X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:29:00 EDT
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings:  To KAT

>From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>

>> .......  I hold that the same absurdity exists with respect to
>> "homosexuality is immoral and it is not immoral."  It must be
>> one or the other, not both.

>I have problems understanding you, Richard.  Let me try
>to understand better by posing the following question:

    -Under moslem morality it is immoral to charge interest.
    -Under Christian morality it is OK (at least I think)
     to charge interest.

>It seems to *me* that both these statements are OK.  Are
>you saying that charging interest is either moral or immoral?
>Which one would you pick and why?

        I believe it is okay to say that Muslem's believe
that it is wrong to charge interest and Christians believe it
is okay to charge interest; just as there is no contradiction
to hold that Scientist Jones believes that dinosaurs were warm
blooded and Scientist Smith believes that they were cold blooded.
However, assume a Muslem says that it is really wrong--a moral
absolute--to charge interest and the Christian says that is
really permissible--also a moral absolute--to charge interest.
At least one of them must be mistaken, just as at least one of
the scientists must be mistaken with respect to the facts about
dinosaurs.

        One could deny that there are moral absolutes; that X's
being wrong merely consists in a person's believing that it is
wrong.  The charge is that the mistake which the Muslem and the
Christian make is in thinking that what (their) God prescribes
really is the moral truth.  This is a popular move (and I believe
that this is your prescription).  This also has problems.  To
begin with, it is (as Robert and others have argued) a substan-
tive theological claim.  It rules out of bounds certain religious
views and beliefs; namely, the belief that "God knows what is in
fact the moral truth of the matter."  One can not consistently
make such a claim and insist that it is inappropriate to talk
about theology.

        Second, subjectivism with respect to morality in general
is often thought to follow from subjectivity with respect to
values.  However, if values really are subjective, then there
is a problem with making any type of evaluative claim.  Assume
that we replace appeal to religious beliefs to appeal to a harm
principle.  "Harm" itself is a value-laden judgment.  The person
who holds that claims about 'harm' and 'benefit' can be objective
and knowable is being inconsistent in holding that (all) evalua-
tions are subjective.  Now, if some values are objective, then
by what grounds does one rule out objectivity with respect to
moral values?

        I would say that at least one of the two systems is
mistaken about the wrongness of charging interest.  The Muslem
system is mistaken.  And, the Christian system is correct (though
in all probability for the wrong reasons.)


>>                                     Richard A. Fyfe
                                        rf35@umail.umd.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics