"Natural Law is Nonsense on stilts" - Jeremy Bentham.
Moral relativism isn't a normative theory - it's a meta-ethical theory saying that a combination of experience and our intrinsic nature will ultimately create the outcome of our behaviour and view of the world (ideologies). Since this is observable in different cultures - the evidence is... well evident, inuitive... I will be working towards making it a scientific theory, because it has evidence.
@lanceawatt Memorialization assumes guilt by association to a world conscious which is opposite of what we know' context is the key to comprehension' and literacy is knowing what is actually being experienced' repression lacks the audacity in being honest and an honest person would be seen as anti American' but what does that mean?
Morality and civil law, aka Natural Law, is the thread that runs through the tapestry of civil society; on the other hand, the Laws of Nature trumps the powers of mortals in government. All life is dependent on the Laws of Nature which includes Jefferson’s Rights. Many confuse these Rights are part of Natural Law, giving the illusion these Rights are man made and therefore, can be manipulated. These Rights were here before humans! See my channel for the proof.
"Natural Law in the sense of ideologists or idolators seems quite distinct from Natural Law in the sense of the physical sciences. Even when some Natural Law theorists, like George H. Smith, admit the vast gulf between scientific (instrumental) generalizations and their alleged Natural Laws or taboos, they still habitually use language and metaphor that blurs this distinction and creates a semantic atmosphere in which they seem to be discussing law in the scientific sense." --R.A. Wilson
"All I can say is that, for a slow learner like me, the question of gods and other metaphysical entities including Natural Law remains still open at present even if some devoutly insist that it is closed; and that arguments like 'Shut up' and 'I'll prove it later' only add to my doubts and suspicions." --R.A. Wilson
The underlying law of nature may be the world's most useful, profitable and encouraging knowledge.
e.g., It is the most effective and efficient means to improve the performance of any process.
Great personal, economic and societal advantages exist to identifying the underlying law of nature first hand, for oneself, and to understanding and applying its principles.
...Second of all and more importantly, while Relativity Theory preserves the universal and absolute character of physical laws by drawing out the implications of those laws with respect to particular frames of reference, Relativism claims to undermine the universal or absolute character of ontological, logical or moral laws by making them reducable to one's individual perspective, thus essentially rendering morality non-existent, "morality" is only a meaningful reality if it applies...
...to all individuals (across frames of reference). Likewise, logic is only meaningful or useful because it is universal in its application. But in the case or moral relativism, an if I say that it is "right for me" to take your property while you say that it is "wrong for you" for me to take your property, we are talking meaningless nonsense. Morality makes claims about the universal order or disorder of certain actions for all people in the class of mankind. One cannot have "relative" morals.
"Relativism is the idea or the concept that nobody can know what's right or wrong". Um..... no. For example, Einstein's relativism; yes, measurements, etc, have to be very careful to note the perspective or viewpoint of the measurer. Does this mean that Einstein thought that nobody could know what was right or wrong? This guy might be a good lawyer, but this is really very sloppy philosophical thinking.
Ummm....no :-) philosophers are supposed to be able to see the commonalities which exist between different areas of knowledge. Both of these place the individual observer as paramount: Einstein said that it makes no sense to talk about, say, the speed of an object, without also specifying an observer who is measuring the speed. And a theory like moral relativism says it makes no sense to talk about the morality of an act without specifying an observer who is judging the morality (cont)
(cont, to tumbleweedjoe) of that act. That's why they both use the same word "Relativism"--- they are claiming that a certain property (speed, morality) can only be specified relative to an observer.
No, you are confusing two fundamentally different things because they have a similar word. I am embarrassed to have to make this correction. Go spend some time studying Aristotle and lay off the popular science magazines. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. You sound like a parody on modern man.
Well, if you know so much about it, please teach me. I've given my reasons for thinking they have substantial comminalities. So would you care to explain why epistiemic relativism doesn't claim that knowledge claims are relative to the individual?
