From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Reply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Lines: 45

In article <1r3qab$o1v@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, 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:
>#> In article <930420.100544.6n0.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew
>#> <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>#> #This is complete nonsense.  Relativism means saying that there is no absolut
>#> #standard of morality; it does NOT mean saying that all standards of morality
>#> #are equally good.
>#> 
>#> Presumably this means that some moral systems are better than others?
>#> How so?  How do you manage this without an objective frame of reference?
>#

Either Frank O'Dwyer or mathew said:

[...stiff deleted...]

>#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?

[...stiff deleted...]

Speed is a quantifiable measure resulting from a set of methods that
will result in the same value measured no matter the reference.  A 
bullet with zero velocity sitting on a table on a train moving 60mph
will be moving at a speed of

        (a) 0mph to someone on the train.
        (b) 60mph to someone stationary next to the train.

The reference frame makes the speed relative.  But what's interesting
here is that every person on the train will see a stationary bullet.
Every person off, a bullet moving 60mph.  

I know of no train where all the people on it, every time it is
filled, will see a moral problem in exactly the same way.

-- 
 jim halat         halat@bear.com     
bear-stearns       --whatever doesn't kill you will only serve to annoy you--
   nyc             i speak only for myself




