re after years can we say that christian morality is frank d s uucp frank o dwyer writes in article y rusnews w w mantis co uk mathew mathew mantis co uk writes frank d s 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 mathew
