Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Disproving Subjective Truth and Subjective Morality via the Copernican Principle and Relativity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Disproving Subjective Truth and Subjective Morality via the Copernican Principle and Relativity

    Subjective Truth and Subjective Morality is the liberal position that what is right for one person or one generation may not be right for another person or generation.

    The Copernican Principle is a Scientific Axiom (actually a Law) which states, "The Laws of the Universe are the same for all of space and time." this principle is required to be true in order for there to be any validity to Science or any form of reason. Thus the Copernican Principle means that Objective Truth and Objective Morality are required to be real in order for there to be any validity to science or reason. If Subjective Truth and Subjective Morality were the case, the Copernican Principle would fail and all science and thought would be illusory.

    Similar to the Copernican Principle is one of the Postulates of Relativity, which states, "The Laws of the Universe are the same for every inertial reference frame." thus according to Einstein, the Laws of the Universe are the same for EVERY OBSERVER. Thus there is no such thing as "Subjective Truth" nor "Subjective Morality". Some people actually cite Relativity in an attempt to support Subjective Truth or Subjective Morality, but you can see Einstein's postulate says the exact opposite, the Laws of the Universe are the same for every observer.

    The consequences of this are pretty clear. Murder would still be wrong even if 100% of people voted to legalize murder. And rape would still be wrong even if 100% of people voted to legalize rape. And Abortion would still be wrong even if 100% of people voted to legalize abortion. A free moral agent has human rights from the moment of it's Metaphysical Creation/Conception (Declaration of Independence), and NOT 9 months later.

    Thus there is no such thing as Subjective Truth nor Subjective Morality. All people are held accountable to the same Objective Moral Laws.

    #2
    Except morality itself is a social construct, not a scientific one. There are no physical laws governing what is morally correct. Morality cannot be beholden to objective truth.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Cid View Post
      Except morality itself is a social construct, not a scientific one. There are no physical laws governing what is morally correct. Morality cannot be beholden to objective truth.
      Well, that's half true. There is a constant. People who do awful things and get away with it are still punished by psychological damage. Even Hitler killed himself, so there are consequences whether it's legal or not. When you know you're doing something wrong you'll create your own consequences.

      Comment


        #4
        3/10

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Chara View Post

          Well, that's half true. There is a constant. People who do awful things and get away with it are still punished by psychological damage. Even Hitler killed himself, so there are consequences whether it's legal or not. When you know you're doing something wrong you'll create your own consequences.
          But what if people lived in a society where rape, for example, had been normalized for hundreds of years? To the point where even the victim thinks it's normal and simply accepts it?

          If a person doesn't believe that they're doing something "immoral" then would they still "create their own consequences"?

          We actually see something relevant in our own world. Psychopaths have no remorse, they lack empathy, and in many cases they don't believe they're doing anything wrong when they're committing acts of violence. They're not creating any consequences for themselves either. So, what you say just isn't correct.

          Morality is a human trait. It's something we created as a way to govern actions within our society. And those codes of morality change, not only from person-to-person, but across culture as well. There is no such thing as "objective morality" because morality, by definition, has to be subjective.

          Had this very conversation with Helly a while back, actually.
          Last edited by Cid; November 24th, 2019, 10:03 AM.

          Comment


          • PrezesE
            PrezesE commented
            Editing a comment
            so you are saying that I missed a debate on objective morality? boy I think I'm not commnig here often enough

          #6
          Originally posted by Cid View Post

          But what if people lived in a society where rape, for example, had been normalized for hundreds of years? To the point where even the victim thinks it's normal and simply accepts it?

          If a person doesn't believe that they're doing something "immoral" then would they still "create their own consequences"?

          We actually see something relevant in our own world. Psychopaths have no remorse, they lack empathy, and in many cases they don't believe they're doing anything wrong when they're committing acts of violence. They're not creating any consequences for themselves either. So, what you say just isn't correct.

          Morality is a human trait. It's something we created as a way to govern actions within our society. And those codes of morality change, not only from person-to-person, but across culture as well. There is no such thing as "objective morality" because morality, by definition, has to be subjective.

          Had this very conversation with Helly a while back, actually.
          Psychopaths end up getting killed though because they get sloppy.

          Comment


            #7
            Imagine that a genocidal monster comes about. Lot of people hate him. He’s a dick.

            But after he literally bumps off everyone that disagrees with him and brainwashes people to love him, according to the ratio take on morality (nays vs yays)...yup, he’s a great guy.

