Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.jewish Subject: Re: Noachic laws (disagreeing with Rosen) Message-ID: <354@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Fri, 4-Jan-85 21:16:24 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.354 Posted: Fri Jan 4 21:16:24 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Jan-85 03:51:05 EST References: <341@pyuxd.UUCP>, <1307@eosp1.UUCP> <20980044@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <349@pyuxd.UUCP> <463@fisher.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 43 Xref: watmath net.religion:5215 net.religion.jewish:1196 [In this article, Rich Rosen says:] > The Noachic laws are not an attempt to impose religous precepts on > non- or other- believers, but rather an assertion that much of > morality can be derived by universal standard INDEPENDENT of religous > faith. They are an implicit acknowledgement that men of differing > beliefs can disagree on many moral issues, but that reason and > humanity demand certain behavior of all people. [DAVID RUBIN] An assertion that one particular position on "universal morality" should be accepted by others who had no say in the formation of the precepts. > Dissent to them takes one of two forms: > (1) Disagreement with the particulars (e.g. propose amendment, > omission, or addition to the list). This, however, does > not undercut the justification for such a set of laws. I didn't see the convention during which members of other groups could make such proposals. In most cases of such imposed moralities the notion of such proposals is the furthest thing from the minds of those who formulated the precepts. And there's quite a lot to disagree with, there (e.g., blasphemy: as I said before, it's something that we'd be better off REQUIRING instead of PROHIBITING!). > (2) Absolute relativism (i.e. the assertion that there are NO > universal morals). This requires not only the repudiation > of a divinity, but also the repudiation of ethics as a > field of rational endeavor, and thus contradicts both > Jewish and Western (a.k.a. Greek) heritages. From here > there is no refuge from force occupying the role of > final arbiter of human destiny. What about the middle ground between arbitrary "these-are-the-rules-for-you- whether-you-like-it-or-not" ideals and absolute relativism? This reminds me of Bickford's claims that without a rigid set of theocratic laws, we'd be reduced to what is described above. Nonsense! What about the minimal rational moral ideals I've described endless times before? I wasn't the first to put them forth. I think this Jewish guy named Yeshua (among others) said the same thing, although DuBois insists that tolerance of other human beings had little to do with what was being said. -- "Those without forms must appear, however briefly, at the Bureau's Astral Offices on Nooker Street..." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr