From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Nov 25 2002 - 10:04:41 MST
gts wrote:
>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.
>
There were certain parallels in their development, as would be expected
considering that they were developed in overlapping groups of people.
The differences, however, were quite substantial. Moral theory
substitued the concept of argument for the concept of proof. And these
aren't equivalent in their implications. Also, moral theory was never
satisfactorially axiomitized, and many of the terms that had generally
accepted use didn't have good definitions.
Were you to be claiming that it was important, I would agree with you.
But it's relationship to mathematics is less close than the relationship
between sociology and quantuum mechanics.
>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.
>
But the homesteading laws work by ignoring prior possessors of the
land. There is no well defined "right of first possession" that has any
actual application, except, possibly, in the realm of patent or
copyright law. And if you examine patent law as applied, then you will
discover that it certainly isn't applied in any way that could be called
fair or even honest. Copyright law I'm less certain of. Prior to the
DMCA, it appeared to be a reasonable body of law, if excessively
extended (the repeated lengthenings of the period of coverage at the
behest of corporate entities is a best questionable). Since the,
however, it has lost all claim to moral validity, and now depends purely
on coercion.
Also, the "right" doesn't easily lend itself to the drawing of rigorous
inferences. It's very form of statement limits it to particular cases.
> ...
>
>>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.
>
But they, themselves, did not attempt a formal axiomitisation. They
were more interested in social and political goals. For those goals,
the tools of rhetoric tend to work more forcefully than formal logic.
But unlike formal logic, they can't be used to prove correctness.
Assert it, yes, and to make it appealing, of course. That's their
purpose. But not to prove. In fact, they have evolved to resist
attempts at proof, as the peopel who use these tools are frequently
attempting to convince people of things which are clearly false.
>>>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."
>>>
A great phrase. Moving. Effective. But full of ill-defined terms.
This is an example of the use of the tools of rhetoric being opposed to
logic. By not clearly defining the terms, a large variety of people
with different purposes and goals can be moved to emotional agreement.
And to believing that they are in genuine agreement, when they actually
have each defined the terms differently. Taken literally they are
totally silly. No two people are equal in more than a very few ways.
Height, perhaps. Instead of "unalienable" the word used was
"inalienable", a word which had no meaning in the dictionary. It was
invented for the Declaration. "their Creator"... a nice dodge, that.
The people who wrote this were not good Christians, but they new their
audience, so they substitued terms that would be acceptable both to them
and their audience. Parents would not have been quite as good. And the
term "rights" is never well defined. (They borrowed it from Locke, who
also didn't have a good definition.)
> .....
>
>-gts
>
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:22 MST