Truth and opinion

[Eriol]

This is not a religious topic, but I think it is fitting for this place. There are a lot of threads at this Guild in which the concept of "relative truth" is embraced by some people. "Relative truth" may be defined as a truth that is applicable to some circumstances/times/persons, but not to ALL circumstances/times/persons. "Absolute truth" would be a truth applicable to any and all circumstances/times/persons imaginable.

That said, I have a few questions to throw around :D

Is there absolute truth at all?

Is there absolute truth only in abstractions ?(like Mathematics)

Is there absolute truth also in reality? (like Science)

Is there absolute truth in ethics?

Is there absolute truth in religion?

This is not a fighting thread :(. I just want to gauge how people feel about this issue; and again, it is not a religious issue, it is a philosophical issue. I believe (but I'm not sure) that I listed the possibilities in a hierarchical order -- that means, if you choose the last you believe in all other kinds of absolute truth. So, if some of you do not believe in this hierarchy (if someone believes in "truth in ethics" but not in "truth in reality", for instance), please post the reasoning behind it.

[Celebthôl]

Hmmm, Eri, you know my beliefs....which one (if any) is approriate for me :o

Anyway; my beliefs are that there is truth, that its with God, but not through religion. (kinda hard to explain. . . )

[Eriol]

Thôl, your beliefs would probably fit best with option 2. Though, as I've said to you, they are self-contradictory and don't really fit anywhere; and this is another hint about their self-contradiction...

[Celebthôl]

Hmmm, okay, thanx Eri. I guess it would be bes if i didnt vote then, as im in between beliefs and my old one wouldnt fit...ill vote when im clearer.

[Snaga]

I voted 'nowhere' more as a default to avoid worrying about this! That probably sounds strange... but I have thought about this from many angles and the only sure thing is that someone else will disagree. So then it isnt absolute any more!

Descartes: 'I think therefore I am' is a pretty solid truth.

Many philosophers have tried to go further, but without great success. Ontological proofs of the existence of God all fail, and just as well cos that would deny faith! So too do attempts to prove that the real world is 'really real'... But if I deny the information provided to me by my senses I deny the existence of everything other than myself. So, practically, I assume the information from my sense is correct and try to order it and validate it... and this is called science. So I believe in science, but I know it is founded on an assumption of the validity of sensory information. For the moment, since the edifice of science continually enlarges rather than falling down, it seems robust so far.

Of course I am being very rationalist in how I am approaching this question... so implicitly I am using lots of tools of 'pure reason' ... logic and the like. When you start to examine such things you find even more wondrous truths... for example in mathematics it proven that no matter what axioms you assume, it is always possible to construct a theorem that cannot be proven within the confines of those axioms. It seems to me an amazing thing, a thing of beauty, that there is always a question you cannot answer.

OK that's not really an answer as such... *voice trails off into mumbling silence*

[Sarah]

this should be a multi choice one :(

[Eriol]

I thought hard about making it a multiple choice poll, Sarah... but I still think that if you believe in one of them you should believe in those above it. So if you disagree with this assumption of mine (about which I have no certainty, I don't take it as absolute truth :D ;) ), can you explain?

And Snaga, you are absolutely right, a great post! If you want something to chew on while you're in a mumbling silence, what about this: can pure reason work without sensorial input?

I think your position is perfect, if you take a strict rationalist view of the matter; but is taking a strict rationalist view of the matter a reasonable thing to do?

A very knotted problem... I suppose I'll join you in that mumbling silence, at least while I try to answer this last question of mine...

[Gothmog]

Hmmm. 3 for nowhere and 2 for religion. It seems that it is ALL or NOTHING.

I do not find this surprising. There are two choices that are at each end of the scale with all the others being only parts of the whole. Since each of the mid choices are only parts, Absolute Truth could not be found there as they do not cover a wide enough area.

Unlike Snaga I have no problem with the actuality of reality. I know that what I call reality is my interpretaion of that abstract of What Is that my senses reveal to me. This allows me to accept and interact with others and with the world around me. However, this does not mean that what I sense and what I am sensing are the same.

There is a great danger in using the tools of "Pure Reason" and "Logic". These can narrow your field of view rather than enlarge it. The spirit is just as important a tool in the search for "Reality".

[HLGStrider]

I guess it is hard to believe in absolute truth on ethics without absolute truth on religion. ..I voted for religion, but I'm sad to see no one has voted for ethics.

All non-religious people don't have to reject right and wrong, do they?

[Niniel]

I think there are absolute truths in science, e.g. a bowl of water can have a certain temperature, and even though different people may experience the temperature differently, it's still the same temperature.
IMO there are no absolute truths in ethics; they depend on the culture of a society (including its religion). Of course there are things on which almost everyone in the world would agree, such as 'murder is bad', but there are also people who would say that in some cases murder can be allowed and even be a good thing. So no, there are no absolute truths in ethics.

[Idril]

I voted that there in no absolute truths anywhere. The boundaries of science and maths are being pushed and moved and therefore not constant. Ethics depend on your socio-cultural background, someone mentioned murder being a universally accepted 'wrong' and yet some 'states' are allowed to murder criminals. And the most abstract of all is Religion, how many different religions exist (including all the various Christian ones)? and they all believe they are right.

The absolute truth is there is no absolute truth, which is therefore not an absolute truth at all,... no that makes it an absolute truth after all. Argh!!!! I better stop.:confused:

[Ithrynluin]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
All non-religious people don't have to reject right and wrong, do they?

Why would they do that? Not being religious does not mean not having standards and a sense of right and wrong.

I'm also of the opinion that absolute truth is nowhere to be found.

[HLGStrider]

Why would they do that? Not being religious does not mean not having standards and a sense of right and wrong.

I was just wondering because no one has voted for just ethics. Everyone who believes there is truth in ethics is willing and able to take it a step further and say there is also truth in religion. No one who believes in scientific reality is willing and able to take it up a step further and say there is also truth in ethics.

[Snaga]

Hehehe Elgee you're funny!:D You don't like to be too logical do you?

When you said 'everyone' you mean't yourself... and when you said 'noone' you meant noone that you had listened to.

There are plenty of atheists who believe there is truth in ethics. And even if people don't believe in 'absolute truth' that isnt a rejection of right and wrong. It just means that there is room for doubting things sometimes and being willing to listen and learn from others. You could try that sometime.;)

[HLGStrider]

You're in a mood lately. ;)

Hehehe Elgee you're funny! You don't like to be too logical do you?
When it suits me.

When you said 'everyone' you mean't yourself... and when you said 'noone' you meant noone that you had listened to.

When I said everyone I meant everyone who had voted on this poll. I'm sorry if I did not make that clear.

When I said no one I meant the fact that no one had voted for ethics on this poll without going up a notch and voting for religion.

That shows an extreme gap. I was expecting someone to come out of the wood work with an absolute morality of some sort without a god, because as you say, they do exist, but they aren't showing their faces.

And even if people don't believe in 'absolute truth' that isnt a rejection of right and wrong. It just means that there is room for doubting things sometimes and being willing to listen and learn from others.

Just because something is doubtable doesn't mean that it isn't absolute truth. When I was younger I very much doubted that 0x1 was 0. It didn't make sense to me that you could have a one become nothing. That didn't make it any less true.

That is the absolute truth we accept for mathematics. Why doesn't it also apply to ethics?

When I say it is wrong to kill a little baby I mean it is wrong to kill a little baby and I believe it is always wrong to kill a little baby. I don't think it changes.

Why doesn't it also apply to religion? I believe there is a god. Just because I believe there is a god doesn't mean there is. If there isn't a god, there isn't a god, and that is truth. I don't believe it is truth, but that doesn't mean it isn't truth. ..just as if you don't believe there isn't a god it doesn't mean there isn't a god.

[Niniel]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
When I say it is wrong to kill a little baby I mean it is wrong to kill a little baby and I believe it is always wrong to kill a little baby. I don't think it changes.
To you this never changes, and almost everyone in your culture (and mine) will agree with you. But there have been, and still are, cultures where it is allowed to kill a baby, in certain circumstances. And there is noone or nothing that can tell us that killing babies is absolutely wrong, as there are for certain scientifc and mathematical principles. 0 x 1 is always 0, even if nobody believes it or if there are no humans left on the world to see if it is so. So for science there are standards of absolute truth, while for ethics there are none. Ethics come from humans themselves, they are not made by nature, and thus they end when humanity ends, or when people don't agree with them.

[Starflower]

you're right Niniel, there still exist cultures where it is acceptable to kill a newborn baby , often thye are baby girls in a culture that favors boys, but as often it is places where contraception is forbidden/unknown and there are too many mouths to feed already. so in their eyes it is more merciful to kill the baby than let it live in misery .

I myself don't agree or disagree with this, as who am I to judge them , I don't know their circumstances



Starflower

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Niniel
Ethics come from humans themselves, they are not made by nature, and thus they end when humanity ends, or when people don't agree with them.

That is not proven; it is contrary to instinct; and it means that the Nazis could kill Jews, since they did not agree with the proposition "you should not kill Jews".

The relativization of ethics is the end of ethics, and the beginning of the rule of the mightiest. What is the difference between 100 people agreeing that it is right to kill Jews, or 1 million, or one person only? At which point does this behavior become ethical?

Sure, cultures killed babies, even cultures we considered enlightened (like ancient Greece). Were they right? That is the question. If they were right because the custom was prevalent, this means that the Nazis were right too. I think they were wrong... and this is not just because I am a religious person. I believed in the universality of ethics way before I went back to the Church. If it is wrong today, it was always wrong, and it is wrong in every culture. Of course, this puts a tremendous weight on the word "wrong". I don't think etiquette codes, or dressing codes, are "wrong", and I think it is unfortunate that people call breach of these things "immoralities". They are simply breach of conventional agreements between humans; these are examples of conventions.

But not murder. Forbidding murder is not a convention. It emerges from our own nature; and I don't have to invoke any religion to make a case against murder that is both universal and compelling.

[Starflower]

But not murder. Forbidding murder is not a convention. It emerges from our own nature; and I don't have to invoke any religion to make a case against murder that is both universal and compelling.

you say it is wrong to commit murder, I agree. But how may murders have been done in the name of religion? And christian religion in particular? Remember the Crusades? The Spanis Inquisition ?

So truth is always objective, I'm sure the people who burned witches thought they were doing what's true and right in God's eyes....


Starflower

[Eriol]

The only way you can condemn these things is by comparing them to an absolute standard ;). If you don't believe in absolute truth in ethics (as I interpreted Níniel's post -- forgive me if I'm wrong), then all of these things were as justified as the killing of infants in other cultures.

To say that crusades, inquisition, etc. are wrong, you have to have an objective, absolute standard of what is right.

[HLGStrider]

But there have been, and still are, cultures where it is allowed to kill a baby, in certain circumstances.

But this doesn't make it right. I simply used this because it is something most societies agree on.

Ethics come from humans themselves, they are not made by nature, and thus they end when humanity ends, or when people don't agree with them

I don't think they come from humans themselves. I have heard arguements from them coming from nature. I personally believe they come from god. . .

and that comes back to can an atheist believe in absolute truth? As far as what you're saying, I'd say you are saying he can't and still be logical.

I myself don't agree or disagree with this, as who am I to judge them , I don't know their circumstances

Then are we incapable of judging anything?

Why then, in our culture, do we have the right to punish murders? If we value the freedom of the individual, and if as you say morals are relative, this person may simply not believe that murder is wrong, and therefore by punishing him for it we are forcing our morality upon him. . .aren't we?

Why then do we punish? Is it therefore wrong to punish?

[Niniel]

Originally posted by Eriol
The only way you can condemn these things is by comparing them to an absolute standard.
To say that crusades, inquisition, etc. are wrong, you have to have an objective, absolute standard of what is right.
Of course these things can be judged by a standard- the standard that is set by our own culture. Most of the world has a 'global' culture- the one that is based on the Anglo-Saxon, Christian world. Even if many people who live on these parts of the world are not Christian any more, our culture and values have been based on 2000 years of Christianity, and thus are a lot alike in most of these countries. So great parts of the world share a common culture, and also common ideas of what is right and wrong. If we say that murder is wrong, this will be accepted by almost everyone living in the 'western' world. This global culture thus gives us a standard to judge by and to punish people who don't live by the standard.
Yet there are also many countries who are not influenced by our culture, or only for ahort while, and that have different ideas of what is right and wrong. And, more importantly, there was a time before Christianity, when nobody had even heard of the rules that we use nowadays, and when the values that people had were completely different, as in the example of ancient Greece.
At that time there was no power outside humanity to provide standards of behaviour; the ones we have now have grown through history to their current ideas. Standards thus keep changing; even the ones we have now won't last forever.
And that is the fundamental difference between ethics and science: 80 degrees F will always be 80 degrees F, even when nobody knows it or is able to check whether it is so, it still is.

