Nudist Colonies Prove Relative Claim:Japan?Killing Innocent Children:Moral War?

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

Visionaries:

To assert that there are relative ethical issues does not necessarily imply 
the belief that "knowledge is infinitely flexible," to use Mr. Wilson's 
definition of "relativism."  It is entirely reasonable and practical for an 
ethical system to establish inflexible rules that have the legal force of an 
"absolute," and other rules that admit of flexibility thus being 
"relativistic."  And in fact this is just how our legal ethical system, in 
terms of the laws that exist on the books in the USA, functions.

My example will bring us back to the particular ethical issue that this 
discussion was about to begin with, at least for this writer: Moscow's new 
topless ordinance.  I posted earlier on vision2020 about this point.  The 
legal system in the USA recognizes that social public nudity is not a moral 
wrong that is an "absolute" always being illegal.  The existence of nudist 
colonies where social public nudity with families and children is allowed 
under the law is a clear demonstration of the law's admission that this 
conduct is "relative" ethical conduct, that is allowed for those who chose 
to practice this lifestyle.  The assumption, I believe, has been made that 
the harm to society from this conduct, if there is any, is not of sufficient 
intensity to outlaw social public nudity in all cases.

But consider the case of the murder colony.  Even if there were a group of 
people who agreed to establish such a colony, and tried to legally sign away 
the legal protection of the law, so they could murder each other at will, 
the law in the USA would NOT allow such conduct.  Therefore the law against 
murder is not a "relative" issue as far as how our legal system functions.  
It has the practical force of an "absolute."  Cold blooded murder is always 
illegal, though the death penalty complicates even this "absolute."

The above establishes simply and clearly the relativism in our society 
enshrined in law about topless women.

Now why should I follow Mr. Wilson's ethical system that, if I understand 
correctly, declares topless women in public to be a moral wrong 
"absolutely."  His own ethical system does not allow relativistic ethical 
rules or it collapses.  I do not believe his assumptions about the divine 
revelation of the Bible by a "God," and my exhaustive examination of the 
evidence has led me to conclude the existence of any God, Gods or Goddesses 
etc. are questionable  I think the Bible was written by human beings and 
though a remarkable document, it has errors and many of it's admonitions 
apply to an earlier time and culture.

So why should anyone follow the relative ethical view of topless women?
Let's use facts and logic, which is what scientific and legal systems 
usually attempt to use to determine knowledge and rules.  Moral harm can be 
described in terms of facts and consequences that people can understand in 
terms of the well being of their lives.  It does not HAVE TO be derived from 
ultimate transcendent rules handed down by a transcendent Christian God.  
Consider the case of Japan, a predominantly non-Christian nation, that has 
moral codes and laws that of course are in part derived from their 
non-Christian spiritual traditions, that on some moral issues has a lower 
rate of offenders than the USA!  If you declare that only ethical rules 
derived from the Christian God are the true rules, how can you explain the 
moral rules and virtues of societies that are mostly Godless and do no 
believe in your assumptions?  You must deny the facts, it seems to me, or 
engage in theological gymnastics to claim that well, really, those Godless 
Japanese are really being inspired by your God, though they don't know it 
and deny your God.

So perhaps it is not so unreasonable to refer to the facts of the harm 
and/or benefit of topless women, and use logic to determine long term social 
outcomes.  I'm not going to argue the case now to allow topless women in 
public.  But to just declare you have the ultimate answer to this issue 
derived from God, and that is the end of the discussion, which is close to 
what your argument boils down to, denies other points of view that are 
reasonable and factual.

Mr. Wilson's statement that what you are willing to die for or conversely 
when you will kill determines your absolutes, is fraught with difficulties.  
One obvious example is the pacifist who will never kill as an ethical 
absolute, many of whom are ironically Christian!  They may allow themselves 
to be killed, but their absolute values ban killing.  So the option of 
asking them what "absolute" would dictate they kill is not available.  Also, 
Mr.. Wilson believes killing innocent children to be absolutely wrong, if I 
read him correctly, yet what about all the children killed in Afghanistan 
recently by US bombing etc?  It can't be that there is some relativism 
creeping into Mr.. Wilson's ethical beliefs?  It would appear that he will 
condone the killing of innocent children in war, if such killing is 
unavoidable in the conduction of said war, and Mr.. Wilson, who is clearly 
not a pacifist, believes said war is a "just" war as he would define it, 
being a kind of ethical conduct demanding you kill to protect your 
"absolutes."  Would Mr. Wilson defend his absolute that killing innocent 
children is always wrong and fight and give his life to stop any war where 
innocent children are being killed?  He would have to fight against and 
oppose almost all wars the USA has conducted or is now conducting!

My statement that I wanted "honest debate based on facts and logic" was not 
a statement of an ethical "absolute" but merely an expression of my belief 
that this approach gets the best results.  Indeed, why should anyone follow 
my rules?  For one thing, these are not really MY rules.  The results of 
science have shown us the power of following facts and logic.  I am not 
claiming to have the "absolute unchallengeable truth," only suggesting that 
all "absolutes" can be questioned, and the tools of logic and fact are the 
best at our disposal to engage in questioning.  These tools can also be 
questioned and are under attack, as you well know, in the theories of 
deconstructionism and post-modernism.

I have not written a single law on the books, so my suggestions about 
honesty carry no weight in terms of legal consequences.  But there are laws 
against dishonesty in some cases, and these laws have been determined by a 
complex process of thousands of years of human experiment into what makes a 
society that best serves it's members.  These legal codes, and the 
scientific endeavors using logic and fact that have given the human race 
incredible powers, are not my creation, so to personalize my statements as 
though I am giving my personal "absolutes" is off point.  You could just as 
well ask me why I expect you to follow the laws of gravity if refer to it in 
discussion, but I am not now nor was I ever Isaac Newton, though I trust his 
experiments into said law of gravity.  Ask him why you should follow the law 
of gravity.  Or ask the hundreds of mathematicians who for thousands of 
years have built logic and mathematics why you should follow logic.  I am 
just following their discoveries.

Also, about following facts and logic as a moral issue, this is not really a 
moral rule in all cases, it is just the best way to get valid results in 
some intellectual tasks, science and debate among them.  I know people who 
are often illogical and unfactual, but they are good people for the most 
part, and I don't regard their illogical nature to be some kind of moral 
evil.  But if everyone all the time was illogical and unfactual there would 
be some serious problems.  Another dreaded "relativistic" ethical judgment?

Ted

>From: Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>
>To: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Someone's karma ran over my dogma
>Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:53:44 -0700
>




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