Take Back Our Country

[seer]

OK, Seer. I'll try one more time. Basic, Physics 101 question. Three objects moving through empty space (no other reference points to use).

Object A is moving 35 MPH relative to Object B
Object A is moving 25 MPH relative to Object C

Which is the correct speed of Object A?
Can the actual speed of Object A be determined? If yes, how?

That is not the point! I agree that it is relative and there is no absolute answer in this case. But what ON EARTH does that have to do with whether ethics are relative or not? What do physical realities have to do with non-physical moral questions? BTW with Object A is moving at 35 MPH relative to Object B there is an absolute answer.

[carpedm9587]

That is not the point! I agree that it is relative and there is no absolute answer in this case.

Well, well, well, maybe you DO understand relativity. Except for the "in this case" part. What you don't seem to realize is that relativity tells us that ALL motion and position is relative. There is no such thing as absolute position or speed.

Do you agree that this is what relativity in physics tells us?

But what ON EARTH does that have to do with whether ethics are relative or not? What do physical realities have to do with non-physical moral questions? BTW with Object A is moving at 35 MPH relative to Object B there is an absolute answer.

One step at a time, Seer. I'd like to make sure you truly understand relativity before we restart the analogy. I'm curious about your answer to the question above.

[seer]

Well, well, well, maybe you DO understand relativity. Except for the "in this case" part. What you don't seem to realize is that relativity tells us that ALL motion and position is relative. There is no such thing as absolute position or speed.

Do you agree that this is what relativity in physics tells us?

I have been agreeing all along that these physical frameworks are relative I said that early on in post #206. Over a hundred post ago!

One step at a time, Seer. I'd like to make sure you truly understand relativity before we restart the analogy. I'm curious about your answer to the question above.

Yes please tell me what this has to do with morality!

[carpedm9587]

I have been agreeing all along that these physical frameworks are relative I said that early on in post #206. Over a hundred post ago!

Seer, I just went back to post #206. I don't know what you think it says, but it does not align with what has been said thus far.

Yes please tell me what this has to do with morality!

Again, not yet. Let's make sure we have relativity down solid. Do you agree with the following statements. If not, which do you disagree with and explain why.

• There is no such thing as absolute position or speed (all positions and speeds must be measured relative to a specified framework).
• When assessing speed or position, the evaluator/assessor subjectively selects a framework to meet their specific need.
• Once a reference frame is selected, relative position/speed can be objectively determined.
• The lack of an absolute reference frame in physics does not render physics "meaningless"

Just so you know, if we are in agreement about these four sentences, we can proceed to morality.

[seer]

Seer, I just went back to post #206. I don't know what you think it says, but it does not align with what has been said thus far.

I have been saying (and did then) that these physical frame works are relative, but that in even in relative frameworks you can make objective measurements-in that framework.

Again, not yet. Let's make sure we have relativity down solid. Do you agree with the following statements. If not, which do you disagree with and explain why.

• There is no such thing as absolute position or speed (all positions and speeds must be measured relative to a specified framework).
• When assessing speed or position, the evaluator/assessor subjectively selects a framework to meet their specific need.
• Once a reference frame is selected, relative position/speed can be objectively determined.
• The lack of an absolute reference frame in physics does not render physics "meaningless"

Just so you know, if we are in agreement about these four sentences, we can proceed to morality.

Agreed.

[carpedm9587]

I have been saying (and did then) that these physical frame works are relative, but that in even in relative frameworks you can make objective measurements-in that framework.

Agreed.

Fine. The the analogy is fairly simple.

In physics, an observer makes a subjective choice of framework.
In morality, a moral agent makes a subjective choice of framework.

In physics, an observed object's motion and position are objectively real.
In morality, a moral actor's actions are objectively real.

In physics, once a framework is chosen, and speed/position of an observed object can be objectively measured.
In morality, once a framework is chosen, the morality of an observed act can be objectively measured.

In physics, two people assessing from different frameworks will not agree on the position/speed of an object.
In morality, two people assessing from different frameworks will not agree on the morality of an act.

The claim has been made, repeatedly (and I call it Technique #1) that moral relativism/subjectivism is "meaningless" because it is not absolute/objective. However, we have already seen in physics that the lack of an absolute framework, the fact that all motion/position is purely relative does NOT render physics meaningless. So the claim that morality is meaningless on the same basis is on shaky grounds.

The ground gets even shakier when we note that moral frameworks share a great deal in common with legal frameworks. Both deal with action. Both distinguish "ought" from "ought not." Both are articulated by sentient people. Legal frameworks are pretty much completely relative to the country creating them. No on screams, "meaningless" because Chinese Law and American Law are not the same. No one says, "I don't have to follow the law because other countries disagree." No one says, "legal systems are meaningless because there is no way to resolve situations when the laws of two different countries come into conflict.

So morality appears to be a case of special pleading. Relative morality is "meaningless" because it's not absolute, but we have at least two other examples where that is not the case. And to top it all off, 1) no one can demonstrate the actual existence of a moral absolute, and 2) so-called moral "realists" behave exactly like moral relativists. Like moral relativists, they:

• Evaluate all actions (theirs and others) in terms of their own moral code
• Base their moral code in the core things that they value
• Change their moral code when a strong enough argument is made
• Gather with people of like moral code
• Strive to have their moral code accepted by the larger community

The ONLY difference I see is (for theists) the attribution of their code to some "high power," which they cannot show actually exists. For atheists, the problem is deeper. We have all been steeped/stewed in the philosophy of absolute/objective morality. It permeates our religions and our culture (which is dominated by religions). Many of those who have broken free of religions have not broken free of absolute/objective morality, and seek to replace "god" with something else (e.g., evolution, etc.).

