Take Back Our Country

[seer]

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.

That is wrong, the relative speed is objective for a man as well as the tree. No matter which physical framework the man chooses, the relative speed would never be dependent on what the man thinks, feels or believes. If the car if moving at 35 mph relative to his position, that would be an objective measurement, even if the man thinks or believes the car is only moving at 10 mph - he would be wrong. This objective reality would never change no matter which speed/position the man chooses. The objective speeds, in various relative positions, NEVER depend on what the man thinks, feels or believes - morality always does.

[carpedm9587]

That is wrong, the relative speed is objective for a man as well as the tree.

The tree is immobile and cannot change its position/speed. The man can. The relative position/speed is subjectively chosen, and establishes the relative speed of the object, which is objectively real.

No matter which physical framework the man chooses, the relative speed would never be dependent on what the man thinks, feels or believes.

Untrue. The relative speed will be based on what speed/position the man subjectively chooses to adopt, which is dependent on what he thinks/feels/wants.

If the car if moving at 35 mph relative to his position, that would be an objective measurement, even if the man thinks or believes the car is only moving at 10 mph - he would be wrong.

Yes - correct. And unrelated to what I have been saying.

This objective reality would never change no matter which speed/position the man chooses.

This is where you jump the rails. The relative speed of the car WOULD change based on the mans change of speed/position.

The objective speeds, in various relative positions, NEVER depend on what the man thinks, feels or believes - morality always does.

Incorrect. The relative speed is entirely dependent on the speed/position of the man, which depends on what he thinks/chooses - just like morality.

To see this, you have to first eliminate EVERYTHING but the man and the object in question (e.g., no earth, no nothing). Now, assume they are both moving in the same direction, and the man perceives the vehicle as moving 35 MPH away from him. This is a relative speed. Absolute speed is meaningless. If the man decides to accelerate his speed by 10 MPH, the relative speed of the vehicle is suddenly 25 MPH away from him, completely due to the man's choice. If he accelerates to another 50 MPH, now the vehicle appears to be moving 25 MPH towards him. Imagine he lets the pass him, waits a bit, and then returns to his original speed. Now the vehicle is back to 35 MPH, but it moving TOWARDS him.

All of these changes are relative to the man. The relative speed is subjectively determined, but objectively measurable.

The case of morality is the same. If Man A believes action X is immoral, and Man B performs action X, Man A will see Man B as acting immorally. The moral framework is subjectively determined. Anyone with the same moral framework will arrive at the same moral assessment. So the framework is subjectively derived, and the assessment is objectively real and repeatable by anyone with the same moral framework.

[Tassman]

You mean like Jews and gypsies?

Hitler wasn't protecting society from anything. The only social cohesion he was interested in preserving was the universal support for his own grandiose, self-serving ideas. Like Trump.

[seer]

IAll of these changes are relative to the man. The relative speed is subjectively determined, but objectively measurable.

And your moral opinion is never objectively measurable.

The case of morality is the same. If Man A believes action X is immoral, and Man B performs action X, Man A will see Man B as acting immorally. The moral framework is subjectively determined. Anyone with the same moral framework will arrive at the same moral assessment. So the framework is subjectively derived, and the assessment is objectively real and repeatable by anyone with the same moral framework.

False, because anyone one who agrees with the framework only does so subjectively. There is no objectivity in this picture. You are just adding subjectivity to subjectivity and calling it objective.

[Mountain Man]

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.

Yep, it's a classic case of equivocation. And besides, the speed of an object in motion only appears to change based on perspective, but it's really an illusion, because the speed itself is constant (assuming no external forces) regardless of where the observer positions himself.

At any rate, speed and morally really aren't equivalent, and as a teacher, carpe should understand the limits of an analogy and recognize that when you start debating the analogy then you've missed the point.

[Mountain Man]

Hitler wasn't protecting society from anything.

Says who? You? And what makes you think your idea of what society should be is any more valid than the Nazis? Or the Communists? Or the anarchists?

[carpedm9587]

And your moral opinion is never objectively measurable.

Of course it is, Seer. Once one knows the moral framework - the "measurement" is fairly easily done. If the moral framework is "lying is immoral," then one can objectively determine if a person has told a lie (does it align with reality? did they say it knowing it did not?) and the action is objectively moral or immoral according to that framework. We can make this assessment against the Christian framework, Michel's framework, Seer's framework, or whatever framework is stipulated.

False, because anyone one who agrees with the framework only does so subjectively. There is no objectivity in this picture. You are just adding subjectivity to subjectivity and calling it objective.

No - I am pointing out that once we know what the framework IS, then it exists. It has an objective reality. My moral framework indicates that random/wanton killing is immoral. There - you know what it is. I can write it down for you if you like. That moral framework is subjective to me - but it is objectively real to you because your opinions/ideas cannot change it. Knowing my moral framework, you can quickly say, "from the perspective of Michel's moral framework, Hitler gassing Jewish children is an immoral act." That is an objectively true statement, and an objective assessment based on the moral framework I have shared with you.

You seem to want to divide subjective/objective into hard, completely separate classes. Your moral framework is subjective to you. But it has an objective reality to me because my thoughts/opinions/beliefs cannot impact it. It is YOUR subjective reality. That doesn't make it less objectively real. It just makes it an objective observation about YOUR subjective reality.

