From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sat Jan 01 2005 - 07:06:35 GMT
Happy New Year to you, too, Platt:
...and call up the usual suspects!
>
> I'm shocked, shocked. I certainly do not share your view that there are no
> universal moral standards and wonder if you really, truly believe that a
> culture that encourages decapitating infidels is morally equivalent to a
> culture that constitutionally protects religious minorities from
> persecution, a position you seem to take when you assert," I am a moral
> relativist." If this be not the case, then pray tell, what universal moral
> standards do you uphold and what is their source?
You can't be serious, Platt! Perhaps you were imbibing a bit earlier than
usual this New Years Eve. We covered this whole issue, focusing on a sermon
by Steve Edington that was featured on my website. Edington stated
(courageously and correctly, I think) that moral relativism is the only
morality there is. Where were you when I threatened to file for divorce
over it? (Check your e-mail postings of 12/7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 16 under
"Is Morality Relative?").
My opinion hasn't changed. Morality is determined by the values and
behavior of free human beings. It has no other authority than what society
or the law sanctions. As one who believes in the sanctity of human
sensibility, I consider it wrong to deprive man of his freedom by offending
his sensibilities. But morality is a socio-cultural consensus (maybe that's
what you mean by "universal") and, like all existential events, it is
conditional and relative to the issues involved. Clearly if man were forced
to abide by absolute standards, there would be neither freedom nor morality.
The same holds true if man were to possess absolute knowledge. We cannot
deny the relativity of human existence. There is no "universal moral
standard" other than the consensus of individuals. We can only judge 'good'
or 'bad' behavior by the relevent conditions and prevailing values that
apply -- and these are relative.
Your churlish comparison of Islamic beheadings with "constitutional
protection of minorities" only demonstrates that morality is not universal.
Obviously, the taking of a human life is evil, whether it is done in the
name of Allah, capital punishment, free choice, warfare, or self-defense.
But the morality of the act is a judgment made by man and based on the
values relative to his culture. Thus, morality cannot be absolute. The
relativity of all things existential supports Priday's First Principle: the
Immutability of the Absolute.
Does this answer your question?
Now you can go back to your celebrating.
Best wishes for the New Year,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 01 2005 - 07:09:54 GMT