Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-k.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-k!tim
From: tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: Noachic laws (disagreeing with Rosen)
Message-ID: <20980050@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 5-Jan-85 14:43:29 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-k.20980050
Posted: Sat Jan  5 14:43:29 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 8-Jan-85 03:04:19 EST
References: <463@fisher.UUCP>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 91
Xref: watmath net.religion:5229 net.religion.jewish:1201

In a message, with a number you won't remember, but which is stored in the
header above for those who really want to know it, for whatever perverse
reason, probably for some illegal purpose (don't mind me, I just love
digressions), from site "fisher", David Rubin informs us that:

>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.

That makes sense only if you ignore the fact that polytheism is expressly
forbidden by the Noachic laws!  It would be pretty hard to make any case
that forbidding polytheism is "not an attempt to impose religious precepts",
wouldn't you say, David?

>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.

Agreed.  I have disagreed with the particulars.  So far I have gotten no
specific response, just claims of the sort David made above that it is just
an attempt to provide a general ethical standard.  I am still waiting for
someone to either say that they have decided the polytheistic prohibition is
invalid, or to defend the prohibition on some grounds not derived from
monotheistic dogma and prejudices.

(Incidentally, I disagree with the whole Code of Hammurabi/list of taboos
approach to ethics, which monotheistic systems inherited from ancient
monarchies.  I believe in general principles which should be used to
determine whether any particular act is ethical, not in enumerating the
possible transgressions.  So I would have to say that I disagree with the
whole approach of the Noachic code.)

>	(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

This is off the point, since I don't repudiate ethics.  However, a point of
philosophical interest is that the repudiation of universal ethics does not
require the repudiation of a deity, and an acceptance of universal ethics
does not require the acceptance of a deity.  Consider the Buddhist
perspective, particularly as put forth in "The Supreme Net".  If there is a
deity or there are deities, they are just other beings in nature.  Their
existence does not define ethics in any sense -- their opinions are simply
their own opinions.  It is even possible to conceive of a malign, immoral
Creator deity -- although of course his followers would claim that his power
gave some special status to his opinions.  (This is a rather appalling form
of ethics-by-thuggery, also known as "might makes right", and it disturbs me
that forms of it are so widespread.)

Ethical laws are determined solely by the constitution of man and the
universe, regardless of their source.  We are so configured that certain
things cause us pain, others pleasure, and ethics is the means of
eliminating unnnecessary pain and maximizing the pleasure of all.  (By
"pleasure" I mean anything we find desirable, and by "pain" anything we find
undesirable.  Of course, many systems claim that there is "something beyond
this" to the system, as if it were possible for there to be a thing more
desirable than any desirable thing....) The whims of any being, whether
composed of matter, ectoplasm, or wombat hide, have no effect on the nature
of existence, and thus have no bearing on ethics.

It is of course possible to use a monotheistic ethical model without the
ethics-by-thuggery aspect, although in practice this is rare.  Here, the
Creator set the nature of human existence in the act of creation, and thus
knows best the ethical principles of the universe.  Ethics is then reduced
to the study of some book purportedly revealed by the Creator.  Perhaps
unfortunately, study of such books shows that they all contain things which
are most easily attributable to the cultural prejudices of the persons who
claimed revelation, and so one has to pick and choose based on one's own
interpretation and understanding, which is a return to square one.  Here
also the issue of possible malignity of the Creator arises, as well as the
fact that creating something does not imply all-encompassing knowledge of
its nature and behavior (as any programmer knows).
-=-
Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center
ARPA:	Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K	uucp:	seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim
CompuServe:	74176,1360	audio:	shout "Hey, Tim!"

"Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are
but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains."
Liber AL, II:9.