frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: > In article <930421.102525.9Y9.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew  > <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes: > #frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: > #> Presumably this means that some moral systems are better than others? > #> How so?  How do you manage this without an objective frame of reference? > # > #Which goes faster, a bullet or a snail?  How come you can answer that when > #Einstein proved that there isn't an objective frame of reference? >  > Not that Einstein "proved" anything,  Oh, yes he did.  You may not agree with his premises, and what he proved may not apply to "reality" (if such a thing exists), but he certainly proved something.  >                                        but you can't answer it, and your  > answer be in general true.  Got it in one.  Similarly, a moral relativist will not judge one moral system to be better than another in every possible circumstance.  This does not, however, preclude him from judging one moral system to be better than another in a specific set of circumstances.  Nor does it preclude a set of moral relativists from collectively judging a moral system, from some set of circumstances which they all agree they are in.  >                             And even that statement assumes an > objective reality independent of our beliefs about it.  Eh?  Could you explain this?  Which "that statement" are you talking about?  > #> And what weasel word do you use to describe that frame of reference, if > #> it isn't an objective reality for values? > # > #I'm sorry, I can't parse "an objective reality for values".  Could you try > #again? >  > s/an objective reality for values/some values are real even in the face > of disagreement/  I still don't quite see what you're trying to say.  I assume by "values" you mean moral values, yes?  In which case, what do you mean by "real"?  What is a "real" moral value, as opposed to an unreal one?  > If you are saying that some moral systems are better than others, in > your opinion, then all you get is infinite regress.  Sorry, but in what way is it an infinite regress?  It looks extremely finite to me.  >                                                    What you do not get > is any justification for saying that the moral system of the terrorist > is inferior to that of the man of peace.  Sorry, but that's not so.  I can provide a justification for asserting that the moral system of the terrorist is inferior to that of the man of peace.  I just can't provide a justification which works in all possible circumstances.  Similarly, I can provide a justification for asserting that bullets move faster than snails.  That justification won't hold in all possible frames of reference, but it will hold in almost all the frames of reference I am ever likely to be in.  >                                      Your saying it does not > make it so,  and that's according to your premise, not mine.  I don't think I agree with this.  My saying it *does* make it so *from my point of view* and according to *my premises*, unless the argument is invalid. It may indeed not make it so from your point of view, but I never claimed that it did.  In fact, I don't even claim that you exist enough to have a point of view.