Gilberto, At 06:14 PM 1/27/2005, you wrote: >>But what makes one set of laws "high-level" and another "low-level"?<<
It is relative to the norms of that community. Mores are norms which, in a particular time and place, are punished (formally or informally) more severely than folkways. A more in one society may be a folkway in another; or a norm in one society may not be a norm at all in another society (such as wearing the hajab or some similar head covering). >>I'm not sure how you are drawing the line. I have the impression that in your >>perspective there is not a clear fundamental difference between ettiquette >>and morality because it is all relative.<< Like I said, as I define the term "morality," it would include etiquette. Morality is relative to different societies and communities. Virtues are relative to God's Will. I wrote: >>>>IMO, logic cannot be a foundationism. What is logical in the context of one >>>>paradigm may be illogical in the context of another.<<<< You replied: >>I'm speaking imprecisely. I don't think I mean that kind of logic. I mean a >>different kind of reasoning process.<< What kind of reasoning process? >>Think about it this way. Even across various religions, different groups of >>human beings tend to converge on similar sets of moral rules. Golden rule. >>Lying is bad. Murdering is bad. Stealing is bad. etc.<< We may invent words or categories broad enough to encompass sets of activities across cultures. However, that doesn't tell us that those categories or names represent shared meaning. For instance, in the U.S., some people, like the Quakers, are often pacifists regarding the Iraq War (or any war), and some of them describe war as institutionalized murder. Others, like many on the Christian right, support the Iraq War. However, when asked, most of these people would probably express their opposition toward murder. The same would apply to issues like abortion (whether it constitutes murder). In other words, "murder" does not signify precisely the same construction in the minds of these different sets of people. A civilian convicted of involuntary manslaughter might spend time in prison. However, a soldier, marine, sailor, or airman who kills someone due to friendly fire will not likely even be prosecuted (unless she or he was disobeying orders). There are all sorts of games we can play with words to justify actions which, in other situations, could get a person into deep trouble. >>To me that suggests that in spite of the differences, there is some kind of >>objective notion of good.<< I think it is more frequently the case that people will use words like "good" with the assumption, often incorrect, that others share the same understanding of it. >>And even without the aid of a prophet, human beings are able to make certain >>moral judgements.<< The influence of the teachings of various Prophets often extends well beyond their followers. Regards, Mark A. Foster � http://markfoster.net � [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger." ---- Abbie Hoffman __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[email protected] To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[email protected] Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
