Very funny!: Re: Every Ethical System Subject to Relativist Problems

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

Hey Tony and others:

There is no connection between your reply and what I wrote.  But your reply 
is funny, I guess.  I never even remotely suggested the actions you outline.

Ted


>From: "Tony Mohr" <mohrc@moscow.com>
>Reply-To: "Tony Mohr" <mohrc@moscow.com>
>To: "Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>, <vision2020@moscow.com>
>CC: <canorder@moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: Every Ethical System Subject to Relativist Problems
>Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 07:47:54 -0700
>
>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
> >




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