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