----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: Contradiction Problems????
>
>
> Dan Minette wrote:
>
>
> > Well, there is a difference. Fairies and unicorns are empirical
objects.
> > God is a transcendent being. Much more akin to the existence of God is
the
> > existence of truth, good, human dignity, human rights, etc., as anything
> > more than arbitrary cultural constructs.
>
>
> Doesn't it depend on your personal beliefs whether or not
> fairies and unicorns are transcendent?
Well, I guess one could construct a system in which beings that are labeled
fairies and unicorns are transcendent. But, the fairies and unicorns I have
seen referenced in literature are definitely empirical objects in the same
manner as you or I are. They are magical instead of truly mystical. Here,
I use magical as being able to work outside the normal laws of nature by
special powers or special knowledge of secret words, spells, etc. I also
use Anthony de Mello's definition of mystical:
Theology: the art of telling, and listening to, stories about the Divine.
Mysticism: the art of taking the taste and feeling of those stories into
your heart so that your life is transformed.
I think that in a system in which fairies and unicorns are transcendent, one
would think of a variation of Hinduism that would have different
manifestations of the Divine in the form of fairies and unicorns. But, in
that case, I would also expect arguments like Krishna's in the 'Gita (all
are really me.)
One could also have them akin to the angels and fallen angels in the
Judaic-Christian tradition, such as in Enoch.
Do you know of a theology which treats fairies and unicorns in this type of
fashion?
As far as truth,
> good etc. being something other than arbitrary cultural
> constructs, since you are so keen on needing evidence -
> facts and figures - to support an argument, can you provide
> us with some?
>
> I don't mean to sound _too_ confrontational here, but
> inquiring minds want to know. 8^)
>
If you look at my posts for the last 3-4 years, you should know that I look
for evidence in support of empirical statements (e.g. we can just to a
better job of conservation in the Western world and the developing nations
can pull themselves out of poverty without nuclear power and without global
warming). I have stated repeatedly, though, that ethics are a matter of
faith. If one considers them to just be a cultural construct, then I cannot
disprove that. However, I can point out the logical corollary from such an
axiom: might does indeed make right. If one group succeeded in a program of
ethnic cleansing and if they convinced the next generation that it was
right, then _by definition_ the victims of the cleansing were immoral just
for living, and the victors, _by definition_, were moral.
If this is your understanding, I cannot disprove it. But, I've met few
people who really think ethics is simply a construct...that the victims of
total genocide are _by definition_ immoral. If you have noticed, I do not
ask for empirical proof of ethical principals. I just look at the theorems
that can be deduced from the axioms that are given.
I have, in discussing practical ethical questions, asked for proofs and
such, but that is somewhat different. For example take the statement: A is
wrong because A kills millions of people. I don't ask for empirical proof
that killing millions of people is wrong: that's a matter of belief I would
share with the writer. But, I might question empirically if A really kills
millions of people, or if A is really responsible for saving thousands of
lives while also causing hundreds of deaths. That question of empirically
verified understandings has a great deal to do with whether A is moral in
the ethical system of most people I know.
Dan M.
Do you really believe that ethics are simply an arbitrary cultural
construct...that might makes right?
Dan M.
