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.
I actually find Brahman less abstract that Rta :)
You describe Rta as the operating principle of the universe, which I agree with and have said as much. But again what is this principle?
Why should Rta be something that uses some principle to transcend the pragmatic differences between facts and moral norms?
Because it is the operating principle of the universe.
I hope you remember that we are not discussing Western philosophy here.
I don't think that matter. The universe is shared space.
I stated that it does, and demonstrated how.
I'm sorry, I found it unconvincing and provided reasons why the demonstration was lacking.
I guess rta is an interesting attempt to propose a universal order, like the Hellenic pagan concept of logos which strikes me as being very clear (especially in the interpretation of the Stoics).
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?
Because norms represent expectations of behaviour, and universal moral norms establish how everyone should behave towards each other - and that these expectations can differ from actual behaviours.
Where did I say it is the same? I am feeling more and more confounded by your statements.
There are multiple times where you have stated rta is the ordering principle of the universe. This means that they have the same principle. I am simply asking what that principle is, in a manner that doesn't collapse into tautology.
And moral laws and natural laws are both kinds of laws, so I don't know what you are missing.
Right, but "animals" are real which include cats and dogs. "Laws" is an abstraction to note that there are real moral laws and real natural laws, but not that there are laws for both.
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.
That is exactly correct. It claims to offer the unity, and yet I can find no justification for the claim.
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.
This seems much more like an observation rather than a principle.
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.
Certainly. The is-ought distinction and the naturalistic and moral fallacy is not related to agency as such, but rather to verification.
A natural fallacy claims that because something is the case, that it ought to be the case. Because England has had a royal family it ought to have a royal family. As you can see this is an argument which starts with a statement of fact and then uses it as moral justification.
A moralistic fallacy claims that because something ought to be the case, it is the case. An example would be a claim that says because vegetarianism is the right thing to do, humans are naturally vegetarian. In this case it starts with a statement of morals, and then uses it to claim a fact.
no subject
I actually find Brahman less abstract that Rta :)
You describe Rta as the operating principle of the universe, which I agree with and have said as much. But again what is this principle?
Why should Rta be something that uses some principle to transcend the pragmatic differences between facts and moral norms?
Because it is the operating principle of the universe.
I hope you remember that we are not discussing Western philosophy here.
I don't think that matter. The universe is shared space.
I stated that it does, and demonstrated how.
I'm sorry, I found it unconvincing and provided reasons why the demonstration was lacking.
I guess rta is an interesting attempt to propose a universal order, like the Hellenic pagan concept of logos which strikes me as being very clear (especially in the interpretation of the Stoics).
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?
Because norms represent expectations of behaviour, and universal moral norms establish how everyone should behave towards each other - and that these expectations can differ from actual behaviours.
Where did I say it is the same? I am feeling more and more confounded by your statements.
There are multiple times where you have stated rta is the ordering principle of the universe. This means that they have the same principle. I am simply asking what that principle is, in a manner that doesn't collapse into tautology.
And moral laws and natural laws are both kinds of laws, so I don't know what you are missing.
Right, but "animals" are real which include cats and dogs. "Laws" is an abstraction to note that there are real moral laws and real natural laws, but not that there are laws for both.
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.
That is exactly correct. It claims to offer the unity, and yet I can find no justification for the claim.
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.
This seems much more like an observation rather than a principle.
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.
Certainly. The is-ought distinction and the naturalistic and moral fallacy is not related to agency as such, but rather to verification.
A natural fallacy claims that because something is the case, that it ought to be the case. Because England has had a royal family it ought to have a royal family. As you can see this is an argument which starts with a statement of fact and then uses it as moral justification.
A moralistic fallacy claims that because something ought to be the case, it is the case. An example would be a claim that says because vegetarianism is the right thing to do, humans are naturally vegetarian. In this case it starts with a statement of morals, and then uses it to claim a fact.