Interesting flurry yesterday.
Chris, are you intending to sound extraordinarily Hobbesian? Let's
just say
without getting into a socio-political treatise, you are taking my words "code"
and
"foundation" too literally. The changing of laws is merely changing
applications and
adaptations the vein of the principle of Roman law which we follow of accepted
unchanging
higher principles. But, even Hobbes has the transformation of man's "natural
state" to the
Leviathan state explained by the following of three higher principles or laws
not of man's
creation.
Stuart, a morality and ethic that itself-determined and of
self-interested
utilitywhats called negative liberty--in the Hobbesian sense? That is,
whatever the
individual decides, or is decided for her or him by a group of others we call
government
or society, at any given moment as useful to his or her self-interest is moral
and
ethical? That is, concepts of whats called positive liberty like morality,
ethics,
justice, liberty, rights, etc have no natural, intrinsic, universal, or eternal
meaning?
They are purely man-made, social constructions for the purposes of imposing
restrictions
on human activity for the sake of survival and social order? Therefore,
morality and
ethics change with the seasons?
Linda, you said Many individuals get their sense of a moral/ethical
code from a
belief in social justice and universal/fundamental human rights. What is the
empirical
evidence that such a belief is warranted, that is, that such "positive rights"
actually
exist and need to be protected and promoted? And, what are these
universal/fundamental
human rights? You also said, A belief in the existence of a Divine entity or
ordinance
is by no means is a clear path to a moral code that is beneficial to all. I
fully agree.
Never said or even implied anything to the contrary. Can not the same be said
of those
who put all their moral eggs in the basket of science?
Rick, I would ask Weinberg, what is the criteria that allows us to
categorize
people as good or evil? I would also tell him if "But for good people to do
evil things,
that takes religion," it is certainly true of science as well, for science
doesn't have
the last word on morality.
One last word. I truly want to apologize to many of you. I did not
realize until
Jim's last message your sensitivity on this subject. I assure you, as a
Jewish, sometimes
Zen, sometimes Deist, sometimes agnostic, and even sometimes atheist, I meant no
disrespect, no disparagement, no judgment, no demeaning. I am truly sorry I
offended the
few who took part in this discussion. I guess I misunderstood. You see, in
both our
disciplines, as humanists or social scientists or hard scientists, we are always
questioning our assumptions, conclusions, and assertions. That is, we always
ask the WHY
of our beliefs and acts. In the spirit of Socrates, and the rabbis of the
Talmud, I raise
probing questions and offer reflections in the spirit of examining, reflecting,
illuminating, learning, understanding, elucidating, educating, improving,
informing,
articulating, and affirming. I was not accusing.
Make it a good day.
--Louis--
Louis Schmier www.therandomthoughts.com
Department of History www.newforums.com/L_Schmier.htm
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, Georgia 31698 /\ /\ /\ /\
(229-333-5947) /^\\/ \/ \ /\/\____/\
\/\
/ \ \__ \/ /
\ /\/
\ \ /\
//\/\/ /\ \_ /
/___\/\ \
\ \/ \
/\"If you want to climb
mountains \ /\
_/ \ don't practice on mole
hills" -/
\
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