[Snaga]

You have to have some foundation somewhere. But it wouldnt always have to be the same thing for every person.

I could condemn the crusades because:
- It involved killing, which I could object to if I decided human life was sacred
- I could object to it as cultural imperialism, if I believed that cultural diversity was the ultimate objective of humanity
- I could object to it as contrary to God's will, if I was a Moslem
- I could object to it as religiously motivated, if was an atheist

etc, etc, etc...

The thing about ethics is that OFTEN ethics themselves are not the starting point but the conclusion. And often people's instinctive ethical beliefs are a reflection of their position in the world.

Mathematics as a comparison is quite interesting. Mathematics starts off by defining sets of objects (eg numbers) and certain operations (eg addition, multiplication) and uses these to construct theorems that have to be proven to be accepted. It lends itself precise definition, and very analytical methods of proof. Philosophers have tried to proceed on a similar basis with ethics. But its just not as clear cut an area.

[HLGStrider]

And, more importantly, there was a time before Christianity, when nobody had even heard of the rules that we use nowadays, and when the values that people had were completely different, as in the example of ancient Greece.

Yet there were ancient greek philosophers who thought up similar codes. And I would say that at least one society has had similar codes throughout its time. Judaism, for instance?

At that time there was no power outside humanity to provide standards of behaviour

What power are you refering to? Not God, obviously. God by most definitions has pretty much always existed.

And that is the fundamental difference between ethics and science: 80 degrees F will always be 80 degrees F, even when nobody knows it or is able to check whether it is so, it still is.

I believe right and wrong is the same way.

The thing about ethics is that OFTEN ethics themselves are not the starting point but the conclusion. And often people's instinctive ethical beliefs are a reflection of their position in the world.

Which are things we can change by approaching ethics logically. Which can be done to some extent.

Philosophers have tried to proceed on a similar basis with ethics. But its just not as clear cut an area

Neither is science in all areas. Neither are a lot of things. Just because we can't find truth doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by snaga1
You have to have some foundation somewhere. But it wouldnt always have to be the same thing for every person.

I could condemn the crusades because:
- It involved killing, which I could object to if I decided human life was sacred
- I could object to it as cultural imperialism, if I believed that cultural diversity was the ultimate objective of humanity
- I could object to it as contrary to God's will, if I was a Moslem
- I could object to it as religiously motivated, if was an atheist

etc, etc, etc...

Each of these opinions would be based on some absolute truth as seen from the viewpoint of the person. They could be mistaken about their viewpoints, but underneath each and every opinion there would be the opinion -- the universal opinion -- that there is absolute truth of the ethical kind. That a condemnation is not a personal, fleeting opinion, but an indictment that is coercive on the guilty party, even if he does not agree with our own viewpoint.

That is the underlying basis behind "condemnation". It is not as if we are arguing whether this taste is better than that one; ethical discussion revolve around the ideas of "right" and "wrong", just as mathematics does. It is not "my truth" that 2+2=4; it is simply the truth. Everybody's truth.

The prohibition of murder is a very interesting example because it needs no religious viewpoint to sustain it; it is deduced from human life without any reference to a God or to a supernatural power. It is based on that ethical freedom that you are mentioning, Snaga; the freedom to choose our own ethical worldview. We have that freedom, but to use that freedom meaningfully we must believe in absolute ethical truth.

As you said, we must have some foundation some where; we are free to choose among many possible foundations, but we need some foundation. And having found one, we must treat it as a foundation, or it won't be a foundation at all; we must treat it as absolutely true. This does not detract from our freedom to change our minds regarding it in the future...

Níniel, it seems I was right in my interpretation of your words, and you think that the culture determines the correctness of an action. The famous example to counter that is the Holocaust, but we can use also the Crusades/Inquisition already mentioned. Would you say these things were correct? They were approved by the culture at the time. If you say that the absolute standard is only our present culture, then you have accepted an absolute truth in ethics. And if each culture is its own standard, we can't condemn these things at all.

[Niniel]

Of course I think that the Holocaust and the crusades were wrong, because I have the opinion that killing any human being is wrong. And according to my culture and the culture of the largest part of the rest of the world it is wrong as well. My culture provides values that give me an (almost) absolute standard of what is right and what is wrong. And in the case of the Holocaust, at the time when it happened it was considered a wrong act by everybody except for the Nazis who did it. What I was trying to say is that if there hadn't been anyone who thought is was wrong, nobody could have said it was wrong from an absolute view; because ethics are made by man and disappear with man. If nobody in the world thinks a certain act is wrong, it isn't wrong, because there is no external source outsie humanity that provides us with rules for our behaviour.
Only God can give us an unchanging set of rules; but if you don't believe in a god, there is no source that could give us these rules, and thus you can have only values that have been formed through history, and will change in the future. I think you're right Elgee, that atheists have a hard time believing in absolute truths in ethics.
And I would say that at least one society has had similar codes throughout its time. Judaism, for instance? Yes, but Judaism hasn't been there forever. There were times before Judaism existed and before the rules of Judaism were applied to any society.

[omnipotent_elf]

Only God can give us an unchanging set of rules; but if you don't believe in a god, there is no source that could give us these rules

umm, for people who dont believe in god, the rules we live by are parts of the LAW
and LAW's were around a long time before any religion.

It is not "my truth" that 2+2=4; it is simply the truth. Everybody's truth.

what about someone who has never studied maths?

But this doesn't make it right. I simply used this because it is something most societies agree on.

WHAT MAKES YOU RIGHT. personally, i dont agree with it, but what is it that makes you so arrogant that everything you stand an believe in is right. again, i dont agree with it. It is horrifying to me. But it is not my culture, and not my place to critice it. These difference of opinions makes there no such thing as truth, as there can be no "truth applicable to any and all circumstances/times/persons imaginable."

[Niniel]

for people who dont believe in god, the rules we live by are parts of the LAW. and LAW's were around a long time before any religion.

Laws are made by people, and they change all the time. Thus they are not the result of an absolute truth. BTW I think religion is far older than law... what about someone who has never studied maths? He doesn't KNOW 2 + 2 =4, but it is still true. It would be true even if there was nobody in the world who knew it.

[HLGStrider]

Niniel actually said what I wanted to say on two of the points. I would've answered both of those statements the same way. . .

i dont agree with it, but what is it that makes you so arrogant that everything you stand an believe in is right

I think I'd be foolish to believe everything I believe is right. I'm sure I've messed up somewhere. Of course, if I knew where I'd messed up I would automatically change that belief, so only on the things where I admittedly don't know or don't have an opinion is it possible for me to believe I'm wrong. Anything else is illogical.

However, I think the question what makes me so arrogant to believe I'm right is inflamatory and really counterproductive. Shouldnt' the question be "Are you right?"

And then we can procede from there to discuss if I am or not.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Niniel
If nobody in the world thinks a certain act is wrong, it isn't wrong, because there is no external source outside humanity that provides us with rules for our behaviour.

There are many sciences that need some material content. Is optics negated when it is dark? No. It is still true that light will travel and reflect and be refracted according to the laws of optics, even if there is no light at this moment.

Now, economics. If there are no men at a planet, does that mean that the law of supply and demand is void? Does that mean that the law of diminshing returns, of marginal utility, is void? Does that mean that the increased efficiency of the division of labor is void? Does that mean that Ricardo's smashing of protectionism, or that Bastiat's "broken window fallacy", is void? Again, the answer is no. All of these reasonings, all of these economical laws (which are true regardless of the particular economy), are still correct; even if there are no men to make these things happen.

Now, ethics. Why is not ethics like economics? Why not postulate that killing a man is wrong -- even if there are no men around? I believe I can make a case for the universality of the prohibition on murder; an universality that is independent on the existence of people.

But my point is not that. It is simply that some sciences do NOT need their objects of study to be true; they can be true regardless.

[Niniel]

Originally posted by Eriol
But my point is not that. It is simply that some sciences do NOT need their objects of study to be true; they can be true regardless.
Exactly, I agree with you on this. It's just that there is a difference of opinion as to which sciences are true without their objects of study. Mathematic and natural laws are always true (at least on our planet, there could be a planet somewhere where no gravity exists, or something). Economical laws are dependend on people; you need a reasonable amount of people before the economic laws you mention will show themselves, and it has to be a capitalist society etc. But if these circumstances are met, the economical laws will be there.
As for ethics, it too depends on people. Killing is maybe a wrong example, because there being life, it is natural that humans would want to let that life continue and not kill each other. Animals usually don't kill others of their own species, because for the survival of the species it is imperative that as many possible different genes are present in the population, so it would be unwise to destroy a life of the same species.
But there are many other ethical subjects that can be debated without there being absolute agreement on them, and without there being, IMO, an absolute truth about them. Such as stealing; most people will say stealing is wrong, but others will say that it is right, at least in some cases (e.g. when someone is hungry and he steals a bread). Both points could be argued without coming the conclusion that stealing is always in every case wrong.

[Snaga]

I disagree.

Mathematical statements are not based on reality. We have defined an abstract concept, that of the number, and certain operations 'addition', 'subtraction' etc. But these concepts are entirely human creations. There is no property of 'two-ness' that exists independently in nature. Accordingly I can define number systems in which 2+2 is not equal to 4... it could be that 4 doesnt exist in some number systems.

For example, you are used to seeing numbers as something you can arrange in a straight line. Try putting 0,1,2 and 3 in a circular pattern (lets assume in a clockwise order). For this closed set of numbers, if adding means to move in a clockwise direction (analagous to moving to the right on a number line), then 2+2 doesnt equal 4, because there is no 4. Here 2+2 = 0!

Furthermore scientific truths are not absolute truths. They are statements of observation... ie we observe that apples fall to earth. It is not the case that because we wrote the law of gravity, that is what makes apples fall to earth. Moreover, Einstein showed that laws of gravity are not always correct, and that in some circumstances they do not hold true. So what we hold to be a truth is only a statement with some correspondence to reality, and some predictive power... I do not believe it is not the case that somewhere God is like a guy with a huge computer with all the scientific laws programmed in, that he is running 'SimUniverse' on. I think its a mistake to think about things like this.

But even these areas have a far greater degree of certainty than ethics. You may believe that 'murder is wrong' is an ethical absolute, but a cursory examination shows that the interpretation of this is wide open. The caveats are vast and varied... how intentional was it? How pre-meditated? What about the psychological state of the person committing the crime? Is bombing someone's home ok? When is that murder, when is it an act of war? Etc etc... The ability to make categorical statements about ethics seems highly doubtful to me. That is precisely why laws are so complex and arcane... because the myriad of complexities to do with circumstance, motivation and perception need to be taken account of, and each case judged on its merits.

[Niniel]

Originally posted by snaga1
But these concepts are entirely human creations. There is no property of 'two-ness' that exists independently in nature. Accordingly I can define number systems in which 2+2 is not equal to 4... it could be that 4 doesnt exist in some number systems.
Is there no concept of two-ness? I'm inclined to think there is. If you have two apples, you have two apples, no matter if you know that you can call this 'two' or that two is in some way related to 'one' and 'three'. And if you have a number system, but it's different from ours, you still can see that two is not three, or one. Some animals can count; ducks can see the difference if one of their eggs has been taken away. So it's not only a human concept.

[Malbeth]

I guess it is hard to believe in absolute truth on ethics without absolute truth on religion. ..I voted for religion, but I'm sad to see no one has voted for ethics.

All non-religious people don't have to reject right and wrong, do they?

You know, I was thinking about this the other day, and my explanation is that Eriol made a mistake... I think you can believe God exists without believing in absolute ethical laws, but you cannot believe in absolute ethical laws consistently without beliving, in one way or another, in the existence of God... as Dostoyevsky put it "If there is no God, everything is acceptable".

However, someone can believe in absolute ethical laws without believing in God... it would just be inconsistent... I think this was the position of the average non-believing people until about 40-50 years ago (and, existentially speaking, it still is every non-believer's position. They protest against injustice as if Justice was a real, objective thing).

[Eriol]

Originally posted by snaga1
So what we hold to be a truth is only a statement with some correspondence to reality, and some predictive power...

And in that case, "reality" is where we find absolute truth... what you are really saying, Snaga, is that WE can't find absolute truth, but that it is out there. You are addressing an inherent flaw in human abilities to apprehend truth. I don't know if you are right; this hypothesis is strictly untestable. But in any case it does not touch on the question of whether there is some absolute truth out there. That is the thing we want to make our statements correspond to...

That is precisely why laws are so complex and arcane... because the myriad of complexities to do with circumstance, motivation and perception need to be taken account of, and each case judged on its merits.

There is no doubt, in my opinion, that each case should be judged individually. Ethics is not disembodied philosophy. It only becomes real when it touches reality. But even so, we could not "judge each case on its merits" without an absolute standard. As in Níniel's example, stealing. It is only because we begin on the common ground that "stealing is wrong" that we can find some instances in which it is less wrong. If we had no such common perception of "stealing is wrong", then we could not even discuss mitigating circumstances.

The big trouble in ethics, in my opinion, is not what you are addressing, but rather the definition of concepts. What exactly is "stealing"? Is the income tax a way of stealing? And so on. All ethical concepts are somehow mysterious like that, even "murder". As the abortion thread exemplifies. But from the vaguely defined terms, we still find out absolute truths. We don't know exactly how to define murder, and we don't know whether a given act is murder or not, perhaps; but we still know that "murder is wrong". That applies to every moral absolute.

[Snaga]

Is that because the definitions are really tautological?

A: 'Murder is wrong'
B: 'What is murder?'
A: 'Murder is the category of killings that are wrong'
B: 'Well, I'm astounded by your great philosophy!'

I need more time to reply fully....

[HLGStrider]

Animals usually don't kill others of their own species, because for the survival of the species it is imperative that as many possible different genes are present in the population, so it would be unwise to destroy a life of the same species.

Are you sure? I remember a tramatic time in my young life where my beautiful baby kittens were slain by a tom cat. I think this is quite common at least in cats. Is it not in other species?

[Snaga]

Niniel: interesting points.:) I'll think about that. I could say that it is only a perception (human or duck) that there is a category of things called 'apples' (or 'eggs).

Originally posted by Eriol
And in that case, "reality" is where we find absolute truth... what you are really saying, Snaga, is that WE can't find absolute truth, but that it is out there. You are addressing an inherent flaw in human abilities to apprehend truth. I don't know if you are right; this hypothesis is strictly untestable. But in any case it does not touch on the question of whether there is some absolute truth out there. That is the thing we want to make our statements correspond to...I believe it was Karl Popper who said that there was absolute truth, but we couldnt 'know' it. This really addresses the central inability for us to prove that anything exists beyond ourselves. Descartes' "I think therefore I am" proved we exist, but nothing else is provable 'ontologically'. But if there is a physical reality, we assume our senses convey information about it to us, rather than being some form of deception. Once we make that assumption, we can then go on to sift and filter statements based on perception that have a good correspondence with reality (E=MC2) with those that may appear to at first sight, but later prove false (the world is flat). But each statement made is subject to scrutiny, questioning, qualification and refutation. It is worth noting that statements made in science cannot be proven, only disproven. Theories stand up as physical evidence (ie perception) accumulate to substantiate it, and especially when we are able to turn those statements to practical application.

This is a pragmatic manner for the human race to proceed on its exploration of the cosmos. It is cautious and undogmatic: doubting what we believe, questioning everything. But it is also open and curious about the wonder of this world we appear to apprehend.

But I am aware I have introduced my own basis for judging: 'utility' in relation to a telos 'the exploration of the cosmos'. I mean 'exploration of the cosmos' in a broad sense (ie quest for knowledge and understanding). Others will not agree with this. This is perhaps where ethics starts: we apprehend other people, and when we exchange information we discover the possibility of disagreement. But since it is BASED on the possibility of disagreement, how could it be an absolute?

Originally posted by Malbeth
You know, I was thinking about this the other day, and my explanation is that Eriol made a mistake... I think you can believe God exists without believing in absolute ethical laws, but you cannot believe in absolute ethical laws consistently without beliving, in one way or another, in the existence of God... as Dostoyevsky put it "If there is no God, everything is acceptable".

However, someone can believe in absolute ethical laws without believing in God... it would just be inconsistent... I think this was the position of the average non-believing people until about 40-50 years ago (and, existentially speaking, it still is every non-believer's position. They protest against injustice as if Justice was a real, objective thing). I don't agree. I am certain that people have and do believe in ethical absolutes without believing in God. But, as described above I personally don't agree. Ethics is founded on the possibility of human disagreement.

But as I am proceeding by testing statements against perception to see if they correspond to perception of reality, I find no reason to believe in a god. I find scant evidence for, and little utility in the belief.

In your second paragraph, I am not sure who your 'average non-believing person' would be! Nor am I clear whether you mean that each individual would be inconsistent (which I think is a strong statement needing justification) or that atheist/agnostics would be inconsistent one from another (undoubtedly true). I am compelled to notice there is no single view of ethics within believers, or indeed within individual faiths.

Overall, there is a concept of 'Justice' that exists across belief systems, that allows a dialogue on 'right and wrong' without having to go back to first principles each time. This is certainly essential in any society where there isnt an imposed religious orthodoxy. Otherwise we would have to resolve Bible vs Koran vs Torah vs..... every time we debated a change in the law!

[Malbeth]

don't agree. I am certain that people have and do believe in ethical absolutes without believing in God. But, as described above I personally don't agree. Ethics is founded on the possibility of human disagreement.

And I acknowledged that fact... however, as I said, I think the people who do not believe God exists but believe in ethical absolutes have simply no basis for these absolutes that stand up to scrutiny, and so to believe in ethical absolutes without believing that God exists is logically flawed. However, I am willing to be proved wrong on that; if anyone believes that he can prove ethical absolutes without divine authority for them, I would be very interested in seeing this proof.

Nor am I clear whether you mean that each individual would be inconsistent (which I think is a strong statement needing justification) or that atheist/agnostics would be inconsistent one from another (undoubtedly true).

As I said above, I think that to believe in ethical absolutes without believing that God exists is logically inconsistent. And what I mean by existentially inconsistent can be shown by this quote of yours from another thread:

Frankly the curtain-twitching prurience of turning a blind eye to the grotesque injustice and suffering in the world because you are too busy condemning healthy and loving relationships is a grotesque spectacle. There is no love at all in this philosophy: it is censorious, selfish, and bigotted.

One would think from that quote that you really believe that clothing the poor, feeding the hungry and comforting the afflicted are ethical absolutes; if it is merely your personal opinion you would not be so angry after all; you would not get angry if I said steak is better than pork, but you do get angry when Eriol says that the loss of a soul is worse than thousands of deaths. That's what I mean by existentially inconsistent; this quote (and more specifically, the tone of this post) only makes sense if you believe in ethical absolutes, but you say that you do not believe in them...