            So when the genocidal monster is just short of killing EVERYONE that disagrees with him, he gives a friendly chat to his victim, and it goes something liiiiiikkkkkeeee...this:

            Originally posted by victim
            You monster...
            Originally posted by The Dipshi- I mean, glorious hero who is TOTALLY not a dick
            Well, according to this guy in my history book, if the ratio of people that agree with genocide to people who do not agree with genocide is juuuuuuussssstttttttttt right, I’m an awesome fucking guy.

            Oh hey, would you look at that, killing you will make the math finally check out. I even have the math notes to prove it!

            Cool.
            ...Lmao...
            Last edited by RussianCoffeeAddict; November 24th, 2019, 04:46 PM.

            Comment


              #8
              Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post
              Imagine that a genocidal monster comes about. Everyone hates him. He’s a dick.

              But after he literally bumps off everyone that disagrees with him and brainwashes people to love him, according to the laws of morality...yup, he’s a great guy.

              So when the genocidal monster is just short of killing EVERYONE that disagrees with him, he gives a friendly chat to his victim, and it goes something liiiiiikkkkkeeee...this:





              ...Lmao...
              Well he's gonna kill them anyway, so it doesn't actually matter. At that point he's alone because he killed everyone, and then what's the point? Was his fun worth being alone?

              Comment


                #9
                Originally posted by Chara View Post

                Well he's gonna kill them anyway, so it doesn't actually matter. At that point he's alone because he killed everyone, and then what's the point? Was his fun worth being alone?
                Not everyone besides him.

                Just all those pesky dissidents to his worldview.
                Last edited by RussianCoffeeAddict; November 24th, 2019, 01:23 PM.

                Comment


                  #10
                  Originally posted by Chara View Post

                  Psychopaths end up getting killed though because they get sloppy.
                  Sure. That happens sometimes. It doesn't change anything I said, though. lol

                  Comment


                    #11
                    Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post
                    Imagine that a genocidal monster comes about. Lot of people hate him. He’s a dick.

                    But after he literally bumps off everyone that disagrees with him and brainwashes people to love him, according to the laws of morality...yup, he’s a great guy.

                    So when the genocidal monster is just short of killing EVERYONE that disagrees with him, he gives a friendly chat to his victim, and it goes something liiiiiikkkkkeeee...this:





                    ...Lmao...
                    That man did nothing wrong though

                    Comment


                      #12
                      Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post
                      Imagine that a genocidal monster comes about. Lot of people hate him. He’s a dick.

                      But after he literally bumps off everyone that disagrees with him and brainwashes people to love him, according to the laws of morality...yup, he’s a great guy.

                      So when the genocidal monster is just short of killing EVERYONE that disagrees with him, he gives a friendly chat to his victim, and it goes something liiiiiikkkkkeeee...this:





                      ...Lmao...
                      that guy started the conversation by calling him a hurtful name he got exactly what was coming to him
                      Originally posted by Kajin_Style
                      I have this illness called "Having-a-Heart" and gives me this irrational sense of empathy and care for my fellow man.

                      Comment


                        #13
                        Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post

                        Not everyone besides him.

                        Just all those pesky dissidents for his worldview.
                        Nobody is going to agree. And he's probably going to enjoy killing them so much he'll kill the ones who are afraid of him too, which would be everyone. They aren't going to listen to him because he killed a bunch of people, they're going to be afraid and only try to get away from him, and he'll kill them because they're afraid and more people will see him killing and he'll have to kill them too to keep up the enjoyment.

                        Comment


                          #14
                          ok...uh....the Copernican Principle isn't a scientific law, dude. It's a general assumption in the field of physical cosmology that the earth is not in a privileged position in the universe. It hasn't exactly been proven, nor can it ever really be proven:

                          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle



                          So, that's problem number one with this post. Problem number two is that the Copernican Principle is extremely specific to science and cosmology. It states absolutely nothing about morality, it is its own philosophical idea.



                          Problem three is a bit more pedantic - your statement of "murder is wrong". I don't think even you agree with that. Assuming you believe in the Bible to some extent, you know about the Noah's Flood story and about Lot's wife and various other instances where Yahweh himself has directly murdered hundreds of people sometimes all at once. It would seem, then, that there are certain contexts in which murder is justifiable, and thus murder wouldn't be objectively wrong in every set of circumstances - it is, by itself, a morally neutral action that can then be determined to be morally right or wrong pending the circumstances under which it happened.

