Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[carpedm9587]

First, you are the one who brought up the frame of reference thing. And since both the Mazda and the tricycle share the same basic frame of reference that doesn't work for your analogy which is dependent on different frames of references.

Seer - the Mazda and tricycle only share the same frame of reference by convention. Like any other object, they have no absolute speed. You cannot tell me how fast they are moving until you provide a reference frame. By convention, we use the surface of the earth. But that does not define their "absolute" speed. If you change the reference frame (e.g., the surface of the sun), the speed changes dramatically, and the difference between their speeds becomes negligible (as a percentage of relative speed). Change it again (e.g., the center of the galaxy) it the speeds change again.

How on earth can you claim superiority for one relative speed over another relative speed?

That's my point, Seer - you can only do so within a defined frame of reference and a criteria for "superiority." And likewise, you cannot equate them without a reference frame.

By convention, we use the surface of the earth as a reference frame (because it is common to our experience), and we use "relative speed" to evaluate superiority. Ergo, the Mazda can be said to be superior to the tricycle for maximum attainable speed relative to the surface of the earth. Both speeds are, by definition, relative. Yet we can compare them if we define the criteria for comparison. We we cannot do is provide no reference frame, and make absolute statements about them, because speed is not absolute - it is relative.

That is exactly the situation with morality. Without a frame of reference, I cannot say "X is superior to Y," and you cannot say "they are equally valid." NO absolute comparison can be made between relative viewpoints without a defined frame of reference.

And I have no idea what relative superiority means - superior to what?

Depends on the criteria being used to measure "superiority." By default, each of us uses our moral frame of reference and assess all others according to it. You have elected to attempt to align yours with the moral framework (as you interpret it) outlined in the Christian bible, so that is your (subjectively chosen) frame of reference.

No, relative speeds according to their relative frame of references. Claiming that your relative speed in your frame of reference is superior to my relative speed in my frame of reference is purely emotional. There is nothing rational about it.

You cannot make a comparison between two frames of reference, Seer - and I have never said you can. If you use the surface of the earth as your frame of reference and I use the surface of the sun as mine, the speeds we will report will have nothing to do with one another, unless we can establish a relationship between those two reference frames. In terms of speed and motion, that is possible and commonly done. In terms of morality, I suppose it might be possible, but I'm not sure I would see the utility. I'd have to think about that.

As for "superiority" being based on emotions, I do not see why that is necessary. We simply have to define the metric according to which "better" is being assessed, and then evaluate accordingly. "Relative" does not mean "emotional." It does not have to have anything to do with "emotions." It can simply be about suitability to a specified objective.

[carpedm9587]

Please - you are arguing around the point. It doesn't matter if the definition of murder can be considered a tautology. It matters that murder being wrong is a moral absolute. Killing a person without just cause is always wrong.

I'd simply be repeating myself, so I'll let my previous post stand. I agree that "murder is wrong" is universally true. Tautologies always are.

No, it doesn't matter what the person that does the killing values. Murder is always wrong.

Again - since moral frameworks are built around what a person values - a person that does not value life will likely not see "wanton killing" as "wrong." Such a person widely deviates from the norm. Hitler was an example of such a deviation. So was Stalin, Pol Pot, and the list goes on.

No - your point is that killing without just cause can be considered moral in some cases.

No - I have never made that argument. I believe "wanton killing" or "killing without just cause" is wrong for all people in all places. I believe that because I value life and it flows rationally from that valuing.

My argument is that it is never moral, it is always wrong. It is an absolute moral truth. How we define 'just cause' can vary, but not the fact that killing without just cause is immoral.

Jim

There are no "absolute/objective" moral truths. At least, no one has ever made the case to me that they exist. Morality is, by its very nature, relative and subjective. We see that around us every day in all people. But if you wish to make the case for moral absolutes, by all means have a go at it. In my experience, the arguments made always devolve either to tautologies, arguments from ridicule, or arguments from outrage. The latter two typically include the former. But if you have a fresh insight on it, I'd love to hear it and look at it.

[seer]

You cannot make a comparison between two frames of reference, Seer - and I have never said you can. If you use the surface of the earth as your frame of reference and I use the surface of the sun as mine, the speeds we will report will have nothing to do with one another, unless we can establish a relationship between those two reference frames. In terms of speed and motion, that is possible and commonly done. In terms of morality, I suppose it might be possible, but I'm not sure I would see the utility. I'd have to think about that.

