Re: Every Ethical System Subject to Relativist Problems

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

Visionaries:

There are some who have exaggerated and misstated what I said about human 
feelings and common sense ethics.  Let me explain in some detail what I mean 
about human feelings in the context of this debate on ethics and relativism 
vs absolutism, and expand more on why I think relativism effects all ethical 
systems.

To start with the latter issue first,
I clearly stated that I am aware of the difficulties in proving ultimate 
right and wrong in ANY ETHICAL SYSTEM!  You have similar logical problems 
(relativism among them) with proving your ethical system is absolute and 
true as anyone does, no matter what they claim is the source of their 
ethical system, be it the Bible, the US Constitution, or guidelines based on 
human feelings.  Let me explain.

Consider the issue of the death penalty.  There is major disagreement within 
the range of views expressed by Christians on this issue.  Some Christians 
are nearly pacifists in applying the teachings of Christ and the Commandment 
"Thou Shall Not Kill" to the death penalty!  They ABSOLUTELY regard it as 
wrong.  Other Christians support the death penalty and will quote other 
principles of ethics from the Christian tradition to support the death 
penalty.  They ABSOLUTELY regard it as right.  WHAT IS YOUR STANDARD?  Prove 
to me that you have the ultimate answer to the quandary Christians find 
themselves in regarding the death penalty, and why YOUR STANDARD SHOULD BE 
BINDING?  If you pick the wrong ethical action and it is against God's will 
your standard will be false and is not therefore not binding, according to 
your assumptions.

These are some questions asked by some in this debate to stymie the 
"relativists," but ironically they apply just as well to those asking the 
questions.  This same relativistic problem exists among Christians on 
homosexuality.  You can find Christian churches that do not condemn 
homosexuals as sinners.  They have one interpretation of Christian ethics.  
You know with what fervor other Christians condemn homosexuality as a major 
sin.  Again we have a relativistic debate WITHIN CHRISTIANITY ITSELF.  Why 
should I believe that one side or the other has the ultimate answer on this 
issue of homosexuality?  WHAT IS YOUR STANDARD AND WHY SHOULD IT BE BINDING 
ON ME?

And of course there is the problem of proving one Religion to be more true 
and absolute than another.  Usually the claim is made that what makes one 
religion absolute and another not is the theory of "revelation."  God's word 
is revealed truly to the true prophet or representative of God, and falsely 
to the false prophet.  This is how religious absolutists "PROVE" there is no 
ethical relativism in their system.

How do you prove who is or is not a true divine revealer of God's word?
WHAT IS YOUR STANDARD?  You are using circular logic when you use 
Christianities principles and beliefs to prove itself absolute.  Muhammad 
was a false prophet?  How can you prove this? If I am a believer in Muhammad 
as a divine prophet, why should your standard that the religion Islam based 
on his teachings is false be BINDING ON ANYONE?  Can you prove that Muhammad 
was not divinely inspired?  You can put two scholars of Religion from Islam 
and Christianity in a room and the debate on the divine revelation of the 
Koran vs the Bible etc. will rage on and on.  Belief in the "proof" provided 
will certainly be dependent on previous decisions of faith!  Doug W. did not 
respond to this problem in his reply to my vision2020 posts on these issues.

Now regarding the "common sense ethics" issue,
what is the problem with pointing out that for the vast majority of people 
friendship and love are preferable to killing and hatred?  Do you think this 
is a false statement?  This statement given as a basis for "common sense 
ethics" is not as "provincial," as Doug W. suggests.  In cultures all over 
the world representing many religions there are laws against murder.  Are 
you against letting people determine their own ethical standards at the 
ballot box rather than from some imposed "overarching authority?"  Are you 
afraid that if we determined laws to govern society by the vote, that people 
would vote for killing, rape, lying, stealing, fraud and general mayhem as a 
good basis for society?  I think perhaps you have a lack of faith in the 
good sense of average people.  Not a comforting point of view for someone 
living in a Democracy.  The fact that there are mass murderers in the world 
does not prove that common sense ethics are totally worthless, as Doug W. 
suggests, anymore than witch burning and the Inquisition proves that 
Christian based ethics are worthless.

No one is determining that MY common sense ethic is the one everyone should 
follow.  I did not write a single law currently on the books in the USA.  
But you can be assured that some of the laws on the books were written by 
the "common sense ethics" of some legislator or judge somewhere!  You must 
admit this is true in some cases!  In reality right now for both of us what 
is determining the laws we live by is a complex web of religious and 
governmental traditions, the US Constitution and amendments etc., court, 
legislative and executive decisions, and law enforcement actions, many of 
which are contradictory and controversial.  Most people find some laws to be 
against their values.  Welcome to the real world of democracy where 
compromise and disagreement both work hand in hand to attempt to come up 
with a system that tries to make the most people happy but ends up not 
completely pleasing anyone.  This system has taken human beings thousands of 
years to develop, and many people think it is the best approach to 
organizing society, with all the conflicts and disagreements among human 
beings that are unavoidable.

The claim that there is an absolute ethical standard that is without 
contradiction or cases involving relative issues is a grand dream which as 
far as I can see is just that: A DREAM, NOT REALITY.

