each one causing the actual measured speed to be NOT 60MPH but something slightly different.

Sparko, your entire statement about the cars is true from the framework of the surface of the planet. Einstien gave us the Theory of Relativity and the Special Theory of relativity. The former deals with what I was discussing with Seer. The latter deals with what you have described above. At least, that is my understanding of his work.

But your analogy still doesn't prove "meaning" in the sense seer was talking about. He is saying that what you believe morally has no meaning as far as he is concerned morally. Unless of course you are imposing your morality at him.

As I said to Seer, several times, I did not set out to "prove meaning." I set out to prove that the claim "it is meaningless because it is relative/subjective" is not sustainable. We have many relative/subjective things we find perfectly meaningful. So a thing cannot be said to be meaningless solely because it is relative/subjective.

It is like he is saying the best speed to travel is 30MPH! And you say no, the best speed is 35MPH! Neither of you could claim to be "correct" and claim what your think is the best speed should mean something to the other person. If speed is relative, then whatever speed you choose is the best one for you. Personal preference.

Yes - morality is a form of personal preference. I have never said otherwise.

Now if you impose an objective speed rule on that and we have a speed limit of 30MPH, then Seer can indeed claim that 30MPH is the best speed and if you are traveling at 35MPH you are wrong.

Note that such a speed limit was subjectively selected by someone. It is only "objective" in the same sense that your subjective personal preference is an objective reality to me (i.e., it is unaffected by my beliefs, thoughts, or ideas). All Seer would be doing is saying, "your preference for 35MPH exceeds the subjective preference of the authority that posted the 30 MPH limit."

[seer]

I have never said anything other than morality is a form of personal preference. It is the term we use for the personal preferences we associate with a) actions, and b) our most deeply held valuing. For anything we value, we have "ought" and "ought not" categories of behavior. It ranges from the most deeply held (I value life) to the most trivially held (I value the taste of good pizza). Each of these suggests "ought" and "ought not" behavior. The term "morality" is typically used for the things on the high end of that spectrum.

Yet, you kept arguing with me because I do not find meaning, or the degree of meaning you do, in relative ethics as a moral theory. When, in the end, it is just a matter of personal preference. Like you said both statements (for and against) would true! All those pages and we end up here?

[Sparko]

Sparko, your entire statement about the cars is true from the framework of the surface of the planet. Einstien gave us the Theory of Relativity and the Special Theory of relativity. The former deals with what I was discussing with Seer. The latter deals with what you have described above. At least, that is my understanding of his work.

Relativity and relative motion was something understood for centuries before Einstein.

The idea of relativity had been studied almost three centuries earlier by Galileo, when he stated the principle of relativity in 1632 (that the fundamental laws of physics are the same for all bodies in uniform motion). Later in the 17th Century, Sir Isaac Newton also took the principle of relativity for granted, asserting that if his famous laws of motion held in one inertial frame, then they also held in a reference frame moving at a constant velocity relative to the first frame.
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...elativity.html

Einstein upped it with such things as the Speed of Light being constant for all observers (thus an OBJECTIVE speed limit) and time and space being changeable. Space can expand and contract, as can time. Thus if you were moving at the speed of light toward Alpha Centauri, 4 light years away, and you measured your clock at the start and finish, you would have measured zero time, which would make the trip from your point of view instantaneous, but anyone else seeing you would have measured your speed as the speed of light and your trip having taken 4 years. For you space would have contracted to zero distance. Everyone else would see you being frozen in time for 4 years.

Special Relativity basically says speed and time can change depending on the observer, except for the speed of light. It is absolute and not relative at all. Anything moving at the speed of light will be seen to move at the speed of light for all observers no matter their speed.

General Relativity basically adds gravity as a curvature of space and links space and time into the same "material" space-time.

As I said to Seer, several times, I did not set out to "prove meaning." I set out to prove that the claim "it is meaningless because it is relative/subjective" is not sustainable. We have many relative/subjective things we find perfectly meaningful. So a thing cannot be said to be meaningless solely because it is relative/subjective.

The question is, are your preferences meaningful to someone else? They could be if they impact them directly, but not if they don't. Like I said somewhere else. If you think murder is fine and you want to murder me, then your opinion on murder will mean something to me. But if you think it is immoral for poodles to have sex with dachshunds, well that is your preference and it doesn't mean a thing to me, other than you are weird.

Note that such a speed limit was subjectively selected by someone. It is only "objective" in the same sense that your subjective personal preference is an objective reality to me (i.e., it is unaffected by my beliefs, thoughts, or ideas). All Seer would be doing is saying, "your preference for 35MPH exceeds the subjective preference of the authority that posted the 30 MPH limit."

But if there was an objective speed limit, say the speed of light, you would be unable to move faster even if you decided that moving at twice the speed of light was your preference. You claiming that moving faster than light is the best speed would be provably wrong.