                          Then there's the problem of whether you're a consequentialist, whether you think an action is wrong regardless of the consequences, etc etc. There is just far too much here that the Copernican Principle doesn't even come close to addressing.



                          All in all, this is not a very cohesive argument for objective morals. It's completely nonsense. There are far too many problems for me to even really delve into in a single post.

                          Comment


                            #15
                            Originally posted by Helly View Post
                            ok...uh....the Copernican Principle isn't a scientific law, dude. It's a general assumption in the field of physical cosmology that the earth is not in a privileged position in the universe. It hasn't exactly been proven, nor can it ever really be proven:

                            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle



                            So, that's problem number one with this post. Problem number two is that the Copernican Principle is extremely specific to science and cosmology. It states absolutely nothing about morality, it is its own philosophical idea.



                            Problem three is a bit more pedantic - your statement of "murder is wrong". I don't think even you agree with that. Assuming you believe in the Bible to some extent, you know about the Noah's Flood story and about Lot's wife and various other instances where Yahweh himself has directly murdered hundreds of people sometimes all at once. It would seem, then, that there are certain contexts in which murder is justifiable, and thus murder wouldn't be objectively wrong in every set of circumstances - it is, by itself, a morally neutral action that can then be determined to be morally right or wrong pending the circumstances under which it happened.

                            Then there's the problem of whether you're a consequentialist, whether you think an action is wrong regardless of the consequences, etc etc. There is just far too much here that the Copernican Principle doesn't even come close to addressing.



                            All in all, this is not a very cohesive argument for objective morals. It's completely nonsense. There are far too many problems for me to even really delve into in a single post.
                            I mean Wade thinks God is above morals anyway

                            Comment


                              #16
                              Originally posted by Chara View Post

                              I mean Wade thinks God is above morals anyway
                              "God can do whatever he wants" is still a moral claim. It's inescapable, Wade will still have to admit that there are critical contextual elements that can determin whether something is good or bad.

                              Comment


                                #17
                                Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post
                                Well, according to this guy in my history book, if the ratio of people that agree with genocide to people who do not agree with genocide is juuuuuuussssstttttttttt right, I’m an awesome fucking guy.
                                Phew, you're feeling alright after all. Was really starting to worry that you were sick or something, pal.

                                Comment


                                  #18
                                  Respect. Wade may well be the most eminent pseudo-intellectual this world has ever known. And he's all ours. T5 4 life, baby! #Represent!

                                  Comment


                                    #19
                                    Originally posted by Lord L'Zoril View Post
                                    Respect. Wade may well be the most eminent pseudo-intellectual this world has ever known. And he's all ours. T5 4 life, baby! #Represent!
                                    You're right. With someone as stubborn and vacuous as him with the ability to crank out pages of drivel at our disposal, we could deploy him to frustrate or bore anyone to death

                                    Comment


                                      #20
                                      Originally posted by Wade View Post
                                      Subjective Truth and Subjective Morality is the liberal position that what is right for one person or one generation may not be right for another person or generation.

                                      The Copernican Principle is a Scientific Axiom (actually a Law) which states, "The Laws of the Universe are the same for all of space and time." this principle is required to be true in order for there to be any validity to Science or any form of reason. Thus the Copernican Principle means that Objective Truth and Objective Morality are required to be real in order for there to be any validity to science or reason. If Subjective Truth and Subjective Morality were the case, the Copernican Principle would fail and all science and thought would be illusory.

                                      Similar to the Copernican Principle is one of the Postulates of Relativity, which states, "The Laws of the Universe are the same for every inertial reference frame." thus according to Einstein, the Laws of the Universe are the same for EVERY OBSERVER. Thus there is no such thing as "Subjective Truth" nor "Subjective Morality". Some people actually cite Relativity in an attempt to support Subjective Truth or Subjective Morality, but you can see Einstein's postulate says the exact opposite, the Laws of the Universe are the same for every observer.

                                      The consequences of this are pretty clear. Murder would still be wrong even if 100% of people voted to legalize murder. And rape would still be wrong even if 100% of people voted to legalize rape. And Abortion would still be wrong even if 100% of people voted to legalize abortion. A free moral agent has human rights from the moment of it's Metaphysical Creation/Conception (Declaration of Independence), and NOT 9 months later.

                                      Thus there is no such thing as Subjective Truth nor Subjective Morality. All people are held accountable to the same Objective Moral Laws.
                                      And who decides what those are?

                                      Comment

                                      Working...
                                      X