Take Back Our Country

[carpedm9587]

No you haven't, there are no objective results that do not depend on what you think, feel of believe.

What? Of course there are. If a meteor impacts the earth and destroys all life, that is an objective result that does not depend on what I think, feel, or believe. If I am sleeping (which our physiology eventually forces us to do), and someone dopes me and kidnaps me, that is an objective result that does not depend on what I think, feel, or believe. There are many things in our lives that are outside of our control and not impacted by our choices/beliefs/opinions.

If I choose to move at 15 MPH, the relative speed is now 20 MPH. Both situations can be objectively measured, and they are influenced by my subjective choices, making the relative speed subjective.

No, because the resulting speed (the the actual measurement) does not depend on what you think, feel or think. You could be deaf, dumb and blind, and have no clue about relative speeds, they remain the same.

The measurement is objective - the actual speed is subjectively determined. If I change my own speed, I change the relative speed. Since it is me choosing to change the speed, the speed has a subjective component. That is can be objectively measured does not mean it is not subjectively influenced. I have provided several examples now. Why you persist in rejecting what is an obvious, self-evident truth is beyond me.

Are you really THAT afraid of the notions of subjectivity and relativity?

[carpedm9587]

Yes they are clear, your analogy is not. You were complaining when Seer used color as an analogy, claiming it was trivializing morality, yet here you are trying to use choosing to walk at a speed as an analogy.

Unrelated. The point of this discussion is to show how that subjectivity and relativity, when finally accepted as true, did not cause physics to end. When the same notions are recognized within the moral sphere, there is no reason to believe morality has to end.

The point of that discussion was to show that moral realists (as they appear to like to call themselves) have no actual argument against moral relativism/subjectivism - except to continually repeat "it's not objective/absolute" (Technique #1), to attempt to continually associate the serious decisions moralism addresses with trivial ones (Technique #2), or to haul out atrocities left and right (Technique #2). Technique #2 and #3 actually also depend on Technique #1.

Which not only is just as trivializing but makes no sense as far as an analogy. If you choose to walk at 3MPH, I can very easily measure you walking 3MPH and agree, yep you are walking 3MPH. Because we have an common objective point of measurement: The ground.

Yes - you can. All of which I have agreed with, including the fact that walking at 3 MPH is a subjective choice.

Choosing to walk at a specific speed is nothing like choosing whether an action is moral or not.

I did not say they were the same - I said they were analogous: both are subjective.
And I further noted that, once the selection is made, other things can be objectively measured against that framework - also the same in both spheres.

You seem to have the worst analogies ever but complain about other people's analogies. It boggles my mind. I get what you are arguing now, but dude, it is TERRIBLE. Really bad.

Your opinion is duly noted.

I have noted that, when the responses fail to actually address the argument, a lot of folks here like to simply toss words out like "silly," "ridiculous," "really bad," "stupid," and any other number of pejoratives and dig into the basket of condescending emojis. I am still wondering if those of you who use these tactics actually believes it makes your arguments stronger...?

In any event - the argument is fairly clear. I'll leave it to others to discern which case is stronger.

[Sparko]

Unrelated. The point of this discussion is to show how that subjectivity and relativity, when finally accepted as true, did not cause physics to end. When the same notions are recognized within the moral sphere, there is no reason to believe morality has to end.

The point of that discussion was to show that moral realists (as they appear to like to call themselves) have no actual argument against moral relativism/subjectivism - except to continually repeat "it's not objective/absolute" (Technique #1), to attempt to continually associate the serious decisions moralism addresses with trivial ones (Technique #2), or to haul out atrocities left and right (Technique #2). Technique #2 and #3 actually also depend on Technique #1.



Yes - you can. All of which I have agreed with, including the fact that walking at 3 MPH is a subjective choice.



I did not say they were the same - I said they were analogous: both are subjective.
And I further noted that, once the selection is made, other things can be objectively measured against that framework - also the same in both spheres.



Your opinion is duly noted.

I have noted that, when the responses fail to actually address the argument, a lot of folks here like to simply toss words out like "silly," "ridiculous," "really bad," "stupid," and any other number of pejoratives and dig into the basket of condescending emojis. I am still wondering if those of you who use these tactics actually believes it makes your arguments stronger...?

In any event - the argument is fairly clear. I'll leave it to others to discern which case is stronger.

Just checking here....

Does ANYONE reading this thread think Carp's argument is anything like "clear?" And if so, could you please post a translation for me? Thanks.

[seer]

What? Of course there are. If a meteor impacts the earth and destroys all life, that is an objective result that does not depend on what I think, feel, or believe. If I am sleeping (which our physiology eventually forces us to do), and someone dopes me and kidnaps me, that is an objective result that does not depend on what I think, feel, or believe. There are many things in our lives that are outside of our control and not impacted by our choices/beliefs/opinions.

