[Buddha-l] Ethics

[Michel Clasquin]

Jim Peavler wrote:
> 
> On Mar 12, 2005, at 1:01 PM, Michel Clasquin wrote:
> 
>> Evelyn Ruut wrote:
>>
>>> I hate to bring up Rotary again, but we have what we call "the four 
>>> way test for everything we say, think and do".   It is not too 
>>> simplistic, since whatever you are considering has to pass all four 
>>> questions affirmatively.
>>>  Is it the truth?
>>> Is it fair to all concerned?
>>
>>
>> If it is true, how can it be unfair? And if it is fair to all 
>> concerned, does that not make it true? These two amount to the same 
>> thing.
> 
> 
> At first blush this sounds like about the most naive thing I have ever 
> read. 

Then it is just as well that we can add a second blush

>There is nothing fair in the universe excepting that humans 
> observing the event declare it fair or unfair, and it is often the case 
> that what one person or group sees as grossly unfair the other group 
> sees as a prime example of justice.

Yes that is often the case. But it is not ALWAYS the case, because in 
that case all discussion about the concept "fair" would grind to an 
immediate halt.

> Fairness (like truth) is a concept. I said "CONCEPT", inherently 
> ingrained and evolved in the brains of humans (maybe some animals for 
> all I know). But it requires a "judgment" on the event that can almost 
> never be the same for all possible persons or groups judging the event.

Every single word you used in that paragraph, from "fairness" to "event" 
is equally a concept and equally calls for a judgement. Yet somehow, 
even though I could not possibly have EXACTLY the same understanding 
that you had when you wrote it, the words still form a gestalt in my 
mind. I seem to understand them! How could such a thing be possible in 
your terms? Or do we arrive at a rough-and-ready consensus about what 
certain concepts signify within the limits of a conversation? I think we 
do, otherwise, again, no communication could ever take place. Hyurt 
jhebas, oprfjhut ywesadec. Oh sorry, those are private concepts that 
have meaning only to me. Won't happen again.

> I watch coyotes chasing a small group of deer. Several of the deer clear 
> the fence without incident, but one accidentally bumps into her yearling 
<snip>
> them to continue their lives and their obviously loving relationships.

Yes, so what you are saying is that fairness and truth are not built 
into the very fabric of the universe. Sure, no problem. But I was 
talking with Evelyn and we were conversing within a far smaller domain, 
the domain of human speech ethics.

Within that very restricted field, "truth" and "fairness" do have 
meaning. It may not be the ultimate meaning you seem to be looking for, 
but for us, the participants, they will do for the purpose of 
conversation. If I were to use "truth" as meaning "that which cannot be 
demonstrated to exist or to correspond to any observed phenomena" she 
would pick that up soon enough and reply "but that is not what I (or 
Rotary) mean by truth at all". And we can then discuss it and either 
agree to disagree and drop the matter, or arrive at a new, temporary, 
rough-and-ready consensus over the meaning of "truth". What is naive 
about it? This is precisely how human commnication works. The mere fact 
that you post here shows that you too participate in the process.

So, in our conversation, "true" means something like "what we regard, to 
the best of our ability, to be the case". Fair means "having considered 
the points of view of all the people concerned, insofar as this is 
possible". What I was pointing out is that these concepts overlap almost 
completely. If you have considered all the participants' points of view 
insofar as possible, then what emerges will be so close to the 
intersubjective understanding of what is the case as to make no 
difference. And vice versa. But that is linguistically clumsy, isn't it? 
So, to cut it short, "if it is fair to all concerned, does that not make 
it true?" All perfectly valid within the context of our conversation.

Now if you want to talk about whether or not there is an absolute truth 
or whether fairness and universal justice exist in nature, we can do 
that. But you are then not merely extrapolating from our conversation, 
you are putting yourself up as a Platonist, implying that if there is no 
  True and Fair, nothing can be true and fair. I do not grant that 
premiss. This sentence can be gramatically well-formed regardless of 
whether the universe as a whole gives a damn about English grammar. We 
can speak of things being true and fair regardless of the truth and 
fairness of the universe.

You yourself referred to the "loving relationships" of the coyotes. Love 
is a concept. I said "CONCEPT", inherently ingrained and evolved in the 
brains of humans (maybe some animals for all I know). But it requires a 
"judgment" on the event that can almost never be the same for all 
possible persons or groups judging the event... Do I really need to go 
on here?

 > I am sorry. I have a hard time understanding either fairness or truth
 > except as relative to the point of view of the participants.

Is relativity true, then? And were you being fair to us participants?