dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (09/28/86)
In article <5483@decwrl.DEC.COM> arndt@lymph.dec.com writes: >Greenleaf says, "... the proof of matters of fact rests upon >moral evidence alone; ... " MORAL EVIDENCE? Whuzzat? I'll suggest a couple possibilities of what Greenleaf might have meant by that line, you tell me which one you think he meant: 1) You can judged whether something is true by observing whether a person who believes it is immoral. Eg. Mr. X. believes in the theory of evolution, and Mr. X. is known to frequent houses of prostitution, therefore the theory of evolution is wrong. 2) A belief is true if it is morally better to believe it than to disbelieve it. Eg. just about any claim that belief in God is morally superior to skepticism. In a murder case, we might have to decide on whether or not the butler did it. This is a question of fact. Therefore, according to Mr. Greenleaf, only moral evidence is relevant. So do we use rule 1, and ask everybody their opinion as to whether the butler did it and determine which group has the higher percentage of immoral people? Or do we use rule 2, check with the religious authority of our choice to determine whether it is moral or immoral to suspect the butler? Or do we look for physical evidence? Nah, that's the way of heretics and infidels; forget I mentioned it. -- David Canzi