The measurement is objective - the actual speed is subjectively determined. If I change my own speed, I change the relative speed. Since it is me choosing to change the speed, the speed has a subjective component. That is can be objectively measured does not mean it is not subjectively influenced. I have provided several examples now. Why you persist in rejecting what is an obvious, self-evident truth is beyond me.

Are you really THAT afraid of the notions of subjectivity and relativity?

Carp, nowhere did I say that the relative speed was not a part of our choosing a position. I have agreed with that a dozen times. But that the resulting speed is an objective measurement. And that you do not nor ever will have such an objective measurement from your moralizing. If you are standing still and a car goes by you, there is an objective speed to that, if you get on your bike, there is a different objective speed to that. If you believe that lying is wrong what is the objective result?

[Sparko]

Seems to me carp started out arguing relativity in speed as in:

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.

Which is talking about measuring relative speeds between objects (like in Einstein)

and when Seer called him on it, it somehow morphed into "choosing how fast you want to walk" as what he meant by "relative" speed. Seer and I are still back on talking about measuring relative speeds between moving objects and Carp has moved on to deciding how fast you want to move.



I think what is actually happening is that carp is losing track of the conversation from day to day (because of the weekends, being in various other threads) and doesn't bother to refresh his memory on the current discussion and just reacts to the latest post I or seer makes and so his "story" keeps shifting.

It is confusing the heck out of me.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, nowhere did I say that the relative speed was not a part of our choosing a position. I have agreed with that a dozen times.result?

I would be curious to know which posts you think contain this information. This is the first I have seen you acknowledge this. Perhaps I missed it?

But that the resulting speed is an objective measurement.

The ending speed can be objectively measured.

And that you do not nor ever will have such an objective measurement from your moralizing.

And here is where you jump the rails. Once you know the subjective framework (in physics or morality), assessments can be objectively made.

If you are standing still and a car goes by you, there is an objective speed to that, if you get on your bike, there is a different objective speed to that. If you believe that lying is wrong what is the objective result?

When you make an analogy, it is important to align the element correctly.

Physics - Sentient Observer A
Morality - Sentient Moralizer A

Physics - Observed Object B
Morality - Observed Moral Actor B

Physics - Sentient Observer A subjectively determines to move at Speed X
Morality - Sentient Moralizer A subjectively determines Action X is immoral

Physics - Observed Object B is travelling at Speed Y (objective reality)
Morality - Observed Moral Actor B performs Action X (objective reality)

Physics - Speed between Sentient Observer A and Observed Object B (relatively determined) can be objectively measured (objective reality)
Morality - Moral position of Moral Agent A can be applied to Observed Moral Actor B's action (relatively determined) to objectively determined morality of Action X (objective reality)

If Observer A is moving at 5 MPH, and Observed Object B is moving at 20 MPH in the same direction, and objective measurement between the two will arrive at 15 MPH as the relative speed.
If Moral Agent A believes Action X is immoral and Observed Moral Actor B performs action X, an objective application of Moral Agent A's framework will ALWAYS yield the same outcome: Moral Actor A is immoral.

If Observer A changes their speed, the relative speed of Object B will change.
If Moral Agent A's moral framework concerning action Action X changes, the relative assessment of Moral Actor B will likewise change.

So tell me where the breakdown between these two parallels occurs, within the context of the analogy.

[carpedm9587]

Seems to me carp started out arguing relativity in speed as in:

Which is talking about measuring relative speeds between objects (like in Einstein)

Yes, it is.

and when Seer called him on it,

What is "it" in that sentence?

it somehow morphed into "choosing how fast you want to walk" as what he meant by "relative" speed. Seer and I are still back on talking about measuring relative speeds between moving objects and Carp has moved on to deciding how fast you want to move.



I think what is actually happening is that carp is losing track of the conversation from day to day (because of the weekends, being in various other threads) and doesn't bother to refresh his memory on the current discussion and just reacts to the latest post I or seer makes and so his "story" keeps shifting.

It is confusing the heck out of me.

That you are confused is very clear form this post. There is no "morph" in a discussion that starts about noting there is no "absolute" in physics (or in morality), and then goes on to talk about relative speeds of two objects. Both are exactly what relativity is all about (and your own post says this - see bolded section above). There is no absolute - there is only relativity. Both address the point I've been making all along.

[Sparko]

If Observer A is moving at 5 MPH, and Observed Object B is moving at 20 MPH in the same direction, and objective measurement between the two will arrive at 15 MPH as the relative speed.
If Moral Agent A believes Action X is immoral and Moral Actor B performs action X, an objective application of Moral Agent A's framework will ALWAYS yield the same outcome: Moral Actor A is immoral.

