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

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

Ok,Ted
I'm trying to be funny. What are you trying to be ? The man with the
diagnosis or the man with the solution ?
 Tony

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>
To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
Cc: <canorder@moscow.com>; <mohrc@moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: Very funny!: Re: Every Ethical System Subject to Relativist
Problems


>
> 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
>