vision2020
Re: Every Ethical System Subject to Relativist Problems
Lets just tear up all the rule books, burn everything anyone percieves as "
religous ", eliminate the police force & let everyone
live in " harmony" doing what is right & true in thier heart of hearts & see
how that warm fuzzy goes...........
Tony Mohr
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>
To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
Cc: <canorder@moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: Every Ethical System Subject to Relativist Problems
>
> 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
>
Back to TOC