I think there is something different about the two statements.

In the first one, the two people are measuring an outside objective phenomenon and coming to the same measurement.
In the second one, you are imposing a subjective viewpoint on an objective phenomenon and claiming it is objective.

[carpedm9587]

I think there is something different about the two statements.

In the first one, the two people are measuring an outside objective phenomenon and coming to the same measurement.
In the second one, you are imposing a subjective viewpoint on an objective phenomenon and claiming it is objective.

Well - at least this one is new territory, and actually does try to show a distinction between the two things (physics, morality). However, you are making the same mistake Seer is making, and misaligning the elements. If we align them correctly, they look like this:

• In the first one, the Observer A makes a subjective decision (speed), externalizes it (moves at that speed) which makes it possible for anyone to objectively measure the relative speed to Observed Object B.
• In the second one, Moral Agent A makes a subjective decision (morality of Action B), externalizes it (tells someone, writes it down) which makes it possible for anyone to objectively measure the relative moral position to Observed Moral Actor B.

When you align them correctly, the analogy holds well.

[Sparko]

Well - at least this one is new territory, and actually does try to show a distinction between the two things (physics, morality). However, you are making the same mistake Seer is making, and misaligning the elements. If we align them correctly, they look like this:

• In the first one, the Observer A makes a subjective decision (speed), externalizes it (moves at that speed) which makes it possible for anyone to objectively measure the relative speed to Observed Object B.
• In the second one, Moral Agent A makes a subjective decision (morality of Action B), externalizes it (tells someone, writes it down) which makes it possible for anyone to objectively measure the relative moral position to Observed Moral Actor B.

When you align them correctly, the analogy holds well.

OK so...
Moral Actor A (Baker) makes a subjective decision (Making wedding cakes for gay weddings is immoral), externalizes it (tells the couple and the world what he believes) and that makes it possible for us to objectively measure his relative moral value against actor B (You?)

If I measure his moral value against you (moral actor B) all that tells me is that A acted according to his own values and Actor B has nothing to do with it. How can I objectively measure his relative moral position to you, actor B?

[carpedm9587]

So, back to the baker. But at least this is new territory and original.

OK so...
Moral Actor A (Baker) makes a subjective decision (Making wedding cakes for gay weddings is immoral), externalizes it (tells the couple and the world what he believes) and that makes it possible for us to objectively measure his relative moral value against actor B (You?)

There has never been any question that the baker believes he is acting morally, according to his moral framework.

If I measure his moral value against you (moral actor B) all that tells me is that A acted according to his own values and Actor B has nothing to do with it. How can I objectively measure his relative moral position to you, actor B?

So, again, you're misaligning the elements. The arguments I have put forward take two approaches.

1) Showing how the baker's own moral framework (and that of each Christian posting here) is inconsistent. Inconsistency should be a sign of faulty moral reasoning and an indication that the moral framework needs attention. This is the parallel made with mixed race weddings, which still has not been responded to by anyone (except to call it stupid, silly, etc.). But no one has actually refuted the argument as put forward. But both positions were based on the genetics of the participants in the wedding. This is an attempt to get Moral Agent A to change their subjective position.

2) Making the case that it is unreasonable to make a moral decision on the basis of genetics. I know of no other moral decision making in which such an approach is used, or defended. Morality is about action - not genetics. This is also an attempt to get Moral Agent A to change their subjective position.

I understand you have a low opinion of the genetics argument, but other than tossing out lots of personal insults, mocking emojis, and derogatory adjectives - you actually haven't refuted the argument itself. I'm waiting for someone to actually propose a viable counter-argument so it can be examined.

That being said - if "convincing" doesn't work, then the way people deal with moral disconnects is to agree-to-disagree (for minor issues), separate/isolate (for more serious issues), and contend (when the moral disconnect cannot be tolerated). I am not going to agree-to-disagree on this one; it is too important to our society. So that will leave some combination of isolation/separation (for example, people know that we can discuss the homosexuality issue, but pejorative comments about homosexuals will not be tolerated in my home), and contending (e.g., right now, that is happening in our legal courts. It will probably continue there).

[seer]

If Observer A is moving at 5 MPH, and Observed Object B is moving at 20 MPH in the same direction, and objective measurement between the two will arrive at 15 MPH as the relative speed.
If Moral Agent A believes Action X is immoral and Observed Moral Actor B performs action X, an objective application of Moral Agent A's framework will ALWAYS yield the same outcome: Moral Actor A is immoral.

Is the 15 mile an hour speed dependent, at that position, on what the observer thinks, feels or believes? Is the moral actor's moral claim based on what he thinks, feels or believes?

[Sparko]

So, back to the baker. But at least this is new territory and original.



There has never been any question that the baker believes he is acting morally, according to his moral framework.



So, again, you're misaligning the elements. The arguments I have put forward take two approaches.

1) Showing how the baker's own moral framework (and that of each Christian posting here) is inconsistent. Inconsistency should be a sign of faulty moral reasoning and an indication that the moral framework needs attention. This is the parallel made with mixed race weddings, which still has not been responded to by anyone (except to call it stupid, silly, etc.). But no one has actually refuted the argument as put forward. But both positions were based on the genetics of the participants in the wedding. This is an attempt to get Moral Agent A to change their subjective position.

2) Making the case that it is unreasonable to make a moral decision on the basis of genetics. I know of no other moral decision making in which such an approach is used, or defended. Morality is about action - not genetics. This is also an attempt to get Moral Agent A to change their subjective position.

I understand you have a low opinion of the genetics argument, but other than tossing out lots of personal insults, mocking emojis, and derogatory adjectives - you actually haven't refuted the argument itself. I'm waiting for someone to actually propose a viable counter-argument so it can be examined.

That being said - if "convincing" doesn't work, then the way people deal with moral disconnects is to agree-to-disagree (for minor issues), separate/isolate (for more serious issues), and contend (when the moral disconnect cannot be tolerated). I am not going to agree-to-disagree on this one; it is too important to our society. So that will leave some combination of isolation/separation (for example, people know that we can discuss the homosexuality issue, but pejorative comments about homosexuals will not be tolerated in my home), and contending (e.g., right now, that is happening in our legal courts. It will probably continue there).

ok back to your analogy. You say I am aligning up the elements wrongly again. So please, using me as the observer, and the baker as Moral Agent A and you as Moral Agent B, show me how I can objectively measure Moral Agent A (the Baker's) moral action B.

I don't see how I was misaligning any elements because I just took YOUR formula and added in people and actions.

You said:
In the second one, Moral Agent A makes a subjective decision (morality of Action B), externalizes it (tells someone, writes it down) which makes it possible for anyone to objectively measure the relative moral position to Observed Moral Actor B.

So Moral Agent A = Baker
Moral Action B = Refusing to make cake for gay wedding
Anyone = Me
Moral Actor B = You.

Also explain what you mean by "objectively measure" a "relative moral position"


Lay it out for me Carp, all aligned correctly.

[carpedm9587]

ok back to your analogy. You say I am aligning up the elements wrongly again. So please, using me as the observer, and the baker as Moral Agent A and you as Moral Agent B, show me how I can objectively measure Moral Agent A (the Baker's) moral action B.

Who's moral framework do you want to use?

I don't see how I was misaligning any elements because I just took YOUR formula and added in people and actions.

You said:
In the second one, Moral Agent A makes a subjective decision (morality of Action B), externalizes it (tells someone, writes it down) which makes it possible for anyone to objectively measure the relative moral position to Observed Moral Actor B.

So Moral Agent A = Baker
Moral Action B = Refusing to make cake for gay wedding
Anyone = Me
Moral Actor B = You.

Also explain what you mean by "objectively measure" a "relative moral position"

Lay it out for me Carp, all aligned correctly.

I have done this several times. Just as, once you know the subjectively chosen physical framework for measuring relative motion, anyone can measure the relative motion of Object A, so too, once you know the subjectively chosen moral framework for measuring the morality of an action, anyone can measure the morality of the same Moral Act from that framework. This is not rocket science, Sparko.

I'm not sure how to make your assignments work above, but this is how I would lay it out:

Selected Subjective Moral Framework: Michel's position that selecting providing a service on the basis of the sex of the individuals is immoral.
Moral Actor: Baker who decides he is willing to make wedding cakes for opposite-sex weddings but not for same-sex weddings
Any observer can then objectively say: From the perspective of Michel's moral framework, the baker's action is immoral. This is an objectively true statement that can be made by anyone.

The parallel case in physics:

Selected Subjective Physical Framework: Michel's chosen travel speed of 10 MPH.
Physical Actor: Car that is moving at 35 MPH in the same direction as Michel
Any observer can then objectively say: From the perspective of Michel's physical framework, the car is moving at the relative speed of 25 MPH. This is an objectively true statement that can be made by anyone.

This all seems very self-evident to me, but if it breaks down somewhere, feel free to show where/how it breaks down. Unfortunately, "that's stupid" and "that's silly" will not get you there.

[carpedm9587]

Is the 15 mile an hour speed dependent, at that position, on what the observer thinks, feels or believes?

Yes. It is dependent on what the observer has subjectively chosen as his comparative framework. He can subjectively choose another framework and it will change the relative speed of the object. That is the entire concept of relativity.

Is the moral actor's moral claim based on what he thinks, feels or believes?

Same answer... yes... the moral framework is based on what the moral assessor thinks/feels/believes. That's what makes it subjective.