Re: Things that don't evolve

As to morality, change in society requires different rules. Some matters
remain, like "Do not murder" (misstated as "Do not kill"). But the
prohibition on interest had to give way.

True. But you have to distinguish ethical codes and positive law from
Natural Law. Ethical codes and positive law can change with circumstances.
The legitimacy of ethical codes and positive law depends on whether they
comport with Natural Law. Ethical codes and positive law thus ideally are
specific applications of the general Natural Law to particular times and
cultures. Natural Law, however, does not change, because it derives
directly from the character of God, whose character and attributes do not
change.

For example, God is, was, and always will be perfectly just and
compassionate. The principles of fairness and mercy thus must always
underlie positive law, including money lending laws, for such laws to be
considered legitimate. In some times and cultures, given a particular
economic system and circumstances, that may require a prohibition on any
interest. In other times and cultures (such as ours), it may require only a
maximum limit on the amount of interest that may be charged in certain
consumer transactions. In either circumstance, the underlying Natural Law
principles remain the same. Otherwise, I think, the legal / ethical code
ultimately rests only on a foundation of power relationships -- as Mao said,
"morality begins at the point of a gun."

On 3/15/06, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for pulling these things together. However, I'm not sure that
all these matters have been thought through. For example, I read recently
that human beings are still evolving, specifically in the genes that affect
intelligence. So there is apparently greater understanding. This means
change over time in understanding--what have been called memes.
>
> As to morality, change in society requires different rules. Some
matters remain, like "Do not murder" (misstated as "Do not kill"). But the
prohibition on interest had to give way. Also, there was no attempt 10,000
years or so ago to protect large mammals or the environment, but ecology is
currently one of the moral imperatives that have been discussed on this
list and at ASA meetings.
> Dave
>
>
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 10:20:33 -0500 (EST) Gregory Arago <
gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> writes:
>
> Let me gather together some of the ideas expressed in the posts on this
topic thus far. Please excuse that I cannot keep up with the conversation
always in 'real time' since I'm in time zone GMT +3. I found the comments
interesting and helpful.
>
> "All aspects of the physical universe are evolving. Irreversibility is
the name of the game! … Humans are both physical and nonphysical. The
physical aspect does evolve; however, you are right that the nonphysical
aspect does not evolve." – A. Moorad
>
> Conclusion #1 – non-physical aspects/things do not evolve.
>
> "[E]volution explains only one small slice of reality. I'd also add
the moral law" … "angels and seraphs" – David Opderbeck
>
> Conclusion #2 – what evolution explains is (only) a small slice of
reality. Moral law, angels and seraphs don't evolve.
>
Received on Thu Mar 16 14:33:04 2006