Take Back Our Country

[carpedm9587]

OK

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

And Michel's physical position and movement is subjective to him as well. I can, with a single decision, change my speed and my position. I can, with a single decision, change my moral framework.

Where is the difference?

[seer]

And Michel's physical position and movement is subjective to him as well.

No it is not, the physical framework does not DEPEND on subjective feelings/reasoning.

I can, with a single decision, change my speed and my position. I can, with a single decision, change my moral framework.

If you change your position you would be in a different OBJECTIVE framework that still does not depend on your subjective feelings/reasoning.

[carpedm9587]

No it is not, the physical framework does not DEPEND on subjective feelings/reasoning.

If you change your position you would be in a different OBJECTIVE framework that still does not depend on your subjective feelings/reasoning.

Seer...what on earth do you think it depends on? Michel looks at the car and says, "it's traveling 53 MPH." Then Michel decides to get on a bicycle and get some exercise, and the relative speed of the car is now 38 MPH (because I've subjectively chosen to pedal 15 MPH). Or we subjectively choose to use the surface of the planet to make our relative assessment.

I can choose myself as the relative framework. I can choose the surface of the planet, but that choice is subjective. The former I can change (because it is me). The latter I cannot because it's the planet and I lack the means/power. But with enough power, I could change that too (theoretically). And that is no different than choosing to use the moral framework written down in the ten commandments. It is objectively real as well and, if I choose it, becomes the basis for the relative comparison. Since it's already written down somewhere, it is as "unchanging" as the surface of the planet. But the same is true if I choose the Code of Hammurabi, or decide to use the framework of the Vedas. Indeed, I could write down my moral framework in a contract, sign it, and then commit to using it as my basis from that point forward, and it would have an objective and unchanging reality.

You are arbitrarily applying the concepts of relative/absolute and subjective/objective.

[seer]

Seer...what on earth do you think it depends on? Michel looks at the car and says, "it's traveling 53 MPH." Then Michel decides to get on a bicycle and get some exercise, and the relative speed of the car is now 38 MPH (because I've subjectively chosen to pedal 15 MPH). Or we subjectively choose to use the surface of the planet to make our relative assessment.

You already agreed that his physical framework is objective, that does not make your moral framework objective - nor can it. If I ride on Michel's back we would both experience the same objective reality/measurement, no matter the relative position. If I share the same moral framework with you, our frameworks are still subjective, to you and to me, even if they are in agreement - they do not depend on objective realities. They remained completely subjective.

[carpedm9587]

You already agreed that his physical framework is objective, that does not make your moral framework objective - nor can it. If I ride on Michel's back we would both experience the same objective reality/measurement, no matter the relative position.

Which Michel can subjective change by an act of will...altering the relative speed of any other object.

If I share the same moral framework with you, our frameworks are still subjective, to you and to me, even if they are in agreement - they do not depend on objective realities. They remained completely subjective.

Seer - even moral frameworks have an objective reality. You only need to consider what happens if I write down my moral framework, sign it, and then decide to live according to that moral framework. I have now aligned my moral framework to the written version of my moral framework - which is objectively real - and substantively no different than a moral framework written down by someone dead 3,000+ years. The only difference is who wrote it down.

My moral framework is subjectively determined by me, and objectively real to you. Your moral framework is subjectively determined by you, and objectively real to me.
My physical position/speed is subjectively determined by me, and objectively real to you. Your position/speed is subjectively determined by you, and objectively real to me.
If you adopt my moral framework, you will relatively assess all actions in a fashion identical to me.
If you adopt my physical position/speed, you will assess all other speeds/positions in a fashion identical to me.

Again - you are trying to paint a distinction where there is none.

[seer]

Which Michel can subjective change by an act of will...altering the relative speed of any other object.

Nonsense, no matter if he changes his physical position the relative speed remains objective.

Seer - even moral frameworks have an objective reality. You only need to consider what happens if I write down my moral framework, sign it, and then decide to live according to that moral framework. I have now aligned my moral framework to the written version of my moral framework - which is objectively real - and substantively no different than a moral framework written down by someone dead 3,000+ years. The only difference is who wrote it down

.

Oh please!

My moral framework is subjectively determined by me, and objectively real to you. Your moral framework is subjectively determined by you, and objectively real to me.
My physical position/speed is subjectively determined by me, and objectively real to you. Your position/speed is subjectively determined by you, and objectively real to me.
If you adopt my moral framework, you will relatively assess all actions in a fashion identical to me.
If you adopt my physical position/speed, you will assess all other speeds/positions in a fashion identical to me.

Again - you are trying to paint a distinction where there is none.

That is just silly Carp. Whether you write it down or not it remains subjective to you as the source. You subjectively made it up. A physical framework is not subjective, no matter which physical framework I subjectively choose to be in. This is clearly apples and oranges - you are trying to equate a physical, objectively measurable framework, with a subjective moral idea that has no dependence on a physical reality - with no objectivity.

[carpedm9587]

Nonsense, no matter if he changes his physical position the relative speed remains objective.

To change position, the object has to change speed, which changes the relative speed.

And note that the entire notion of "position" is itself relative. There is no such thing as absolute speed - and no such thing as absolute position.

.Oh please!

Wow... well argued, Seer...

That is just silly Carp.

Many of you certainly seem to love to argue by pejorative. I have to wonder if you think it actually strengthens your argument?

Whether you write it down or not it remains subjective to you as the source.

Yes, it originated subjectively - which is what morality its. But there is no altering the fact that my subjective moral code as an objective reality to everyone else. It is subjective to me - because I "derived it." It has objective reality to you because its existence if independent of your opinion or ideas.

You subjectively made it up.

Naturally... each of us "makes up" our moral framework - based on what we value and our reasoning process.

A physical framework is not subjective, no matter which physical framework I subjectively choose to be in. This is clearly apples and oranges - you are trying to equate a physical, objectively measurable framework, with a subjective moral idea that has no dependence on a physical reality - with no objectivity.

I've made the case Seer - and shown the parallelism. So far all you've done is used words like "oh please" and "silly" and re-asserted over and over that it just isn't so.

So I repeat:

No object has an absolute position or absolute speed (basic physics).
No moralizer has an absolute moral framework (how I believe morality to work).
The relative speed and position of an object are measured from a defined reference point (which is subjectively chosen to achieve a goal).
The relative morality of an act is measured from a defined moral framework (which is subjectively chosen to achieve a goal).
Two objects with the same relative speed and position will measure the speed and position of a third object identically.
Two moralizers using the same moral framework will measure the morality of a given act identically.

You are free to point out exactly which statement is false and where the parallelism fails. "Oh please," "silly" and the various forms of "it just ain't so" are not going to get you there.

[Sparko]

I don't know what either are you are arguing about at this point. Speed and Morality are completely different things. Trying to tie them together as "relative" is ridiculous and pointless.

[carpedm9587]

I don't know what either are you are arguing about at this point. Speed and Morality are completely different things. Trying to tie them together as "relative" is ridiculous and pointless.

Since both morality and speed/position are relative, a parallel can be drawn. That does not make them the same - it makes them analogous in that respect.

Likewise, a train is not a truck, but they are both vehicles, both have wheels, and both are used to transport things, so they are analogous in those respects.

As a teacher, I understand the power of analogy to explore a concept. It can help someone who understands one thing (e.g., trucks) to understand the other (e.g., trains). You leverage the analogous elements to start understanding, and then cite the differences to further understanding. It's a common educational technique.

In this case, I assumed Seer understood relativity in physics, but it does not appear that he does. So the exercise may well be pointless.

[seer]

To change position, the object has to change speed, which changes the relative speed.

And note that the entire notion of "position" is itself relative. There is no such thing as absolute speed - and no such thing as absolute position.

Let me use an example:

1. Mike is at position A, the relative speed of the car is 35 mph.

2. A tree is at position A, the relative speed of the car is 35 mph.

3. Fido is at position A, the relative speed of the car is 35 mph.

The relative speed it objective, it does NOT depend on what we subjectively think, feel or believe. In fact, like the tree, you do not have to think at all.

1. Mike thinks murder is wrong.

2. Joe thinks murder is wrong.

3. Frank thinks murder is wrong.

Each moral opinion, though in agreement, is subjective - they depend TOTALLY on what we think, feel or believe.

Where am I wrong in my comparison? Which point or points are wrong?

[Sparko]

Since both morality and speed/position are relative, a parallel can be drawn. That does not make them the same - it makes them analogous in that respect.

Likewise, a train is not a truck, but they are both vehicles, both have wheels, and both are used to transport things, so they are analogous in those respects.

As a teacher, I understand the power of analogy to explore a concept. It can help someone who understands one thing (e.g., trucks) to understand the other (e.g., trains). You leverage the analogous elements to start understanding, and then cite the differences to further understanding. It's a common educational technique.

In this case, I assumed Seer understood relativity in physics, but it does not appear that he does. So the exercise may well be pointless.