[Eriol]

Originally posted by snaga1
I am compelled to notice there is no single view of ethics within believers, or indeed within individual faiths.


I wouldn't agree. There is a striking agreement between all faiths (and including in fact all mankind, up to a few centuries ago) as to what is righteous and what is not. What C.S. Lewis called "the Tao" in his book "The Abolition of Man".

But even though there is this striking correspondence of substance among the ethical beliefs of mankind, what I find even more interesting is the complete correspondence of form. No ordinary persons, only philosophers would claim that to be coward is better to be courageous, that to murder is better than to not murder, that to steal is better than to not steal, etc. This is what I am calling the "form" of ethics. When we apply this form to reality, we see its substance, as in "should I run away from this threat right now or face it?"; "should I kill this particular person at this particular moment?"; and so on.

There is more disagreement between people when it comes to actual events; though they still have a remarkable agreement on that (or we could not build any kind of society). But the universal form of ethics, seen in the most primitive people and throughout history, is more than remarkable.

Can one believe in an ethical absolute without believing in a God? I did so for a while. And I don't think my stance demanded belief in a God; it was based on human life and on ethical freedom. (Malbeth knows that). Perhaps my position was inconsistent then, without my awareness of it. I don't know, since I was unaware :D. I still am. I think people can believe in an ethical absolute without believing in a God.

The "ethical data" (and especially its universality and authority) is strong argument for a God. Does it prove God? I don't know. If it does, I did not realize it then. It surely makes for wonder... philosophy can attempt to explain the grounds for ethics, but the fact of ethics is very startling.

[Snaga]

Eriol: I'm not very familiar with CS Lewis (beyond his allegorical childrens fiction, and Tolkien's dislike thereof;) ) so it would help if you could elaborate on his view. I think of some religions endorsements of 'holy wars' in some form as against the pacifism required by others as an example of ethical divergence. Or the emergence of Liberation Theology in Latin America, and the conflict with more conservative branches of Christianity in relation to a whole number of questions related to class, poverty and imperialism. Or indeed the question of slavery, which is surely an ethical question, which has been both endorsed and condemned by religious leaders at various times in history. That seems ample evidence for the absence of a single view of ethics.

If of course it is possible to extract statements from the teachings of various religions and show correspondence, it might well be possible in an abstract form. All might agree 'murder is wrong'; as long as the discussion of what constitutes murder is avoided, for the formulation that murder is the category of killings that is wrong!

Malbeth: What 'One would think' is something I am only partially responsible for. If you concluded that I feel strongly about the plight of the poor and hungry you are correct. If you believe that means I believe in 'ethical absolutes' you are incorrect, just as if learning that I do not believe in 'ethical absolutes' you think that means I do not have any conception of right and wrong then you are also wrong. But then, I suspect from your post you might have a different understanding of the term 'ethical absolute' to me...

[HLGStrider]

Snaga, you say, within faiths, but I think what you truly mean is between followers of a faith. There is a huge difference.

[Malbeth]

Malbeth: What 'One would think' is something I am only partially responsible for. If you concluded that I feel strongly about the plight of the poor and hungry you are correct. If you believe that means I believe in 'ethical absolutes' you are incorrect, just as if learning that I do not believe in 'ethical absolutes' you think that means I do not have any conception of right and wrong then you are also wrong. But then, I suspect from your post you might have a different understanding of the term 'ethical absolute' to me...

I hate eggs; I think they are absolutely disgusting, but, since I don't believe in ethical absolutes in the matter of food I don't look upon egg-eaters as prurient, selfish and bigotted (I do, when I'm feeling whimsical, give a phony ethical justificative for my dislike of eggs though).

That's what I mean when I say ethical absolutes; standards that everyone should comform to, and that can be used to criticize or praise a person according to whether he follows (or believes)them or not.

That quote of yours I posted from the pre-marital sex thread seemed to criticize, in very strong terms, Eriol's ethical priorities; as if you thought that Eriol was really wrong when he said that a soul of a person is more important than thousands of deaths, and not as I would react if someone said "I love eggs".

Can one believe in an ethical absolute without believing in a God? I did so for a while. And I don't think my stance demanded belief in a God; it was based on human life and on ethical freedom. (Malbeth knows that). Perhaps my position was inconsistent then, without my awareness of it. I don't know, since I was unaware . I still am. I think people can believe in an ethical absolute without believing in a God.

The "ethical data" (and especially its universality and authority) is strong argument for a God. Does it prove God? I don't know. If it does, I did not realize it then. It surely makes for wonder... philosophy can attempt to explain the grounds for ethics, but the fact of ethics is very startling.

But didn't you, at that time, defend that because of the is/ought fallacy there simply is no way to choose between ethical systems (with the exception of some that are self-contradictory, like Hedonism)? I remember talking with you about that very book you mentioned, the Abolition of Man (or perhaps it was Kreeft's "A defense of ethical absolutism") how it tried to show how destructive ethical relativism is, and you answered "But didn't you read my ideas on ethics? I do think relativism is true!"

Or, perhaps, my memory is playing tricks with me again :)

[Eriol]

I would say that your examples were discussions on the substance of ethics rather than its form, Snaga. I don't think there ever was a debate on "Is slavery wrong?" within any faith; the moral basis for slavery was the belief in the unequality of men, whatever the reason for it was. Some people defended slavery of Amerindians because they upheld the views that Indians did not have a soul, and they upheld these views because they thought that they were not descendants of Adam; but they never defended the principle "slavery is right". In their view, Amerindians were quite simply less than men. (The Church, and not only the Catholic Church I believe, fought this notion very strongly, by the way).

Universality of Human Rights, from children to old people, women and men, natives and foreigners, is a very revolutionary notion compared to mankind's ordinary workings. (And Christianity played a major role in the universalizing of this Universality...).

But if Greeks said that the barbarians were less than men, or if Japanese believed that Koreans were less than men, or if Hinduism had a whole system of castes to decide who is less than men and who deserve full rights, these are still debates on the substance of ethics. The form remained the same. I see a very important difference between the two debates -- one asking whether Amerindians are men, and another asking whether murdering is good. The first one is an empirical one, I could almost say a scientific one. The second one -- the true ethical debate -- was never observed.

I don't have that book with me right now... I'll give a short list of unique ethical features from another book, to atone for that: practicality, rationality, universality, impartiality, authority. What do you think?