I'll give it a shot: Relativity theory is einstein's discovery that the invariance of physical laws across the universe implies invarience across reference frames: If I'm the ground watching an airplane pass by at 300 miles an hour, its speed relative to me (or any fixed point) is 300 miles and hour. But a stewardess wheeling a cart down the isle at 1 mile an hour is only traveling 1 mile an hour relative to her fixed point (the plane) but 301 miles and hour relative to me. Einstein thus...
...resolved a number of inconsitencies within classical Newtonian mechanics, which because it held to notions like absolute time (without respect to a frame of reference) inadvertently deprived physical laws of the universality of their application. So Einstein's theory actually contradicts ontological relativism, since Relativity's central insight is the invariance (universaility) of physical laws, which have as their consequence certain implications about relative frames of reference.(read on)
...Now epistemic or cognitive relativism (which included moral relativism) make a very different sort of claim. These claim that truth and law (including moral law) are NOT universal (not invarient) because the individual point of reference changes their ontological content, making it entirely dependent on the point of view of the individual. First of all, this is a claim about ontology (not physical laws), making it fundamentally different from the start from Relativity theory...
I don't understand...how does saying that a a moral principle is relative to a person mean imply a change in ontology? E.g. suppose I'm Robbin Hood and I think its moral to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Does this mean I suddenly don't believe the world is made up of electrons, quarks, and empty space?
"Does this mean I suddenly don't believe the world is made up of electrons, quarks, and empty space?"
Well no, as I've said, the two things aren't related. Whether or not you should steal from the rich and give to the poor has aboslutely nothing to do with electrons, quarks or empty space. A different sort of criteria is neccesary to evaluate moral claims (claims about what you ought or ought not do) than to evaluate factual claims (claims about what is).
But I'm not completely sure I've understood your objection. When I say ontology I am speaking about metaphysics, or being-qua-being. You are speaking about data or empirical facts. Moral claims are claims that a certain action or way of being is compatible or incompatible with the nature of X, because it is X's purpose to be a certain way, and not another way. Thus for example: It is immoral to rape women because it the proper nature of sexuality to be a voluntary activity.
The prayer at the beginning and the subsequent anti-homosexual implications (5'50'') are offensive. It is important that ppl consider / learn these ideas but this man should not be teaching them.
Maybe but I don't live in the US and neither does most of the world! How the Supreme Court rules definitions does not affect the universal dictionary of the world.
It does affect what public institutions in the United States especially public schools can and cannot teach and promote.
There are secularists who are virulently anti-religious, the President of Brazil wants to criminalize any criticism of homosexual behavior. Same for England and Canada.
So while in theory secularism may not be anti-religious, it is in practice as we are seeing in many countries.
@humder Atheism is anti-religious. It's a negative idea, as it defines itself primarily as being against another idea. Secularism is supposed to be indifferent to religion, even though some people will confuse it with atheism, even though definite and universal definitions do not really exist any longer.
IS there a part two to this. Its very interesting stuff!! god please send me the sequel. Thanks!
charronfamilyconnect 3 months ago
"Natural Law is Nonsense on stilts" - Jeremy Bentham.
Moral relativism isn't a normative theory - it's a meta-ethical theory saying that a combination of experience and our intrinsic nature will ultimately create the outcome of our behaviour and view of the world (ideologies). Since this is observable in different cultures - the evidence is... well evident, inuitive... I will be working towards making it a scientific theory, because it has evidence.
lanceawatt 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lanceawatt Memorialization assumes guilt by association to a world conscious which is opposite of what we know' context is the key to comprehension' and literacy is knowing what is actually being experienced' repression lacks the audacity in being honest and an honest person would be seen as anti American' but what does that mean?
DrFruedienslip 6 months ago
does anybody know the name of the song at the beggining
keepiticy 1 year ago
Too many things completely overlooked. And where's the Natural Law bit? Here's my SECULAR paper advancing Natural Law and INDIVIDUALISM:
Earth society
-dot- org
-slsh- wordpress
-slsh- archives
-slsh- 922
ostralopithicus 1 year ago
Morality and civil law, aka Natural Law, is the thread that runs through the tapestry of civil society; on the other hand, the Laws of Nature trumps the powers of mortals in government. All life is dependent on the Laws of Nature which includes Jefferson’s Rights. Many confuse these Rights are part of Natural Law, giving the illusion these Rights are man made and therefore, can be manipulated. These Rights were here before humans! See my channel for the proof.
