Take Back Our Country

[Sparko]

Then you have sealed yourself into your moral echo chamber and conversation is pointless. I appreciate you letting me know.



If the majority of people in a given society suddenly defined "rape" as moral, then that society can be accurately said to see "rape as moral." So we would say, "in the framework of Society X, rape is perceived as moral." Such societies have existed in the past, and may well exist in the future.

exactly. And we judge them as "wrong" but that entails some objective idea of what is "right" or "good" - which you say doesn't exist. So in your world view, you can't make such a moral judgment. at best you can say "what they considered moral, I do not" - you can't call them "evil" or "depraved" because those words would imply some objective standard which you claim doesn't exist.

Now I know you still do use those judgments, because deep down you believe in a moral standard of good and evil that you believe everyone should agree on. That there is something "better" we should strive for and that it is not just your opinion. That is why I think you are a flaming hypocrite. Despite all of your protestations to the contrary, you spend most of your time on Tweb trying to "teach" us morality and expecting us to agree that your way is "better"

Technique #1: you left out "objective/absolute" from your statement, but that appears to be what you meant by "actually." There actually IS something immoral/wrong about rape, in my moral framework, as well as the moral frameworks of most humans and most societies. There is nothing "objectively/absolutely" wrong/evil because that concept is meaningless. Just as we cannot say anything about the absolute speed of an object, because the very concept is meaningless; likewise we cannot say anything about the absolute morality of an act because the concept does not exist.

You are a twit. There is no technique #1 other than as a way for you to dismiss someone else's points without having to address them. You keep claiming morality doesn't exist, that good and evil do not exist, yet you spend all of your time on theologyweb arguing to the contrary.

I don't believe you when you say you are a moral relativist.

[Mountain Man]

Society has a right to protect itself against [anyone] who disrupts social cohesion.

You mean like Jews and gypsies?

adolf_hitler_20100527_1185227214.jpg

[rogue06]

You shouldn't call Carp a fruit - that was just uncalled for!

Indeed. A nut? Sure. But a fruit?

[seer]

Indeed. A nut? Sure. But a fruit?

A fruity nut?

[Cow Poke]

A fruity nut?

Add flakes and you have California! (or cereal)

[carpedm9587]

Actually they aren't. You can objectively know a relative speed, you can never objectively know what is moral or not.

Of course you can. Give me the moral framework from which we are assessing, and we can assess the morality of any act from the perspective of that moral framework.

Likewise, give me the physical framework of any object and we can assess the relative motion of any other object.

Moral frame of references are meaningless since there is no objective way to determine if they are right to begin with.

I think you're mixing language - and I may be guilty of it as well. There is absolutely an objective way to measure it. There is simply no absolute way to measure it.

Case in point: the Christian moral framework, as documented in the decalogue, holds that lying is immoral. Ergo, if someone lies, from the Christian perspective, it is immoral. Likewise, Michel's moral framework holds that it is immoral. So when someone lies, one can objectively state that "from Michel's moral framework, that act was immoral.

Likewise, from Michel's perspective, that car was moving 53 MPH. That does not mean the car was moving at the absolute speed of 53 MPH because there is not such thing as "absolute speed." Likewise, this doe snot mean the person lying was being "absolutely" immoral, because there is no such thing as "absolute" morality.

If you are in a frame of reference for time, that is an objective frame, though relative, so you can measure an objective speed.

See my notes above.

[carpedm9587]

You outta start a fruit stand!

What makes you think I haven't?

[carpedm9587]

exactly. And we judge them as "wrong" but that entails some objective idea of what is "right" or "good" - which you say doesn't exist.

We judge them as wrong because our relative moral frameworks tell us it is wrong.

So in your world view, you can't make such a moral judgment.

Yes, I can.

at best you can say "what they considered moral, I do not" - you can't call them "evil" or "depraved" because those words would imply some objective standard which you claim doesn't exist.

I can call them "evil" or "depraved" because I always make those assessments from my moral framework - as you make such statements from yours.

Now I know you still do use those judgments, because deep down you believe in a moral standard of good and evil that you believe everyone should agree on.

Yes - mine. Just as you think society should align with yours.

That there is something "better" we should strive for and that it is not just your opinion.

No - that does not exist.

That is why I think you are a flaming hypocrite. Despite all of your protestations to the contrary, you spend most of your time on Tweb trying to "teach" us morality and expecting us to agree that your way is "better"





You are a twit. There is no technique #1 other than as a way for you to dismiss someone else's points without having to address them. You keep claiming morality doesn't exist, that good and evil do not exist, yet you spend all of your time on theologyweb arguing to the contrary.

I don't believe you when you say you are a moral relativist.

