Refute me babies!

[Whaleboy]

This says nothing, Whaleboy. Of course all subjectives are by definition equally morally valid. Now, if you mean all moral judgements are equally subjective in the absence of an impartial judge, then I think you are making a statement with some meaning.

Thankyou kindly

However, is there an absence of an impartial Judge who is not limited by the same subjectivity that binds each one of us? Unless you can prove this, one ought not to be so confident in this presupposition.

At this level of debate, take out the humans. I am only using them as metaphors. We'll deal with that later when we come into the question of ethics, politics and sociology.

A totally objective judge (no wildcards), is as good as saying ultimate objective (god). I assume god to not exist. The most powerful refutation of my argument would a proof that god does exist.

Now, why should anyone be a liberal and a pacifist? Would it not be equally right, and more consistent to argue for might makes right, in that you can do whatever you feel like it so long as you have the muscle to back it up?

Ah! The relativist paradox. The relativist would say, based on said logic, that this action was illogical. The positions of relativism and vigilantism are of course both equally valid, says the relativist, who also says that as a consequence, no one philosophy is more valid than another, for example, liberty vs totality.

Finally, why should consistency be a virtue, if all moral statements are equally valid?

It shouldn't, or at least, should necessarily be only up to the level where I say that I like it. Remember, there is within relativism and without it. When one deals with relativism, or any position, one deals within it, not without it.
"I wouldn't do it, but my view is as valid as yours, which does". Of course that has problems in a society which I hope the Mill Limit goes some way to solving.

So what is the philosophical point you are trying to make?

See first post.

[Immortal Wombat]

"In the absense of anything that would judge, all subjectives are equally valid" ?

I agree. It's just useless.

[Ben Kenobi]

Total subjectivity is impossible, given that we do exist in a physical world with physical, chemical and biological pre-conditions that put limits on subjectivity.

So what about morality? Is it a real world object like any other, confined by the constraints of the real world?

[Whaleboy]

You aren't a relativist, and should listen to folks like LoTM if this is truly the case. You should spend more time with Kant until you can see the problems since I believe you would find a deontological philosophical system more palatable than the various flavours of Utilitarianism.

I assure you I am, I am just not a subjectivist (which has lead to to relativism, so I guess you could say I am relativist with bells and whistles). And I cannot find myself agreeing with Kants moral absolutes. He was a great philosopher but his theories were utter crap. Within that crap of course were nuggets of brilliance. You people are sheep! jk. A system of moral obligation I find to be flawed, almost to the point of fallacy, but that is irrelevant.

Total subjectivity is impossible, given that we do exist in a physical world with physical, chemical and biological pre-conditions that put limits on subjectivity. You can say up is down all you want but you can take no action based on the belief of up is down without meeting failure.

This is a metaphysical argument, who only has applications at this level. Lets keep it within that context for now.

[Whaleboy]

I agree. It's just useless.

Thats good enough for me. This is metaphysics at this stage, one gets ones hands dirty with this concept later.

So what about morality? Is it a real world object like any other, confined by the constraints of the real world?

I dont believe morality to exist beyond the bounds of each subjective interpretation of each individual.

Anyways, I really must be going to bed now!

[Kuciwalker]

(i.e., 1+1=2, relies on certain rules, which though variances almost inconceivable to us, are not intrinsically unchangable).

I would argue that this is false, that there is NO internally consistent mathematical system in which 1 + 1 != 2

Quite simply, assuming my logic to be correct, it means it is illogical to impose one subjective view upon another.

Wrong. Each person has "goals". If imposing your subjective viewpoint forwards that goal, then it is logical for you to do it.

It is that pre-determined notion (the same meaning of many words), that provides the "wildcard".

I would also say this is false, or more so that it is irrelevent. I'm going to use a computer science analogy here. There is this freaky concept-space out in never never land in which all concepts exist. Individual words are "pointers" to the location in concept-space of its meaning. Thus, it is fruitless to argue that the meaning of a word is subjective, because it isn't the word that is important, but rather the "word literal", the sequence of concepts that the person is trying to communicate.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
This is a metaphysical argument, who only has applications at this level. Lets keep it within that context for now.

Oh, a useless level....

But on that level, you are generally correct.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by skywalker

(i.e., 1+1=2, relies on certain rules, which though variances almost inconceivable to us, are not intrinsically unchangable).

I would argue that this is false, that there is NO internally consistent mathematical system in which 1 + 1 != 2

MOD 2

[Kuciwalker]

huh?

[GePap]

Originally posted by skywalker

(i.e., 1+1=2, relies on certain rules, which though variances almost inconceivable to us, are not intrinsically unchangable).

I would argue that this is false, that there is NO internally consistent mathematical system in which 1 + 1 != 2

Have you examined ALL possible mathematical systems?

You say internally consistent-problem here is what counts as internally consistent (yet another definition to be created and, well, judged)

[Kuciwalker]

Have you examined ALL possible mathematical systems?

You can generalize. What do you think induction is for?

You say internally consistent-problem here is what counts as internally consistent (yet another definition to be created and, well, judged)

See my "concept-space" analogy

[Imran Siddiqui]

When commies and capitalists all team up to tell Whaleboy he's wrong then you know he's lost touch with reality.

What if commies and capitalists agree with him on the other side?

[Immortal Wombat]

Modular mathematics is a self-consistent mathematics which is most accessably described as clock mathematics. A 12-hour clock is basicaly mod 12. 10am + 4 = 2pm

In mod 2, 1+1 would equal 0.

[Ben Kenobi]

A system of moral obligation I find to be flawed, almost to the point of fallacy, but that is irrelevant.

Why? What's wrong with Kant?

I dont believe morality to exist beyond the bounds of each subjective interpretation of each individual.

So why then do you like Liberalism and Pacifism? Do you like them because they taste sweet and feel soft?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Modular mathematics is a self-consistent mathematics which is most accessably described as clock mathematics. A 12-hour clock is basicaly mod 12. 10am + 4 = 2pm

In mod 2, 1+1 would equal 0.

I see

hmmm....