Hopefully, someday, moral reasoning will follow the path of reasoning in physics.

[seer]

The claim has been made, repeatedly (and I call it Technique #1) that moral relativism/subjectivism is "meaningless" because it is not absolute/objective. However, we have already seen in physics that the lack of an absolute framework, the fact that all motion/position is purely relative does NOT render physics meaningless. So the claim that morality is meaningless on the same basis is on shaky grounds.

Carp, I'm not going through all your points, you tend go on too much. Is this your bottom line by comparing physical events with moral ideals or is it something else? I need some focus here.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, I'm not going through all your points, you tend go on too much. Is this your bottom line by comparing physical events with moral ideals or is it something else? I need some focus here.

I'll leave it to you. I made my argument. What you do with it is up to you.

[seer]

I'll leave it to you. I made my argument. What you do with it is up to you.

I'm just trying to get to the bottom line, is it your point that morals are not meaningless just because they are relative? And I haven't I said in the past that you are free to make up your own meaning/morality.

[carpedm9587]

I'm just trying to get to the bottom line, is it your point that morals are not meaningless just because they are relative? And I haven't I said in the past that you are free to make up your own meaning/morality.

The bottom line is pointless, Seer, if you don't read the argument made. It's in there.



And haven't I repeatedly said that you are also free to make up your own "absolute" framework, or appropriate one from the bible if you wish?

[seer]

The bottom line is pointless, Seer, if you don't read the argument made. It's in there.

Carp, perhaps you need a nap? I mean really, I need a bottom line here. In your longer post you hit on a number of different topics that could go down any number of rabbit holes. I'm just trying get to your bottom line with your comparison between physics and ethics. Is it that morals are not meaningless just because they are relative? Why are you hesitant?

[carpedm9587]

Carp, perhaps you need a nap? I mean really, I need a bottom line here. In your longer post you hit on a number of different topics that could go down any number of rabbit holes. I'm just trying get to your bottom line with your comparison between physics and ethics. Is it that morals are not meaningless just because they are relative? Why are you hesitant?

I'm not hesitant. Just have more to do than spoon feed you, frankly. Your note above is close to the mark. One point is that the claim that "moral relativism is meaningless because it's relative" cannot be supported given the presence of two other disciplines, one of them very similar to morality, that are relative and considered meaningful. Indeed, that makes the claim about morality appear to be a form of special pleading.

The second, and related point, is that the so-called "moral realist" makes the claim to be a moral realist, and then behaves exactly like a moral relativist. I noted the five similarities, and the one difference: the unsupported claim that their moral framework is based on an absolute.

[seer]

I'm not hesitant. Just have more to do than spoon feed you, frankly. Your note above is close to the mark. One point is that the claim that "moral relativism is meaningless because it's relative" cannot be supported given the presence of two other disciplines, one of them very similar to morality, that are relative and considered meaningful. Indeed, that makes the claim about morality appear to be a form of special pleading.

Ok good, we will take one point at a time:

So if we invent or make up our own morality it doesn't make morality meaningless. What if we made up or invented our own laws of physics? Wouldn't that make physics meaningless?

[carpedm9587]

Ok good, we will take one point at a time:

So if we invent or make up our own morality it doesn't make morality meaningless. What if we made up or invented our own laws of physics?

Wouldn't that make physics meaningless?

Yes - the so-called "laws of nature" describe of how the universe operates, so if we simply "make them up" there is no way to ensure they do what they are intended to do.

Moral principles separate actions into "ought" and "ought not." Since that is based on what an individual values, and what an individual values can differ from individual to individual, they do not have the same "universal" role as the laws of physics.

So, two problems. First, you appear to be attempting to reverse the logic of my statement. This happens a lot on this website. My statement was that the existence of relative/subjective disciplines we consider meaningful makes your claim that moral relativity is meaningless solely because it is relative/subjective suspect. The existence of legal principles, which are also considered meaningful and are also relative/subjective further undermines the claim. Your argument above suggests you're trying to show that "making things up" makes them meaningless.

Second, if you take something that is not relative/subjective and ignore that fact, you render it meaningless. On that I think we agree. That is what happens with "laws of physics" in your question above. If you are going to attempt to make a parallel case for morality, you are going to have to demonstrate that morality is intrinsically absolute/objective and that is being ignored. If you could accomplish that, you would make the case. But you have not been able to do that for several hundred posts. I'm not sure how you propose to do that now.

[Tassman]

with 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.

Moral values derive from the natural evolution of human behaviour as social animals. They ensure the survival of the family and community and cooperation so that the human species survives.

If they both agree that killing humans is immoral, then they would both agree that "randomly killing humans is moral" is a false statement.

Killing others is universally considered bad, except in certain agreed circumstances such as capital punishment, self-defence, war etc..

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.

Personal taste in chocolate or whatever is not the same as questions of right and wrong. These arise due to the fact that we have to live among other human beings, which means there are certain basic principles that must apply such as respect for other individuals.

It says nothing about objectivity of morality, or objectively measuring morality.

Tell us what is "objectively moral" and how you "objectively measure" it.