From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Context frames and Moral Absolutes
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 05:49:14 GMT

ck10322@china.medtronic.com (Cameron Kaszas) writes:
] > drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
 
[ for simplisity's sake I am limiting this to one concept. ]

Shall we allow for the compromise term:

"Absolute Moral Relativism" or "Relative Moral Absolutes."

] > When you cross the threshold that allows you to see that one
] > can be "Both Christian and <X>" YOU HAVE alienated yourself
] > from those who's sense of faith rests upon a simplistic approach
] > to the notion of "Moral Absolutes."
] 
] I don't like your insinuation that the notion of "Moral Absolutes" 
] is a simplistic approach.  

There is no 'insinuation' in what I said - read what you yourself
have said below....

] We should all try to accept *people* of all different viewpoints, and accept 
] everyone's right to believe as they do.  But that is different than necessarily
] believing that there are no moral absolutes.  

So let me see if I get your drift:

person A asserts that 'thou shall not kill' is a moral absolute
and hence that they can not go to war.

person B asserts that there is a 'just war theory' and that there
are moral absolutes that compell the matter of taking to arms.

If we take the simplistic bifurcation of the domain of Knowledge
into TRUE/FALSE, then one of these persons has the Moral Absolute
and the Other does not. Given this fundamental epistemological
propositon, view the position you have put yourself into: 

1. either your above proposition is a rejection of this matter at 
the epistemological level, and it is possible to hold that two
mutually conflicting propositions can be viewed as being both
a part of some independent ethical abstraction that you wish 
to denote as 'Moral Absolute', 

2. or you are aware that this epistemological porposition is true,
and unwilling to live with the consequences of that belief.

THIS is where you will find your major conflict with those 
who take the simplistic approach to the notion of 'Moral Absolutes.'

] I think if we got down to it, most of us would agree that there 
] are some moral absolutes.  But saying what exactly those are 
] is where we get into trouble.  I'd argue that dumping this 
] question entirely and saying everything is relative 
] is really the simplistic approach.

An interesting position....

There exists some state of 'Moral Absoluteness' that can not
be spoken of.....

Allow me therefore to agree that a simplistic leap to,
"well everything is relative" is useless - as everyone has
relatives.....

Let us put the matter into 'context frames' so that relative to
the 'context frame' there exists a moral absolute. Within the
system of Person A's 'context frame' it is a clear Moral Absolute
that for person A war is NOT an option. In like manner, Person B's
propositional system has developed/deduced/clarified that war is
a Moral Imperative given certain other 'context frames.'

Another way of seeing this matter can be done with the dietary laws.
If one, for moral reasons, holds to the 'kosher laws' - I would
presume that for them it IS a moral absolute. { and those that I know
who do keep kosher - DO. } There are others who keep 'kosher' 
strictly for 'medical reasons' - a proposition NOT to be sneered at
in the first world or the third world.

Gentiles have alienated Jews since the beginning of christianity
by arguing that the keeping of the Kosher laws is some 'abomination'
{ using the simplistic 'moral absoluteness' - as for them, being
gentile, they are not under the law of the covenant. } 

I return now to the matter as it arises in terms of the 'abortion debate.'
There are those who's sense of Xtianity hinges upon the Utter 
Abomination of Abortion - just as for Jehovah's Witnesses the
notion of a Transfusion is Anathema.

I return you now to what I did say: namely that by allowing
that not all are under the Kosher Laws, in regards to the
abortion matter, you HAVE threatened the 'simplistic' approach
to the matter of Moral Absolutes. And I will not be surpised at
all that you have already been presented with some 
variant of the arguement that by allowing this choice to others
you HAVE already slipped into Moral Relativism. 

The simplistic bifurcation of the domain of knowledge is where
this matter is played out so well... Allow any moment of 'doubt'
to arise and one side of the other will begin to scream down 
the slippery slope yelling: "Moral Relativism!" { as either
their rallying cry of Victory, or the Battle Cry to mount the
parapets and defend the Bulwark of Moral Decency. }

I present as a final illustration the minor problem of dress
parade in the RAF. There are Shihk's in Her Majesties Service,
and they are compelled by Moral Absolutes to wear a Turban.
So HM RAF Regs prescribe a Turban, one each, and there is a
Standing Order as to how it will be worn in Dress Kit. Thus
within the Context Frame of HM RAF Dress Regs, there is the
Moral Absolute of who is authorized to wear a Turban, and
how in point of fact it will be worn. 

And Yes, it does take a bit of learning to understand how to
inspect the ranks when a few of them have turbans.... but it
really is about the same as learning to inspect the ranks
when a few of them have skirts.... 

Those Scotts are a nuisance....


ciao
drieux



-- 
I Do Not Believe in .sig files
as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth,
And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice.
But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion