Take Back Our Country

[seer]

Yes - the so-called "laws of nature" describe of how the universe operates, so if we simply "make them up" there is no way to ensure they do what they are intended to do.

Right, but that is the correct analogy. If we made up the laws of physics, like we do with ethics, then the discipline of physics would be meaningless.

So, two problems. First, you appear to be attempting to reverse the logic of my statement. This happens a lot on this website. My statement was that the existence of relative/subjective disciplines we consider meaningful makes your claim that moral relativity is meaningless solely because it is relative/subjective suspect. The existence of legal principles, which are also considered meaningful and are also relative/subjective further undermines the claim. Your argument above suggests you're trying to show that "making things up" makes them meaningless.

Remember, you are the one who wanted to compare physics with morality, and if we do, really do, then my analogy is much more apt. Made up physics would be meaningless.

Second, if you take something that is not relative/subjective and ignore that fact, you render it meaningless. On that I think we agree. That is what happens with "laws of physics" in your question above. If you are going to attempt to make a parallel case for morality, you are going to have to demonstrate that morality is intrinsically absolute/objective and that is being ignored. If you could accomplish that, you would make the case. But you have not been able to do that for several hundred posts. I'm not sure how you propose to do that now.

Actually no I don't, all I have to show is that if we really treated physics like you treat ethics, physics would be rendered completely meaningless.

[carpedm9587]

Right, but that is the correct analogy. If we made up the laws of physics, like we do with ethics, then the discipline of physics would be meaningless.

No. As I noted, the laws of physics are demonstrably about objective realities (i.e., how the universe does function) and become meaningless when that is not recognized. If you are going to make this case, then you are going to have to show that morality is likewise about objective realities but, since it is about how humans should behave, you're going to have a hard time making that case. Feel free to try, however.

Remember, you are the one who wanted to compare physics with morality, and if we do, really do, then my analogy is much more apt. Made up physics would be meaningless.

When you went from the assessment of position/motion (which is analogous to the assessment of behavior) to the laws of physics themselves, you changed the analogy. So if the analogy is going to work, you're going to have to deal with the problem above. Simply asserting the parallel is not going to cut it. I outlined the parallel line by line.

Actually no I don't, all I have to show is that if we really treated physics like you treat ethics, physics would be rendered completely meaningless.

Then the analogy will collapse

An assertion is not an argument, Seer. You should know that.

I have no problem with an analogy between physics and morality. I have used it myself. But an analogy requires showing points of commonality so you can then explore differences. I showed the points of commonality between the principle of relativity and the principle of relative morality. You have done nothing to show the parallel between the "laws of physics" and the "laws of morality." One deals with what is in both the sentient and non-sentient realm; the other deals with only sentient beings and what they SHOULD do. Your comparison is apples and oranges.

However, if history repeats itself, you're going to dismiss all of that and simply assert that you've made an argument, post after post after post. Just so you know, I don't have the time or patience for that tactic yet again. If it's the path you choose, I'll leave you to it.

[Sparko]

Moral values derive from the natural evolution of human behaviour as social animals. They ensure the survival of the family and community and cooperation so that the human species survives.



Killing others is universally considered bad, except in certain agreed circumstances such as capital punishment, self-defence, war etc..



Personal taste in chocolate or whatever is not the same as questions of right and wrong. These arise due to the fact that we have to live among other human beings, which means there are certain basic principles that must apply such as respect for other individuals.



Tell us what is "objectively moral" and how you "objectively measure" it.

You and Carp need to agree on what morals are before you try to take up his cause and argue for him. Get on the same page first. You believe in objective morality, but claim it arises out of evolution, which is in reality just Might Makes Right, or a tyranny of the majority, not actually objective morality. Carp on the other hand believes that morals are personal preferences and are not a group consensus. His idea of morality is on par with deciding what style of clothes he likes better.

[carpedm9587]

You and Carp need to agree on what morals are before you try to take up his cause and argue for him. Get on the same page first.

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." Though evolution certainly plays a role in our ability to moralize (evolution produces brain - brain is needed to moralize) and anything that reduces survivability will (on average) be selected against, the heart of morality is not rooted in evolution in the way that Tass sometimes describes.

You believe in objective morality, but claim it arises out of evolution, which is in reality just Might Makes Right, or a tyranny of the majority, not actually objective morality. Carp on the other hand believes that morals are personal preferences and are not a group consensus. His idea of morality is on par with deciding what style of clothes he likes better.

Technique #2

[seer]

No. As I noted, the laws of physics are demonstrably about objective realities (i.e., how the universe does function) and become meaningless when that is not recognized. If you are going to make this case, then you are going to have to show that morality is likewise about objective realities but, since it is about how humans should behave, you're going to have a hard time making that case. Feel free to try, however.

I have made that case that made up physics leads to meaningless. Why is it different with made up ethics?

When you went from the assessment of position/motion (which is analogous to the assessment of behavior) to the laws of physics themselves, you changed the analogy. So if the analogy is going to work, you're going to have to deal with the problem above. Simply asserting the parallel is not going to cut it. I outlined the parallel line by line.

No, you were comparing apples to oranges all along. Comparing objective realities to non-objective ideals. I said that right along.

Then the analogy will collapse

An assertion is not an argument, Seer. You should know that.

I have no problem with an analogy between physics and morality. I have used it myself. But an analogy requires showing points of commonality so you can then explore differences. I showed the points of commonality between the principle of relativity and the principle of relative morality. You have done nothing to show the parallel between the "laws of physics" and the "laws of morality." One deals with what is in both the sentient and non-sentient realm; the other deals with only sentient beings and what they SHOULD do. Your comparison is apples and oranges.

However, if history repeats itself, you're going to dismiss all of that and simply assert that you've made an argument, post after post after post. Just so you know, I don't have the time or patience for that tactic yet again. If it's the path you choose, I'll leave you to it.

What is an assertion? That a real analogy between objective realities to non-objective ideals fails?

[carpedm9587]

I have made that case that made up physics leads to meaningless.

Yes you have...

Why is it different with made up ethics?

No you don't. You're the one making the claim, Seer. You're the one that needs to defend it. I'm not going to accept your shift of the burden of proof. I have noted the distinctions between the two worlds. You need to respond.

No, you were comparing apples to oranges all along. Comparing objective realities to non-objective ideals. I said that right along.

Actually - I was comparing a relative assessment process to a relative assessment process. You are comparing laws describing objective reality with laws guiding human action choices.

If you can look at those two sentences and not see the problem...

What is an assertion?

I would describe it as a statement made without providing adequate foundation/evidence.

That a real analogy between objective realities to non-objective ideals fails?

See above.

[seer]

No you don't. You're the one making the claim, Seer. You're the one that needs to defend it. I'm not going to accept your shift of the burden of proof. I have noted the distinctions between the two worlds. You need to respond.

Well no Carp, you have been the one claiming that ethics are meaningful (though relative), even though we know that if we apply the same subjective personal or cultural preference to the discipline, physics becomes meaningless.

Actually - I was comparing a relative assessment process to a relative assessment process. You are comparing laws describing objective reality with laws guiding human action choices.

If you can look at those two sentences and not see the problem...

No, you were comparing objective realities to non-objective ideals. If you say that both have relative aspects, that is fine. I agreed with that awhile back. But what does that matter? It doesn't tell us anything. Relative functions in physics are objective and demonstrable, physical. Why does that lead to ethics being meaningful? I don't get your connection.

[carpedm9587]

Well no Carp, you have been the one claiming that ethics are meaningful (though relative), even though we know that if we apply the same subjective personal or cultural preference to the discipline, physics becomes meaningless.

No, you were comparing objective realities to non-objective ideals. If you say that both have relative aspects, that is fine. I agreed with that awhile back. But what does that matter? It doesn't tell us anything. Relative functions in physics are objective and demonstrable, physical. Why does that lead to ethics being meaningful? I don't get your connection.

That much is clear, Seer. You still have not supported your assertion. You also have not shown the breakdown in the analogy I provided, except to assert, again, that it "doesn't work." The analogy is actually quite sound, and I outlined it point-by-point. Show the breakdown, and I'll be happy to look at it. Assert that it doesn't work and... well...

I cannot refute an assertion, Seer. It's a statement without substance. There's nothing to refute.

[seer]

That much is clear, Seer. You still have not supported your assertion. You also have not shown the breakdown in the analogy I provided, except to assert, again, that it "doesn't work." The analogy is actually quite sound, and I outlined it point-by-point. Show the breakdown, and I'll be happy to look at it. Assert that it doesn't work and... well...

I cannot refute an assertion, Seer. It's a statement without substance. There's nothing to refute.

Carp your whole argument was that we don't believe that physics is meaningless just because it has relative aspects. But that is not at all why we don't believe that physics isn't meaningless, it isn't meaningless because physics corresponds to physical reality. The relative aspect doesn't even play into the equation. And if physics were in fact based on personal or cultural preference (like ethics) we would see it as meaningless.

[carpedm9587]

Carp your whole argument was that we don't believe that physics is meaningless just because it has relative aspects.

Not my "whole" argument, but I have made a parallel between the relativity of assessing motion/position and the relativity of assessing the morality of human actions.

But that is not at all why we don't believe that physics isn't meaningless, it isn't meaningless because physics corresponds to physical reality.

Your language here is really tortured, and I think you may be confusing yourself. So try it this way:

- Physics is meaningful insofar as it accurately describes how physical reality operates.
- When we discovered motion/position were relative, it did not render physics meaningless.

- Morality is meaningful insofar as it helps humans distinguish between "ought" and "ought not" actions
- When we realized moral principles were relative, it did not render morality meaningless.