That is exactly the situation with morality. Without a frame of reference, I cannot say "X is superior to Y," and you cannot say "they are equally valid." NO absolute comparison can be made between relative viewpoints without a defined frame of reference.

If we can not make a comparison between two frames of reference (moral or otherwise) then how do you get to claim superiority over the moral view of the slave trader? It is rationally impossible since you can not use the relative frame of references as a starting point..

[oxmixmudd]

I'd simply be repeating myself, so I'll let my previous post stand. I agree that "murder is wrong" is universally true. Tautologies always are.



Again - since moral frameworks are built around what a person values - a person that does not value life will likely not see "wanton killing" as "wrong." Such a person widely deviates from the norm. Hitler was an example of such a deviation. So was Stalin, Pol Pot, and the list goes on.

If an absolute moral element exists, it is not subject to the 'eye of the beholder'. Murder is wrong. It doen't matter what Hitler thought about it, or Stalin, or Pol Pot. And I would argue that they understood what they were doing was wrong anyway. It's just that they had other goals that they valued higher than morality itself. They weren't redefining morality, they were ignoring it. As I said in earlier, I will not tolerate conflation of the fact people can ignore what they know to be wrong as the equivalent of not knowing it is wrong. IOW, values are NOT necessarily the eqivalent nor the driving force for morals. The knowledge of good and evil goes deeper than that. I may know its is wrong to cheat. But I may value getting an A on the test more than I value doing the right thing. But that personal valuation on the result does not change the fact I know and acknowledge cheating is wrong.

No - I have never made that argument. I believe "wanton killing" or "killing without just cause" is wrong for all people in all places. I believe that because I value life and it flows rationally from that valuing.

You are not quite grasping what a moral absolute is. If murder is wrong in the absolute sense, then it doesn't matter one lick what you think about murder. You can value life or not value life and it is still wrong.

There are no "absolute/objective" moral truths. At least, no one has ever made the case to me that they exist. Morality is, by its very nature, relative and subjective. We see that around us every day in all people. But if you wish to make the case for moral absolutes, by all means have a go at it. In my experience, the arguments made always devolve either to tautologies, arguments from ridicule, or arguments from outrage. The latter two typically include the former. But if you have a fresh insight on it, I'd love to hear it and look at it.

I'm making the case that they exist. In this case, murder of a fellow human being is wrong. And it doesn't matter what you or the country or the world thinks about it. It is wrong.

Jim

[carpedm9587]

If an absolute moral element exists, it is not subject to the 'eye of the beholder'.

Agreed. Now you just need to show that such a moral element exists.

Murder is wrong. It doen't matter what Hitler thought about it, or Stalin, or Pol Pot. And I would argue that they understood what they were doing was wrong anyway. It's just that they had other goals that they valued higher than morality itself. They weren't redefining morality, they were ignoring it.

It is entirely possible that they did see it as wrong and acted against their own moral code. That happens all the time.

As I said in earlier, I will not tolerate conflation of the fact people can ignore what they know to be wrong as the equivalent of not knowing it is wrong.

Tolerate? Jim, I mean no disrespect, but what you do and do not tolerate is irrelevant to me. If you have a viable argument, I will be convinced by it. If you do not, I won't.

IOW, values are NOT necessarily the eqivalent nor the driving force for morals.

That is what I see all around me. People value X, so they define as moral things that protect/enhance/promote X and as immoral things that attack/diminish/destroy X. If you do not think morals are based on what we value, then what do you think we base morals in?

The knowledge of good and evil goes deeper than that. I may know its is wrong to cheat. But I may value getting an A on the test more than I value doing the right thing. But that personal valuation on the result does not change the fact I know and acknowledge cheating is wrong.

Most of us do define cheating as wrong, largely because of the breach of trust and the inconsistency with generalizing the rule. There are many moral precepts that are so widely adopted, they are integral to many religious and social codes. That does not make them "absolute" or "universal," It just makes them very widely/commonly held.

You are not quite grasping what a moral absolute is. If murder is wrong in the absolute sense, then it doesn't matter one lick what you think about murder. You can value life or not value life and it is still wrong.

I am aware of what a "moral absolute" is. I suggest they do not exist, and that moral frameworks are personally/individually derived. If you think otherwise, then you need to make the case for the existence of moral absolutes. From what do they arise? How do we know what they are? I have yet to have these questions adequately answered.

I'm making the case that they exist. In this case, murder of a fellow human being is wrong. And it doesn't matter what you or the country or the world thinks about it. It is wrong.

Jim

I know you have made this claim over and over again, Jim. I have not seen you make an argument for them yet. I have also agreed that "murder" is universally wrong, and I have explained why. In this case, I think the claim is trivial, because the term is defined to include the concept of moral wrongness. As we have noted, murder is "wrongful killing." So "murder is wrong" translates to "wrongful killing is wrong." That's a tautology. A tautology is universally/absolutely true - by definition. We simply have not said all that much in so noting, and we have not done anything to define what constitutes "murder." You prefer to use the term "just cause," but that just changes the language. Murder is "killing without just cause." Ergo, "murder is not just" becomes "killing without just cause is not just." Again, it's a tautology. It doesn't really say anything. It is universal - it is absolute - but for trivial reasons.

Michel

[carpedm9587]

If we can not make a comparison between two frames of reference (moral or otherwise) then how do you get to claim superiority over the moral view of the slave trader?

Each of us evaluates moral claims of other moral agents against the reference of our own moral framework. By definition, each of us will see our own moral framework as superior to all others. Take Action A. I will have a moral stance on Action A. If someone has a different moral stance, it will necessary be viewed as inferior to my own. If I saw it as superior...I would immediately adopt the moral stance into my own framework, eliminating the difference.

It is rationally impossible since you can not use the relative frame of references as a starting point..

All frameworks are relative, Seer. When we talk about the speed of a car vs. a bicycle with respect to the surface of the earth, the surface of the earth is itself in relative motion. For the purpose of comparing the car to the bicycle, it serves as a convenient reference point because we are all on that surface. That does not make it "absolute."

I'm not sure how it is you can see this as true for physics and speed and not see it as equally applicable to morality. The world of physics was long thought of in absolute terms, until Einstein showed us it's all relative - and the world of physics was revolutionized. Likewise, for a long time we've been told that morality is based on absolute/objective truths. I believe the same revolution needs to happen there.

[oxmixmudd]

Agreed. Now you just need to show that such a moral element exists.



It is entirely possible that they did see it as wrong and acted against their own moral code. That happens all the time.



Tolerate? Jim, I mean no disrespect, but what you do and do not tolerate is irrelevant to me. If you have a viable argument, I will be convinced by it. If you do not, I won't.

Tolerate here is used simply to mean if you do it, I'll call you on it. Probably not the best word choice.

That is what I see all around me. People value X, so they define as moral things that protect/enhance/promote X and as immoral things that attack/diminish/destroy X. If you do not think morals are based on what we value, then what do you think we base morals in?

I believe that our morals derive from that inate sense of fairness and justice we discussed coupled with our capacity for empathy and our capacity for reason. What we value is more derived from what we want, unless what we want is to be good, in which case the two may well be aligned. But as we all know, what we want frequently comes up against what we know is right or wrong. A person might value only themself. But they may well understand that is wrong, but they just don't care. Their values and their knowledge of what is right and wrong are then about 180 degrees out of alignment.

Most of us do define cheating as wrong, largely because of the breach of trust and the inconsistency with generalizing the rule. There are many moral precepts that are so widely adopted, they are integral to many religious and social codes. That does not make them "absolute" or "universal," It just makes them very widely/commonly held.

I believe certain moral elements are universal. Murder being one of them. Much like logic or mathematics . A logical statement or mathematical proposition is the same regardless of the language or culture it is expressed within. The words are different, but the entity is the same.

I am aware of what a "moral absolute" is. I suggest they do not exist, and that moral frameworks are personally/individually derived. If you think otherwise, then you need to make the case for the existence of moral absolutes. From what do they arise? How do we know what they are? I have yet to have these questions adequately answered.

Well, your arguments were failing to reason within the framework of what a moral absolute is. So given that they were addressing the application of a proposed moral absolute, but reasoning outside that axiom, assuming there are none, your logic was flawed. So I made the point. We have run into this problem several times in our discussions. It seems very difficult for you to reason within a propositional framework if it is also not your own propositional framework. If I'm talking about what happens in a plane geometry, I can't be using the axioms of a spherical geometry.

I know you have made this claim over and over again, Jim. I have not seen you make an argument for them yet. I have also agreed that "murder" is universally wrong, and I have explained why. In this case, I think the claim is trivial, because the term is defined to include the concept of moral wrongness. As we have noted, murder is "wrongful killing." So "murder is wrong" translates to "wrongful killing is wrong." That's a tautology. A tautology is universally/absolutely true - by definition. We simply have not said all that much in so noting, and we have not done anything to define what constitutes "murder." You prefer to use the term "just cause," but that just changes the language. Murder is "killing without just cause." Ergo, "murder is not just" becomes "killing without just cause is not just." Again, it's a tautology. It doesn't really say anything. It is universal - it is absolute - but for trivial reasons.

