Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.jewish Subject: Re: Noachic laws (disagreeing with Rosen) Message-ID: <463@fisher.UUCP> Date: Fri, 4-Jan-85 08:48:05 EST Article-I.D.: fisher.463 Posted: Fri Jan 4 08:48:05 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Jan-85 03:19:06 EST References: <341@pyuxd.UUCP>, <1307@eosp1.UUCP> <20980044@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <349@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics Lines: 23 Xref: watmath net.religion:5212 net.religion.jewish:1191 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. 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. (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. David Rubin