From: david@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu (David Kaufmann)
Subject: Re: Child abuse ordered by god
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-28762]: bourbon
Organization: Department of Electrical Engineering, Tulane Univ.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:49:17 GMT


In article <9301261222.AA20400@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> I3150101@DBSTU1.RZ.TU-BS.DE (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:
>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. 

>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.
>
I didn't imply disagreement: I stated it directly. But even more than
I disagree with the fallacious assumptions of secular humanism (and
they are logically fallacious; ask a secular philosopher), I dislike
the misunderstanding of them into an ethics of hamburger and beer
commercials, i.e., used to "justify" an ethics of personal pleasure
and taste.

>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.
>
No, you don't have the right to judge something you don't understand
from any age. And if you don't care, don't waste bandwith.

>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.
>
"Deuteronomium"?!? Is this a new element? I-me-mine. I-I-I. Arrogance
and egotism, but no logical basis for judgment, has been presented.

>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)'.
>
And insult. Let me point out that an "attitude" is not a reasoned
analysis, but an attitude does illustrate a person's bias and
thinking. What does it say about someone who finds nothing
reprehensible about Hitler, but does about a book that contains the
Ten Commandments?

>
>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.
>
The only sentence that makes sense here is the third, and quite
frankly, it's ignorant of what Deuteronomy says and how it's been
understood (by Jews and non-Jews) for 3300 years.

>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.
>
Deuteronomy comparable to totalitarianism? 
The prejudice and ignorance speaks for itself.

>>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 question WAS debated before and during the Nuremberg Trials. The
decision to conduct them was based on an assumption that there exists
an absolute morality - and this absolute morality was derived by
the judges from Deuteronomy and statements like, Proclaim liberty
throughout the land, etc.

>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.
>
Human Rights needs to be defined - and then analyzed.

>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.
>
Without a definition, a development of that definition into a set of
general principles, and an application of those principles to
specific legal issues, the term "human rights" is a bogeyman.

>>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.
>
No, it says that an individual's reason (or lack thereof) is not
sufficient to determine morality, and therefore collective human
reason is not sufficient. There is a critical difference, logically,
between necessary and sufficient, however. Reason, btw, does not mean
saying I like it; reason means applying logic and analysis, and
recognizing that axioms cannot be analyzed.
a
The hubris of self-sufficient reasoning is far more dangerous than the
humble approach of judging with trepidation, because aware of the
limits of the basis for judgment.

>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.
>
You really should read Deuteronomy. A statement that "it is not in
heaven" is hardly a supernatural ploy. And you should also read some
philosophy. The great philosophers don't consider metaphysics or
metarationality, with its "supernatural content" a ploy.

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

Your misunderstanding of Deuteronomy, Judaism, morality, logic and
l'havdil, totalitarianism is insulting, bigoted and absurd.


David Kaufmann
INTERNET:	david@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27287 talk.origins:16585