[seer]

Of course it is, Seer. Once one knows the moral framework - the "measurement" is fairly easily done. If the moral framework is "lying is immoral," then one can objectively determine if a person has told a lie (does it align with reality? did they say it knowing it did not?) and the action is objectively moral or immoral according to that framework. We can make this assessment against the Christian framework, Michel's framework, Seer's framework, or whatever framework is stipulated.

That is NOT the point, it is a subjective belief that lying is wrong. Nothing else. If a car is going by me at 35mph that is an objective speed, my subjective opinion of that speed plays no part in the measurement. Moral beliefs depend on subjective beliefs, the speed of the car never does.

[carpedm9587]

That is NOT the point, it is a subjective belief that lying is wrong.

Yes - it is the subjective belief of the moral agent.

Nothing else. If a car is going by me at 35mph that is an objective speed, my subjective opinion of that speed plays no part in the measurement.

Of COURSE it does. The speed of the car has an objective reality, just like the action of a person has an objective reality. But assessment of that speed is done from a subjective framework (e.g., the speed/position of the assessor).

I gave you a detailed example of this in operation. A car has no "absolute" speed. It only has relative speed. If I am moving at the same speed as the car, the speed of the car relative to me is 0 MPH. If I choose to slow down by 10 MPH, the relative speed of the car is now 10 MPH. The relative speed of the car is assessed from the perspective of the assessor's framework. That doesn't mean the car doesn't have objectively real motion - and likewise an actor performing Act A has an objective reality.

Moral beliefs depend on subjective beliefs, the speed of the car never does.

Moral beliefs are subjective - the motion/speed of a sentient being is subjective.
An actor performing an act has an objective reality - an object in motion has an objective reality.
The morality of the act can be objectively assessed from the POV of a subjective moral framework (once it is know) - the motion of an object is objectively assessed from the subjectively chosen speed/position framework of the sentient being (once it is known).

Seer - I truly think you simply do not understand relativity. I think you are trying to assess everything from the framework of the surface of the planet. That is why my example told you to get rid of everything...leaving only the observer and the object being observed. Imagine them floating in a vast vacuum of nothingness, so you only have the two objects to work with. That helps to understand relativity a bit better.

[Sparko]

See my previous responses to Seer.

See my previous response to you which you handwaved away just now. Dodge #3 I believe?

You are trying to use two different meanings of "relative" in an analogy. Fail.

This is why you and Seer are continuing to argue. You are talking past each other.

[seer]

I gave you a detailed example of this in operation. A car has no "absolute" speed. It only has relative speed. If I am moving at the same speed as the car, the speed of the car relative to me is 0 MPH. If I choose to slow down by 10 MPH, the relative speed of the car is now 10 MPH. The relative speed of the car is assessed from the perspective of the assessor's framework. That doesn't mean the car doesn't have objectively real motion - and likewise an actor performing Act A has an objective reality.



Moral beliefs are subjective - the motion/speed of a sentient being is subjective.
An actor performing an act has an objective reality - an object in motion has an objective reality.
The morality of the act can be objectively assessed from the POV of a subjective moral framework (once it is know) - the motion of an object is objectively assessed from the subjectively chosen speed/position framework of the sentient being (once it is known).

Again Carp, this is nonsense. Objective speed, no matter which relative framework you are in, is NOT dependent on what you think, believe or feel. You certainly can change your relative position, then you would have a different objective result, which again is NOT dependent on what you think, believe or feel. Your claim that lying is wrong is completely and fully dependent on what you think, believe or feel. Period...

[Sparko]

Again Carp, this is nonsense. Objective speed, no matter which relative framework you are in, is NOT dependent on what you think, believe or feel. You certainly can change your relative position, then you would have a different objective result, which again is NOT dependent on what you think, believe or feel. Your claim that lying is wrong is completely and fully dependent on what you think, believe or feel. Period...

But officer I prefer to believe I was only going 40!

OK, I guess that makes it OK then.

[carpedm9587]

See my previous response to you which you handwaved away just now. Dodge #3 I believe?

You are trying to use two different meanings of "relative" in an analogy. Fail.

This is why you and Seer are continuing to argue. You are talking past each other.

You've have to explain the "two different meanings." I am seeing only one use.

[carpedm9587]

Again Carp, this is nonsense. Objective speed, no matter which relative framework you are in, is NOT dependent on what you think, believe or feel. You certainly can change your relative position, then you would have a different objective result, which again is NOT dependent on what you think, believe or feel. Your claim that lying is wrong is completely and fully dependent on what you think, believe or feel. Period...

Wow, Seer. I am truly amazed you cannot see this.

OK - go take a walk, pick a speed at which you wish to walk, and then convince me that this speed you are walking is objective and was not subjectively chosen by you. When you can do that, I'll acknowledge that you are correct and I have erred. If you cannot, then the speed/position of a sentient observer is subjectively chosen. If it is a subjectively chosen framework, then it is analogous to a moral framework, which is likewise subjectively chosen/derived.

[Sparko]

You've have to explain the "two different meanings." I am seeing only one use.

So you are saying you don't even bother reading my posts? Because I explained it in my original post.