[lit-ideas] Re: Inner Moral Law
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 00:59:59 -0400
> [Original Message]
> From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 8/1/2005 11:30:05 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Inner Moral Law
>
> Andy Amago wrote:
>
> "I said what works for millennia."
>
> Why pick millennia? Why not decades or months? Seems a bit arbitrary.
> But this is the least of Andy's problems.
>
> First, whatever else we mean by 'truth', we mean that it gets right the
> way things are. On Andy's account of 'what works for millennia', it is
> obvious that we have various competing accounts, that have endured over
> millennia, of how things are. I gave the example of religions, several
> of which have worked over millennia, but there are many other examples.
> On Andy's account, we could have at least two incompatible 'truths'.
> Given what we mean by 'truth', this is incoherent.
>
Religion has existed for millennia. It has not worked, however.
> Second, also when we talk about 'truth', we mean something that won't be
> 'not true' in the future. On Andy's account, there is no reason why
> something that works for millennia might stop working. The world
> changes, so why shouldn't what works in the world? On Andy's account,
> we could have something that is true but shortly thereafter not be true.
> Given what we mean by 'truth', this is incoherent.
I need an illustration of what you're saying.
>
> Third, there is still the problem of how to reconcile the particularity
> of 'what works in this case' with Andy's 'what works for millennia'.
> The problem is that Andy elides the difference between principle and
> application. For example, there is the principle 'Tell the truth' but
> there is an important difference between the answers to the questions
> 'Do you love me?' and 'Does this outfit make me look fat?'. What works
> for one question most likely will not work for the other. How can we
> understand this difference when we are told to look for 'what works for
> millennia'? The principle certainly does extend over millennia but how
> can the knowledge regarding inter-personal relations? The fact is that
> very little of 'what works' extends over millennia, something especially
> true over the last century.
>
You're right in that humanity has had to rethink nearly everything in its
trek toward civilization. But, some truths are in fact self evident and
will never change over millennia. Those are the truths we're talking about.
> There are philosophers who do think that practices enduring over a long
> period of time are significant, but only as an indication of something
> being true. For some philosophers, what matters is that a practice is
> 'long term coherent' and that such coherence lends justification to
> holding a proposition as true, or a practice as aiming towards producing
> true propositions. The difference between this approach and Andy's is
> Andy's claim that what works is true instead of merely justified.
> Andy's claim is incoherent but there is reason to think that 'what works
> for millennia' can be a kind of justification. Just ask the Pope.
>
>
What works for millennia are basic things that society needs to function,
such as it cannot tolerate random killing; somebody has to be responsible
for offspring, etc. The Ten Commandments in this sense are not truths; they
are only like truths in that they are elemental, universal demands for law
and order, as necessary as food and water for society to survive. The
truths of the DOI go one step further. They are affirmations of elemental,
universal drives for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, granted to
all men by virtue of being alive. Conversely, right and wrong changes
continually. .
I want to thank Robert Paul for his comments regarding the Ten
Commandments. It is disappointing that they are tied to religion.
However, the need for them transcends religion. I would imagine the Greeks
and Romans organized their societies around statutory law, essentially
winding up in the same place. Regarding the fact that the Ten Commandments
were aimed only at men, that is a theme that runs throughout history. The
DOI was also aimed at white men.
Veronica's account of (some?) Japanese children being taught not to hurt
others sounds like the very thing the world needs. I wonder how this fits
in with Japanese dislike for foreigners. I've heard contradictory accounts
of Japanese life, some of which were rather negative.
Andy Amago
> Sincerely,
>
> Phil Enns
> Toronto, ON
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
