To have a universal moral law such as killing whales is wrong
everywhere...well your going to have to bring God in aren't you (not that He
ever left!) What about killing babies...that's okay according to a
postmodern morality. It reminds me of Hitler's concern for finding a humane
way to kill lobsters while murdering and torturing humans.

My point is this: postmodernism has two sides. There is the scientific and
the moral. Most of those who are incensed at psotmodernism in science and
with idea of no absolutes, no objective reality, in science-are moral
relativists: they see no objective, absolute moral law.
They also seem to hate Christians and indeed Christianity. For this is
really the root of postmodernism-it is a rejection of a Christian culture.

And those-like me-who see the value, the necessity, the reality, of
postmodernism in the sciences, believe in an absolute moral law. I suppose
there are many combinations of these positions, but I've neve heard this
point made in all these discussions.

But remember when modern science began there was a consistency, a coherence,
a unity within the culture-between relighion. and science. There was a
common belief in an absolute, objective moral truth, in both science and
religion. I realize this changed with the French enlightment and we are now
seeing (with postmodernism) the fruition of that line of thought. But there
was a quite different and early strand of the enlightenment that was unified
Heaven and earth, whereas the French enlightenment brought about a divorce
of heaven and earth. These two currents have been played out with vasly
different results in the sciences, and politics.

The original belief in an absolute natural law, like moral law was based in
a belief in an eternal and absolute God.
How can you know expect to have it both ways. If you believe in an absoulte
of any kind you must have something to ground that belief in. Otherwise,
you're only projecting your own personal bias. And these discussions on
postmodernism show ,more than anything else, the incredible bias to which
humans are capable. If there is an objective reality by which we can measure
our opinions and overcome our biases-WHERE IS IT!. It's clearly not in our
reason and experience alone or else this list is composed of some very
irrational people. If I may paraphrase Jerry Lee Lewis, "there's a whole
lota projecting going on" A whole lot of projecting faith onto reason. For
there is not an unbeliever on this list, not one atheist among us. We simply
worship different Gods.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin W. Johansen <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: Human construction of scilence in the slaughter of the whale


>To this I agree.  Cultural traditions, identity and self-esteem be damned.
The
>world is now networked.  We need to recognize this and adopt new standards
for
>behavior.  What is wrong in one place needs to be wrong in all places.
Killing
>whales is wrong regardless of who does it or for what reasons.  We've known
that
>for 30 years.  Not holding aboriginal cultures - or any other culture - to
this
>evolved standard is a disservice to both them and the whales.
>
>Best,
>Kevin Johansen
>CEO, 4WORK, Inc.
>http://www.4work.com
>http://www.4LaborsOfLove.org
>
>
>Stephen Miles Sacks PhD wrote:
>
>> One can argue that the recent killing of a gray whale by a native
American
>> Indian tribe is categorically barbaric. Yet there was no hue and cry
opposing
>> it by scientists or STSers. The tribal leaders claim that killing the
higher
>> evolved creature is necessary to reintroduce the tradition and
rejouvinate
>> identity and self-esteem among the down and out tribal members.
>>
>> Would scientists and STSers remain quite about the sacrifice of vestal
>> virgins for the sake of religion too?
>>
>> The lesson here is when it comes to culture and science (biology and
>> environmentalism) some things in nature are beyond relativism. An
example is
>> natural selection. In contrast, the slaughter of living species for the
sake
>> of culture is a human construction - and so is the silence of science and
STS
>> about it.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Stephen Miles Sacks, Ph.D.
>> [log in to unmask]