Would you care to elaborate on what Rta actually is Rta is the operating principle of the universe, one can say it's the Brahman in action, the very fabric of the ever-changing manifested reality. It's the principle which undergirds all the modifications that the manifested universe undergoes with time. It's an abstract concept, but so is Brahman.
what principle it uses that transcends the pragmatic differences between the evaluation of physical facts and moral norms Why should Rta be something that uses some principle to transcend the pragmatic differences between facts and moral norms? I hope you remember that we are not discussing Western philosophy here.
...does not provide the transcendent principle that I would be seeking for validation Why should Rta provide you whatever you are seeking for validation? Who said it would? I was rebutting your claim that Rta leads to "naturalism," or it doesn't distinguish between facts and norms. I stated that it does, and demonstrated how. Anyway, I don't know why you are bringing up norms again and again - why does all morality have to be in terms of norms, and how does Rta stand in the way of having moral norms?
Actions can, of course, be both physically and morally harmful but that does not mean that physical harm and moral harm is the same Where did I say it is the same? I am feeling more and more confounded by your statements.
Ah, well, I see disunity and incommensurability But we are not talking about what you see, right? We are talking about some of the core beliefs of Hinduism and the conclusions that follow from them. You are free not to have those beliefs.
Except cats and dogs are both animals, which shows they have a higher unity, a higher principle And moral laws and natural laws are both kinds of laws, so I don't know what you are missing. Moreover, I could have given the example of me and the bottle of Mountain Dew in front of me instead of cats and dogs. They are both manifestations of Brahman, even though one is sentient and the other is not.
Now, for Rta to exist it must be able to show a unity between physical and moral laws
But why? In fact it’s strange on one hand you accuse Rta of equating moral and natural laws, and on the other hand criticizing Rta for not showing “unity” between Natural and moral laws. The commonality which are you are looking for is quite evidently in that they are both laws. But they are different in that natural laws are descriptive in terms of what happens in nature; and moral laws are prescriptive in terms of what choices human beings should make. By way of being more specific about the common characteristic of these two types of laws, you could say that just as certain natural events are followed by certain other natural events, similarly certain choices humans make in terms of how to act are followed by certain consequences in the physical as well as the psychological and the spiritual realms. The two kinds of laws are certainly different in nature, but both indicate that there is a certain orderliness which is always present in the way things happen in the universe, and Hinduism ascribes the existence of this orderliness to a single principle called Rta.
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 think the is-ought question and the naturalistic fallacy are quite clearly about confusion between statements about what people do and statements of what they should do; and I have shown that no such confusion arises in pursuing the concept of Rta. I only cited agency to show that "ought" statements are possible according to Rta, as people have free agency. If I understand wrongly by the is-ought distinction and the naturalistic fallacy I would ask you to state so, and then supply the correct definition.
no subject
Rta is the operating principle of the universe, one can say it's the Brahman in action, the very fabric of the ever-changing manifested reality. It's the principle which undergirds all the modifications that the manifested universe undergoes with time. It's an abstract concept, but so is Brahman.
what principle it uses that transcends the pragmatic differences between the evaluation of physical facts and moral norms
Why should Rta be something that uses some principle to transcend the pragmatic differences between facts and moral norms? I hope you remember that we are not discussing Western philosophy here.
...does not provide the transcendent principle that I would be seeking for validation
Why should Rta provide you whatever you are seeking for validation? Who said it would? I was rebutting your claim that Rta leads to "naturalism," or it doesn't distinguish between facts and norms. I stated that it does, and demonstrated how. Anyway, I don't know why you are bringing up norms again and again - why does all morality have to be in terms of norms, and how does Rta stand in the way of having moral norms?
Actions can, of course, be both physically and morally harmful but that does not mean that physical harm and moral harm is the same
Where did I say it is the same? I am feeling more and more confounded by your statements.
Ah, well, I see disunity and incommensurability
But we are not talking about what you see, right? We are talking about some of the core beliefs of Hinduism and the conclusions that follow from them. You are free not to have those beliefs.
Except cats and dogs are both animals, which shows they have a higher unity, a higher principle
And moral laws and natural laws are both kinds of laws, so I don't know what you are missing. Moreover, I could have given the example of me and the bottle of Mountain Dew in front of me instead of cats and dogs. They are both manifestations of Brahman, even though one is sentient and the other is not.
Now, for Rta to exist it must be able to show a unity between physical and moral laws
But why? In fact it’s strange on one hand you accuse Rta of equating moral and natural laws, and on the other hand criticizing Rta for not showing “unity” between Natural and moral laws. The commonality which are you are looking for is quite evidently in that they are both laws. But they are different in that natural laws are descriptive in terms of what happens in nature; and moral laws are prescriptive in terms of what choices human beings should make. By way of being more specific about the common characteristic of these two types of laws, you could say that just as certain natural events are followed by certain other natural events, similarly certain choices humans make in terms of how to act are followed by certain consequences in the physical as well as the psychological and the spiritual realms. The two kinds of laws are certainly different in nature, but both indicate that there is a certain orderliness which is always present in the way things happen in the universe, and Hinduism ascribes the existence of this orderliness to a single principle called Rta.
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 think the is-ought question and the naturalistic fallacy are quite clearly about confusion between statements about what people do and statements of what they should do; and I have shown that no such confusion arises in pursuing the concept of Rta. I only cited agency to show that "ought" statements are possible according to Rta, as people have free agency. If I understand wrongly by the is-ought distinction and the naturalistic fallacy I would ask you to state so, and then supply the correct definition.