Every Ethical System Subject to Relativist Problems!

["Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>]

Douglas et. al.

Round and round we go...

Douglas's ethical absolutes have no more logical and factual basis for being 
true "absolutes" than his faith that they are!  In fact the Christian 
standards of ethical conduct are also relative to your interpretation of the 
Bible and whatever theological assumptions related to Christianity you 
happen to believe in.  You can find numerous sects of Christianity, now and 
throughout history, with significantly differing ethical standards, that 
will argue or have argued vehemently that they are the true representatives 
of Christianity, and the other Christian sects are not.  There are Christian 
groups who advocate extreme racist or sexist views, are there not?  And they 
claim they have the absolute truth, do they not?

How do you decide which group has the correct view?  We are back to "gumby" 
relativism, though the true believers will say they have a hotline to God 
that makes their particular view the "true" one.  The claim of revelation 
from God is the lynch pin that guarantees the absolutes of Christianity.  
But there are numerous claims, Christian and non-Christian, to have the true 
revealed standards of God, and these standards differ.  With this logic I 
can claim to have a hotline to God and ethical "absolutes," and justify 
anything I want to do, any kind of "holy" war or campaign of salvation 
against the unbelievers, which has happened numerous times in the history of 
Christianity.

No, Douglas, the US Constitution is no more subject to the criticism that it 
is hopelessly relativistic than your own so called "absolute" documents you 
refer to for your "absolute" values.  Your claim that the US Constitution 
could evolve to where lynching blacks becomes a civic duty is way over the 
top and not reasonably defensible.  And on the other side of this issue, 
there are many statements in the Bible that lead to some rather fantastic 
and disturbing ethical consequences!  And Christians use these statements to 
justify extreme views!

We are all in the same quandary, I am afraid, insofar as no one can PROVE 
their ethical standards are absolute and unchallengeable.  But what is wrong 
with a common sense ethics that simply points out that for the vast majority 
of people, friendship and love are preferable to killing and hatred, that 
honesty leads to a better society than one based on everyone lying, that 
respecting the feelings of others leads to a higher quality of relationship 
that one based on domination and exploitation?  And can't these notions of 
ethical conduct be based on human feelings rather than abstract principles 
derived from documents?  Anyways, this is just a suggestion regarding what 
really keeps people from being ugly and nasty!  It is what they feel, not 
what they think, not rules imposed by some overarching authority!

Ted

>From: Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>
>To: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Catching up
>Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:56:46 -0700
>




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com