P
peregrinus_WA
Guest
From my blog
- Status
N
NewUlm1976_2000
Guest
What is the going definition of “Relativism”? Is it anything goes or a narrow or broad view of life?
If it is a broad view of life, there is nothing wrong with that. This is a diverse world.
If it is a broad view of life, there is nothing wrong with that. This is a diverse world.
F
Filius99993
Guest
I think relativism means that (as it always has) something is relative. Actually, many practicing Catholics are physical relativists (such as myself) but the ones we’re concerned with on this thread are “moral relativists” who are people who believe that “morality is relative to what I think it should be”… Those people are sorely mistaken, as God forms morals, not them.
M
Maynoothman
Guest
Id recomend people read Does Morality Change by Fr Sean Fagan as it is a very interesting work. Not saying I agree with him, just that its interesting.
I think the crux of the current situation in society is concerned with the divorce in society between conscience and Tradition.
I think the crux of the current situation in society is concerned with the divorce in society between conscience and Tradition.
C
Christy_Beth
Guest
I took a college ethics class a few years ago. Basically, it was a round about discussion of sorts. “I can do anything I want and you can’t stop me. I could murder you if I wanted to. But, you can’t do the same thing to me.”
P
peregrinus_WA
Guest
That is exactly what I am talking about. Relativism taken to the extreme.I took a college ethics class a few years ago. Basically, it was a round about discussion of sorts. “I can do anything I want and you can’t stop me. I could murder you if I wanted to. But, you can’t do the same thing to me.”
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Moral Relativism means that there are no absolute moral rules. Instead, moral rules are determined by cultural norms and by reasoning about which activities will help promote our goals.
So in the example the OP cites, of infanticide, if a goal of society is to stop population growth and to make sure each person has a high standard of living, then infanticide could be morally permissible from a moral relativist viewpoint.
S
Smber2c
Guest
A.M.D.G.
I deal with relativism all the time, and yes I think it has a terrible effect on society.
A friends aunts who are pro-choice were talking with me. They are very relativistic and say that people should be able to say, do, and think what they want - Government, churches, and others don’t have the right to be butting into people lives. Gay marriage - fine. Abortion - if its your thing.
So I ask, well if I can say, do, and think what I want -
I choose to ‘say certain actions of others are unacceptable’.
I choose to ‘go vote for people that agree with me’.
and I choose to think ’ that you should respect my positions on issuess if every other position has a right to exist too.’
Of course this leads to a change of position. Now it isn’t that people can say, do, think what they want. Instead it is that we should keep to ourselves and not interfere in others lives.
But if offered and example of how that doens’t work they’ll shift to a new “golden rule” and if I defeat that they’ll likely end up back on the rule we started with.
…it’s sad. They have no real foundation or direction. It’s all the passion of the moment. “TRUTH” doesn’t ever come threaten to enter their minds. The just float around sampling bits of feel good ideals until they have enough that no one has the time or ability to pin down why all of them are wrong at the same time.
I deal with relativism all the time, and yes I think it has a terrible effect on society.
A friends aunts who are pro-choice were talking with me. They are very relativistic and say that people should be able to say, do, and think what they want - Government, churches, and others don’t have the right to be butting into people lives. Gay marriage - fine. Abortion - if its your thing.
So I ask, well if I can say, do, and think what I want -
I choose to ‘say certain actions of others are unacceptable’.
I choose to ‘go vote for people that agree with me’.
and I choose to think ’ that you should respect my positions on issuess if every other position has a right to exist too.’
Of course this leads to a change of position. Now it isn’t that people can say, do, think what they want. Instead it is that we should keep to ourselves and not interfere in others lives.
But if offered and example of how that doens’t work they’ll shift to a new “golden rule” and if I defeat that they’ll likely end up back on the rule we started with.
…it’s sad. They have no real foundation or direction. It’s all the passion of the moment. “TRUTH” doesn’t ever come threaten to enter their minds. The just float around sampling bits of feel good ideals until they have enough that no one has the time or ability to pin down why all of them are wrong at the same time.
E
elts1956
Guest
Anyone using relativism to justify what is moral is standing on quicksand. Whether the slate is wiped clean, or not, there will be pain for everyone…
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Relativism means that morality is relative to the situation. For example, relative to the social or cultural context.
Relativism isn’t always wrong. For example, the Catholic Church’s current stand on capital punishment is based on relativism. It says that while capital punishment in general is permitted, in today’s world it isn’t justified.
