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

["Tony Mohr" <mohrc@moscow.com>]

Hey Ted & Others,
It was meant to be funny, Pretty funny stuff anyways.
Tony

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>
To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
Cc: <canorder@moscow.com>; <mohrc@moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 7:19 PM
Subject: Very funny!: Re: Every Ethical System Subject to Relativist
Problems


>
> 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
>