Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Take Back Our Country
Collapse
X
-
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI answered the question that Seer asked...
two observers using the same moral frame of reference can falsify the statement "randomly killing humans is moral."
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo 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.
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.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postwith 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.
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.
Originally posted by Sparko View PostIf 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.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostAgain, 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.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostCarp, 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.
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...Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-18-2018, 03:46 PM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
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...Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThat 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.
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.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostWow...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.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostOf 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.
- 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.
Originally posted by seer View PostNow 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.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostWow - 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.
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.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostOh stop with the pontificating Carp. Try answering yes or no...
Originally posted by seer View Post1. If two men disagree that lying is wrong is there a way to objectively resolve it? Yes or no.
Originally posted by seer View Post2. 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?
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.
Originally posted by seer View PostBut 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.Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-19-2018, 08:32 AM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostExplaining 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 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.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo 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.
Originally posted by seer View PostThat 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.
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.Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-19-2018, 09:13 AM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI 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.
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.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Ronson, Today, 08:45 AM
|
5 responses
48 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Today, 03:01 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 05-03-2024, 01:19 PM
|
26 responses
205 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 03:06 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-03-2024, 12:23 PM
|
100 responses
419 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 07:45 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 05-03-2024, 11:46 AM
|
21 responses
138 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 06:52 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-03-2024, 04:37 AM
|
23 responses
115 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
05-03-2024, 02:49 PM
|
Comment