Is moral relativism and liberalism simply a tool of capital?

[Nihilist]

It seems as if, in the last century- we have had a rise of atheism and moral permissiveness. Yet, there has has been no revolution, no real collapse of ‘society.’ This would seem incongruous.

My theory is that ‘capital’ (controlling the media, political discourse, etc.), actually want beliefs to go out the window- because in this way it becomes even stronger. People are left as functionaries of some capitalist machine, without even any beliefs or moral values which might lead to ideals and real social change- and say, ‘enough is enough’ to market forces. In this way, the capitalist machine is becoming even stronger and more dominant, while the revolutionary impulse is getting weaker and weaker…

I suspect that a lot of political liberals (atheists, equal rights activists) are actually servants of the capitalist big-picture without knowing it…

 

[inocente]

Those in Russia, East Germany, China and so on might not agree. Under communism and socialism they were not even allowed to practice a religion.

Just by itself China has a higher population than the US and Europe combined, so more people have benefited from improvements to human rights, or “liberalism” as you call it.

What’s your alternative? Presumably not the Taliban or ISIS.

 

[Nihilist]

Those in Russia, East Germany, China and so on might not agree. Under communism and socialism they were not even allowed to practice a religion.

Just by itself China has a higher population than the US and Europe combined, so more people have benefited from improvements to human rights, or “liberalism” as you call it.

What’s your alternative? Presumably not the Taliban or ISIS.

Yes, but those ‘Communist’ countries just ended up with ‘capital’ controlling under a different guise. I suppose, if they were still around, they would have adopted some form of ‘tolerable liberalism’ in order to perpetuate their power structures.

I’m not sure what’s the alternative. There must be some system that’s better than capitalism, and that’s better than oppressive communism. But then, liberalism always seems to be just finding new forms of tolerance, which never amount to a genuine overthrow.

All the advances in technolohy and effeciency- yet people work longer hours than ever. What happenned to genuine human freedom as a goal?

 

[TarkanAttila]

Well, frankly, our forefathers used to work the entire day, six days a week - and not even their own turf, half the time! That was serfdom, in the Middle Ages. And most people were serfs.

Still, I wonder if we were happier as serfs than we are now as the burghers.

Atheism and moral permissiveness impose nothing upon a person. Only an imposition can cause a conflict. Pope vs. Caliph was a real conflict. But there is no real conflict between Pope and self, certainly not as the modern view would be. I don’t lose myself or give anything real up by being a Catholic. I become more myself. People become Moslem because Mohammed challenges them to become more themselves, as God envisions them, through total surrender to God. Atheism leaves you to yourself, to figure yourself out.

Any wonder people become languid? Does the term “wide open sandbox” mean anything to y’all? Without goals, people lose interest in a revolution. Atheism isn’t a goal. It is the destruction of all goals. Relativism isn’t a goal. It is the absorption of all goals into blah.

 

[Nihilist]

Well, frankly, our forefathers used to work the entire day, six days a week - and not even their own turf, half the time! That was serfdom, in the Middle Ages. And most people were serfs.

Still, I wonder if we were happier as serfs than we are now as the burghers.

Atheism and moral permissiveness impose nothing upon a person. Only an imposition can cause a conflict. Pope vs. Caliph was a real conflict. But there is no real conflict between Pope and self, certainly not as the modern view would be. I don’t lose myself or give anything real up by being a Catholic. I become more myself. People become Moslem because Mohammed challenges them to become more themselves, as God envisions them, through total surrender to God. Atheism leaves you to yourself, to figure yourself out.

Any wonder people become languid? Does the term “wide open sandbox” mean anything to y’all? Without goals, people lose interest in a revolution. Atheism isn’t a goal. It is the destruction of all goals. Relativism isn’t a goal. It is the absorption of all goals into blah.

Yes, that is the difficulty with modern life- no real ‘goals’. The serf has a defined oppressor (his baron), and a defined goal (not to starve). The modern man- has no revolutionary objectives, he has no enemies apart from those he invents himself- no persecutors, etc.

I remember something Mishima wrote- that one of the reasons why Christianity flourished during the time of persecutions in that people want something to die for. I suppose it is the same with the Islamic State- people seem to be keen to sign up for anything which they see as a credible cause, which offers a life and death struggle. Maybe we’re all looking to live and die with some purpose. The pursuit of the joy of living in itself is just not enough.

Liberalism totally deflates the human spirit. An ‘anything goes’ society makes everything pointless, Meanwhile, the blind forces of capitalism, which keep people in a vicious circle of working and consuming, just go on and on…

 

[friardchips]

It seems as if, in the last century- we have had a rise of atheism and moral permissiveness. Yet, there has has been no revolution, no real collapse of ‘society.’ This would seem incongruous.

My theory is that ‘capital’ (controlling the media, political discourse, etc.), actually want beliefs to go out the window- because in this way it becomes even stronger. People are left as functionaries of some capitalist machine, without even any beliefs or moral values which might lead to ideals and real social change- and say, ‘enough is enough’ to market forces. In this way, the capitalist machine is becoming even stronger and more dominant, while the revolutionary impulse is getting weaker and weaker…

I suspect that a lot of political liberals (atheists, equal rights activists) are actually servants of the capitalist big-picture without knowing it…

Moral relativism and liberalism are by-products, some of the consequences, of capitalism. There needs to be a chance for growth in work and this is fairer than a lot of other systems. Capitalism can exist fairly (theoretically) and kept separate from the moral aspects of society. There will always be those seeking to undermine or exploit. Money is the world of mammon. Yet, man is made to work. Religious people, for example, don’t own things for this reason and yet they can be productive. The two can be separate. Media is consumerism and news. Consumerism is a by-product or consequence of capitalism. Materialism is a consequence of consumerism. Some people use these to divert away from truth. It doesn’t mean the whole system is flawed or designed for evil. Evil engages. And so I agree that some atheists and so-called equal rights campaigners would use everything at their disposal to divert from there being truth.

 

[TEPO]

Yes, that is the difficulty with modern life- no real ‘goals’. The serf has a defined oppressor (his baron), and a defined goal (not to starve). The modern man- has no revolutionary objectives, he has no enemies apart from those he invents himself- no persecutors, etc.

I remember something Mishima wrote- that one of the reasons why Christianity flourished during the time of persecutions in that people want something to die for. I suppose it is the same with the Islamic State- people seem to be keen to sign up for anything which they see as a credible cause, which offers a life and death struggle. Maybe we’re all looking to live and die with some purpose. The pursuit of the joy of living in itself is just not enough.

Liberalism totally deflates the human spirit. An ‘anything goes’ society makes everything pointless, Meanwhile, the blind forces of capitalism, which keep people in a vicious circle of working and consuming, just go on and on…

In my view, liberalism is progress -just the human minds urge to evolve, while other more traditional “conservatives” work towards retaining the same structure already in place -another factor in evolution.

These two forces working against each other represent life in its constant struggle to either change or stay the same… But regardless of whether or not we change or stay the same, the methods of human structuring represent the very driving force of life itself.

 

[WildCatholic]

Moral relativism and liberalism are by-products, some of the consequences, of capitalism. There needs to be a chance for growth in work and this is fairer than a lot of other systems. Capitalism can exist fairly (theoretically) and kept separate from the moral aspects of society. There will always be those seeking to undermine or exploit. Money is the world of mammon. Yet, man is made to work. Religious people, for example, don’t own things for this reason and yet they can be productive. The two can be separate. Media is consumerism and news. Consumerism is a by-product or consequence of capitalism. Materialism is a consequence of consumerism. Some people use these to divert away from truth. It doesn’t mean the whole system is flawed or designed for evil. Evil engages. And so I agree that some atheists and so-called equal rights campaigners would use everything at their disposal to divert from there being truth.

I agree with you about moral relativism and liberalism being a by product of capitalism, and that people need a chance to grow and work.I worry that in some Catholic circles there is an undercurrent of people who don’t think a democratic government will work. Now it is true that no government is perfect and that all have their flaws, but I’ve heard an undercurrent of people saying we need a Catholic Monarch who will enforce catholic values even though we had Catholic monarchies and only a few stand out as very exemplary.

You also bring up materialism. I would argue both Capitalism and communism are based on materialism. In Communism/Socialism, the idea is that the workers don’t have enough and are oppressed and everyone has to get everything no matter what (not a bad idea in that I believe that being alive, all people have rights, but communism or socialism makes government the source of all power. Not God.) Capitalism seems to be all about money and seems to think that people will take care of themselves and the market will fix all. Again it could work in theory, but the problem in capitalism is that if it goes crazy, at some point you could have a monopoly, or at least a system with only a few major players. As a result some people will get left to be poor and be thought of as lazy and as a result the less stuff you have, you are seen as lazy. The thing is though both are materialistic. To me it seems the difference is who provides the materials, firms or the government.

In terms of moral relativism, this means that we end up doing things just for material gain and not for the moral or spiritual. Either the government or business has to provide us with more stuff and I don’t care what it is. I guess my feeling is that when people care more about things, they forget about people. The sad thing is that it could go downhill so fast. So today the argument might be that “Abortion is okay as long as I or my family don’t have one and we have our rights” while tomorrow it might be “I’m okay with others getting murdered in the street as long as I have my life and stuff still”

 

[paulrxp]

Yes, that is the difficulty with modern life- no real ‘goals’. The serf has a defined oppressor (his baron), and a defined goal (not to starve). The modern man- has no revolutionary objectives, he has no enemies apart from those he invents himself- no persecutors, etc.

I remember something Mishima wrote- that one of the reasons why Christianity flourished during the time of persecutions in that people want something to die for. I suppose it is the same with the Islamic State- people seem to be keen to sign up for anything which they see as a credible cause, which offers a life and death struggle. Maybe we’re all looking to live and die with some purpose. The pursuit of the joy of living in itself is just not enough.

Liberalism totally deflates the human spirit. An ‘anything goes’ society makes everything pointless, Meanwhile, the blind forces of capitalism, which keep people in a vicious circle of working and consuming, just go on and on…

Indeed, the joy of living comes from understanding that joy sometimes involves struggle, sacrifice and suffering. Atheist’s I’ve known either reject the existence of God because their belief is God could not have erred so badly by allowing suffering to exist n this world, or they believe atheism has a better way to deal with problems of the world than religion and faith.

Liberalism I never could quite get a handle on. What really is the objective other than to believe removing rules, rituals traditional beliefs and bias somehow can unify and bring harmony to peoples minds and lives?? There are too many contradictions about liberal ideology that have always clashed with my religious beliefs. . I’ve always thought it was often(not always) a gateway to atheism. Many in my family are liberals. During my discussions, they either dont’ care if they’re perceived as Liberal, or honestly don’t know they espouse very liberal beliefs. The deflation of the human spirit may come from this rejection that God calls us to struggle and suffer for our faith. It’s very hard to convince a liberal that their are good fruits that can come from suffering. Their disposition often parallels the atheist, that is: suffering should not happen, it’s not what God would want. Who am I to argue with a Liberal that knows the will of God

So you can see how relativism, atheism, liberalism and even humanism can overlap in overall beliefs of the self, the world and that of God. These forces combined could have a huge impact on the strength of your faith, because these ideologies almost force you to question your place between God and the world. Without definitive answers and meanings to these questions about life and living, more questions arise, more doubts enter your mind and your faith. That loop continues until your entire belief system is compromised.

I’m certainly not against progress, allowing people to live better lives by removing oppressive and ignorant beliefs of the past, but meaningful understanding of life and living, with the moral direction I get from God and the Catholic faith can achieve all. I don’t compromise a thing by believing God will always be above man.

 

[inocente]

I’m not sure what’s the alternative. There must be some system that’s better than capitalism, and that’s better than oppressive communism. But then, liberalism always seems to be just finding new forms of tolerance, which never amount to a genuine overthrow.

A middle course is distributism, which I think grew out of Christian, especially Catholic, ideas. Unlike communism it allows individual property ownership, but unlike capitalism it tries to distribute ownership to as many as possible, so workers share the ownership of their company. There are a number of these “cooperatives” in Europe.

Though it’s perhaps even more liberal than capitalism, which to me is fine but you may disagree.

 

[TEPO]

I agree with you about moral relativism and liberalism being a by product of capitalism, and that people need a chance to grow and work.I worry that in some Catholic circles there is an undercurrent of people who don’t think a democratic government will work. Now it is true that no government is perfect and that all have their flaws, but I’ve heard an undercurrent of people saying we need a Catholic Monarch who will enforce catholic values even though we had Catholic monarchies and only a few stand out as very exemplary.

You also bring up materialism. I would argue both Capitalism and communism are based on materialism. In Communism/Socialism, the idea is that the workers don’t have enough and are oppressed and everyone has to get everything no matter what (not a bad idea in that I believe that being alive, all people have rights, but communism or socialism makes government the source of all power. Not God.) Capitalism seems to be all about money and seems to think that people will take care of themselves and the market will fix all. Again it could work in theory, but the problem in capitalism is that if it goes crazy, at some point you could have a monopoly, or at least a system with only a few major players. As a result some people will get left to be poor and be thought of as lazy and as a result the less stuff you have, you are seen as lazy. The thing is though both are materialistic. To me it seems the difference is who provides the materials, firms or the government.

In terms of moral relativism, this means that we end up doing things just for material gain and not for the moral or spiritual. Either the government or business has to provide us with more stuff and I don’t care what it is. I guess my feeling is that when people care more about things, they forget about people. The sad thing is that it could go downhill so fast. So today the argument might be that “Abortion is okay as long as I or my family don’t have one and we have our rights” while tomorrow it might be “I’m okay with others getting murdered in the street as long as I have my life and stuff still”

In response to your first sentence, it could rightfully be said that capitalism is actually the product of liberalism -because to be conservative used to mean strict allegiance to the State… The tables have since been turned.

 

[TarkanAttila]

A middle course is distributism, which I think grew out of Christian, especially Catholic, ideas. Unlike communism it allows individual property ownership, but unlike capitalism it tries to distribute ownership to as many as possible, so workers share the ownership of their company. There are a number of these “cooperatives” in Europe.

Though it’s perhaps even more liberal than capitalism, which to me is fine but you may disagree.

Actually, that’s kind of what I like about distributism, now that you mention it. On a similar note, it’d be interesting to see a return to artisanship and the guild system, rather than unions. If you have a trade, you are a free man. And if skilled men support each other in their local communities, the economy benefits from job security.

Of course, anything can and will be abused. And any form of government can and eventually will rob once skilled craftsmen of their economic freedom and individuality, and their children for generations.

And that brings us to our present discussion.

 

[friardchips]

A middle course is distributism, which I think grew out of Christian, especially Catholic, ideas. Unlike communism it allows individual property ownership, but unlike capitalism it tries to distribute ownership to as many as possible, so workers share the ownership of their company. There are a number of these “cooperatives” in Europe.

Though it’s perhaps even more liberal than capitalism, which to me is fine but you may disagree.

A kind of Robin Hood Theory but without the theft. I’m in! Friar Tuck is boss, right?

 

[Genesis315]

It seems as if, in the last century- we have had a rise of atheism and moral permissiveness. Yet, there has has been no revolution, no real collapse of ‘society.’ This would seem incongruous.

My theory is that ‘capital’ (controlling the media, political discourse, etc.), actually want beliefs to go out the window- because in this way it becomes even stronger. People are left as functionaries of some capitalist machine, without even any beliefs or moral values which might lead to ideals and real social change- and say, ‘enough is enough’ to market forces. In this way, the capitalist machine is becoming even stronger and more dominant, while the revolutionary impulse is getting weaker and weaker…

I suspect that a lot of political liberals (atheists, equal rights activists) are actually servants of the capitalist big-picture without knowing it…

Those things are the tool of anyone who wants to exert more power over others, be they “capital” or a socialist or communist government. If there is no objective criteria to measure their decisions by, if they are not bound by anything, or there is nothing viewed by society as greater than them, they can gain a totalitarian influence over man. While the following Catechism section is referring more directly to political authorities, I think the reasoning can be extended to any person or group in a position to exert power or influence over others (my emphasis):

2244 Every institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its judgment, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct. Most societies have formed their institutions in the recognition of a certain preeminence of man over things. Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognized man’s origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man:

Societies not recognizing this vision or rejecting it in the name of their independence from God are brought to seek their criteria and goal in themselves or to borrow them from some ideology.** Since they do not admit that one can defend an objective criterion of good and evil, they arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny, as history shows.**