jtc78@ihuxm.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) (11/30/84)
> >> We simply CANNOT ever know moral Truth. > First of all, knock off that capital T. Second, it ain't so. We can so > know moral truth, using plain old human reason and experience. Note that > small t. Moral truth is human truth; if a norm is valid for humans then > it has to be knowable for us. It looks like this analysis of distinctions between 'T' and 't' is inspired by some confusion. One can subscribe to either of the two interpretations of morals: 1) Handed out to humans by ..... We know about those. 2) Current norms of behavior traced to social necessity. Not as powerfully defined, but well-explained by many people (I like Freud's The Future of an Illusion) Applying the word "Truth/truth" to morals can only make sense if you subscribe to 1. While different people believe in different things without being able to fetch proofs, the "Truth/truth" (commandments) will not be known. Probably that is what the original poster had in mind. Speaking of current ethical conventions and norms as of "moral truth" of "human truth" looks to me like stretching the language and proliferating some mystical mumbo-jumbo. It just isn't a meaningful descriptor for ethical norms related to social necessity. Uncle Sigmund would say - current state of collective superego. Back to abortion: With morals(1) you can postulate that abortion is immoral. Anti-abortionists correctly understand that "my religion says so" argument does not suffice and are coming up with arguments based on morals(2). So far, these arguments fall short - public is not totally convinced, more importantly :-) legislature is not totally convinced. Looking at current situation one can clearly see that in the world today abortion is opposed primarily by religionists. That fact alone does not mean much, but the connotation is that base of anti-abortionism in the realm of morals as manifestation of social necessity is much weaker then in the realm of deity- postulated morals. Mike Cherepov REPLIES TO ihnp4!ihlpm!cher