Take Back Our Country

[seer]

Yes. It is dependent on what the observer has subjectively chosen as his comparative framework. He can subjectively choose another framework and it will change the relative speed of the object. That is the entire concept of relativity.

No, it doesn't matter what he subjectively chose. If he did not choose to be there (was forced), or he was there by accident, or was deaf dumb and blind and dropped off. On that spot at that moment the objective speed would be objectively the same.

Same answer... yes... the moral framework is based on what the moral assessor thinks/feels/believes. That's what makes it subjective.

But it is not the same answer. Any man on the spot in question would be open to the same objective speed - that speed is not dependent on what he thinks, feels or believes. He could believe that the speed is 5 mile an hour, rather than 15 miles mph. He would be wrong, objectively wrong. Claiming that lying is wrong is totally dependent on what one thinks, feels or believes. The claim that lying is wrong could never be objectively wrong.

[carpedm9587]

No, it doesn't matter what he subjectively chose. If he did not choose to be there (was forced), or he was there by accident, or was deaf dumb and blind and dropped off. On that spot at that moment the objective speed would be objectively the same.

Yes, it would be. And that doesn't really change anything. I noted there is a distinction between sentient and non-sentient physical frameworks, and only focused on sentient frameworks. It doesn't matter is the observer made the speed choice, or it was forced on them by another sentient being, once the speed has been subjectively chosen and externalized, it has an objective reality that can be measured, and everyone measuring from that perspective will measure the same thing. Likewise, once a moral framework has been selected and externalized (e.g., expressed, written down) it has an objective existence and everyone measuring from that perspective will measure the same way.

But it is not the same answer. Any man on the spot in question would be open to the same objective speed - that speed is not dependent on what he thinks, feels or believes. He could believe that the speed is 5 mile an hour, rather than 15 miles mph. He would be wrong, objectively wrong. Claiming that lying is wrong is totally dependent on what one thinks, feels or believes. The claim that lying is wrong could never be objectively wrong.

He could subjectively choose to be at 5 MPH, or subjectively choose to be at 20 MPH. Which one he subjectively chooses will change the relative speed (subjectively). Those speeds change can be objectively measure. He could subjectively choose Act A is moral or Act B is immoral. Which one he chooses will subjectively change the moral assessment of the associated action. Anyone who knows what that moral framework is will assess (from the perspective of that framework) that act in the same way.

And, at this point, I have repeated this often enough. It is clear the words I am using are not conveying the message, so repeating them yet again is not going to do the deed. The logic is simple, and so far all I have heard is "no it's not" with no offered argument that shows how the analogy/parallel fails. So I'll leave you to it. If you offer something other than the same rejections, or ask a question I have not already answered, I'll respond. Otherwise, I'll hope that someone else can kick in and perhaps explain the concept more easily and clearly. I'm going to discontinue further repetitions of the same responses.

[seer]

Yes, it would be. And that doesn't really change anything. I noted there is a distinction between sentient and non-sentient physical frameworks, and only focused on sentient frameworks. It doesn't matter is the observer made the speed choice, or it was forced on them by another sentient being, once the speed has been subjectively chosen and externalized, it has an objective reality that can be measured, and everyone measuring from that perspective will measure the same thing. Likewise, once a moral framework has been selected and externalized (e.g., expressed, written down) it has an objective existence and everyone measuring from that perspective will measure the same way.

He could subjectively choose to be at 5 MPH, or subjectively choose to be at 20 MPH. Which one he subjectively chooses will change the relative speed (subjectively). Those speeds change can be objectively measure. He could subjectively choose Act A is moral or Act B is immoral. Which one he chooses will subjectively change the moral assessment of the associated action. Anyone who knows what that moral framework is will assess (from the perspective of that framework) that act in the same way.

And, at this point, I have repeated this often enough. It is clear the words I am using are not conveying the message, so repeating them yet again is not going to do the deed. The logic is simple, and so far all I have heard is "no it's not" with no offered argument that shows how the analogy/parallel fails. So I'll leave you to it. If you offer something other than the same rejections, or ask a question I have not already answered, I'll respond. Otherwise, I'll hope that someone else can kick in and perhaps explain the concept more easily and clearly. I'm going to discontinue further repetitions of the same responses.

Of course I have shown how it fails. You can not objectively show how a moral opinion is wrong, you can show how an opinion concerning a relative speed can be objectively wrong at a particular time and place. One is open to falsification, the other is not.

[Sparko]

Who's moral framework do you want to use?



I have done this several times. Just as, once you know the subjectively chosen physical framework for measuring relative motion, anyone can measure the relative motion of Object A, so too, once you know the subjectively chosen moral framework for measuring the morality of an action, anyone can measure the morality of the same Moral Act from that framework. This is not rocket science, Sparko.

I'm not sure how to make your assignments work above, but this is how I would lay it out:

Selected Subjective Moral Framework: Michel's position that selecting providing a service on the basis of the sex of the individuals is immoral.
Moral Actor: Baker who decides he is willing to make wedding cakes for opposite-sex weddings but not for same-sex weddings
Any observer can then objectively say: From the perspective of Michel's moral framework, the baker's action is immoral. This is an objectively true statement that can be made by anyone.

The parallel case in physics:

Selected Subjective Physical Framework: Michel's chosen travel speed of 10 MPH.
Physical Actor: Car that is moving at 35 MPH in the same direction as Michel
Any observer can then objectively say: From the perspective of Michel's physical framework, the car is moving at the relative speed of 25 MPH. This is an objectively true statement that can be made by anyone.

This all seems very self-evident to me, but if it breaks down somewhere, feel free to show where/how it breaks down. Unfortunately, "that's stupid" and "that's silly" will not get you there.

That is not an objective measurement of morality. That is just saying whether the moral act agrees with your morality or not. That is a complete non-starter. if that is what your analogy was meant to show, then it was completely useless. anyone can say whether a moral action agrees with yours or not if you tell them what your view is. duh.

That is not an objective measurement of morality. That is just a third party view of what you believe.

Complete failure of an analogy and making any point whatsoever.

Why the heck would you even need an analogy to say that? If carp thinks that rape is immoral then yes I can agree that carp thinks rape is immoral. Derp.



Again it comes down to you claiming your morality is just what you personally prefer. It means nothing to me or anyone else. It doesn't make you right. It gives you no authority whatsoever to argue against anyone else's moral stance. So just stop. You are wasting your time. Your arguments mean nothing. Your reasons for why something is immoral are just more personal views used to rationalize your preferences. You are the one who has trivialized morality. Morality means nothing more than a personal like according to you so it is no more important to anyone else than your favorite color or sports team.

[carpedm9587]

That is not an objective measurement of morality. That is just saying whether the moral act agrees with your morality or not. That is a complete non-starter. if that is what your analogy was meant to show, then it was completely useless. anyone can say whether a moral action agrees with yours or not if you tell them what your view is. duh.

That is not an objective measurement of morality. That is just a third party view of what you believe.

Then it's not an objective measurement of speed either - it's just a third party assessment.

Complete failure of an analogy and making any point whatsoever.

Why the heck would you even need an analogy to say that? If carp thinks that rape is immoral then yes I can agree that carp thinks rape is immoral. Derp.

Again it comes down to you claiming your morality is just what you personally prefer. It means nothing to me or anyone else. It doesn't make you right. It gives you no authority whatsoever to argue against anyone else's moral stance. So just stop. You are wasting your time. Your arguments mean nothing. Your reasons for why something is immoral are just more personal views used to rationalize your preferences. You are the one who has trivialized morality. Morality means nothing more than a personal like according to you so it is no more important to anyone else than your favorite color or sports team.

Actually I have done none of those things, and all of this reduces to basically Technique #1 over and over again. We all know relative morality is not absolute, and subjective morality is not objective. That has never been disagreed with at any point.

As for the "just stop," no. In a relative.subjective moral framework, it is still possible to appeal to underlying values, or find logical inconsistencies in another person's own moral framework which, hopefully, they will consider. Of course, there is no way to definitively ensure that anyone is going to be persuaded by such considerations. Clearly, many here have not been swayed by many of the moral discussions. Perhaps none will be. Or, perhaps, someone will come along and read some of what has been written and be convinced by it, shifting their moral framework as a consequence.

