From: I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.jewish,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Child abuse ordered by god
Date: 26 Jan 93 12:26:54 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA22438; Tue, 26 Jan 93 04:22:16 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA20400; Tue, 26 Jan 93 04:22:09 -0800
X-Received: from DBSTU1 by DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0537; Tue, 26 Jan 93 13:18:27 MEZ
X-To: alt.atheism.usenet, talk.religion.misc.usenet, soc.culture.jewish.usenet

In article <1993Jan24.052500.9493@cs.tulane.edu>
david@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu (David Kaufmann) writes:


(Deletions)
>But I'll clarify the situation: the ethical standards, such as they
>are, of secular humanism make certain assumptions. Judaism makes other
>assumptions, one of which is the Divine authorship of the Torah. Since
>the purpose of Creation, under this system, is to fulfill G-d's Will,
>any unqualified, unmitigaged violation destroys the connection, and
>hence reason for existence. What G-d wants is outlined (note the word:
>full exposition, as with any basic code such as the U.S. Constitution,
>comes through application of the principles) in the Torah.
>


And that is the point. Of course secular humanism, or whatever makes
people say the punishment is cruel, is based on assumptions.
However, assuming that the assumptions are consistent, denying that you
consider it to be cruel implies that you do not agree with some of the
assumptions behind secular humanism.

It looks as if you mean that we simply have not got the right to judge
something from a bygone age because we do not know enough about the
setting. I simply don't care.

Texts like Deuteronomium have made their way into our time, and of course
I judge it in my time from the point of view I have in my time. And I
say it is a cruel and disgusting text for me now. I would not accept any
ideology based on its content - that does not exclude that for instances
social sciences could get valuable information out of it that I can use
in my time.

Hitler and the Spanish Inquisition have been brought up. I do not see
you get the right to judge them outside their own time. And please
note that the attitude I have to Deuteronomium is probably like one
you would have to 'Mein Kampf, (revised and interpreted)'.


Further, I judge Deuteronomium in the context of ideologies. My assumption
is that ideology deals with human nature, and I don't think that it has
changed much from the times of Deuteronomium to today. And the ideology of
Deuteronomium is one that deals very harshly with those who do not fit
in the rules it set. It does not even imply choice of yourself that you do
not fit in. And it gives the institutions of the society it supports
metaphysical backup for things I think human nature has all times considered
to be cruel. It can even be that the notion that cruel is not Good (tm)
is very relative to time, but again, I don't care.

I see strong similarities between Deut. and the totalitarian systems of my
time, and I think the continuity implied by this gives me the right to
reject it. Especially in the light of that some people say that it
still has some form of validity, ie claims to an truth I would *like*,
if I only understood, in my time.

>One of the basic commandments (one of the Ten, actually) is to honor
>one's parents (in order to have long life, btw). This commandment is
>found in the group concerning the relationship between man and G-d,
>since parents' are G-d's representatives.
>
>The rebellious son, one of the "trivial" violations, denies his
>responsibility and duty to his parents, and this in gross, defiant and
>arrogant ways; he thus also denies his responsibility and duty to G-d.
>Since he has demonstrated _and declares_ his rejection of the source
>of life, he has forfeited his right to life. _But_ to apply the
>penalty, which is irrefutable, the evidence and rejection must also be
>irrefutable.
>
>A further point: once an individual declares his/her "standards"
>sufficient to judge the legality or morality of an action or law,
>he/she must grant that same privilege to others. That _you_ are
>horrified by act x does not prove that act x is horrible; it only
>demonstrates the limits of your reasoning (which may or may not be
>sufficient).
>

Interesting, ever thought about how this applies to the Nuremberg Trials?

The idea of Human Rights is of course another absolute, but as opposed to
most other absolute systems it is one that appeals to me, namely because it
is not as cruel as the others.

And even when my reasoning for it might not be sufficient (worst case
analysis comparing human rights with other systems) I will stick to it
until I find a better one.

>An absolute morality requires two things: a reference to standards not
>subject solely to an individual's reasoning and, therefore, laws that
>are not necessarily understandable, at least on "first impression" or
>even immediately agreeable, but to which the individual submits in
>recognition of the limits of human reason.
>

A dangerous conclusion, it says more or less, give up reasoning, you can't
prove any system, so you might as well consider mine to be superior.

I have not got better than reason, and when it confines me to less than
ideal systems, I can't help it. But the appeals to supernatural content,
and therefore superiority of another system, is a blatant ploy.

And there are many systems that say that I have not got the right to say
that they are wrong, because my reasoning and understanding is limited,
but again, how am I to know which of those is the right one?

Your apologetic of a totalitarian system reduces itself to absurdity.
   Benedikt