Michel

Actually, AFAIK, this is the first time we have directly discussed the possoble existance of moral absolutes. I don't think there is an 'over and over again' in this case.

Your 'tautology' is syntactic. The immorality of murder derives from what is fair and what is just. To take a life without just cause is immoral. But I can toss a ball in the air without just cause and it is not immoral. I can on a whim eat chocolate without just cause and it is not immoral (well, as long as I have not already eaten a pound of chocolate anyway ). There are lots of things I can do regardless of justification and there is no morality at all associated with the act. Not so killing. Killing without just cause is immoral. And universally so.


Jim

[carpedm9587]

Tolerate here is used simply to mean if you do it, I'll call you on it. Probably not the best word choice.

Understood. And I think we all "call" people on things we find to be immoral. That was the basis for our discussion about the baker and about same-sex marriages in general.

I believe that our morals derive from that inate sense of fairness and justice we discussed coupled with our capacity for empathy and our capacity for reason. What we value is more derived from what we want, unless what we want is to be good, in which case the two may well be aligned. But as we all know, what we want frequently comes up against what we know is right or wrong. A person might value only themself. But they may well understand that is wrong, but they just don't care. Their values and their knowledge of what is right and wrong are then about 180 degrees out of alignment.

What is inate, as far as I can tell, is the capacity to moralize and categorize. We also intrinsically understand the concept of fairness or equity (e.g., it is the basis for the golden rule). Where you and I differ is on how that capability is applied. I find, at the heart of our moralizing activity, the things we value. Yes, it is possible for a person to only value themselves. However, when in the context of a society, that typically does not hold up. Generally, humans tend to value life, liberty, happiness, friendship, etc. Our moral framework is built on the basis of these things we value. How we come to value a thing is complex. Some is social. Some is based on experience and reason. Some is based on religion and upbringing. What we value can change over life and, usually, our moral code will likewise change when that happens.

I believe certain moral elements are universal. Murder being one of them. Much like logic or mathematics . A logical statement or mathematical proposition is the same regardless of the language or culture it is expressed within. The words are different, but the entity is the same.

Seer attempted to make the same parallel. Here's the problem, from my perspective. When you attempt to draw a parallel between two things, usually there are things they have in common, from which you then show how other similar consequences unfold. However, morality and mathematics have nothing in common. Seer tried to say "mathematics is absolute, so morality is absolute to." Unfortunately, morality is more like law than mathematics. Both law and morality attempt to define right and wrong action. Both law and morality have to be related to situations in order to be useful. Both depend on the concept of justice and fairness. In many ways these two things are equivalent.

But note that law is completely relative. Two countries may have conflicting laws, and no one say, "wait - that's can't be true - which one is right?" Each countries laws are right for it within the context of that country. If the countries begin to interact, and the differing laws create a conflict, then the countries will try to convince each other to change, they will live with the difference (if it is not overly serious to either), they will seek to isolate/separate from the other, or (worst case), they will go to war (war does not have to be physical battle - it can be economic, etc.) and contend for which legal system will dominate.

Legal systems are completely relative structures, but no one questions their viability. Why, I wonder, do they then question relative moral structures? They are just as useful and viable.

Well, your arguments were failing to reason within the framework of what a moral absolute is. So given that they were addressing the application of a proposed moral absolute, but reasoning outside that axiom, assuming there are none, your logic was flawed.

Jim - you claim that moral absolutes exist. I suggest that if you want me to accept that claim, you need to make the case. If you do not, I have already determined that morality is relative. I am not going to be trying to defend it from the perspective of "moral absolutes exist."

So I made the point. We have run into this problem several times in our discussions. It seems very difficult for you to reason within a propositional framework if it is also not your own propositional framework. If I'm talking about what happens in a plane geometry, I can't be using the axioms of a spherical geometry.

I agree. But a discussion in a framework I do not believe exists is somewhat pointless. I am not going to accept that moral absolutes exist so you can prove to me that moral absolutes exist.

Actually, AFAIK, this is the first time we have directly discussed the possoble existance of moral absolutes. I don't think there is an 'over and over again' in this case.

I was referring to the last three posts. The claim has been made several times - and I know you believe it to be true. I simply have no basis for accepting your claim. Can you provide one?