There is always that hope. For those who are not convinced, then we fall back on agree-to-disagree, isolate/separate, or contend.

For example, there are strong feelings about homosexuality reflected here. If my moral framework concerning homosexuality were to be considered unacceptable to the point that continued posting was simply not acceptable, the mods could elect to block me from this site. It has certainly happened before. That is an example of isolation/separation. It doesn't mean my moral views will change - it just renders me unable to express them or discuss them in this forum. Such separation happens regularly.

As for the rest of the analogy, I stand behind it. That you do not accept it is clear, but I haven't seen anyone actually frame an argument to address it. I've just seen a lot of "silly" and "derp" and "duh." None of those are particularly compelling arguments, IMO.

[carpedm9587]

Of course I have shown how it fails. You can not objectively show how a moral opinion is wrong, you can show how an opinion concerning a relative speed can be objectively wrong at a particular time and place. One is open to falsification, the other is not.

Seer, you can objectively show how a moral opinion is wrong if you know the moral framework and the act that is being assessed, in the same way that you can objectively show the relative speed of an object if you know the framework from which it is being measured and the object being measured.

I think you are confusing "objective" and "absolute." You cannot "absolutely" show a moral position to be wrong, because there is no absolute moral framework from which to do this. But we already now this. But you can objectively show it to be wrong in the same way you can objectively measure speed.

Look, an analogy is just that, an analogy. The intent is to show a parallel between two things as a way to better understand them by understanding the parallels AND the differences. Clearly morality and physics are not the same thing. The similarities are significant:

• A sentient agent subjectively chooses a physical framework (speed, direction); a sentient agent subjectively derives a moral framework
• A sentient agent externalizes their physical framework (speed, direction); a sentient agent externalizes their moral framework (tells people, writes it down)
• A sentient agent's physical framework can be used by anyone to assess relative speed/position of other objects; a sentient agent's moral framework can be used by other people to asses the morality of a given action (from the perspective of that framework
• Two or more sentient agents cannot make meaningful statements about relative motion without a common physical reference frame; two or more moral agents cannot make meaningful statements about relative morality without a common moral framework.

Feel free to object to any of the above. But just calling them "silly" or "stupid" or adding another "derm" or "duh" is not going to do much to refute these observations. They are pretty self-evident.

It is the last one that leads people like you to desperately want a "moral absolute." Without it, you perceive little hope for meaningful conversation. Humanity takes care of this need in multiple ways. First - we tend to gather with people who share a common moral framework. Second, we try to persuade those who's framework is not aligned to align their framework. We do that by looking at the underlying values, the reasoning process, and anything else that will convince someone to re-explore their moral framework. It's not always successful, but I find even the discussion is worth the effort. There is always something new - something previously not considered - that is taken away.

[Sparko]

Actually I have done none of those things, and all of this reduces to basically Technique #1 over and over again. We all know relative morality is not absolute, and subjective morality is not objective. That has never been disagreed with at any point.

Of course we disagree with it. That is what we are debating.

And it is not "technique#1" I am merely describing what YOU said you believe to show you that IF it is true then your morality doesn't matter. It is just (and I do mean "just") trivial. Why should I care what Joe Schmoe believes is moral or immoral if there is no objective morality? I don't.

As for the "just stop," no. In a relative.subjective moral framework, it is still possible to appeal to underlying values, or find logical inconsistencies in another person's own moral framework which, hopefully, they will consider. Of course, there is no way to definitively ensure that anyone is going to be persuaded by such considerations. Clearly, many here have not been swayed by many of the moral discussions. Perhaps none will be. Or, perhaps, someone will come along and read some of what has been written and be convinced by it, shifting their moral framework as a consequence.

But all of those underlying values are just more layers of personal preferences, Carp. They don't matter either.

There is always that hope. For those who are not convinced, then we fall back on agree-to-disagree, isolate/separate, or contend.

