vision2020
Re: Every Ethical System Subject to Relativist Problems
John et. al.
I thought one of the "Christian Absolutists" who slam the "Relativists"
for inciting moral anarchy would be able to give a logical coherent
explanation why Christianity is so at odds with itself over issues like the
death penalty, which is certainly not a trivial ethical quandary. It might
be that relativism effects Christian ethics? WHAT IS YOUR STANDARD ON THE
DEATH PENALTY AND WHY SHOULD IT BE BINDING ON ANYONE? when grand proponents
of absolutist Christian ethics disagree 180 degrees on the death penalty?
Is Christian ethics mired in the chaos of relativism on this issue? The
Pope spoke out against the death penalty as carried out by George Bush in
Texas. Millions of Catholics regard the Pope as the voice of God on earth.
Do you support the death penalty as carried out by George Bush in Texas?
Then millions of Christians disagree with you!
Awaiting a reply.
Ted
>From: John Harrell <johnbharrell@yahoo.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 22:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Well, I guess it all depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.
>
>John Harrell
>
>
>--- Ted Moffett <ted_moffett@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
>=== message truncated ===
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
>http://www.hotjobs.com
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Back to TOC