esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (11/20/84)
Densinger's errors center on this assertion: >> 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. Densinger goes on: >> This is why making personal moral decisions is so difficult ... If Densinger were right it wouldn't be difficult, it would be IMPOSSIBLE. The very concept of human freedom depends on our ability to know what norms apply to us. Tense, painful moral decisions are disvaluable, not valuable. It would be nice (though the possibility is purely hypothetical) if tough decisions were unnecessary. Tense decisions are also no paradigm of freedom. The less certain a decision is (if correct), the less free. (The more certain the less free if the decision is incorrect.) Densinger argues that "legalization is different because it is an arena in which the ... rules are known ... Laws are human-made ...". What he fails to realize is that laws can be criticized from a moral/philosophical point of view. Laws can be human-unmade too. The mere fact that our country has certain laws or Constitutional principles says nothing about what we should do. Densinger should reflect that the same Kant to whom he refers upheld the thesis that moral truths are humanly knowable and that universalizable principles can and must be used. There are limits to the limits of human reason. --The THIRD side, Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's. Thanks.
densinge@stolaf.UUCP (Charles W. Densinger) (11/26/84)
>Densinger's errors center on this assertion: >>> 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. Paul Torek and I are talking about two different things: subjectivity and objectivity. I do not believe that humans can know objective truth, and I used the capital T above to indicate this. Knowledge of eternal, universal, objective truth can be had only by an eternal, omniscienct being. Paul misunderstands me if he thinks I am suggesting that there are no human truths. We have to have things we believe in in order to get out of bed in the morning. My campaign is against those who claim to have access to eternal knowledge, to Right and Wrong, to Truth. When we make claims of this nature, we are attempting to grab onto some measure of objectivity. We want something sure, tangible. Why do we need this? Because we are terrified of our limitations, that we might not really know. We might not know, for instance, the solution to the abortion question. I am not a dreary skeptic. In fact, I feel that the only way to avoid cynicism and hopeless skepticism if to confront the realities of our predicament as human beings. If Paul knows what he is saying when he says that "moral truth is human truth," fine. Most people don't. Human truth is subjective and limited. We can only really know our own picture and what fits within it. Too many people (all of us, at times, including myself) mistake subjective certitudes for objectivity. I KNOW murder is morally, universally, eternally WRONG. How? We can't say much more than "Because I just do." What Paul is really talking about is subjective truth, not objective truth, and what we must remember with subjective truth is that every subject has a different truth. >>> This is why making personal moral decisions is so difficult ... >If Densinger were right it wouldn't be difficult, it would be IMPOSSIBLE. >The very concept of human freedom depends on our ability to know what >norms apply to us... >Tense, painful moral decisions are disvaluable, not valuable. It would be >nice (though the possibility is purely hypothetical) if tough decisions were >unnecessary. Tense decisions are also no paradigm of freedom. The less >certain a decision is (if correct), the less free. (The more certain the less >free if the decision is incorrect.) It seems clear to me that if making moral decisions were not difficult, no one would be immoral. I think Paul is deluding himself if he thinks that it is easy to make decisions like whether to return the extra change you got from the cashier or not or whether to report the crime you witnessed or to stay uninvolved, much less a decision like whether or not to have an abortion. Difficulty in making a decision is often a sign of the value that situation has for us; we do not agonize over things we don't care about. Other than this, I do not care to say much about Paul's comments. He uses the word "tense" where I used the word difficult. These are not the same and are not necessarily even related. Many tasks are difficult without making us tense. I think he is making a mistake in aligning freedom with easy decisions. Life is not, nor ought it to be easy. We generally value those accomplishments we have made which have been difficult or have demanded much of us. >Densinger should reflect that the same Kant to whom he refers upheld the >thesis that moral truths are humanly knowable and that universalizable >principles can and must be used. There are limits to the limits of human >reason. Kant fails, I think, in his attempt to re-establish morality after he blasts pure reason. He feels uncomfortable with his groundlessness. It is here that Kierkegaard offers the world a great insight. Kierkegaard it quite comfortable with the limits of reason which deny humans eternal knowledge, and so am I. -Chuck Densinger {decvax|ihnp4}!stolaf!densinge
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (11/27/84)
> > I do not believe that humans can know objective truth. > Yikes! "Objective truth!" Whatever this could be, contained in the statment above is the assertion that we cannot know it. The unknowable is uninteresting and had no affect on our lives. I think Paul Watzlawick said it best, "the only way to be objective is to not be there." (in *Change* somewhere). "What is true is that which it is best for us to believe." William James -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 ihnp4!pesnta -\ fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny ucbvax!twg -/