Is Relativism Imploding Our Society

  • Thread starter Thread starter peregrinus_WA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
peregrinus_WA:

You aren’t alone in your concerns. Dealing with concerns about ‘relativism’ are one of Pope Benedict XVI’s central themes within his Pontificate so far. You’ll find plenty to read on this subject if you look a little.

Those criticizing you here don’t clearly understand your concerns. Everything is not ‘relative.’ Imagine if we disregarded centuries of knowledge as if we’d learned nothing in the areas of biology or physics. People would think that was nuts! Thats exactly what we are doing to morality, natural law, or basic societal structure: acting as if we’ve never learned a thing about man.

Ask the people criticizing your views to show you the formula that proves slavery is bad. They can’t, instead we use a moral arguement to prove it is bad. Slavery isn’t relative! Neither are many other things. We need the Catholic Church, and all Christians to mount serious arguements to 21st century ills like abortion, cloning, etc…maybe more than ever.

Relativism isn’t freedom. It is a blind self appointed dictatorship.
 
mark_a said:
Morality can’t be “forced” on anyone.

There have always been:
  • abortion
  • contraception
  • homosexuals in committed lifelong relationships
  • homosexuals raising children
    All we can do make something legal or illegal.
Click to expand...
There is also something else besides imposing laws that one can do. We can help our children form a “right conscience” which the Church goes into in depth. Unfortunately too many people have lost, or down played,the concept of right conscience throughout history. Christian religions are the only ones holding their fingers in the dike.
 
elts1956 said:
There is also something else besides imposing laws that one can do. We can help our children form a “right conscience” which the Church goes into in depth. Unfortunately too many people have lost, or down played,the concept of right conscience throughout history. Christian religions are the only ones holding their fingers in the dike.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Newbie2 said:
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…
Click to expand...
The exceptions but prove the rule. The fact that a significant number of people become upset at all is significant. And you are looking at history in much too narrow a way. You can’t look at decades, you must look at centuries. It is most obvious then, but I agree that it does take time to investigate and actually read about what life was life during various historical periods. It’s much easier to simply slap a label on things and not spend the time.
 
elts1956 said:
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.🙂
Click to expand...
I dare say that periods of the Roman empire and the French court appeared to be times of total relativism to the people who lived during that time. Surely the early Christians were most vocal on the decadence of the times.

Of course there are absolutes, I never suggested otherwise. We codify most absolutes into law. Murder has been steadfastly considered an absolute prohibition for some centuries now. Often used for political reasons to be sure, but there has always it seems been a basic prohibition against wanton killing of another without sufficient reason. I think most nations today codify a prohibition against sexual exploitation of children. Of course it is still be violated and in some countries a blind eye is still exhibited. But as a species, I think that we agree that such behavior is wrong in all circumstances.
 
I think this thread has proved the OP’s assertion to be true. Those who have insulted him the loudest, have criticized the Pope the greatest, who are among of the worst behaved and least charitable on these forums, and who reject much of what the Church teaches are the only ones who disagree with the Pope (and the OP) when he claims that moral reletivisn is one of the most destructive influences on society.

Thank you for the thoughtfule post, peregrinus_WA. 👍

And just ignore the naysayers (if they are not already ion your ignore list.)
 
SpiritMeadow said:
I dare say that periods of the Roman empire and the French court appeared to be times of total relativism to the people who lived during that time. Surely the early Christians were most vocal on the decadence of the times.

Of course there are absolutes, I never suggested otherwise. We codify most absolutes into law. Murder has been steadfastly considered an absolute prohibition for some centuries now. Often used for political reasons to be sure, but there has always it seems been a basic prohibition against wanton killing of another without sufficient reason. I think most nations today codify a prohibition against sexual exploitation of children. Of course it is still be violated and in some countries a blind eye is still exhibited. But as a species, I think that we agree that such behavior is wrong in all circumstances.
Click to expand...
Yes, Spirit Meadow, certain periods of the Roman Empire, the French and English Courts (remember good old Harry VIII) were sown with seeds of relativism. However, to me, it seems relativism has never lost it’s power for those who think in those terms. This includes our present society. Look at the represebtatuves if the U.S. government, more and more relativism to explain away the belief in absolutes. They slip and slide quite easily for those who want to form their own moral conscience in whatever way they want.

As a species, we are mostly selfish and self centered. Whatever is convenient for many people, be it abortion, contraception, lying, stealing, is the path that is followed. I have been following a thread that is made up of mostly young people just beginning their dating lives. You should see the relativism there. And a lot of this has happened because of lack of proper religious education. Right conscience has not been formed So as long as sin doesn’t effect them personally, it doesn’t exist, or there are grades of guilt and sin for the same absulute. Go figure. I can’t.

So I suppose that what you are saying is that relativism doesn’t impact civilization any MORE today than during the Roman, French and English empires and others. That it hasn’t gotten any worse. Perhaps this is true, but it certainly hasn’t gotten any better due to lack of use.
 
thegame said:
peregrinus_WA:

You aren’t alone in your concerns. Dealing with concerns about ‘relativism’ are one of Pope Benedict XVI’s central themes within his Pontificate so far. You’ll find plenty to read on this subject if you look a little.

