Originally posted by siam
View Post
1) Striking with hammer---boulder vs child
Thought experiments that do not account for diverse circumstances may be inadequate/inaccurate? For example, Mt Rushmore in the U.S. is carved with faces---but this was sacred ground to the Native Americans who thought of it as defacement. Likewise, Mt Fuji in Japan is considered sacred and tourists defacing it with graffiti carvings or trash is upsetting to many. So too, a doctor rebreaking a child's bone to reset it correctly may be a necessary and good action...or when an accident has occurred and the only way to save the life of a child/adult might be to sever a trapped limb....?....
Rigidity in ethico-moral discourse can lead to injustice....and perhaps even oppression.....
Thought experiments that do not account for diverse circumstances may be inadequate/inaccurate? For example, Mt Rushmore in the U.S. is carved with faces---but this was sacred ground to the Native Americans who thought of it as defacement. Likewise, Mt Fuji in Japan is considered sacred and tourists defacing it with graffiti carvings or trash is upsetting to many. So too, a doctor rebreaking a child's bone to reset it correctly may be a necessary and good action...or when an accident has occurred and the only way to save the life of a child/adult might be to sever a trapped limb....?....
Rigidity in ethico-moral discourse can lead to injustice....and perhaps even oppression.....
2) Binaries/dualities---Yin/Yang are often thought of as complimentary binaries rather than opposing binaries. Regardless of "reality" (metaphysic) as unity, duality, or multiplicity...if we understand these "elements"/concepts as necessary and complimentary, rather than as opposing and one element more significant than the other...perhaps our metaphysic may be more flowing/elastic and a better fit for "reality"...?....If we were to assume harmony/balance/peace as the purpose of creation (equilibrium) then it would be easier to accommodate difference?---Divine rules/laws ("values") as of a different grade than human ethics which would be different from animal/plants (laws of ecosystems)...etc....
3)Justice---If we focus on harmony/balance as a core "force"/direction of creation then it might be helpful to consider Justice not just as a "value" but as a framework within which we/humans form systems of ethico-moral intentions/actions for our societies. Just as creation works within a framework of (physics) "laws " ---humanity could consider "Justice" as a tool for the achievement of balance and harmony (= Peace) within societies..?....
In the Quranic story of Abel and Cain---the dispute between the 2 brothers led to bloodshed and so "laws/Justice" was advised by God for humanity....the restoration of balance and harmony within human relations leading to peace.
Therefore...what is permissible (right) and what is not permissible (wrong) are two complimentary concepts that can be part of a system of "measure" with which we consider the weight of ethico-moral "values" under varying circumstances in order to arrive at the most "just" thing to do that can contribute to balance and harmony leading to peace.
......U defined "value" as measure of the mixture between truth and falsity---correct?
In the Quranic story of Abel and Cain---the dispute between the 2 brothers led to bloodshed and so "laws/Justice" was advised by God for humanity....the restoration of balance and harmony within human relations leading to peace.
Therefore...what is permissible (right) and what is not permissible (wrong) are two complimentary concepts that can be part of a system of "measure" with which we consider the weight of ethico-moral "values" under varying circumstances in order to arrive at the most "just" thing to do that can contribute to balance and harmony leading to peace.
......U defined "value" as measure of the mixture between truth and falsity---correct?
I read a blog recently where a fellow argued for the truth of social construction, offering evidence that society can agree to call “red” “blue” and vise versa, where our experience of red is called blue and the reverse. This, he claimed, proves that societies and cultures are in control of truth. Claims like this seem to miss the distinction between instrumental truths—with which humans have a measure of control—and truth simpliciter or intrinsic truth. As agents we have the freedom to assign truths to our own constructs. We print paper/cloth money and assign values to various bills of our choosing. We can call it true that a fire truck is a fire hydrant and a hydrant a truck, but if we do so alone and without consensus we’re going to have some trouble if we speak much about fire trucks and hydrants to others.
Instrumental truths are ours to create and change. A building is true to the extent it meets its designed goals—to provide safety and comfort as well as utilitarian practicality and aesthetically pleasing features to the liking of its inhabitants. It becomes falsified to the extent these features deteriorate or are neglected. But intrinsic truth is found. Was it true that a given solar system in a given galaxy formed from the gasses of the big bang at the time in the universe’s creation that it formed, or was this not true until there was a human mind to acknowledge it? Some truth, moral truths included, are intrinsic. This is the truth that can’t be changed. It can be hidden to suit the purposes of those who profit from its misuse, but truth remains absolute and unscathed. The powers that form cultures can create temporary pseudo moral truths, but these are instrumental distortions of the absolute, which are pirated for a time, because the effects of falsity in the information of minds creates ambiguity and unknowing with respect to the absolute nature of intrinsic prescriptive truth. We can never see absolute truth clearly, only sense its presence intuitively.
4) Evolution/linear progress---If evolution is used as an argument for linear "progress" of ethico-moral thoughts/systems from "primitive" to "cultured"/progressive---then I would have to disagree. Such arguments for "superiority" of one system over another are problematic IMO. Instead if we consider human history as cycles of action, reaction, counteraction...flowing towards equilibrium then both sides of the equilibrium---enlightened/civilized vs ignorant/barbaric are a necessary complimentary ingredient of a vibrant "system"....?
5) U wrote "Cultural norms as integrated systems of beliefs and practices are morally "right or wrong" according to their statistical relation to "absolute truth".
Lets say, "absolute truth" = Unity,...the expression of this concept in various cultures and languages will be diverse...therefore the judge of "right/wrong" with regards to their expressed "truth" resides with the community of the believers/followers of that "truth" and not with another....so, even if truth is one---it generates a multiplicity of expressions/practices.
Lets say, "absolute truth" = Unity,...the expression of this concept in various cultures and languages will be diverse...therefore the judge of "right/wrong" with regards to their expressed "truth" resides with the community of the believers/followers of that "truth" and not with another....so, even if truth is one---it generates a multiplicity of expressions/practices.
Comment