[MD] Marsha's Relativism

[MarshaV]

Hi Steve,

Do you have one universal definition of 'slavery'?


Marsha
 
 


-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Steve Peterson
Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 9:17 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Marsha's Relativism

Hi Bo,


> Steve and All.
>
> 21 Aug. you wrote:
>
>> I wasn't saying that a moral claim is no different from a statement
>> of mathematical fact. What I was suggesting is that there is no
>> difference in what we mean by the word 'true' in the sentences "it
>> is true that slavery is wrong" and "it is true that 2+2=4."
>> Obviously, the sentences are very different, but I think 'true' is
>> used in the same way in both. Do you agree or do you think that
>> there is a difference in usage of 'true' in these two sentences?
>
> We must understand what the Greek TRUTH was, namely SOM (the
> intellectual level IMO). People from time immemorial knew intuitively
> that 2+2=4 and applied it on calculations of all kinds, they also 
> intuited
> the well-known "logic gates" (I'm a bit rusty on this, but one is "If 
> so,
> then") Thinking is based on it.  However, people of old did not regard
> this as "truth" or speculated on realities in which this don't apply.
>
> The Greek development was the emergence of an OBJECTIVE reality
> the first stage of which was Truth  different from Appearance and then
> the various stages  as described in ZAMM, but always the permanent,
> immutably, imperishable part as opposed to the apparent, seemingly,
> perishable  fleeting part (with the prefix "just") . So you see  
> "Truth" is
> this Objective Reality and from this the various academical disciplines
> grew.
>
> The intuitive calculation that the Egyptians and Babylonians (just)
> applied without speculating why 2+2 added to 4 or why the squares of
> the legs of a triangle were = the square of the hypotenuse .. etc.
> became subject to Greek "theorems" that proved why it had to be that
> way .. OBJECTIVELY. So you see, Steve, 2+2=4 only BECAME a truth
> after the notion of TRUTH  arrived on the scene.
>
> Similarly slavery only became morally wrong after intellectual value
> had made it on to the Western scene (objectively seen all humans are
> born free and have equal rights ...etc)  the American and French
> revolutions milestones in this development. Then it became "true that
> slavery is wrong". Before that no discussion if slavery was wrong from
> any higher principle existed, it was tradition. Religions (the semitic
> types at least ) are very "tolerant" regarding inequality, the Old
> Testament Christendom was behind the old social order of kings,
> nobility and serfdom in Eorope.
>


Steve:
All I was trying to get at is whether there is something different 
about the way the word "true" is used in moral assertions as compared 
to factual assertions.

I've also been trying to distinguish justification from truth. Your 
comments about the ancients not having access to the such intellectual 
values as human universal human rights is not an argument that slavery 
was not immoral but rather that the ancients may have been justified in 
believing that slavery was not immoral even though it was immoral.

Best,
Steve

Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/