Take Back Our Country

[seer]

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."

No Carp, because the falsification of the speed is dependent on the objective speed of the car. Random killing not being moral is not dependent on any external, or objective reference. No such objective or external reference exists with moral opinion.

[Sparko]

I answered the question that Seer asked...

with a tautology. Again, you saying that two people who agree on a "moral framework" will agree on that morality is not saying anything useful. It is not "objective" at all. It is two people agreeing on something that they agree on.

two observers using the same moral frame of reference can falsify the statement "randomly killing humans is moral."

If they both agree that killing humans is immoral, then they would both agree that "randomly killing humans is moral" is a false statement.

No different than saying if you have two people who love the Chocolate they would both agree that "Vanilla is the best flavor" is a false statement.

It says nothing about objectivity of morality, or objectively measuring morality.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, because the falsification of the speed is dependent on the objective speed of the car. Random killing not being moral is not dependent on any external, or objective reference. No such objective or external reference exists with moral opinion.

Again, you are misaligning elements of the analogy and/or showing a lack of understanding of relativity.

In physics, the falsification is dependent upon the objective speed of the car relative to the subjectively selected reference framework.
In morality, the falsification is dependent upon the objective action of the Moral Actor relative to the subjectively selected reference framework.

Example:

Physics Framework subjectively selected - surface of the earth
Object assessed - car moving down highway
Conclusion: car is moving 35 MPH (relative to the surface of the earth)

Moral Framework subjectively selected - Michel's framework, which says "random killing is an immoral act"
Object assessed - man walking down the street randomly killing people with a knife
Conclusion: Man is acting immorally, relative to Michel's moral framework

To show this is not true, you have to show where this parallel breaks down. I don't think you will find that it does.

[carpedm9587]

with a tautology. Again, you saying that two people who agree on a "moral framework" will agree on that morality is not saying anything useful. It is not "objective" at all. It is two people agreeing on something that they agree on.

Two people agreeing that a vehicle is moving 35 MPH because they have both agreed to use the surface of the earth as their reference is not a tautology. It is confirming that they agree the vehicle is moving at a particular rate. If they came up with a different measurement, (e.g., 33 and 35 MPH), the fact that they are using the same reference frame would have them looking for the source of the problem (bad measurement tools, perspective, etc.)

Likewise, two people looking at an act from the same moral reference point should come to the same conclusion. If they do not, that should get them looking for a problem. Are they using words differently? Are they actually not in agreement on what the man is doing? (Maybe one sees "random" killing and the other sees a man killing people who have automatic weapons and are about to harm others?). If they agree, then they are assessing the same act in the same way.

If they both agree that killing humans is immoral, then they would both agree that "randomly killing humans is moral" is a false statement.

No different than saying if you have two people who love the Chocolate they would both agree that "Vanilla is the best flavor" is a false statement.

It says nothing about objectivity of morality, or objectively measuring morality.

This appears to be repetition. My answer is above.

[seer]

Again, you are misaligning elements of the analogy and/or showing a lack of understanding of relativity.

In physics, the falsification is dependent upon the objective speed of the car relative to the subjectively selected reference framework.
In morality, the falsification is dependent upon the objective action of the Moral Actor relative to the subjectively selected reference framework.

Example:

Physics Framework subjectively selected - surface of the earth
Object assessed - car moving down highway
Conclusion: car is moving 35 MPH (relative to the surface of the earth)

Moral Framework subjectively selected - Michel's framework, which says "random killing is an immoral act"
Object assessed - man walking down the street randomly killing people with a knife
Conclusion: Man is acting immorally, relative to Michel's moral framework

To show this is not true, you have to show where this parallel breaks down. I don't think you will find that it does.

Carp, that makes no sense. There still of no OBJECTIVE reference like the speed of the car in your moral model. You could say that the man randomly killing is wrong, but you can NOT FALSIFY his opinion, you can only say that he does not agree with you. But you can falsify the claim that the car is traveling at 25 mph, when it is actually traveling at 35 mph.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, that makes no sense. There still of no OBJECTIVE reference like the speed of the car in your moral model. You could say that the man randomly killing is wrong, but you can NOT FALSIFY his opinion, you can only say that he does not agree with you. But you can falsify the claim that the car is traveling at 25 mph, when it is actually traveling at 35 mph.

Seer - you are very fond of saying that things make no sense.

You are also confusing the speed of the car (thing being observed) with the moral framework of the observer (basis for analysis/evaluation). In other words, you are (again, still, yet) misaligning the analogy (over and over and over again). So of course it makes no sense to you.