For example, there are strong feelings about homosexuality reflected here. If my moral framework concerning homosexuality were to be considered unacceptable to the point that continued posting was simply not acceptable, the mods could elect to block me from this site. It has certainly happened before. That is an example of isolation/separation. It doesn't mean my moral views will change - it just renders me unable to express them or discuss them in this forum. Such separation happens regularly.

As for the rest of the analogy, I stand behind it. That you do not accept it is clear, but I haven't seen anyone actually frame an argument to address it. I've just seen a lot of "silly" and "derp" and "duh." None of those are particularly compelling arguments, IMO.

There is no reason for an analogy if that was your only point. If all you wanted to say was that some third person can say what your moral values are if you tell them, then just say that. Why do you need an analogy? It is something completely obvious and has nothing to do with whether morals are relative or objective.

Example 1.
Morals are objective.
Sparko says rape is immoral.
Carp is asked what Sparko believes: "Sparko thinks rape is immoral"

Example 2:
Morals are relative
Sparko says rape is immoral.
Carp is asked what Sparko believes: "Sparko thinks rape is immoral"

See? No difference.

[seer]

Seer, you can objectively show how a moral opinion is wrong if you know the moral framework and the act that is being assessed, in the same way that you can objectively show the relative speed of an object if you know the framework from which it is being measured and the object being measured.

I think you are confusing "objective" and "absolute." You cannot "absolutely" show a moral position to be wrong, because there is no absolute moral framework from which to do this. But we already now this. But you can objectively show it to be wrong in the same way you can objectively measure speed.

But Carp, you can show that at position A, relative to you, the car is traveling at 35 mph. And if one claims that the car is only traveling at 25 mph, that claim would be absolutely/objectively wrong. The claim is falsified. Moral opinions cannot be falsified.

[carpedm9587]

Of course we disagree with it. That is what we are debating.

The point you are missing, Sparko, is I have never disagreed with you on the point. Subjective morality is not objective. Relative morality is not absolute. Agreed. Next?

And it is not "technique#1" I am merely describing what YOU said you believe to show you that IF it is true then your morality doesn't matter. It is just (and I do mean "just") trivial. Why should I care what Joe Schmoe believes is moral or immoral if there is no objective morality? I don't.

You are jumping from the definition of the terms to "it doesn't matter" without justification. Of course it matters. And the "trivial" is just Technique #2.

But all of those underlying values are just more layers of personal preferences, Carp. They don't matter either.

Of course they matter. Claiming they don't over and over again doesn't make them actually not matter. They simply matter relatively and subjectively, not absolutely and objectively. But we already knew that, so you're back to Technique #1 (again).

There is no reason for an analogy if that was your only point. If all you wanted to say was that some third person can say what your moral values are if you tell them, then just say that. Why do you need an analogy? It is something completely obvious and has nothing to do with whether morals are relative or objective.

You've focused in on one thing. The analogy was to make the basic point, "relativity did not reduce physics to 'meaningless;' ergo it doe snot need to reduce morality to 'meaningless' " We had to adjust how we see and measure the world to adjust to relativity, and then it opened doors of understanding. The same is possible for moral relativity.

Example 1.
Morals are objective.
Sparko says rape is immoral.
Carp is asked what Sparko believes: "Sparko thinks rape is immoral"

Example 2:
Morals are relative
Sparko says rape is immoral.
Carp is asked what Sparko believes: "Sparko thinks rape is immoral"

See? No difference.

Once again, you confuse relative/absolute and subjective/objective. They are not the same concept.

[carpedm9587]

But Carp, you can show that at position A, relative to you, the car is traveling at 35 mph. And if one claims that the car is only traveling at 25 mph, that claim would be absolutely/objectively wrong.

No - the claim would not be wrong. It would be meaningless. Those are not the same things. Without a frame of reference, the speed of the car cannot be determined.

The claim is falsified. Moral opinions cannot be falsified.

No - the claim is not falsified. It is a meaningless claim.

I know you cannot see this, but your last sentence is just another example of Technique #1. Moral opinions cannot be "absolutely" falsified. THAT is true. Just as speed cannot be absolutely quantified. They can be objectively falsified if you know the frame of reference, just as speed can be falsified if you know the moral frame of reference.