Mike10four 1 year ago
@cdscm ICU.edu, but you have to order the DVD
amaveral 1 year ago
"Natural Law in the sense of ideologists or idolators seems quite distinct from Natural Law in the sense of the physical sciences. Even when some Natural Law theorists, like George H. Smith, admit the vast gulf between scientific (instrumental) generalizations and their alleged Natural Laws or taboos, they still habitually use language and metaphor that blurs this distinction and creates a semantic atmosphere in which they seem to be discussing law in the scientific sense." --R.A. Wilson
NamelessCommenter 1 year ago
"All I can say is that, for a slow learner like me, the question of gods and other metaphysical entities including Natural Law remains still open at present even if some devoutly insist that it is closed; and that arguments like 'Shut up' and 'I'll prove it later' only add to my doubts and suspicions." --R.A. Wilson
NamelessCommenter 1 year ago
The US runs on political law, might makes right which is why we are in a mess.
RunLiberty 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Discovered in 2003:
The underlying law of nature may be the world's most useful, profitable and encouraging knowledge.
e.g., It is the most effective and efficient means to improve the performance of any process.
Great personal, economic and societal advantages exist to identifying the underlying law of nature first hand, for oneself, and to understanding and applying its principles.
Bing or Google it as a start.
TedDGPoulos 1 year ago
...Second of all and more importantly, while Relativity Theory preserves the universal and absolute character of physical laws by drawing out the implications of those laws with respect to particular frames of reference, Relativism claims to undermine the universal or absolute character of ontological, logical or moral laws by making them reducable to one's individual perspective, thus essentially rendering morality non-existent, "morality" is only a meaningful reality if it applies...
tumbleweedjoe 2 years ago
...to all individuals (across frames of reference). Likewise, logic is only meaningful or useful because it is universal in its application. But in the case or moral relativism, an if I say that it is "right for me" to take your property while you say that it is "wrong for you" for me to take your property, we are talking meaningless nonsense. Morality makes claims about the universal order or disorder of certain actions for all people in the class of mankind. One cannot have "relative" morals.
tumbleweedjoe 2 years ago
*in the case of moral relativism, if I say...
tumbleweedjoe 2 years ago
This guy knows his stuff thought, don't doubt him
smartspick 2 years ago
"secularism is that god doesn't exist or that he doesn't care"
smartspick 2 years ago
"Relativism is the idea or the concept that nobody can know what's right or wrong". Um..... no. For example, Einstein's relativism; yes, measurements, etc, have to be very careful to note the perspective or viewpoint of the measurer. Does this mean that Einstein thought that nobody could know what was right or wrong? This guy might be a good lawyer, but this is really very sloppy philosophical thinking.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
Umm..no. You are confusing relativity theory with cognitive or epistemic
relativism. They are unrelated.
tumbleweedjoe 2 years ago
Ummm....no :-) philosophers are supposed to be able to see the commonalities which exist between different areas of knowledge. Both of these place the individual observer as paramount: Einstein said that it makes no sense to talk about, say, the speed of an object, without also specifying an observer who is measuring the speed. And a theory like moral relativism says it makes no sense to talk about the morality of an act without specifying an observer who is judging the morality (cont)
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
(cont, to tumbleweedjoe) of that act. That's why they both use the same word "Relativism"--- they are claiming that a certain property (speed, morality) can only be specified relative to an observer.
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
No, you are confusing two fundamentally different things because they have a similar word. I am embarrassed to have to make this correction. Go spend some time studying Aristotle and lay off the popular science magazines. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. You sound like a parody on modern man.
tumbleweedjoe 2 years ago
Well, if you know so much about it, please teach me. I've given my reasons for thinking they have substantial comminalities. So would you care to explain why epistiemic relativism doesn't claim that knowledge claims are relative to the individual?
