As I said before - that is someone's particular way of describing Rta which is a very cursory one and tells us precious little about what Rta actually is.
Well, that's fine. Would you care to elaborate on what Rta actually is, and what principle it uses that transcends the pragmatic differences between the evaluation of physical facts and moral norms?
I haven't seen an objection from you to my examples so far.
The example given...
For instance, that you should not cause physical harm to another, applied within context, is a moral imperative. It's not made any less moral by the "natural" - to use your term - fact that if you cause physical harm to another, you act against the spiritual as well as material interest of yourself as well as the other person .
... does not provide the transcendent principle that I would be seeking for validation. Actions can, of course, be both physically and morally harmful but that does not mean that physical harm and moral harm is the same, and indeed, they are often in conflict because they a validated by different principles (i.e., statements of fact vs statements of norms).
It seems to me that you are reading more into that statement than is intended and insist upon connecting the dots where no connection is apparent.
Perhaps. Such is my nature :)
Hinduism sees an underlying single source in these types of laws and sees it as indicative of a united, coherent and consistent order to the universe, just as it sees a unity in all existence and ascribes that to a single existence called Brahman.
Ah, well, I see disunity and incommensurability. :)
To say that Rta can't exist because physical and moral laws are of different kinds is as superficial as saying that Brahman can't exist because cats and dogs are different kinds of animals.
Except cats and dogs are both animals, which shows they have a higher unity, a higher principle. Now, for Rta to exist it must be able to show a unity between physical and moral laws.
See, no is-ought equivalence.
Sorry, I don't see that. The question I have with Is-Ought and the Moral/Naturalistic fallacy is unrelated to questions of agency, but rather to pragmatic verification.
I don't know what this has to do with what we have been discussing.
As much as the varna finds its origins in the Manusmriti, which are supposed to be apaurusheyatva (or am I wrong there?).
I appreciate and thoroughly approve of the interpretative and liberal approach that you have taken on this matter of course, just in the same way I appreciate how liberal Christians find much of their Bible to be abhorrent in inappropriate. But both liberal Hindu and liberal Christian would surely admit that there's is not the only interpretation and there is plenty who will claim that the holy books are to be interpreted literally and eternally.
no subject
Well, that's fine. Would you care to elaborate on what Rta actually is, and what principle it uses that transcends the pragmatic differences between the evaluation of physical facts and moral norms?
I haven't seen an objection from you to my examples so far.
The example given...
... does not provide the transcendent principle that I would be seeking for validation. Actions can, of course, be both physically and morally harmful but that does not mean that physical harm and moral harm is the same, and indeed, they are often in conflict because they a validated by different principles (i.e., statements of fact vs statements of norms).
It seems to me that you are reading more into that statement than is intended and insist upon connecting the dots where no connection is apparent.
Perhaps. Such is my nature :)
Hinduism sees an underlying single source in these types of laws and sees it as indicative of a united, coherent and consistent order to the universe, just as it sees a unity in all existence and ascribes that to a single existence called Brahman.
Ah, well, I see disunity and incommensurability. :)
To say that Rta can't exist because physical and moral laws are of different kinds is as superficial as saying that Brahman can't exist because cats and dogs are different kinds of animals.
Except cats and dogs are both animals, which shows they have a higher unity, a higher principle. Now, for Rta to exist it must be able to show
a unity between physical and moral laws.
See, no is-ought equivalence.
Sorry, I don't see that. The question I have with Is-Ought and the Moral/Naturalistic fallacy is unrelated to questions of agency, but rather to pragmatic verification.
I don't know what this has to do with what we have been discussing.
As much as the varna finds its origins in the Manusmriti, which are supposed to be apaurusheyatva (or am I wrong there?).
I appreciate and thoroughly approve of the interpretative and liberal approach that you have taken on this matter of course, just in the same way I appreciate how liberal Christians find much of their Bible to be abhorrent in inappropriate. But both liberal Hindu and liberal Christian would surely admit that there's is not the only interpretation and there is plenty who will claim that the holy books are to be interpreted literally and eternally.