Your 'tautology' is syntactic. The immorality of murder derives from what is fair and what is just. To take a life without just cause is immoral. But I can toss a ball in the air without just cause and it is not immoral. I can on a whim eat chocolate without just cause and it is not immoral (well, as long as I have not already eaten a pound of chocolate anyway ). There are lots of things I can do regardless of justification and there is no morality at all associated with the act. Not so killing. Killing without just cause is immoral. And universally so.

Jim

I've said about as much as I can about this one. I do agree that "murder is wrong" is a universally true statement. As I have noted, I believe it is trivially so because the statement is a tautology. The same is true for "unjust killing is unjust." We get into deeper territory when we attempt to define what makes a thing "unjust" or "wrong."

[seer]

Each of us evaluates moral claims of other moral agents against the reference of our own moral framework. By definition, each of us will see our own moral framework as superior to all others. Take Action A. I will have a moral stance on Action A. If someone has a different moral stance, it will necessary be viewed as inferior to my own. If I saw it as superior...I would immediately adopt the moral stance into my own framework, eliminating the difference.

I'm sorry Carp, you are all over the map. You say that logically we can not make comparisons between different frames of reference then you go and compare your moral view to that of the slave trader, and in fact claim that your view is superior! It is no more than a child's taunt: na, na, na, na, na, my relative speed is better than your relative speed!

[carpedm9587]

I'm sorry Carp, you are all over the map.

I would imagine you would like that to be true, Seer, but it simply isn't. The analogy is solid, and the argument both valid and sound.

You say that logically we can not make comparisons between different frames of reference

No - I said you cannot make absolute/objective comparisons between difference relative reference frames, unless you do so from the context of a previously specified reference frame.

E.G: Give me two objects, and I cannot make any statement comparing the motion of the two objects if all I have to work with is those two objects. I CAN say how fast they are moving relative to each other (e.g., they are moving apart at 10 MPH), but that could mean 1 is moving 1 MPH and the other 9 MPH in the opposite direction, and one could be moving 40 MPH and the other 30 MPH in the same direction. There is absolutely no way to know. Furthermore, if we use either object as the frame of reference, it will always appear stationary and the other one will appear to be moving. We can make comparisons from a third reference point. This is basic physics of motion.

Morality works in an essentially analogous way. If I use my moral framework as the reference frame, everyone else's will appear to be "less." If we use a third reference point (e.g., the bible), then we can assess how much any other moral framework is different from that reference point. That does not make the bible an absolute/objective framework.

then you go and compare your moral view to that of the slave trader, and in fact claim that your view is superior!

Any moral agent will see their moral framework as superior to that of any other. If there was an element that was not seen as superior, the agent would immediately adopt the new moral concept, as I previously noted.

It is no more than a child's taunt: na, na, na, na, na, my relative speed is better than your relative speed!

This appears to be an extreme version of Technique #2, which I have already responded to numerous times, so I have nothing further to add.

[seer]

Morality works in an essentially analogous way. If I use my moral framework as the reference frame, everyone else's will appear to be "less." If we use a third reference point (e.g., the bible), then we can assess how much any other moral framework is different from that reference point. That does not make the bible an absolute/objective framework.

Any moral agent will see their moral framework as superior to that of any other. If there was an element that was not seen as superior, the agent would immediately adopt the new moral concept, as I previously noted.

But that is the point, what you see (or feel) as superior isn't - it is no more superior and any other view. That is why I said it is not a rational distinction, but an emotional one.

This appears to be an extreme version of Technique #2, which I have already responded to numerous times, so I have nothing further to add.

This is why I said as rational creatures we can stand back and look at these issues objectively. If you were to observe two men arguing that their relative speed was better or superior to the other's you would rightly see the claims of superiority (from either side) as bullocks. In other words you would not see either claim of superiority as valid.

[carpedm9587]

But that is the point, what you see (or feel) as superior isn't - it is no more superior and any other view. That is why I said it is not a rational distinction, but an emotional one.

This is technique #1 dressed up in a new suit. What you are complaining about is that a relative moral framework is not objectively/absolutely superior to any other moral framework. This is true - but cause relative/subjective frameworks are not absolute/objective - which we've already agreed. So you, again, have not said anything.

Likewise, Object X is not absolutely/objectively moving faster than Object Y because the motion of both is relative. Choose a reference frame - and you can make a comparison. Provide no reference frame - and you can say nothing.

So too with morality - choose a reference frame and we can compare moral positions. Provide no reference frame - and you cannot make ANY comparison, including "they are equally valid."

