<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2523" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>Ted, et al,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>The anguish you express in your post below
is that which philosophers, thinkers, etc. have felt for centuries:
The problem of establishing the truth of "First [Non-proven, assumed, etc.]
Principles" in ethics, politics, etc.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>So far as I know, no one has successfully
done so.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>Some "First Principles" must be assumed in
order to operate in daily life: For example: "The future will resemble the
past in some predictable way." The attempt to prove this principle results
in what is called "The Problem of Induction." When dealing with ethical
"First Principles", the problem is becomes much more
complex.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>I am unlikely to solve the "First
Principle" problem. I can only show that the other solutions offered so
far fail.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>The point of my response in the post below
is that the terms "right", "life", "liberty", "pursuit of happiness", etc. are
not well defined. They sound nice and seem to mean something, but as it
turns out, at best this something is different for almost everyone. When
you ask most people to define these terms precisely, you will not receive a
generally coherent, consistent answer but only an untestable restatement in
other words. Unless a precise meaning of a statement can be agreed
upon, no tests/observations/etc. for its truth can be agreed upon and
executed. My hope expressed in the previous post is that in the
future some more precise meaning of these terms can raise to the level of some
general agreement, thus allowing at least a heuristic measure of the truth of
statements using such terms.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>I once took a graduate course/seminar at
the U. of Minnesota where we spent the entire quarter
discussing/debating and attempting to define "right" as in ethical
"rights." We learned a lot, but of course we were not successful in
agreeing upon a universally acceptable definition nor a method of testing the
truth of statements that use that term except within various ethical systems
such as Utilitarianism which rely upon other unproven "First
Principles."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>Sad, but so far, true. Most of us
operate with some vague, unproven "First Principles" as a bases for our ethical
reasonings and actions. Such principles cannot, so far, be proven;
however, they can be disproved or made improbable by the application of logic
and observation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>To see just one of the pitfalls of using a
religious set of first ethical principles, think about the dilemma first
described by Socrates (or Plato writing in the voice of Socrates):</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4><STRONG>"Is X good because God says so, or
does God say 'X is good' because X (in fact) is
good."</STRONG> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>When you take time to carefully think this
dilemma out, neither alternative is very satisfactory, especially to the
religious.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>I leave it as an exercise to you and
others interested. This dilemma has been debated and discussed for
centuries. It is also used a test to see if a person has the intellectual
apparatus to understand some basic philosophical/epistemological concepts.
As a hint of the difficulties involved, a discussion of "rights", "good", etc.
generally takes place in meta-language, not in ordinary everyday, object
language.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4>Happy contemplating.</FONT></DIV><FONT
face="Verdana Ref" size=4>
<DIV><BR>Wayne</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Wayne A. Fox<BR><A href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">waf@moscow.com</A><BR>PO
Box 9421<BR>Moscow, ID 83843<BR>208 882-7975</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana Ref" size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Tbertruss@aol.com
href="mailto:Tbertruss@aol.com">Tbertruss@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, November 20, 2004 12:33
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Vision2020] Unalienable Rights:
Historic Precedence</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=arial,helvetica><FONT lang=0 face=Arial size=2
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10"><BR>Wayne et. al.<BR><BR>Thanks for your
friendly reply.<BR><BR>"...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness:"
fundamental "unalienable Rights!" I grew up with these words echoing
passionately in my mind! How many Americans, and that means nearly every
American, with almost all of us speaking these words at one time or another,
deeply consider what these words mean?<BR><BR>Wayne wrote:<BR></FONT><FONT
lang=0 style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" face=Arial color=#000000 size=4
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="14" BACK="#ffffff"><BR>Without wishing to sound
like a traitor, I think the statement at issue is neither true nor false, like
its sometimes cited corollary: "That which governs least, governs
best.</FONT><FONT lang=0 style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" face=Arial
color=#000000 size=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="12"
BACK="#ffffff"><BR> <BR></FONT><FONT lang=0
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" face=Arial color=#000000 size=4
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="14" BACK="#ffffff">Both statements are like the
following statement:</FONT><FONT lang=0 style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"
face=Arial color=#000000 size=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="12"
BACK="#ffffff"><BR></FONT><FONT lang=0 style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"
face=Arial color=#000000 size=4 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="14"
BACK="#ffffff"> <BR>"The square root of a minus tush abdicates
salt."</FONT><FONT lang=0 style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" face=Arial
color=#000000 size=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="12"
BACK="#ffffff"><BR></FONT><FONT lang=0 style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"
face=Arial color=#000000 size=4 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="14"
BACK="#ffffff"> <BR>All three statements are syntactically correct and
sound like possibly true or false English statements. But because their
meaning is so vague and ambiguous, it is not possible to determine their truth
except by deducing them from other equally vague, ambiguous
statements.<BR><BR>Ted replies:<BR><BR>But what happened to the fundamental
concept of "unalienable Rights?" A statement containing this concept is
not the same as "that which governs least governs best" nor "the square root
of a minus tush abdicates salt." These statements do not attempt to
confer upon all human beings fundamental universal rights. One merely
expresses a theory about how much government is best, the other is nonsense,
of course. A statement asserting unalienable Rights, like the famous
quote from the Declaration of Independence I used to illustrate my point,
does! I do not think this is a trivial difference. The statement
quoted from the Declaration of Independence may be vague and ambiguous in some
respects, but it certainly attempts to introduce "unalienable
Rights."<BR><BR>And furthermore, you also write:</FONT><FONT lang=0
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" face=Arial color=#000000 size=3
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="12" BACK="#ffffff"><BR></FONT><FONT lang=0
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" face=Arial color=#000000 size=4
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="14" BACK="#ffffff"><BR>I think it is possible to
recast "</FONT><FONT lang=0 style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #99ccff" face=Arial
color=#000000 size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10" BACK="#99ccff">Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness</FONT><FONT
lang=0 style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" face=Arial color=#000000 size=4
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="14" BACK="#ffffff">"into a less dogmatic, more
flexible series of statements which may be found to be heuristically true
(or false) by observations in certain contexts. <BR><BR>Ted
replies:<BR><BR>So if you think the statement from the Declaration of
Independence I quoted can be recast into other statements that are true "in
certain contexts," are you denying that there are "unalienable Rights" that
apply to all human beings all the time?<BR><BR>It would seem from your
statement that this is indeed your conclusion, though you do not quite come
out and say it plainly.<BR><BR>I trust you realize the consequences of taking
such a position? <BR>If slavery is not wrong all the time for all
people, how are we to argue against those who make relativistic arguments
supporting slavery in some contexts, like Doug "Don't you progressives realize
relativism means relativism?!" Wilson, who though trashing progressives for
introducing moral chaos, himself introduces moral relativism regarding what
some view as the "absolute" wrong of slavery, in his views on the Biblical
ethical approach to the American South and the Confederacy.<BR><BR>I do not
believe that observation and testing alone will get us to any principles of
Ethics with "unalienable Rights." Some kind of universal logical
statements must be inserted somewhere into an Ethical system if it is to have
any claim to "unalienable Rights." Introducing "God" into an Ethical
system can solve the problem, which no doubt is part of the appeal of religion
for many. It offers what appears to be a solid ground for "unalienable
Rights." Of course this really does not solve the problems, because as
you have pointed out over and over, and every fair observer perceives, there
are countless "Gods" asserting a variety of conflicting moral rules, and the
concept of "God" itself requires some sort of basis in observation and logical
evaluation, unless you take the total "faith" approach to justify belief in
God, the later approach introducing chaos into the system, because anything
goes if you just rely ONLY on "faith." "I had "faith" the family dog was
speaking in "God's" voice and told me to give all my money to the
Moonies!"<BR><BR>I think though that there are some commonalties among many
spiritual traditions that do offer a starting point for attempting to develop
a more universal Ethics based on these commonalties: ethical rules against
murder, theft, lying, and an emphasis on "peace" as a value, etc., that many
spiritual traditions emphasize. The devil is in the details though, so
this approach has many pitfalls.<BR><BR>I am inclined to disagree, if what I
am asserting does disagree with your position, that there is no valid basis
using facts and logical principles to develop an ethics that introduces
"unalienable Rights" into an ethical system, rights which we apply all the
time to all human beings in all contexts, not just "certain contexts," as you
so cleverly put it.<BR><BR>Consider the "hot" moral topic of torture.
This debate is ongoing in public right now, because of the so called "War On
Terror." Some side with use of torture to gain information to save the
thousands of lives at stake in a terrorist attack, others say we become just
as bad as the terrorists if we use their tactics, that the means in this case
do not justify the ends, and that torture is an "absolute" moral wrong.
Applying the ethical approach I assume you are taking, we could justify
torture: no "unalienable Right" to happiness for all, which I think torture
destroys, there.<BR><BR>Indeed there are serious problems with using fact and
reason to establish "unalienable Rights." And also with how we can
include in Ethics spiritual issues that are fundamental for billions of human
beings, without ending up at each others throats over conflicting "absolute"
ethical "God given" rules, that end up justifying war against the
nonbelievers, with war being a very undesirable result from many ethical
viewpoints! <BR><BR>I do think the concept of "unalienable Rights" very
important. And I do not think it should be tossed aside without pausing
for a long time to consider the consequences of what this means, pausing for a
few thousand years, at least.<BR><BR>This is wandering a bit off topic, but
isn't it a joke that Bush with his grand moral convictions that never waver
based on his religious faith, is heading a system of government that is using
"morally relativistic" arguments to justify horrific torture of other human
beings in prosecuting the "War On Terror," some of whom are certainly
innocents caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, to fight
"evil?"<BR><BR>Ted
Moffett<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></FONT></BODY></HTML>