Silly relativists. Condemnation is for objectivists!

A moral relativist believes that right and wrong are only right and wrong because of what people perceive right and wrong to be--- therefore, it is subjective/relative.

A moral objectivist believes that some things are wrong in and of themselves, regardless of an individual's opinion of it.

If the laws of physics were pertinent to the concepts of morality, the rest of your body would have been sucked in by the density of your thick skull.

He said if people waste their brainspace remembering things its all relativity and makes them dumber, if people get caught up in reading stories, they get lazy its all relative. He's only famous for the physics, because the theory if relativity pissed everyone else off when applied to everything else. So we're stuck with Freud, who simply made it up to homogenize ideas for his family's company, which Just happened to be the biggest marketing firm on earth, and also the first to be paid by national governments to shape public opinions back in his day.........

Einstein had a marriage contract that said his wife was not to expect affection from him. No, the things that are good for us are not relative. These are universally fixed. People don't want to be raped, maimed, or robbed, or murdered. And as you'll recall, Einstein had misgivings about advising development of nuclear weapons.

I agree with you about morality. If anything, we should be taking our cues and learning our lesson from the nonliving. The spirit of right is much stronger in everything around all living things than it is in living things themselves. Judgment is for the living. And it is always subjective. That is the problem.

The point is: if you believe everything is relative and morality has no fixed values, then you have no place to condemn people because their morality is their "own private domain." So, judging people- even rapists- has no place to a dedicated relativist.

Well, I look at it like this. Human beings see themselves as special. In control and even having morality in the first place. But--if you were to compare us to all things in nature not alive, for example the laws of physics, chemistry, electricity, magnetism and gravity, you can quickly begin to realize that living things will never be so pure. Morality is weak among the living, when compared to everything else.

Are you saying a rock is morally superior?

LoL! Yes. Because by its nature, it cannot make or change the rules that apply to it and it cannot make up excuses when it does.

I'd like to point out at this moment that the Theory of Relativity is a misnomer in the sense that you are trying to apply it. It is still regarding a set of fixed laws for how matter and light behave. http://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html Just... you know... throwing that out there. The action may be in different time for one observer compared to another, but that difference is negligible, and they are still observing the same event.

Can you see the contradiction yet?

Your theory, as set forth, is mathematically, scientifically and morally wrong. In order to determine "right" you have to exclude all rare occurrences. So to make a theory about the sun, the moon does not matter. The fact that it eclipses the sun is nature telling you how wrong you are. But for you to know that, you had to first exclude the moon and the eclipse from what you know of the sun.

Your wording is convoluted. Are you suggesting there are happy, positive rapes that benefit humanity by insinuating there are exceptions to absolutes? Because the objectivism I endorse has the primary principle- OBJECTIVE, if you will- that utilitarian well-being of living beings is the goal, and there are things that can predict that. You are attacking your own straw man. Pure moral relativism asserts that people's morality is their own private domain and is therefore not condemnable. And if you believe that, go to Afghanistan for a year and get back to me about what you think of cultural and moral relativism.

You can attack objectivism by saying the means cannot be fixed, but it is the goal of aggregate well being that is what's fixed.

People like you like to use examples along the lines of, "Would it not be better if a doctor were in a position to do so that he should harvest the organs of a savable person if it meant using them to save 20 other people?"
But, you ignore the notion of how sucky a world it would be if everyone would rather chance death by not going to hospitals because they were afraid of being harvested for organs. Obviously a myopic exercise.

Postulating that objectivity can be flawed because other factors impact it would be like me saying, "Gravity exists; it's the pull between two objects," and then you come along and say, "If that's so, then what about anti-gravity?" as if that changes the assertion that gravity is real and concrete in the provable sense.

The contradiction is that you are trying to apply moral worth to inanimate objects while attempting to confuse me with science (of which you probably understand less than you let on), whose realm is entirely separate from what constitutes moral behavior. Nonetheless, you try to conflate them.

We are made of matter, no different than the rock. Our bodies are subject to the same laws, which means we are of the same moral worth of the rock according to your logic, EXCEPT that we have abilities that it lacks.

That means that, in accordance with your own logic, you would have to either concede that free will does not exist and we are thus- at the very least- morally equal (not inferior) to the rock, or that we are capable of moral choice, which is a potentially positive quality the rock lacks.

The sum of your assertions is essentially nihilistic. You're arguing that- because it is inanimate- a rock has greater moral worth. That is tantamount to saying death makes a person morally superior to when they are alive, which can be extrapolated to mean that the goal of a moral life is to cause as much death as possible.

And if you believe that, then please, by all means you can join ISIS, and I will join the US Army on the same effing day. We'll see who wins out with that one.

No one should ever inclue something as laughably rare as rape in any form of judgment. It is do rare it should never be considered at all. Once soneone jumps to rare exceptions that happen less than one one hundreth of a percent of the time, they are wrong. And that type of wrong causes grave danger for everyone else. Your mind is in the fictional world of lady ga ga, TV crime shows, fake lawsuits against the military and the fake news tgat is all the rage these days. You are looking at the same information that still says Donald Trump did not win. You are more likely to be kilked by a police officer for doing nothing wrong than you are to get raped. So why not start with that far more common occurrence, than the more rare one?

To correct the number rape is .1% of the tim for women. If you add man it drops drastically lower. It is a rare crime that is exaggerated, because it is so very rare. Kidnapping is even worse. Chances are, when you hear a kidnapping story on TV it took place 30 or 40 years ago, because it is so rare it only happens a few times every 50 years. TV and movies corrupt everyones thinking. So does the fake news. This stuff does not count. Its exaggerated to get funding to put people in jail for drugs, theft, and pretty petty assaults. If we only put rapists, murderers,kidnappers and maimers in jail, there'd be no more than one prison in each state. Our economy would be sent into a situation worse than the great depression. This is the reality. That is why everyone believes in rape, maiming, kidnapping and murder.

So it may seem. But it applies directly to what you're getting at. He had misgivings about the bomb, but created and celebrated it nevertheless. The same way the moral punish, harm, torture and kill people who don't fit with their definition of contextual morality. And celebrate themselves for doing so, without regard to right or wrong, No one wants to be the one to have to explain that to another person, who by their attachment to their morals, cannot admit that their own relativism is not recognized by themselves. Thats why there are pictures of einstein sticking his tongue out and giving the middle finger to the moral. Relativity. It applies to this as well, because the thoery was intended to set forth how everything in the universe is ordered.

Also, Einstein didn't create the bomb. He wrote a letter of recommendation. He was asked about one problem with gaseous diffusion of fissionable materials. That was all. Your lacking of the most rudimentary research shows how full of shyte you are, which is why I'm going to stop wasting time on this conversation and get back to making money.