But back to human feelings.....  As a matter of fact, I am completely 
correct in my statement about human feelings being the basis for many human 
actions, not some "overarching authority!"  There are people who will help 
others (for example, pull them out of a burning house, or jump in a river to 
save someone drowning) in moments of need who are not compelled to do so in 
their own minds by any law or ethical rule or fear of consequences in this 
life or any other you care to imagine.  Why do they do this?  Because of 
human feelings of empathy and compassion!  They don't sit back and calculate 
how their actions are compelled by some ultimate overarching ethical 
authority.  They act directly and quickly based on a feeling to help.  These 
cases are well documented.  Does this mean you can build an ethical system 
dealing with all cases on just people responding to their feelings at the 
moment?  Of course not!  It is clear that there are cases, no matter what 
your ethical principles, when the right ethical choice will mean going 
against the impulses of emotion or feeling.

Ted

>From: Brian Gibbs <canorder@moscow.com>
>To: "Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: Every Ethical System Subject to Relativist Problems!
>Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 08:48:04 -0700
>
>Hi Ted,
>
>It never ceases to amaze me that the folks that want to criticize 
>Christians for having an absolute standard, refuse to acknowledge that 
>their own standards of "ethical conduct [be] based on human feelings" 
>allows ANYONE to do WHATEVER they want. Just because they "feel" like it. 
>You are doing just what you accuse the Christians of doing. You can't say 
>that a person has to be nice. You are basing your standards on feelings. 
>Everyone has different feelings. If your standard is always what YOU feel, 
>who's to stop ANYONE (let's say a man in this case) who thinks it's okay to 
>walk up down in the Palouse Mall without any clothes on, from doing so? Or 
>from lynching blacks, reds, greens, or whites? After all, "It is what they 
>feel, not what they think, not rules imposed by some overarching 
>authority!" And who determines that your "common sense ethic" is the one 
>ALL of us should follow? As soon as you say we are going to with this one 
>and not that one, you have set up a standard. And so if MY standard is 
>different than yours, who are you to say that we have to go with yours and 
>not mine? As Douglas asked in his post..."But if you have a fixed standard, 
>then please tell us what it is, and why it is binding on the rest of us?"
>
>Brian
>
>At 11:47 PM 8/1/02 +0000, you wrote:
>
>>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
>>
>>
>>Received: from mc2-f31.law16.hotmail.com ([65.54.237.38]) by 
>>mc2-s2.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905);
>>         Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:54:50 -0700
>>Received: from whale2.fsr.net ([207.141.26.23]) by 
>>mc2-f31.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905);
>>         Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:50:51 -0700
>>Received: from whale2.fsr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
>>         by whale2.fsr.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g6VJt4vX073274;
>>         Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
>>         (envelope-from vision2020-request@moscow.com)
>>Received: (from slist@localhost)
>>         by whale2.fsr.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g6VJt4pB073259;
>>         Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
>>Resent-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
>>X-Authentication-Warning: whale2.fsr.net: slist set sender to 
>>vision2020-request@moscow.com using -f
>>Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020731122459.02f07280@mail.moscow.com>
>>X-Sender: dougwils@mail.moscow.com
>>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
>>Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:56:46 -0700
>>To: vision2020@moscow.com
>>From: Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>
>>Subject: Catching up
>>Mime-Version: 1.0
>>Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
>>Resent-Message-ID: <-MWY5D.A.D2R.WCES9@whale2.fsr.net>
>>Resent-From: vision2020@moscow.com
>>X-Mailing-List: <vision2020@moscow.com> archive/latest/2678
>>X-Loop: vision2020@moscow.com
>>Precedence: list
>>Resent-Sender: vision2020-request@moscow.com
>>Return-Path: vision2020-request@moscow.com
>>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jul 2002 19:50:53.0675 (UTC) 
>>FILETIME=[94434BB0:01C238CB]
>>
>>Dear visionaries,
>>
>>Just got back in town after a week out, and had a fun time catching up.
>>
>>I agree with Kenton (!) about one post a day. What a good deal that would 
>>be. Although I am a little concerned that a liberal wants to work out this 
>>kind of a solution without the intervention of a regulatory agency, I 
>>still support it, and after my comments below that's the last you will 
>>hear from me today.
>>
>>If our constitution, laws, and ordinances are all evolving, and there is 
>>no over-arching ethical standard, then we have no basis for folks in one 
>>part of the evolutionary process showing indignation at the inhabitants of 
>>another portion of the process, regardless of what they are doing at that 
>>other time. And if that is the case then we need to ditch all our 
>>faux-indignation about Chinese folks having to live out of town, women not 
>>voting, segregation of races, and women having to keep their shirts on. 
>>Who cares?
>>
>>If you are not relativists, then tell us what the standard is. Such a 
>>standard would have to be better than your living elastic gumby 
>>constitution, because a standard that can evolve into any other standard 
>>isn't a standard at all. A constitution which could incrementally evolve 
>>to the point where lynching blacks would be a civic responsibility and 
>>duty is personally offensive to me, and I cannot believe that you all 
>>persist in defending this. Why do you defend this?
>>
>>But if you have a fixed standard, then please tell us what it is, and why 
>>it is binding on the rest of us.
>>
>>If you are open relativists, then open wide and swallow the reductio. 
>>After all, it is your cooking, not ours.
>>
>>And this ties in to my one comment on the misrepresentations of my writing 
>>in Credenda. What I am represented as advocating, I actually repudiate. 
>>But those who accuse me of this form of abusive sexism have no basis for 
>>being indignant over any form of sexism. So, suppose me guilty of 
>>maintaining that a wife should just lie back and take it. So? Suppose that 
>>I do advocate spouse rape. Don't you?
>>
>






_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx