From: david@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu (David Kaufmann)
Subject: Re: Child abuse ordered by G-d
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-9457]: bourbon
Organization: Department of Electrical Engineering, Tulane Univ.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 05:25:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.152210.10238@gboro.rowan.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Norman Conquest) writes:
>
>Earlier, I wrote about the OT Law and the prescription of stoning, saying
>"there are several places where this punishment is recommended for crimes
>that are no more than trivial".
>
>In reply, David Kaufmann writes: 
>
>> How do you know they're trivial? By what standards is this determined?
>>
>> The penal code of any system of jurisprudence undoubtedly contains penalties
>> that don't seem to fit the crime - to an outsider.  But I would think one
>> should understand the philosophy and context of the entire legal system
>> before criticizing a part of it.
>
>On March 31, 1492, Ferdinand and Isabella signed an order giving three months
>for all practicing Jews to leave Spain.  Being ethnically Jewish itself was
>not a sin, but being a practicing Jew was "the greatest, most perilous, and
>most contagious of crimes."  (Martin Marty, _Pilgrims in Their Own Land_,
>pages 16-20.)
>
>My initial reaction to this would be to say that it was horribly unjust;
>however, I am judging that by my own standards.
>
>I assume that, since you believe it is inappropriate for me to judge past
>societies by my standards, you do not condemn the Spanish government for
>evicting the Jews.
>
>If, however, you DO believe that the Spanish government was wrong in their
>treatment of the Jews, I ask "by what standards is this determined?"
>
My initial reaction to the above was skeptical; on the off chance this
is meant seriously, however, I'll refrain from irony and respond
seriously to this logically fallacious argument.

Actually, there are three fallacies here: one, the process for judging
past societies; two, the assumption they can (or can't) be judged, and
three, the validity of "my standards" for judgment (or refraining from
it).
> *
>
>If Mr Kaufmann wishes to defend the extremely harsh OT rules as a product
>of their time and culture, I cannot really argue him out of moral relativism.
>However, the exact same position can be used to defend virtually any action
>of any government, regardless of how immoral we believe it to be.  To be
>consistent, Mr Kaufmann can no longer dispute the laws of any past society,
>because those laws will be consistent with "the philosophy and context of the
>entire legal system".
>
The ludicrousness of this paragraph is the source of my skepticism.
(I'm not sure if the "Mr. Kaufmann" is arrogance or formality, but in
any case, it's Dr. Kaufmann.) As any regular reader of scj will
testify, I am far from a moral relativist, a position even the
fallacious analogy with the Spanish expulsion doesn't support, since a
moral relativist could make a distinction between two systems both of
which contain "repulsive" laws to one removed from both.

Furthermore, even for a moral relativist, the "repulsiveness" of a law
must be seen in context, which does not necessarily justify every
enactment. Corporal punishment, for example, may be repulsive in one
context but not another.

Also, claiming a law is "trivial" does not make it so. Is adultery,
for example, trivial? On what grounds?

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.

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).

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.

(On another occasion, perhaps, we can discuss methods for determining
the absoluteness of a morality.)

Determining cruelty and triviality from an emotional, essentially
knee-jerk response is neither reasoned, moral, nor desirable.

BTW, the argument from the Spanish Expulsion has been used to justify
Hitler. It suffers from the same difficulties as excessive literalness
in any field: the assumption of comprehension based on limited
experience serves as justification for analysis, interpretation and
judgment. I have seen this kind of misreading repeatedly in freshmen
essays and it boils down to this is what it means to me. To which the
response is, as above, who are you and who cares?

Even a casual reading of the law of the rebellious son in context
reveals - and this without benefit of the necessary contextual
understanding provided by those who have actually studied and analysed
and who had to consider practical applications -  that it occurs in a
continuum of laws dealing with violations or negations of fundamental
responsibilities and obligations. Although all these laws are
people-to-people, according to the axiom of Torah, they necessarily
involve G-d, and thus questions of sanctity, and thus questions of the
purpose, hence continuence, of existence.

One does not have to accept the validity of this system, but to deny
its absoluteness, or label it a cruel punishment of trivialities,
without any understanding or an attempt at investigation, is simply
ignorance, at best.

>Whether he is willing to accept this consequence of moral relativism I cannot
>say.
>
Whether the poster is willing to accept the consequences of prejudice
and ignorance, I don't care.

>
>Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu


David Kaufmann
INTERNET:	david@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.all-worlds