The bad type of relativism is when it says that each person or group has the ability to make his or her own moral rules. This type of relativism doesn’t recognize that there are objective moral rules.
But the things listed in the OP could be justified just as easily under a non-relativistic viewpoint as under a relativistic viewpoint. For example, someone could claim that there is an objective moral law from their god which requires infanticide in order to reduce population. That isn’t relativism, although it is clearly wrong.
Relativism isn’t always wrong. For example, the Catholic Church’s current stand on capital punishment is based on relativism. It says that while capital punishment in general is permitted, in today’s world it isn’t justified.
The bad type of relativism is when it says that each person or group has the ability to make his or her own moral rules. This type of relativism doesn’t recognize that there are objective moral rules.
But the things listed in the OP could be justified just as easily under a non-relativistic viewpoint as under a relativistic viewpoint. For example, someone could claim that there is an objective moral law from their god which requires infanticide in order to reduce population. That isn’t relativism, although it is clearly wrong.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
No of course relativism is not imploding anything. If you look at history century by century you find that life was worth very little for hundreds of years. Life was mean short and ugly for most of humanity. We are more compassionate, empathetic and caring of each other than at any time in all of historical time. We place more value on life, children, leisure, health care, decent livings, homes, work environment and time for religious faith than at any time before.
Relativism is merely a nice pejorative word to use against people whose opinions you don’t value or agree with. Everything and anything that is not in line with some folks rigid interpretation of faith is slapped with the label of relativism, humanism, or a host of other terms that denote to them at least NOT faith, and not faith as they interpret it.
Relativism is merely a nice pejorative word to use against people whose opinions you don’t value or agree with. Everything and anything that is not in line with some folks rigid interpretation of faith is slapped with the label of relativism, humanism, or a host of other terms that denote to them at least NOT faith, and not faith as they interpret it.
A
Augustine
Guest
Why? Would this be… immoral? If so, then why do they want to impose this morality on you? If not, by all means do it.
The most ridiculous thing about extreme relativism is that it’s absolute and nobody realizes it.
G
gmags2003
Guest
For instance, I think we’d all agree that killing another person is wrong. However, that situation lacks context. What if a murderer killed the person for sustenance (there was no other source of food)? What if the victim was physically threatening the murderer’s life?
I can’t think of one situation where you can say, “That is wrong no matter the circumstance.”
Rape comes the closest, but even then, you have to consider the very, very, very unlikely possibility that there are only two people left on the Earth, and you have to repopulate the species, and the other person is not willing to go along with the program.
As unlikely as that is, it is still a circumstance where something may or may not fit under the moral absolutist’s rules. That’s why I think moral absolutism is completely faulty. You can’t have rules set in stone because then you’ll always have to chip away at it as specific contexts arise.
I can’t think of one situation where you can say, “That is wrong no matter the circumstance.”
Rape comes the closest, but even then, you have to consider the very, very, very unlikely possibility that there are only two people left on the Earth, and you have to repopulate the species, and the other person is not willing to go along with the program.
As unlikely as that is, it is still a circumstance where something may or may not fit under the moral absolutist’s rules. That’s why I think moral absolutism is completely faulty. You can’t have rules set in stone because then you’ll always have to chip away at it as specific contexts arise.
S
Swan
Guest
G
gmags2003
Guest
who else has been pressing the quote button instead of edit?
M
mikew262
Guest
Boy, you are right. Some folks use “Relativism” like a knife on this forum, and other places to slice and dice anybody who has a somewhat more open-minded approach to faith related matters.
M
mark_a
Guest
N
Newbie2
Guest
Is “Relativism” a relative term?
N
Newbie2
Guest
Sometimes, yes, “relativism” is used in that manner. But other times the use is legitimate, unless one completely denies the existance of anything absolute…like certain moral norms.
We place more value on life? As an American Culture?? You’re kidding, right? Planned Parenthood, “Dr.” Kevorkian…and the list goes on and on…
E
elts1956
Guest
Hello Spirit. I am trying to decide if I agree/understand what you have said about relativism. I for one, do believe relativism is at an all time high, or perhaps the number of people believing in only their own truth hasn’t lessened. Would you say there are ANY absolutes in the world of today outside a religious conotation? How many people have been convinced of absolutes by you? I guess you could consider this a challange, but I also would really like to know your thoughts on this. Thanks.
- Status