To me the universality of ethics, coupled with its authority, makes for a very strange phenomenon which demands a hard attempt at explanation.

Malbeth, I still think that any ethical system is arbitrary when considered within itself. The data for the Christian view is not ethical, it's historical; it is "arbitrary" in that sense, we can't prove it without recourse to other sciences (in the sense of "knowledge") . However, that view of mine holds for ethical systems; not ethical practice. Relativism is true if we disregard the world... in this world, there is no relativism. But what refutes relativism is not it's internal inconsistencies, but rather the world itself.

One way to state this more clearly would be to say that God could have created a world in which goodness would take different aspects from those we know without ceasing to be the same thing -- Himself.

[Snaga]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
Snaga, you say, within faiths, but I think what you truly mean is between followers of a faith. There is a huge difference. Indeed? Care to explain that huge difference and how it bears on my original point? I'm sure that couldnt have been a pointless nitpick.;)

Malbeth, unfortunately your memory is indeed at fault. I've never mentioned either that book, or that author.

More later, in reply to both you and Eriol. Eriol, I have a big difficulty with an ethical framework that can set to one side 'scientific racism' and declare slavery to ethical in form if not in substance! It rather suggests to me that the distinction between form and substance is of little use.

As for your list of features, I will need you to explain their application before I can respond.

[Malbeth]

Malbeth, unfortunately your memory is indeed at fault. I've never mentioned either that book, or that author.

You misunderstood me; the quote directly above what I wrote about the book and the author was a quote by Eriol, and it was to him I was talking then. I was referring to a conversation we had after he had shown me something he had wrote about ethics and before he converted.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by snaga1
More later, in reply to both you and Eriol. Eriol, I have a big difficulty with an ethical framework that can set to one side 'scientific racism' and declare slavery to ethical in form if not in substance! It rather suggests to me that the distinction between form and substance is of little use.

As for your list of features, I will need you to explain their application before I can respond.

Hmmm... I did not say that slavery is ethical in form. I said that the debate about slavery was not ethical in form. Slavery itself is not the same thing as the debate about slavery. I made it explicit, too: I said that those people never defended the principle "slavery is right".

The ethical practice of mankind was always enslaving. The ethical debate (after men began to debate about ethics) was not; some philosophers, like Aristotle, defended it, but in the big picture philosophical ethics are strongly anti-slavery.

The problem with slavery is a mini-example of the problem with theoretical ethics -- definition. To discuss it meaningfully we have to define "men"; and the ethical arguments for slavery always went through that road, of claiming that the slaves were not men.

Likewise, the problem exhibits very clearly what I am trying to show. If a people believed that slavery is right, they would not have to concoct an explanation to the effect that the slaves are not men... in other words, slavery was never seen as good by any society; it was always considered, at best, a "lesser evil".

Compare it with something considered to be good by all societies -- like marriage (not necessarily monogamic marriage). If slavery were like marriage, people would be proud to be slavemasters, and even proud to be slaves. They would write poetry about the glory of slavery. And so on. You don't see any society devising an explanation for the question, "why marry?"; it is seen by everybody as obvious. Even the obvious answers (propagation of the species, stability of society, etc.) are less important than the act itself, marriage. No one marries for those reasons.

Slavery, on the other hand, has to be justified somehow; you have to give reasons for it. Like wars. Like murder. Like government. They are in the realm of "lesser evils". It is exactly the need for external justification that shows slavery to be an evil. You don't have to justify good things (like marriage) or neutral things (like eggs).

The list and its application: it is applied in theoretical ethics only, not in ethical practice (ethical practice is almost completely non-theoretical; and this is a very interesting feature, in my opinion). Using that list you will be sure to identify any ethical notion or theory, and to compare theories as regards their "ethicalness" (i.e., not their adequacy to physical reality or intrinsic "goodness"). You will be able to rule out the theory that "Everything should be done by everybody for the purpose of furthering the will of Eriol" as a proper ethical theory. It has practicality, rationality, universality; but it lacks impartiality, and it is very short on authority ;).

Any ethical theory has the five traits; and ethical practice, strangely enough, follow ethical theories without ever formulating them.

[HLGStrider]

Indeed? Care to explain that huge difference and how it bears on my original point?

Your original point seemed to me to be that there was conflict within faiths on matters such as slavery, imperialism, things like that, and so there was no absolute even within a faith.

However, that is between members of the faiths. This Christian says it is ok. This Christian doesn't. This Buddist agrees. This Buddist disagrees.. .

The question should be, does Christianity agree, if you are debating faiths. . .not the "faithful." And the supposed faithful can be unfaithful. . .

There are some points faiths don't help us with, I mean that the main scriptures of the faiths don't give us a statement on. Gambling, for instance, is never mentioned in the Bible. I don't think that makes it Morally Relative, but it does make it up for debate among Bible believers.

[Snaga]

Thanks Elgee. But while the Faithful debate what the true view of the Faith is, the non-Faithful will conclude there is no absolute within faiths. Come back to me when you Christians are all agreed!;)

Eriol: I accept that you didnt say that. I think also that the slavery example is instructive. It does seems to me that ethics are too far abstracted from the context in which general conclusions would be applied. If slavery can be justified on the basis of changing definitions, then it seems my 'murder is the category of killing that is wrong' point is also true. Thus, while in reality what might be seen as uncontraversial ethical positions become contraversial in application. And this is scarcely surprising, because what is really happening is that people are expressing preferences about the kind of society they live in. So ethics becomes really an abstracted form of politics.

[HLGStrider]

Come back to me when you Christians are all agreed

On important points, Christians are agreed. . .and even if we werne't, it wouldn't have an effect on what Christianity, the true form, is.

[Snaga]

If you say so. I'll let you discuss with Eriol whether the infallibility of the Catholic Church is important. Or for that matter with Quakers on whether baptism is important.

Anyway I think we'll have to agree to differ. You say: there are many different forms, of which one is true. I say: none are 'true'. Better let this point go, as its somewhat off topic anyway.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by snaga1
So ethics becomes really an abstracted form of politics.

If it were so, then the greatest number would define what is right or wrong... right? That's how I usually understand the word "politics"; as defining a mode of thought in which the correct answer is determined by might, not right.