[Sparko]

The point you are missing, Sparko, is I have never disagreed with you on the point. Subjective morality is not objective. Relative morality is not absolute. Agreed. Next?



You are jumping from the definition of the terms to "it doesn't matter" without justification. Of course it matters. And the "trivial" is just Technique #2.



Of course they matter. Claiming they don't over and over again doesn't make them actually not matter. They simply matter relatively and subjectively, not absolutely and objectively. But we already knew that, so you're back to Technique #1 (again).



You've focused in on one thing. The analogy was to make the basic point, "relativity did not reduce physics to 'meaningless;' ergo it doe snot need to reduce morality to 'meaningless' " We had to adjust how we see and measure the world to adjust to relativity, and then it opened doors of understanding. The same is possible for moral relativity.



Once again, you confuse relative/absolute and subjective/objective. They are not the same concept.

I am not confusing anything, Carp. This is just you handwaving away anything you don't want to address.

Your "analogy" had no point. Other than as a distraction.

and no it is not "technique #2" to point out the triviality of your position. That is another handwave on your part. You are one of the most disingenuous debaters I have ever come across. Polite but disingenuous. You play all these games with words and definitions and distractions, all to avoid addressing someone else's points directly. Very passive-aggressive too.

When your morals are only important to you and not to me, then they are indeed "trivial"
Of course you think they are important because they are your values. You probably think your preferences as to sports teams and style of clothes are important too. But in the larger scheme of things, they don't matter to the world. They are trivial. Your moral values are trivial. They are just personal opinions.

1 m-fKADmDQ_vA1lFyUnmCnQ.jpg

As far as confusing relative/subjective, etc.

Example 1.
Morals are objective.
Sparko says rape is immoral.
Carp is asked what Sparko believes: "Sparko thinks rape is immoral"

Example 2:
Morals are relative
Sparko says rape is immoral.
Carp is asked what Sparko believes: "Sparko thinks rape is immoral"

Example 3.
Morals are subjective.
Sparko says rape is immoral.
Carp is asked what Sparko believes: "Sparko thinks rape is immoral"

Example 2:
Morals are absolute
Sparko says rape is immoral.
Carp is asked what Sparko believes: "Sparko thinks rape is immoral"

It still makes no difference. All you are doing is having a third party say what the second party has told them their values are. So freaking what! It doens't have anything to do with the topic at hand.

[seer]

No - the claim would not be wrong. It would be meaningless. Those are not the same things. Without a frame of reference, the speed of the car cannot be determined.



No - the claim is not falsified. It is a meaningless claim.

I know you cannot see this, but your last sentence is just another example of Technique #1. Moral opinions cannot be "absolutely" falsified. THAT is true. Just as speed cannot be absolutely quantified. They can be objectively falsified if you know the frame of reference, just as speed can be falsified if you know the moral frame of reference.

Carp there is a real difference, it is clear that the the false opinion of the 35 mph speed can be falsified. Try to deal with the following without potificating.

Do you agree that if two men are at the exact same point, where the car is traveling past at 35 mph, and one man claims that the car is really only going 25 mph, that that claim can be absolutely falsified?

[carpedm9587]

Carp there is a real difference, it is clear that the the false opinion of the 35 mph speed can be falsified. Try to deal with the following without potificating.

Do you agree that if two men are at the exact same point, where the car is traveling past at 35 mph, and one man claims that the car is really only going 25 mph, that that claim can be absolutely falsified?

Yes. Two observers using the same frame of reference can falsify the statement "the car is traveling 35 MPH."
Likewise, two observers using the same moral frame of reference can falsify the statement "randomly killing humans is moral."

Once you agree on the frame of reference, the assessment is objective.

[Sparko]

Yes. Two observers using the same frame of reference can falsify the statement "the car is traveling 35 MPH."
Likewise, two observers using the same moral frame of reference can falsify the statement "randomly killing humans is moral."

Once you agree on the frame of reference, the assessment is objective.

Basically you just said "If two people agree with each other, then they agree with each other"

[carpedm9587]

Basically you just said "If two people agree with each other, then they agree with each other"

I answered the question that Seer asked...