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
I'll give it a shot: Relativity theory is einstein's discovery that the invariance of physical laws across the universe implies invarience across reference frames: If I'm the ground watching an airplane pass by at 300 miles an hour, its speed relative to me (or any fixed point) is 300 miles and hour. But a stewardess wheeling a cart down the isle at 1 mile an hour is only traveling 1 mile an hour relative to her fixed point (the plane) but 301 miles and hour relative to me. Einstein thus...
tumbleweedjoe 2 years ago
...resolved a number of inconsitencies within classical Newtonian mechanics, which because it held to notions like absolute time (without respect to a frame of reference) inadvertently deprived physical laws of the universality of their application. So Einstein's theory actually contradicts ontological relativism, since Relativity's central insight is the invariance (universaility) of physical laws, which have as their consequence certain implications about relative frames of reference.(read on)
tumbleweedjoe 2 years ago
...Now epistemic or cognitive relativism (which included moral relativism) make a very different sort of claim. These claim that truth and law (including moral law) are NOT universal (not invarient) because the individual point of reference changes their ontological content, making it entirely dependent on the point of view of the individual. First of all, this is a claim about ontology (not physical laws), making it fundamentally different from the start from Relativity theory...
tumbleweedjoe 2 years ago
I don't understand...how does saying that a a moral principle is relative to a person mean imply a change in ontology? E.g. suppose I'm Robbin Hood and I think its moral to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Does this mean I suddenly don't believe the world is made up of electrons, quarks, and empty space?
randyhelzerman 2 years ago
"Does this mean I suddenly don't believe the world is made up of electrons, quarks, and empty space?"
Well no, as I've said, the two things aren't related. Whether or not you should steal from the rich and give to the poor has aboslutely nothing to do with electrons, quarks or empty space. A different sort of criteria is neccesary to evaluate moral claims (claims about what you ought or ought not do) than to evaluate factual claims (claims about what is).
tumbleweedjoe 2 years ago
But I'm not completely sure I've understood your objection. When I say ontology I am speaking about metaphysics, or being-qua-being. You are speaking about data or empirical facts. Moral claims are claims that a certain action or way of being is compatible or incompatible with the nature of X, because it is X's purpose to be a certain way, and not another way. Thus for example: It is immoral to rape women because it the proper nature of sexuality to be a voluntary activity.
tumbleweedjoe 2 years ago
The prayer at the beginning and the subsequent anti-homosexual implications (5'50'') are offensive. It is important that ppl consider / learn these ideas but this man should not be teaching them.
21GO 2 years ago
Shut up you fucking queer.
Entropy56 2 years ago
whatever lad. im not the one whos too ugly to put a face picture up. haha. i bet you've got no mates.
21GO 2 years ago
Wonderful video. I am very grateful for it.
DTnazz 3 years ago 2
This is an evil doctrine. Natural law has never been anything other than an excuse for imperialism and violence.
vezrig 3 years ago
BEAUTIFUL TEACHING.
DangeloM27 3 years ago 7
Seculism is not anti religious, it is non religious. There is a big difference there.
humder 3 years ago 4
The Supreme Court in 1962 ruled that secular humanism is a religion.
zyzyva 2 years ago
Maybe but I don't live in the US and neither does most of the world! How the Supreme Court rules definitions does not affect the universal dictionary of the world.
humder 2 years ago
It does affect what public institutions in the United States especially public schools can and cannot teach and promote.
There are secularists who are virulently anti-religious, the President of Brazil wants to criminalize any criticism of homosexual behavior. Same for England and Canada.
So while in theory secularism may not be anti-religious, it is in practice as we are seeing in many countries.
zyzyva 2 years ago
@humder Atheism is anti-religious. It's a negative idea, as it defines itself primarily as being against another idea. Secularism is supposed to be indifferent to religion, even though some people will confuse it with atheism, even though definite and universal definitions do not really exist any longer.
pedroinlondonvideos 1 year ago