To repeat:

• Physical reference frame for evaluation = moral reference frame for evaluation (subjective)
• Speed of object being observed = action of the actor being observed (objective)

You are doing this:

• Speed of object being observed is objective!
• Moral reference frame for evaluation is subjective!

Bad carpe!

But, to paraphrase a friend, "you aren't making any sense." You keep misaligning the analogy. The first line is an equivalence of two subjective things. The second line is an equivalence of two objective things. You're picking one thing from Line 1 and another from Line 2 and saying, "see... not the same." No kidding they're not the same. I never said they were...

[seer]

Physical reference frame for evaluation = moral reference frame for evaluation (subjective)
Speed of object being observed = action of the actor being observed (objective)


But, to paraphrase a friend, "you aren't making any sense." You keep misaligning the analogy. The first line is an equivalence of two subjective things. The second line is an equivalence of two objective things. You're picking one thing from Line 1 and another from Line 2 and saying, "see... not the same." No kidding they're not the same. I never said they were...

That is your problem, the question of the moral actor's action is never objective (in that it is morally wrong or not), nor can it be. There is no objective reference like with speed. Again, the relative speed a point A is not dependent on what one thinks, feels or believes. Not so with your moral questions. Morality and objective speeds are two different things. If two men disagree that lying is wrong, there is no objective way to resolve the question, if two men are watching the car go by there is an objective way to resolve differing opinions about the speed of the car.

[carpedm9587]

That is your problem, the question of the moral actor's action is never objective (in that it is morally wrong or not), nor can it be. There is no objective reference like with speed. Again, the relative speed a point A is not dependent on what one thinks, feels or believes. Not so with your moral questions. Morality and objective speeds are two different things. If two men disagree that lying is wrong, there is no objective way to resolve the question, if two men are watching the car go by there is an objective way to resolve differing opinions about the speed of the car.

Wow...you just persist in mislinking these issues. I'll give it one more go, and then I guess we'll just write it off as "you're not going to get it."

What is objective in the analogy is the motion the car (in physics) and the specific act of the actor (in morality). In other words, what is objectively real is "what happened." What is subjective in the analogy if the physical reference frame selected (in physics) and the specific moral framework selected. In physics, ANY physical framework can be selected for measurement. In morality, ANY moral framework can be selected for measurement. That selection is subjective.

Once you subjectively select a frame of reference, in either domain, then the objective action of the objects (car, actor) can be objectively measured in reference to that framework.

No one is questioning that the moral framework is subjective. So too is the selection of a physical framework for measurement in physics. That's what relativity is all about. There is no absolute framework. Understanding that reality did not bring physics to its knees. Likewise, understanding that reality does not have to mean morality is brought to its knees.

If that doesn't do it, then I'll have to let someone else explain it to you. The words I am using are apparently not having any effect.

[seer]

Wow...you just persist in mislinking these issues. I'll give it one more go, and then I guess we'll just write it off as "you're not going to get it."

What is objective in the analogy is the motion the car (in physics) and the specific act of the actor (in morality). In other words, what is objectively real is "what happened." What is subjective in the analogy if the physical reference frame selected (in physics) and the specific moral framework selected. In physics, ANY physical framework can be selected for measurement. In morality, ANY moral framework can be selected for measurement. That selection is subjective.

Once you subjectively select a frame of reference, in either domain, then the objective action of the objects (car, actor) can be objectively measured in reference to that framework.

No one is questioning that the moral framework is subjective. So too is the selection of a physical framework for measurement in physics. That's what relativity is all about. There is no absolute framework. Understanding that reality did not bring physics to its knees. Likewise, understanding that reality does not have to mean morality is brought to its knees.

If that doesn't do it, then I'll have to let someone else explain it to you. The words I am using are apparently not having any effect.

Of course I'm getting it. If two men have a different moral opinion there is no way to objectively resolve it. If two men watching the car go by have a different opinion on the speed, there is a way to objectively resolve the dispute. Now to your second point, you have no idea if the widespread acceptance of moral relativism will have serious negative consequences or not. Physics really don't affect our lives (as long as there is stability) like daily moral interactions.

[carpedm9587]

Of course I'm getting it. If two men have a different moral opinion there is no way to objectively resolve it. If two men watching the car go by have a different opinion on the speed, there is a way to objectively resolve the dispute.