This is why I said as rational creatures we can stand back and look at these issues objectively. If you were to observe two men arguing that their relative speed was better or superior to the other's you would rightly see the claims of superiority (from either side) as bullocks. In other words you would not see either claim of superiority as valid.

Because things are relative does not mean we abandon comparisons. It means we adopt reference frameworks that make comparisons meaningful in the context of the application/discussion. So if we are talking about getting to City Y, "the surface of the earth" is a helpful reference frame for comparing two methods of transportation. If we are talking about getting to Mars, the surface of the earth is no longer all that useful as a reference frame, and the surface of the Sun is a better one. None of that makes any reference frame "absolute."

Likewise, in morality, we choose a reference frame that gives the discussion at hand a relevant context. So when I am seeking to evaluate the morality of my actions or the actions of others, I use my own morality as a reference frame and determine how far away from that another person (or group) is. If we want to know how closely any particular group is to the biblical moral framework, then we use the biblical moral framework as the reference frame. Of course that introduces the added complexity of determining which particular interpretation of that reference frame is the "right" one.

Again, none of that makes any of those reference frames absolute or objective.

[seer]

Because things are relative does not mean we abandon comparisons. It means we adopt reference frameworks that make comparisons meaningful in the context of the application/discussion. So if we are talking about getting to City Y, "the surface of the earth" is a helpful reference frame for comparing two methods of transportation. If we are talking about getting to Mars, the surface of the earth is no longer all that useful as a reference frame, and the surface of the Sun is a better one. None of that makes any reference frame "absolute."

Likewise, in morality, we choose a reference frame that gives the discussion at hand a relevant context. So when I am seeking to evaluate the morality of my actions or the actions of others, I use my own morality as a reference frame and determine how far away from that another person (or group) is. If we want to know how closely any particular group is to the biblical moral framework, then we use the biblical moral framework as the reference frame. Of course that introduces the added complexity of determining which particular interpretation of that reference frame is the "right" one.

Again, none of that makes any of those reference frames absolute or objective.

Carp, as an objective observer, which man's claim to the superiority of his relative speed is true?

[carpedm9587]

Since I accidentally duplicated anyway, I thought I'd use this post to give a concrete example of what relative motion is all about, as a parallel for relative morality. Let's just keep it all on a straight line, to keep it simpler.

I am Man W floating in space. I observe Man X, and it is coming towards me at a rate of 10 Mbps. I now know something about our relative speed, but I know nothing about our absolute speed. Indeed, there is actually no such thing. I could be moving along a hypothetical line at 20 MPH and the other MAN is moving along that same line in the same direction at 10 MPH, and they would appear to be moving TOWARDS me at 10 MPH. Likewise, I may be moving along a hypothetical line 5 MPH, and they may be moving the opposite direction on the same line at 5 MPH, and they appear to be moving towards me at 10 MPH. We have no way of knowing.

Suddenly, two more men (Y and Z) appear on that same line. Man Y is moving away from me at 40 MPH, and Man Z is moving away from me at 100 MPH. So, to me, there are 4 objects. I am not moving. Man X is traveling towards me at 10 MPH, Man Y away at 40 MPH, and MAN Z at 100 MPH.

Shift to MAN X, and they see themselves as stationary, me (Man W) moving away at 10 MPH, MAN Y is moving away at 50 MPH, and MAN Z is moving away at 110 MPH.

Shift to MAN Y, and they see themselves as stationary, me (Man W) is away at 40 MPH, MAN Y is moving away at 50 MPH, and MAN Z is moving away at 60 MPH.

Shift to MAN Z, and they see themselves as stationary, me (Man W) is away at 100 MPH, MAN X is moving away at 110 MPH, and MAN Y is moving away at 60 MPH.

Which one is right? Each one is right from their own perspective. What is the "real" speed of each person? The question has no answer. There is no way to determine that. The question is pointless because speed is relative.

So is morality.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, as an objective observer, which man's claim to the superiority of his relative speed is true?

First, the observer is only "objective" in the sense that their perspective is not bound by either of the other two moving people. They are not "absolute" in any sense, since the observer is simply a third objective in relative motion.

However since you have determined the reference frame to be that of the observer, the man with the superior speed (to the observer) is the man moving towards/away from the observer at the greater speed. That does not make either man's speed claim "absolutely" superior. It is only superior in that reference frame. A different observer may come to a different conclusion.

Morality is analogous. That's what I've been saying.