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

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

Tony et. al.

I wonder what you really think about my main thesis, that relativistic 
issues are inescapably involved in any ethical system.  Maybe you are trying 
to be funny, but how you answer this question is central to many of the 
problems humanity is facing.

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: Very funny!: Re: Every Ethical System Subject to Relativist 
>Problems
>Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:55:29 -0700
>
>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
> >




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com