Wow - you really don't understand relativity, do you? Seer, if two people have a different moral opinion, there is no way to resolve it. Likewise, if two people choose a different physical framework to assess speed, there is no way to resolve that either! That's what relativity says. Put three people in empty space in motion. Person A says, "Person C is moving at 35 MPH." Person C says, "No, Person C is moving at 25 MPH." Each is assessing from their own perspective. Which one is right? There is no answer to that question because motion is relative. Each of them is right, from their perspective. Person C has no absolute, measurable, motion. In the example I just cited, all of the following are possible:

• Person A is motionless, Person B is moving at 10 MPH towards Person C, Person C is moving at 35 MPH away from Person A.
• Person A is moving at 1 MPH away from Person C, Person B is moving at 9 MPH towards Person C, Person C is moving at 34 MPH away from Person A.
• Person A is moving at 2 MPH away from Person C, Person B is moving at 8 MPH towards Person C, Person C is moving at 33 MPH away from Person A.
• Person A is moving at 3 MPH away from Person C, Person B is moving at 7 MPH towards Person C, Person C is moving at 32 MPH away from Person A.

Indeed, there is an infinite number of possibilities to explain what Persons A, B, and C are witnessing, and no absolute answer.

Now to your second point, you have no idea if the widespread acceptance of moral relativism will have serious negative consequences or not. Physics really don't affect our lives (as long as there is stability) like daily moral interactions.

I am amazed that anyone in 2018 can utter the sentence "physics really don't affect our lives" in 2018.

[seer]

Wow - you really don't understand relativity, do you? Seer, if two people have a different moral opinion, there is no way to resolve it. Likewise, if two people choose a different physical framework to assess speed, there is no way to resolve that either! That's what relativity says. Put three people in empty space in motion. Person A says, "Person C is moving at 35 MPH." Person C says, "No, Person C is moving at 25 MPH." Each is assessing from their own perspective. Which one is right? There is no answer to that question because motion is relative. Each of them is right, from their perspective. Person C has no absolute, measurable, motion. In the example I just cited, all of the following are possible:

• Person A is motionless, Person B is moving at 10 MPH towards Person C, Person C is moving at 35 MPH away from Person A.
• Person A is moving at 1 MPH away from Person C, Person B is moving at 9 MPH towards Person C, Person C is moving at 34 MPH away from Person A.
• Person A is moving at 2 MPH away from Person C, Person B is moving at 8 MPH towards Person C, Person C is moving at 33 MPH away from Person A.
• Person A is moving at 3 MPH away from Person C, Person B is moving at 7 MPH towards Person C, Person C is moving at 32 MPH away from Person A.

Indeed, there is an infinite number of possibilities to explain what Persons A, B, and C are witnessing, and no absolute answer.

Oh stop with the pontificating Carp. Try answering yes or no...

1. If two men disagree that lying is wrong is there a way to objectively resolve it? Yes or no.

2. If two men are watching the same car go by and they have a different opinion on the speed is there a way to objective resolve it? Yes or no?

I am amazed that anyone in 2018 can utter the sentence "physics really don't affect our lives" in 2018.

But that is not what I said, if physical laws remain stable they do not affect us in our daily lives. We do not think or worry about the the laws of physics like we do with moral questions, interactions.

[carpedm9587]

Oh stop with the pontificating Carp. Try answering yes or no...

Explaining basic science is pontificating?

1. If two men disagree that lying is wrong is there a way to objectively resolve it? Yes or no.

No.

2. If two men are watching the same car go by and they have a different opinion on the speed is there a way to objective resolve it? Yes or no?

No.

And I'll note you are again comparing apples to oranges. The first describes two men disagreeing on a framework. The second is two people disagreeing on an observed reality. I've shown you several times, with symbols, how you are misaligning the analogy. I'm beginning to think you're doing it on purpose. You are not a stupid person, and this is a pretty simple concept.

But that is not what I said, if physical laws remain stable they do not affect us in our daily lives. We do not think or worry about the the laws of physics like we do with moral questions, interactions.

No one said anything about the "instability" of physical laws. What we discovered was that space and time are relative. That turned the world of physics on its ear, and enabled a whole host of new technologies and lines of research. Those, in turn, impact our daily lives. Indeed, adjusting to a relative physics world enabled a great number of things. Likewise, adjusting to a relative moral world can enable a great number of things. For one, people like you might stop thinking in terms of "my way or the highway" and begin looking at some of the actual arguments for Moral Position A vs. Moral Position B, instead of just locking yourself to "the bible" and closing your mind to all other discussions.