But that is not how ethics work. No one in an ethical "minority" thinks that his views have just as much justification as the "majority" view, and that the unfortunate circumstance that it is in fact in the minority is the only thing in the way of that particular notion -- people's ethical ideals are accompanied by authority. It's not that "slavery is wrong today because many people think it is wrong today, but it was ok once because many people thought it was ok"; if you, snaga, a person in the 21st century, believe that slavery is wrong, your conclusion is extended to all persons and periods. Slavery is always wrong -- to you. Else you would be using the word "wrong" in the sense of "inadvisable", or "awkward", or any other sense in which the correctness of something is determined by circumstances, and not by the act itself.

The fact that ethics are strongly centered on the individual, i.e., that individuals have freedom to believe in many kinds of ethics, does not cancel out these other facts:

1) Ethical beliefs are coupled with those characteristics I listed (rationality, universality, impartiality, practicality, authority);
2) There is an outside standard for us to judge ethics; else we would never be able to say that a given ethical notion is wrong.

[Ciryaher]

While it is easy to say "You can't prove God exists" or "You can't prove that I am in the room", it is a bit harder to prove that God does *not* exist, or to prove that you are *not* in the room. If the senses are lying, then the mind has no basis for anything, and you go spiraling into the insanity of solipsism.

I can take a baseball bat and crack it over your back. You will recieve the sensation of pain (or just pressure). Even if you tell your mind that it never happened, the bruise and/or broken bones will prove that something struck you.

But back to my train of thought...unless you are a solipsist (someone who believes that nothing is real) there are very definitely absolute truths. The sun is a star. The Earth is a planet. Two oxygen atoms and a carbon atom combined covalently in a linear form are carbon dioxide. Texans are from Texas. These are facts that must be accepted, because to not accept them would lead to the denial of all existence...which is a rather strange state to be in...and even then, you can still arrive at the conclusion that "Nothing is real"...which means that to that person, it is an absolute that there is NOTHING that is REAL.


Oh, I voted for Religion, though I could have chosen others in addition.

:)

[Snaga]

Cir, I agree that solipcism has few advantages (beyond being able to deny the existence of certain forum members!:D).

Eriol, whether within its own terms ethics must be predicated on right and wrong, it is readily apparent that its application is via politics and thus in some manner 'might is right' applies. This of course may be democratic might rather than the use of force, but nonetheless scholarly debate usually plays only a small part in deciding such matters. Generally speaking the discourse appeals to self-interest as much as absolutes of right and wrong. Thus notions such as slaves=subhuman become convenient for those who want to own slaves, while the real motivation is not anything to do with ethics but the desire for the power wealth and status derived by owning slaves in a society which deems it acceptable. Similarly, neither scientific proof of the humanity of slaves, nor ethical debate as to slaveries wrongness did anything like as much as the forces of the north fighting against the Confederates to remove slavery from the US.

Of course, this isnt in itself enough to help you decide which side of a political/ethical battle to be on, but it does help to cut through the fog of war somewhat.

[HLGStrider]

Then why does it matter and why do be debate and why do we have to choose?

[Snaga]

Well, Elgee, noone says you do have to care, and in fact millions of people don't. Perhaps they are wiser than we know!

Politics is about groups, rather than individuals, and trying to reconcile their interests, or asserts one group interest over another. My own view is that we all start off as members of one group called the human race, and the development, well-being and knowledge of humanity as a whole should take precedence over the narrow interests of any group (eg a nation, region, religion etc). Maybe Eriol can tell me if that's an ethical absolute or not.:)

[HLGStrider]

Well, Elgee, noone says you do have to care, and in fact millions of people don't. Perhaps they are wiser than we know!

I think most people care. Try telling them they are doing something wrong, and they will defend themselves. They won't say, normally, that there is no right and wrong and therefore they can't be wrong and it doesn't matter. They'll try to prove what they're doing is right or just say it is or just grow indignant. People do care.

Maybe Eriol can tell me if that's an ethical absolute or not.

I think he'd say you could put it up as one (that the good of humanity is the absolute good), but that it isn't a logical standard and therefore fails as a moral system.

[Eriol]

I'd say it is a standard of doubtful applicability, i.e., that it lacks practicality. It is certainly universal, and rational, and impartial, and has good claims for authority. But it lacks definition. Any action may be claimed for "the good of mankind"; like the Soviet massacre of 20,000 arrested Polish officers at the beginning of World War II. Hitler's "Final Solution" was also supposed to be good for mankind, and the atom bombings...

I think that the way to "disprove" (of sorts) the good of mankind as a standard of good is not by pointing out its lack of practicality, though... That is only a clue. There is nothing in the way of one claiming that he knows what is best for mankind and following it through; perhaps Osama believes that. The way to disprove that is by noting that the value of "mankind" must flow from the value of "man"; I think that is a clear fact. If so, to push aside the good of "man" for the good of "mankind" puts the agent in a tricky ethical position... he claims to be acting for the best interests of "mankind"; but "mankind" is only worth of consideration because it is composed of "people"; so how can he justify dismissing "people" in a pursuit for the good of "mankind"?

That's the question I'd ask Osama if he tried to reason with me based on the "good of mankind" principle. That's the main question, I think. "Why is mankind worthy of being cared for?" The only cogent answer I can see is, "because it is made of people, human beings, and each of them is worthy of being cared for".

[Ciryaher]

Originally posted by snaga1
Similarly, neither scientific proof of the humanity of slaves, nor ethical debate as to slaveries wrongness did anything like as much as the forces of the north fighting against the Confederates to remove slavery from the US.

Uhhhhhhhh.....*cough* actually, that's not what the American Civil War was about......

[HLGStrider]

actually, that's not what the American Civil War was about......

Well, it was and it wasn't. It was about states rights partially, but the right in question was the right to hold slaves. It was also about land. I don't remember the author, but my grandfather was reading a book awhile back that stated that the south actually had conquest partially in mind due to the poor farming practices in some areas making land needed. I dont' know how reliable this is. . .It was also about whether or not a state could just leave.

Truthfully, the last point was what Lincoln saw as the most vital. He wanted the union in place.

Others saw states rights as the most vital portion. I think I'd put Lee on this list.

Others truely saw slavery as the most vital in one way or the other. That was the main point behind the black regiments. . .Have you ever watched Glory? That is a great movie, despite Matthew Broderick's somewhat wishy-washy accent. . .I think Broderick is cute, but he should forget the accents. . .they don't do him any good. . .

Great, I started on one subject, and now I'm talking about Matthew Broderick. . .sigh. . .