From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Nov 24 2002 - 21:55:13 MST
Lee Corbin wrote:
>> I said that we can agree to the existence of moral
>> truths in the same way that we agree to the existence
>> of mathematical truths.
However if you were to study the evolution of the idea of rights during
the renaissance you would find that it was quite logical, not much
different from the development of a mathematical system like, say,
Euclidean geometry. Certain axioms are considered true; the entire
system evolves from those axioms. This is not to say that other systems
might not evolve (for example the ethics of communism vs the ethics of
capitalism) but rather it is to say that the evolution of a system of
morality, law and ethics is ordered and structured much like a system of
mathematics.
For example there is a fundamental principle or axiom called "the right
of first possession." This axiom states that the first person who comes
into possession of an object in the world is the natural owner of that
object. There is no person with a prior claim to it, thus it is
rightfully his. This idea is not demonstrated much in the modern world
as most objects in the world are already owned. However it was a key
idea in the devolopment of civilization. We still see it sometimes in
the form of homesteading laws.
The original, natural owner of an object is free to do as he pleases
with it. He may keep it, destroy it, trade it, sell it, etc. His natural
right to sell or trade it gives birth to the "right to contract". And so
on.
> Whereas I see them as two entirely different kinds of
> things. Mathematical truths can be *proved* (in the
> non-formal sense of supplying rigorous and non-value
> based argument accessible to everyone), and moral
> truths *cannot*.
Many very reasonable people would disagree with you, people such as
Locke and Mill and others, to say nothing of Jefferson and all the
founding fathers of this country in which you live.
>> e.g., "We hold these truths to be *self-evident*,
>> that all men are created equal, that they are
>> endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
>> the pursuit of Happiness."
>
> And naturally, if I had written it or had been
> consulted, I would have avoided use of the word
> "truths".
As would any good sophist.
>> Please differentiate between the meanings of
>> these two sentences, the first of which you
>> have claimed ownership but the second of
>> which you deny:
>>
>> "I disapprove of slavery; I think blacks in
>> America ought not have been enslaved."
>>
>> and
>>
>> "I disapprove of slavery; I think blacks in
>> America had a natural right to be free prior
>> to their legal emancipation."
>
> The second one refers to something that I
> have never found a referent for. I would
> regard the sentence "I think blacks in
> America were being unjustly treated in the
> eyes of God".
There is nothing in that second sentence that refers to the "eyes of
God."
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:22 MST