Cultural Relativism

[AnAtheist]

Carl:

AnAtheist

Since nobody cares to answer my previous post, I ask it outright: Is slavery immoral?

One discussion at a time, please, so as not to leave us hanging and twisting, as it were.

I can’t speak for others. I’ve been waiting for several days to hear your answer to post # 55. When you finally responded today it was, I felt, a trifle unclear where you stand.

I thought I had answered it, but I will try to make my point clearer, which is rather difficult, as it is not a simple one.

Do you agree, as I sense maybe you do, that some acts are objectively immoral, but that modern relativism has contributed to chaos in the world of morals?

Yes. If objectively means something like “everybody must be able to come to that conclusion, when applying the common rules of a human society”. “Natural law” if you like.

Or do you maintain that all morality is relative? You seem to be poised to argue that case with your question about slavery.

Yes. The “(either) OR” is the wrong conjuction. Natural law and relativism is no contradiction. Our genes program us for survival even on the cost of others and to maintain social relationships (humans cannot survive alone). That scenario leads to a complex and therefore often chaotic or even contradicting set of morals.

I would like a flat out answer before moving on to your question.
Thanks for clarifying this.

I hope I did that now. If you now wonder, how I can have such a weird opinion, please keep in mind, I do not believe in an external source of morality.

 

[Carl]

AnAtheist

please keep in mind, I do not believe in an external source of morality.

This is the basis for all moral relativism. How can we have a fixed opinion on anything if we ourselves are the absolute source of right and wrong? What we think right one day, the next day we can think wrong. And each day’s thought is as valid as the contrary thought of the day before. This is what makes for moral chaos in any society … as we are seeing in our own society today.

“If it make you feel good, do it!”

The ought is subordinate to the want.

And when push comes to shove (one is held accountable for harming oneself or others) the old copouts are always there to fall back on: luck, determinism, genes; anything but the commandments and free will and remorse and confession and … best of all … absolution with the resolve to go and sin no more.

 

[Carl]

AnAtheist

Having said all that, I can see why and where relativism often enters our moral judgments.

For example, the woman who has an abortion because the physician says she will die if she doesn’t, is not confronted with the same moral choice of the woman who has an abortion because the unplanned pregnancy inconveniences her career plans.

These are situations with circumstances radically different.

The man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family is in far different circumstances than the man who steals a loaf of bread just to prove he can steal a loaf of bread and get away with it. Both acts are wrong, but our contempt for one man greatly exceeds any mild judgment we may have against the other.

Yet the principle source of our morality is still external to us, not internal. We do not decide what is right and what is wrong. We must conform to a higher standard. The circumstances that might call for exceptions to the rule do not invalidate the rule. In time of war, for example, certain rights might be suspended in order to make possible the achievement of a greater good, the national security. Our right to privacy might be invaded by having our baggage and our clothes searched to make sure we are not carrying weapons aboard a plane. But that does not suspend altogether the general rule of our right to privacy. Such search and seize procedures are related in a clear way to the natural law … that we should act so as not to harms others or ourselves.

Translated into Christian terms … love one another, as you love yourselves.

Even so, we are still obliged to love one another by respecting each other’s privacy in the natural course of events.

 

[Carl]

AnAtheist

Back to your post # 61.

You raised three points concerning moral relativism. Eating pork, homosexuality, and slavery.

If you don’t mind, I prefer to discuss them singly. The first point concerned eating pork.

- eating pork is wrong (wrong for Jews only? wrong in OT times only?)

Before responding to your point, would you please cite the specific biblical text where you find the censure against pork.

Then would you explain the current attitude of Jews toward this ancient law.

Then would you explain why the ancient law on pork enforces your argument that moral conduct comes from within, rather than from without?

 

[AnAtheist]

Carl:

For example, the woman who has an abortion because the
…]
Even so, we are still obliged to love one another by respecting each other’s privacy in the natural course of events.

I agree to allmost everything you said above. The only difference is, as I do not believe in any external source, for me there is no external source that a priori sets the rules.

 

[AnAtheist]

Carl:

If you don’t mind, I prefer to discuss them singly. The first point concerned eating pork.
Before responding to your point, would you please cite the specific biblical text where you find the censure against pork.

Lev 11:7, Deu 14:8

Then would you explain why the ancient law on pork enforces your argument that moral conduct comes from within, rather than from without?

Oh, it doesn’t. It enforces my argument that christianity uses a lot of cultural relativism, and is no way bound to absolute (in time and space) morals.

 

[Carl]

AnAtheist

eating pork is wrong (wrong for Jews only? wrong in OT times only?)

Then you cite the following source (actually two sources that are virtually identical)

1 The Lord gave Moses and Aaron the following regulations 2 for the people of Israel. You may eat any land animal 3 that has divided hoofs and that also chews the cud, 4 but you must not eat camels, rock badgers, or rabbits. These must be considered unclean; they chew the cud, but do not have divided hoofs. 7 Do not eat pigs. They must be considered unclean; they have divided hoofs, but do not chew the cud. 8 Do not eat these animals or even touch their dead bodies; they are unclean. (Leviticus 11:7)

Abstaining from pork was a dietary law which in ancient times made sense (some believe it still does). The Jews were savvy enough to the deleterious effects of eating tainted pork. The effects are much less in evidence today since we have better protection from tainted pork. The fact that the law is no longer binding for Christians (and some Jews) does not mean that relativism is operating. If we had not learned how to overcome tainted pork, we would still have the law and it would be generally observed for the obvious reason. That is, it is absolutely proper, not a matter of relative preference, that we eat only in such a way as not to harmourselves. For example, the Catholic Church still teaches (and always will) that gluttony is a mortal sin because it threatens our health. It is difficult to imagine any circumstance in which gluttony would become safe, whereas pork has been made safe. So the absolute aspect of the law has not so much to do with the specific item eaten, as that we should not eat items of a kind or amount harmful to us.

If you don’t agree with the above, please explain why.

Thank you.

 

[AnAtheist]

Carl:

Abstaining from pork was a dietary law which in ancient times made sense (some believe it still does). …]
So the absolute aspect of the law has not so much to do with the specific item eaten, as that we should not eat items of a kind or amount harmful to us.

If you don’t agree with the above, please explain why.

I agree with you.

I have underlined those of your words that lead to the road of relativism. What once made sense, does not necessarily make sense today. If you ackowledge, that there laws which are not absolute but have (only) absolute aspects, who is qualified to determine those aspects? Who defines what aspect is absolute and what aspect is not?

God said: “Do not eat pork.” No reason, no explanation, just don’t do it. And not: “Do not eat pork until you figure out how to consume it without any harm done to you.” If there is room for bending the rules in this case, why not in other cases? And who decides that?

 

[Carl]

The law against pork is that it is unclean … harmful. If it ceases to be unclean, it ceases to be harmful. There is then no reason to have a law against it.

People who are locked into the Mosaic covenant might feel that they are still bound not to eat pork. Christians are no longer strictly under the Mosaic Covenant, but also under the covenant given to us by Christ. The Catholic Church reserves the right to dispense with certain formalities of the Old Covenant (for examples, pork and circumcision), and it reserves the right to decide which formalities will be kept and which will not. The Ten Commandments are kept. They are absolute. The injunctions against murder, lying, stealing, homosexual relations, etc. cannot be abandoned as if they were relative to their time or place.

When you ask who has the right to change the law, the only sensible answer to give is that the right was given to the Church of God by God himself. But that means that there is still an exterior, divine authority at work among us, rather than our own private bias and judgment, as relativists would claim.

As an atheist, this concept might or might not be difficult for you to grasp. We Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church to truth and righteousness through the laws of the Church. At one time the Catholic Church adopted a non-essential law not to eat Fish on Friday. There were reasons for that, both dietary and spiritual. The Church no longer demands that sacrifice, so it is now approved to eat fish on Friday. Some people would call this moral relativism. In a certain way, that might be so. In the same way, celibacy among priests is a law relative to time and place. In the early Church, priests could marry. Now they cannot. But the change of a non-essential custom is not the same as changing a fundamental rule. As was said earlier, the Church now, as in the time of Moses, still teaches the Ten Commandments and other fundamental laws considered to be objective, absolute, unchangeable, whereas things like pork, fish on Friday, circumcision and celibacy are not fundamental to our religion.

If you disagree with any part of this, please explain why.

Thanks.

 

[SCTA-1]

The original state of marriage was intended for only one man and one woman as ordered by God.Then God allows polygamy in the O.T. and then changes again to the original state intended for one man and one woman in the N.T. (Christ) Am I making any sense here? Did God change on morals and how would this fit into cultural relativism.

 

[Carl]

The original state of marriage was intended for only one man and one woman as ordered by God.Then God allows polygamy in the O.T. and then changes again to the original state intended for one man and one woman in the N.T.

Whatever God allows, God allows. It’s plain from the time of Moses on that God does not allow adultery either in the OT or the NT. It is a fixed, or absolute, principle … not relative. Likewise concerning homosexual actions, lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc. It is interesting to notice that virtually all civilizations adhere to the same moral code, suggesting that it is not invented by us for ourselves, but rather that it was planted in us by the Creator at the Creation.

This deference to the Mosaic Law as the fountainhead of God’s law was symbolically celebrated when the Supreme Court building was built. At the top of the building statues of various world lawgivers are situated all turned toward the central figure, Moses, who alone faces frontal. On the oak doars at the entrance to the building are engraved the Ten Commandments, which are engraved yet again above the place where the Justices sit when they convene. It is hard to deny that at least at one time Americans recognized the supremacy of the law of God as the basis of civil law. That morality springs from an exterior, not interior source.

There is no statue of the human ego to be found among any of the monuments at the Supreme Court.

That doesn’t mean the ACLU wouldn’t like to see one up there right next to Moses.

 

[Carl]

OR IN PLACE OF MOSES