[seer]

Explaining basic science is pontificating?

No.
No.

And I'll note you are again comparing apples to oranges. The first describes two men disagreeing on a framework. The second is two people disagreeing on an observed reality. I've shown you several times, with symbols, how you are misaligning the analogy. I'm beginning to think you're doing it on purpose. You are not a stupid person, and this is a pretty simple concept.

No Carp, you are just using arbitrary categories to make your point. There is no observed reality with the moral question dispute as there is with the speed dispute.

No one said anything about the "instability" of physical laws. What we discovered was that space and time are relative. That turned the world of physics on its ear, and enabled a whole host of new technologies and lines of research. Those, in turn, impact our daily lives. Indeed, adjusting to a relative physics world enabled a great number of things. Likewise, adjusting to a relative moral world can enable a great number of things. For one, people like you might stop thinking in terms of "my way or the highway" and begin looking at some of the actual arguments for Moral Position A vs. Moral Position B, instead of just locking yourself to "the bible" and closing your mind to all other discussions.

That is just nonsense Carp, how many times have we debated moral questions and it is always your way or the highway. That is why I have often said that you argue like a theist or moral realist. Your opinions are as intractable as the fundamental Christian's. And your "actual arguments" are no less based on personal preference and bias than anything else. Opinions I might add are grounded in ignorance, since you have no idea how those ideas will play out in the long run.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, you are just using arbitrary categories to make your point. There is no observed reality with the moral question dispute as there is with the speed dispute.

I give up, Seer. I strongly recommend a physics class. Your grasp of relativity is really, really bad. Either that, or you are being intentionally dense. I don't know which it is. I'll leave it to someone else to attempt to explain it to you. Clearly further attempts on my part are not going to help.

That is just nonsense Carp, how many times have we debated moral questions and it is always your way or the highway. That is why I have often said that you argue like a theist or moral realist. Your opinions are as intractable as the fundamental Christian's. And your "actual arguments" are no less based on personal preference and bias than anything else. Opinions I might add are grounded in ignorance, since you have no idea how those ideas will play out in the long run.

Everyone argues from the position of their own moral framework. The difference is that the moral relativist is open to being convinced and altering their framework in the light of a good argument or a compelling case for shifting underlying values. A so-called "moral realist" is so convinced they are locked into this god-given universal absolute, they are closed to such argumentation.

You folks have long been locked into the fallacy that moral relativism means every moral point of view has to be respected and agreed with as "equally valid." Moral subjectivism says that each individual derives their own moral code. Moral relativism means that each person views the actions of themselves and others through the relative prism of this moral code.

All humans are moral relativists. Many (most) humans, however, are in the habit of locking their personal morality onto some perceived "absolute" or "objective" code documented in some religious book. That doesn't make them moral realists; it just makes them somewhat deluded moral relativists.

[seer]

I give up, Seer. I strongly recommend a physics class. Your grasp of relativity is really, really bad. Either that, or you are being intentionally dense. I don't know which it is. I'll leave it to someone else to attempt to explain it to you. Clearly further attempts on my part are not going to help.

Oh stop with your superior nonsense, I understand relativity, it is just that it has no bearing on moral questions. In one case there can be no objective verification/falsification, in the other case there can be.

Everyone argues from the position of their own moral framework. The difference is that the moral relativist is open to being convinced and altering their framework in the light of a good argument or a compelling case for shifting underlying values. A so-called "moral realist" is so convinced they are locked into this god-given universal absolute, they are closed to such argumentation.

Oh please Carp, I don't see you changing your positions on moral principles that you hold dear. And there are no "good arguments" that don't regress to personal bias and preference. Like is said, your opinions are as intractable as the fundamental Christian's. And BTW most Moral Realists are atheists.

You folks have long been locked into the fallacy that moral relativism means every moral point of view has to be respected and agreed with as "equally valid." Moral subjectivism says that each individual derives their own moral code. Moral relativism means that each person views the actions of themselves and others through the relative prism of this moral code.

Then what makes one moral position less valid than another?

All humans are moral relativists. Many (most) humans, however, are in the habit of locking their personal morality onto some perceived "absolute" or "objective" code documented in some religious book. That doesn't make them moral realists; it just makes them somewhat deluded moral relativists.

Again that is false, I am not a moral relativist. If I believe that there are universal moral truths (whether I understand them rightly or not) then I am not a relativist - period...