They are not relative in the same manner. "relative speed" means each observer sees a "different" speed of traveling objects. But the speed can be measured and scientifically verified between moving objects. Otherwise you couldn't send probes to mars. The speed has nothing to do with any observer's preferences.

"relative" as you have been using it in regards to morality means, "like" or "preference" - a completely different concept.

[carpedm9587]

Let me use an example:

1. Mike is at position A, the relative speed of the car is 35 mph.

2. A tree is at position A, the relative speed of the car is 35 mph.

3. Fido is at position A, the relative speed of the car is 35 mph.

So here is your problem, Seer. All of the "Position A" definitions above have to be relative to something - because there is no position A. So you are probably thinking of Position A on the surface of the planet. Fixing everything to the surface of the planet gives everything the same relative framework...which means all of their measurements will align. But the planet itself does not have a fixed position, and only has positions relative to everything else.

The relative speed it objective, it does NOT depend on what we subjectively think, feel or believe. In fact, like the tree, you do not have to think at all.

1. Mike thinks murder is wrong.

2. Joe thinks murder is wrong.

3. Frank thinks murder is wrong.

Each moral opinion, though in agreement, is subjective - they depend TOTALLY on what we think, feel or believe.

Where am I wrong in my comparison? Which point or points are wrong?

No one said that a moral framework was not subjective to the individual deriving the framework, Seer. The point was that, as with physics, two or three things using the same framework will assess the same moral action identically. Likewise, two or three objects with the same relative speed/position to a given object will assess the speed/position of the other object identically.

Nonsentient objects can have no impact on their speed/position - they are inert and subject to the default of physics. Sentient objects CAN and DO have a subjective impact on their speed/position.

As I mentioned to Sparko - no analogy is intended to say "X is the same as Y." An analogy is a teaching tool, intended to foster understanding. If someone understands X, and Y is like X in some ways, you can foster an understanding of Y by comparing it to X, showing the similarities, and then explaining the differences.

So relative morality can be understood by seeing how it compares to relative physics. Both are relative. Both combine subjective and objective elements. Relative morality is like relative physics in that both are relative (obviously). They differ in that nonsentient objects lack the concept of subjective. So if you are going to compare relative morality to relative physics, you are going to do so for sentient objects (e.g., us).

Perhaps that is the part I did not lay out adequately.

[carpedm9587]

They are not relative in the same manner. "relative speed" means each observer sees a "different" speed of traveling objects. But the speed can be measured and scientifically verified between moving objects. Otherwise you couldn't send probes to mars. The speed has nothing to do with any observer's preferences.

"relative" as you have been using it in regards to morality means, "like" or "preference" - a completely different concept.

See my previous responses to Seer.

[seer]

So here is your problem, Seer. All of the "Position A" definitions above have to be relative to something - because there is no position A. So you are probably thinking of Position A on the surface of the planet. Fixing everything to the surface of the planet gives everything the same relative framework...which means all of their measurements will align. But the planet itself does not have a fixed position, and only has positions relative to everything else.



No one said that a moral framework was not subjective to the individual deriving the framework, Seer. The point was that, as with physics, two or three things using the same framework will assess the same moral action identically. Likewise, two or three objects with the same relative speed/position to a given object will assess the speed/position of the other object identically.

Nonsentient objects can have no impact on their speed/position - they are inert and subject to the default of physics. Sentient objects CAN and DO have a subjective impact on their speed/position.

As I mentioned to Sparko - no analogy is intended to say "X is the same as Y." An analogy is a teaching tool, intended to foster understanding. If someone understands X, and Y is like X in some ways, you can foster an understanding of Y by comparing it to X, showing the similarities, and then explaining the differences.

So relative morality can be understood by seeing how it compares to relative physics. Both are relative. Both combine subjective and objective elements. Relative morality is like relative physics in that both are relative (obviously). They differ in that nonsentient objects lack the concept of subjective. So if you are going to compare relative morality to relative physics, you are going to do so for sentient objects (e.g., us).

Perhaps that is the part I did not lay out adequately.

Do you agree that the relative speed of the car in my example does not depend on what we think, believe or feel? And that morality does?

[carpedm9587]

Do you agree that the relative speed of the car in my example does not depend on what we think, believe or feel? And that morality does?

For a comparison between a nonsentient thing and a sentient one, yes. This is where the analogy breaks down and there are differences.

For the comparison between two sentient things there is no difference. In both cases, the sentient being can choose a moral position, and choose a speed/position. If two sentient beings choose the same moral position, they will make the same moral assessment. If they choose the same speed/position, the will make the same relative speed assessment.