The rest of this has no content relative to the discussion.

[carpedm9587]

You shouldn't call Carp a fruit - that was just uncalled for!

I actually am a bit of a fruit (cake). Ask my wife.

[carpedm9587]

Add flakes and you have California! (or cereal)

I prefer to be known as a conservative liberal fruity nutty honest disingenuous theistic atheist

[seer]

Of course you can. Give me the moral framework from which we are assessing, and we can assess the morality of any act from the perspective of that moral framework.

Likewise, give me the physical framework of any object and we can assess the relative motion of any other object.

Yes but that physical framework is objective, the resulting speed in that framework is also objective. Your moral framework is never objective (it can never be quantified or measured) therefore your assessments (what fits or not) has no ground - no objective ground to jump off from, like in the case of speed...

[carpedm9587]

Yes but that physical framework is objective, the resulting speed in that framework is also objective. Your moral framework is never objective (it can never be quantified or measured) therefore your assessments (what fits or not) has no ground - no objective ground to jump off from, like in the case of speed...

Seer - a framework cannot be "measured," even in physics. It is a point of reference. The framework is not "stationary." It has no "absolute speed" or "absolute position." It is a reference point selected because of it's utility. We use, for example, the surface of the planet when discussing the speed on objects on this planet. It makes sense and is useful. It is objectively real. It exists. But it is not "measurable," in the sense you mean it. Once we have chosen it, its relationship to other things can be quantified.

Likewise, the point of view of a moral agent is a reference point. It cannot be "measured." It can simply be identified as the reference point, and (once identified), then assessments can be made of other moral frameworks in relation to this one. It is as objectively real as the surface of the planet. It is as changeable as the surface of the planet. It is as relative as the surface of the planet.

I truly think you do not understand the nature of relativity.

[seer]

Seer - a framework cannot be "measured," even in physics. It is a point of reference. The framework is not "stationary." It has no "absolute speed" or "absolute position." It is a reference point selected because of it's utility. We use, for example, the surface of the planet when discussing the speed on objects on this planet. It makes sense and is useful. It is objectively real. It exists. But it is not "measurable," in the sense you mean it. Once we have chosen it, its relationship to other things can be quantified.

Likewise, the point of view of a moral agent is a reference point. It cannot be "measured." It can simply be identified as the reference point, and (once identified), then assessments can be made of other moral frameworks in relation to this one. It is as objectively real as the surface of the planet. It is as changeable as the surface of the planet. It is as relative as the surface of the planet.

I truly think you do not understand the nature of relativity.

No Carp, a physical framework is objective. It does not depend on the subjective - for instance your example:

Likewise, from Michel's perspective, that car was moving 53 MPH. That does not mean the car was moving at the absolute speed of 53 MPH because there is not such thing as "absolute speed."

Any person in Mike position would see the car moving at 53 mph. That position (framework) and the speed are objective - they do not depend on subjective reasoning.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, a physical framework is objective. It does not depend on the subjective - for instance your example:

Likewise, from Michel's perspective, that car was moving 53 MPH. That does not mean the car was moving at the absolute speed of 53 MPH because there is not such thing as "absolute speed."

Any person in Mike position would see the car moving at 53 mph. That position (framework) and the speed are objective - they do not depend on subjective reasoning.

Again - you apparently do not understand relativity.

Any person in the same position as Michel (and with zero motion relative to Michel) will assess the speed of the car at 53 MPH. The car is objectively real. Its motion is objectively real. The position of Michel is objectively real. So the measurement will be identical in any identical circumstance.

Likewise, any person with the same morel framework as Michel (and with zero change in that framework relative to Michel) will assess the morality of Agent X performing Action Y as immoral (or moral). Agent X is objectively real. Action Y is objectively real. The moral framework of Michel is objectively real. So the measurement will be identical in any identical circumstance.

The situations are completely analogous. The car can change it's speed, and Agent X can change their action. The person observing can change their position/speed (which will change the relative speed of the car; and Michel can change his moral framework, which will change the moral assessment.

You're trying to create a difference where there is none, except one is about morality, and the other about physics.

[seer]

Any person in the same position as Michel (and with zero motion relative to Michel) will assess the speed of the car at 53 MPH. The car is objectively real. Its motion is objectively real. The position of Michel is objectively real. So the measurement will be identical in any identical circumstance.

OK

Likewise, any person with the same morel framework as Michel (and with zero change in that framework relative to Michel) will assess the morality of Agent X performing Action Y as immoral (or moral). Agent X is objectively real. Action Y is objectively real. The moral framework of Michel is objectively real. So the measurement will be identical in any identical circumstance.

What? No way, Michel's moral framework is still subjective to him!