I pointed to the second sentences in each set to show a parallel. You are shifting to the first two. The first two underscore the difference between physics and morality: one deals with objective reality, one deals with internal categorization of ideas (about actions). One describes "how stuff works," the other describes "how we sort out actions." This fundamental distinction breaks your attempt to draw a parallel.

And the observation that legal systems (which are highly analogous to moral systems) are completely relative/subjective and yet are not dismissed as meaningless kind of puts a nail in that coffin.

The relative aspect doesn't even play into the equation. And if physics were in fact based on personal or cultural preference (like ethics) we would see it as meaningless.

See response above.

[seer]

Your language here is really tortured, and I think you may be confusing yourself. So try it this way:

- Physics is meaningful insofar as it accurately describes how physical reality operates.
- When we discovered motion/position were relative, it did not render physics meaningless.

- Morality is meaningful insofar as it helps humans distinguish between "ought" and "ought not" actions
- When we realized moral principles were relative, it did not render morality meaningless.

I pointed to the second sentences in each set to show a parallel. You are shifting to the first two. The first two underscore the difference between physics and morality: one deals with objective reality, one deals with internal categorization of ideas (about actions). One describes "how stuff works," the other describes "how we sort out actions." This fundamental distinction breaks your attempt to draw a parallel.

Again Carp, the only thing that does not render physics meaningless is the fact that they corresponds to reality. The relative nature of physics has NOTHING to do with meaningfulness. Why don't you get this? And again how does the relative nature of physics tell us whether moral principles are meaningful or not? I mean so far you are only asserting - relativity does not make physics meaningless THEREFORE it follows that relative ethics are ALSO not meaningless? HOW does that follow?

And the observation that legal systems (which are highly analogous to moral systems) are completely relative/subjective and yet are not dismissed as meaningless kind of puts a nail in that coffin.

Are you saying that there are no laws that are meaningless?

[Sparko]

The relative speed scenarios being discussed here are not even part of Einstein's relativity. They are nothing new. They were the same under Newton. People seeing things moving at different speeds from different viewpoints has been known for thousands of years.

Just sayin.

[carpedm9587]

Again Carp, the only thing that does not render physics meaningless is the fact that they corresponds to reality. The relative nature of physics has NOTHING to do with meaningfulness.

Exactly.

Why don't you get this?

I've never said otherwise. Indeed - the argument was that you cannot call a thing meaningless solely on the basis of its subjective/relative nature, which is consistent with your statements above.

And again how does the relative nature of physics tell us whether moral principles are meaningful or not?

It doesn't. I never claimed that it did. I claimed that the existence of meaningful, relative/subjective things (position/motion, law) makes the claim "it's meaningless because it's relative/subjective" unsupportable. Clearly, relative/subjective things can be meaningful.

You seem to think that showing that your claim to meaningless is not supportable is proof that relative/subjective morality is "meaningful." That was not the argument. The argument was that your claim to "meaningless" has failed.

A parallel: If you tell me your car is engineless, and I demonstrate to you that your proof is not adequate to prove that your car is engineless, that is not the same as saying I have proven your car has an engine. I'm simply pointing out that your particular argument failed to do what it set out to do.

I mean so far you are only asserting - relativity does not make physics meaningless THEREFORE it follows that relative ethics are ALSO not meaningless? HOW does that follow?

That was never my argument, so I have no response.

Are you saying that there are no laws that are meaningless?

No. We are talking about frameworks - not particulars.

[seer]

It doesn't. I never claimed that it did. I claimed that the existence of meaningful, relative/subjective things (position/motion, law) makes the claim "it's meaningless because it's relative/subjective" unsupportable. Clearly, relative/subjective things can be meaningful.

Yes we know the relative is meaningful if it related to physical realities, how is the relative meaningful when it is not related to physical realities?

You seem to think that showing that your claim to meaningless is not supportable is proof that relative/subjective morality is "meaningful." That was not the argument. The argument was that your claim to "meaningless" has failed.

Nonsense Carp, how many times have I said that you are free to invent your own meaning? But it does not follow that relative ethics have inherent meaning. Physics have inherent meaning because it relates to objective reality.

No. We are talking about frameworks - not particulars.

But you have to speak about particulars since it is a based on personal or cultural preference. You can not do otherwise. In your world, what a man finds meaningful or not has no grounding in objective reality.

[carpedm9587]

Yes we know the relative is meaningful if it related to physical realities, how is the relative meaningful when it is not related to physical realities?

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

Nonsense Carp, how many times have I said that you are free to invent your own meaning?

Variation on Technique #2

But it does not follow that relative ethics have inherent meaning.

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."

Physics have inherent meaning because it relates to objective reality.

We've agreed on this several times now.

But you have to speak about particulars since it is a based on personal or cultural preference. You can not do otherwise. In your world, what a man finds meaningful or not has no grounding in objective reality.

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