Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: support for areligious moral codes Message-ID: <5999@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 27-Sep-85 16:56:48 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.5999 Posted: Fri Sep 27 16:56:48 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 29-Sep-85 05:19:52 EDT References: <623@hou2g.UUCP> <5884@cbscc.UUCP> <1154@mhuxt.UUCP> Reply-To: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 119 I want to say to Mr. Torek that I don't apreciate you sucking this discussion into net.philosophy so automatically and with out stating it explicitly (With your Followup-To line). Do you think you own this discussion? I had unsubscribed to net.philosophy for a long time since it seemed like a "Rich Rosen vs. everyone else debate on any subject you care to discuss" forum. If you want to move the discussion to another group, ASK first, OK? This is going to be my last effort anyway. Torek seems not to be putting much into it himself, and the character of this newsgroup hasn't changed since I last unsubscribed. In article <244@umich.UUCP> torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) writes: >In article <5953@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) writes: >>In article <241@umich.UUCP> torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) writes: >>>[...] Now all of the above merits more detail; but I would rather recommend >>>a few good books on the subjects than type all year. But it should at least >>>be crystal clear that if others don't follow at least a "minimally decent" >>>(specific examples: no rape or murder allowed) behavior-pattern toward >>>others, you and I will suffer. [...] [This] IS >>>ALREADY SUFFICIENT REASON to compel others to obey a moral code. >> >>You are right in that it merits more detail and you can recommend books if >>you like. But, concerning point (b) above, what is the basis for the belief >>that certain norms are valid for all rational agents? > >It is implied by the idea that there is a fact of the matter about what we >ought to do; an idea that can be rejected only at the price of reductio ad >absurdum. See S. Darwall, *Impartial Reason*, and C. I. Lewis (that's "I" as >in "Irving"), *Values and Imperatives*. Maybe I'm just dense, or maybe you are being too vague (I'll give you your pick of reasons), but what is the "fact of the matter" you are talking about? >>Fine, we may compel others to obey a certain moral code because we may [...] >>get hurt if we don't. But why is our perspective more important >>than the perspective than the one we are constraining to obey? So we may be >>hurt; that is sufficeint reason for self defense, but not for legislation. >>The one we are trying to constrain has a different perspective, and I don't >>think sympathy is sufficient to enforce ours upon him. > >Sure it is. As long as our preferences as to the outcome, including the >coercion of the aggressor, are rational -- and they are -- we have every >reason and right to act on them. We have no obligation to respect "his >perspective" when he is disrespecting the "perspective" of his victim. So, is there no moral evil when a sadist inflicts his fancy on a masochist? Anyway, you have implicitly taken sides without really justifying which side should be taken. Suppose it is the victim who is not honoring the aggressor's perspective (by resisting, perhaps). >>>To quote a famous philosopher: "Yes, that's my implication. But you've >>>shifted the burden of proof ...". The burden's on YOU to show how >>>religious codes "do provide the transcendent authority" i.e. provide >>>reasons for an individual to be moral *over and above* the reasons ("if >>>any", if you insist there are none) human reason provides. Prove that >>>you're not "in the same boat" as we agnostics are in! >>> >>My point is not that religious codes can supply independent reasons. I >>fully agree that they only provide answers within their own framwork. > >That's not my point. It's not just that we have no compelling evidence >for the religious framework itself -- true as that is -- but that *even >after we accept a religious framework* we have *no more (and no less) >justification for morality than we had before.* The morality is inherent in the religious code obseved within it's own framework. You have side-stepped my point. I am talking about the ground for authority which is invested in a moral code, the transcendence by which we are justified in compelling others to stand under that code. >>This is the way the score looks to me: Religiously based moral codes >>cannot produce independent reasons for obeying them, but can produce >>dependant reasons. Areligious moral codes can produce neither independant >>or dependant reasons. > >You haven't given evidence for either of these assertions. (You at least >made an ATTEMPT at demonstrating your point about areligious codes -- the >remark about "enforcing our perspective" -- but the attempt fails.) (You keep telling me this while making little attempt at showing me how). >> So, Paul, I think it is up to you agnostics to >>prove that you *are* in the same boat with us religious believers. > >No, it's up to you to show that we're not in the same boat, by showing how >a religious framework provides "dependent reasons". How can you divorce any moral code from the framework in which it exists. Religions do have moral codes, I think that should be obvious. Accepting the religious framework brings that moral code along with it. Moral codes do not have to be derived (though they may be expounded upon and applied differently) within a religious framework, they are part of that framework itself. The transcendent quality of these code means that we can have a law that is above human authority. >>... the argument that the public implications of a religious moral code >>may be ignored solely on the basis of it's being religious is unfounded. > >Whoa there, don't get me confused with Sonntag. I don't argue that >religious codes should be barred from expression in public laws (the old >"imposing morality" or "imposing religious morality" argument). In my >idea of a democracy, laws don't get ruled unconstitutional just because >they agree with a religious morality. I just hope the public wouldn't >*vote* for those laws in the first place unless (like laws against murder) >they can (also) be justified from an areligious perspective. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ... which you haven't really done. >--Paul V Torek, throwing back the red herrings. torek@umich ... His own, I think. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com