From: mss2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: God and Science:  The Ramblings of The Nightstalker
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:28:01 GMT

In article <STEVE.92Nov17171300@styx.crc.ricoh.COM> steve@crc.ricoh.COM (Stephen R. Savitzky) writes:
>"Here's another shot at the 'moral relativism' debate," says the
>Mandelbear.  "Some folks believe that killing people is wrong, Period.
>Some folks believe that killing people is ok sometimes, like if their
>government tells them to.  The conditions under which people will
>allow their government to kill people vary from country to country as
>well as from person to person.  If that isn't moral relativism, I'm
>not sure what is."

	"That can either be viewed as moral relativism or as nearer or
farther approaches to true morality.  The ancient Hebrews approximated
Pi as 3.  The Egyptians used another figure, I think 22/7.  Different
cultures have used differing approximations.  Does that mean that the
ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter has varied from
culture to culture?  No, it means that people have approximated it
with greater or less success.  A `mathematical relativist' might say
that each of those values was right for his culture-- a mathematical
absolutist would say that in Euclidean space there is only one value
for Pi.  `Write it out,' the relativist might demand-- but the
absolutist can give only an approximation, however close.

	`Of course, this doesn't prove anything either way-- some
things _are_ relative.  `Man' and `homme' and `ish' and `andros' are
not different approximations of the true word for male human being--
they are simply different words from different, equal languages.  But
the existence of different moral standards among different people does
not _disprove_ absolute morality either."  Michael wonders if this
topic is being revived, and hopes that the peace of exhaustion on the
subject will continue to hold.

>"Admittedly the Catholic Church has changed some since the days of the
>Inquisition, but on the whole not very much.  The belief structure is
>still essentially the same, even if the practices have changed.  Other
>Christian sects differ in various ways that (again, as seen from
>outside) don't matter very much.

	"Depends who you ask.  Apparently, the question of whether or
not they proselytize matters _very_ much to a number of outsiders
hereabouts.  Similarly, outsiders might care about the difference
between a sect which called for the deaths of heretics and infidels
and one which preached coexistence.  And, of course, the differences
are _supposed_ to be primarily important to those who are inside--
they're over issues which outsiders don't even agree with them about
the principles involved.  Would a dictatorship care about whether
proportional representation or `first past the post' geographic
apportionment was the best way to choose a democratic legislature?  Or
conversely, would a democracy care whether an ideological dictatorship
can better impose its will by directly controlling industry or by
striking a deal with industrial leaders?"

>"And many members of these various sects then have the gall to say
>that their religion is the *only* valid source of morality!  That if I
>don't believe in their deity, I must have no morals at all.  Now
>*that's* what I call evil!

	"Sigh.  People say lots of stupid things.  But please note
that there is a difference between claiming that God is the only
source of morality and that a particular set of beliefs is."

Michael

-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Indeed I tremble for my country
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 when I reflect that God is just."
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on
mss2@amber.uchicago.edu		    Virginia (1784)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans