Absolute Relativism:The New Tyranny

[John21652]

This CAF Forums home page banner ad links to a page for a new book about what moral relativism really is. The page has as its headline the book’s title [Absolute Relativism (http://shop.catholic.com/product.php?productid=17047&cat=0&page=1) and then says “Welcome to the new tyranny”.

That page lists some points relevant to not only Moral Theology, but to Catholicism and society in general. Some of the points listed are -
Ignoring the natural law “written on our hearts.”

Undermining the family with so-called “same-sex marriage”

Destroying the sacredness of life through unabated abortion on demand.

Warping the proper intellectual, emotional and spiritual formation of children.

Abrogating human rights to those who dare oppose relativism’s dictatorship.

. Moral Relativism is anathema to Catholic theology and to what has underpinned western civilisation for centuries. The world is losing its moral compass.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

It ain’t so new. Been gaining ground for decades.

If everything is relative, though, shouldn’t relativism also be relative?

 

[YankeeRC]

Moral relativism is the philosophical soup of the day until someone gets in the moral relativists way and then they become amorally subjective. Suddenly what is good for someone else is not good for me.

 

[valentino]

Moral relativism denies that there are absolute morals basic to human nature.and that God is no reason to advocate for a particular moral.Because the bible or any religion says that an action is moral or immoral can’t be relevant to the society we live in.Since so many people have various beliefs morals are relative.Therefore society must do away with all morals because you can’t satisfy everyone.But this is a problem.How can society exist without defined morals?We know that an athiest society will fail.But that has to be the ultimate end.Answer:Our society falls apart,wars take place,millions die,and then we start all over again with society believing in morals based on Christianity.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Calling a person a moral relativist is an insult more than it is a accurate description of their beliefs. Moral relativism is the belief that moral values are not absolute. There are some people who could accurately be described as moral relativists but they are very few and far between.

Most people who are accused of being relativists are anything but. For example, supporters of same-sex marriage argue that denying marriage to gays and lesbians is wrong and always has been in spite of the prevailing cultural attitudes. That doesn’t sound like moral relativism to me. Same thing with those who support abortion and reproductive rights. The argument for abortion is that denying a woman her reproductive rights is objectively wrong and always has been. Seems like misinformed moral objectivism to me.

Calling someone a relativist is shorthand for something but I am not really sure what it is. I think it would be more accurate to call them heretics but that word has dropped out of style.

 

[exnihilo]

Calling a person a moral relativist is an insult more than it is a accurate description of their beliefs. Moral relativism is the belief that moral values are not absolute. There are some people who could accurately be described as moral relativists but they are very few and far between.

You have a good point. But in my experience there are actually quite a few people who proclaim to be moral relativists. They dont use the term of course. But the way they describe morality is often very much as if it is relative. Of course they are usually not really moral relativists. If you investigate you will find that they dont really honor an opponents view of morality and somewhere in their view they actually have some objective morals. It is evidence of how unworkable relative morals are.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Calling a person a moral relativist is an insult more than it is a accurate description of their beliefs. Moral relativism is the belief that moral values are not absolute. There are some people who could accurately be described as moral relativists but they are very few and far between.

Most people who are accused of being relativists are anything but. For example, supporters of same-sex marriage argue that denying marriage to gays and lesbians is wrong and always has been in spite of the prevailing cultural attitudes. That doesn’t sound like moral relativism to me. Same thing with those who support abortion and reproductive rights. The argument for abortion is that denying a woman her reproductive rights is objectively wrong and always has been. Seems like misinformed moral objectivism to me.

Calling someone a relativist is shorthand for something but I am not really sure what it is. I think it would be more accurate to call them heretics but that word has dropped out of style.

The murder of the unborn is not a RIGHT. No matter how they try to spin the words.

Absolute relativism corrupts absolutely.

 

[vz71]

Many are moral relativists as they progress through childhood.

Attempting to acquire authority and freedoms they should not have at that level of maturity though arguments of the beard.

And then they have children of their own…
And the perspective changes overnight.
The freedoms they argued and fought for as children themselves they now recognize as dangerous.

And the cycle continues.

At least that is how I have seen it progress many times.

 

[John21652]

Calling a person a moral relativist is an insult more than it is a accurate description of their beliefs. Moral relativism is the belief that moral values are not absolute. There are some people who could accurately be described as moral relativists but they are very few and far between.

Most people who are accused of being relativists are anything but. For example, supporters of same-sex marriage argue that denying marriage to gays and lesbians is wrong and always has been in spite of the prevailing cultural attitudes. That doesn’t sound like moral relativism to me. Same thing with those who support abortion and reproductive rights. The argument for abortion is that denying a woman her reproductive rights is objectively wrong and always has been. Seems like misinformed moral objectivism to me.

Calling someone a relativist is shorthand for something but I am not really sure what it is. I think it would be more accurate to call them heretics but that word has dropped out of style.

Calling a person a Moral relativist is only insulting to the other if they regard themselves as moral absolutists and using the term as an insult will only have meaning if the user of the term is a moral absolutist. There are many who do not even understand what moral relativity is and yet they espouse it in moral discourse.

Moral relativity can also be called Ethical Subjectivism, which says that morality is a personal affair and one person’s beliefs about what is right or wrong is no better than someone else’s beliefs about what is right or wrong. In other words, morality is a product of human preference and there is no absolute, objective morality.

Considering the rise in behaviours which are contrary to those behaviours which have been condemned both socially and religiously for millenia, it is rather obvious that moral relativism is on the rise and more and more people are abandoning the idea of absolute morality. Supporters of same-sex marriage and abortion are supporting moral relativity writ large, contrary to what you suggest. They are overturning moral absolutes with their demands. Moral edicts and even societal laws then become just a matter of opinion and preference. That must then lead to moral confusion.

 

[Veritas248]

Ah, moral relativism. The things I could say about this contradiction are not appropriate to say in the presence of other people.

What’s funny though is how inconsistent and foolish the so called adherents of moral relativism are. The simplest and strongest refutation of moral relativism is the question: Why do relativists teach relativism? If they truly believed that all moralities were equal, then they wouldn’t be so desperately trying to prove moral absolutism false. You’d think that with all the talk about freeing mankind from the repressive bonds of absolute morality that they actually believed it.

You’d also think that an inconsistent philosophy would know how to die and stay dead. With all of the logical refutations of this contradiction out there, one questions the sanity of those who continue to promote it.Of course when people are determined to not only perform but gain acceptance of hideously barbaric acts, reason is the last thing on their minds.

I’d better shut up before I end up going on a rant.