Those criticizing you here don’t clearly understand your concerns. Everything is not ‘relative.’ Imagine if we disregarded centuries of knowledge as if we’d learned nothing in the areas of biology or physics. People would think that was nuts! Thats exactly what we are doing to morality, natural law, or basic societal structure: acting as if we’ve never learned a thing about man.

Ask the people criticizing your views to show you the formula that proves slavery is bad. They can’t, instead we use a moral arguement to prove it is bad. Slavery isn’t relative! Neither are many other things. We need the Catholic Church, and all Christians to mount serious arguements to 21st century ills like abortion, cloning, etc…maybe more than ever.

Relativism isn’t freedom. It is a blind self appointed dictatorship.
Click to expand...
You are correct. I have read Pope Benedict’s sermon and I agree it is a Dictatorship and it has been around since the beginning with the Fall of Adam and Eve. The Serpent used relativism to cause the Fall.
 
rpp said:
I think this thread has proved the OP’s assertion to be true. Those who have insulted him the loudest, have criticized the Pope the greatest, who are among of the worst behaved and least charitable on these forums, and who reject much of what the Church teaches are the only ones who disagree with the Pope (and the OP) when he claims that moral reletivisn is one of the most destructive influences on society.

Thank you for the thoughtfule post, peregrinus_WA. 👍

And just ignore the naysayers (if they are not already ion your ignore list.)
Click to expand...
Thanks. I do not get joy out of those who use relativism to justify relativism. It makes me sad that so many are now enslaved by it and are on the road to ruin.

I am collecting more and more on this topic. I am thinking of going for an advanced degree in Theology and may use the information collected as a basis for papers in the future if the opportunity arises. I may even go further than that if I can.
 
I believe the moral philosophies we tend to group together under the title “Relativism” has had and continues to have a very negative affect on our society and more importantly our State. Also, the negative affects of these philosophies have affected not only American society but Western Culture as well. Pope Benedict’s work, “Christianity and the Crisis of Culture” articulates my thoughts and what I would hope to say far better than I know I am able to express so I hope all will take the time to read this work. Also, I found at least, that this work reflects the thinking of Pope John Paul II as well, but, John Paul II’s moral theology as we all know is deeply rooted in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, so I do acknowledge that what I intend to write, if it makes sense, is merely a reflection of their thoughts and not mine own.

I see that some consider the use of the term “Relativism” negatively and as a perjorative. Part of me has to agree with this thought because from experience I have seen this term used the same way a term like “Modernism” is so often used, namely as an all encompassing perjorative of those things a particular person finds offensive. In my opinion, the real weakness, of using a term like “Relativism” or “Modernism” in an effort to group various theological or philosophical thoughts into one category then to condemn that category, lies in the fact that in its use there is an implied metaphysics or ecclesiology or Christology which should be actually be articulated.

For me, “Relativism” is actually a convienent lable to categorize the various moral philosophies whose roots stem from the philosophies coming from the “Age of the Enlightenment” and whose starting points begins with a negative, namely, there are no moral absolutes. More often than not these moral systems are materialistic in that they deny the existenance of anything other than what can be experienced through the senses and therefore are thought to be pure rational. Another characteristic of these moral philosophies is the rejection of a “Natural Law” based on the existenance of a God (a divine creator) especially as found in the works of St Thomas,but this makes sense given their rejection of any concept of a metaphysical reality.

However, not all “Relativists” are rooted in the strictly material world. Here I am thinking of Catholic/Christian moral theologians such as Charles Curran and Richard McCormick (I think there might be a good possibility that either one or both would take offense if not umbrage if they read my descriptions of them - if so I apologize to them, its from ignorance not malice). They do not reject the existence of God or the concept of a “Natural Law” and if we objectively study their works I think one would find that there is a deep scriptural basis on which thier moral teachings are rooted, all though personally I disagree with their application of scriptural principles in thier concrete moral system.

So far I have tried to briefly describe or define some of the general characteristics of the various moral philosophies that have been bunched together under the title “Relativism”. Hopefully my time and circumstances will allow me to develope my thoughts more fully and explain why I do believe relativism has had and contiues to have a negative affect on our society and our state.
 
Pope Benedict XVI used the phrase, “The dictatorship of relativism” and I think we should give some consideration to what went into this saying and judge the validity of his judgement.

As I continue to read the works of Popes Benedict and John Paul II I have been moved by the re-occuring theme about the dangers of modern moral philosophies who reject the existance of any type of metaphysical reality and whose criteria for judging those morality of an act on the criteria developed by Immanuel Kant, namely we judge an act by its consequences. However, this judgement does not follow from objective norms, rather, from the norms of what seems to work at a particular time and place and for a particular people. Hopefully I am not alone in thinking that if one looks at the history of man this type of thinking makes sense, at least this seems to be the criteria by which we have operated throughout all of history. But then again our history is one of constant self destruction so perhaps this may not be the best norm to be used to judge the morality of an act.

It is my opinion that those moral philosophies, rooted in “Pure Reason”, that is only valid knowledge is the knowledge gained through the senses thus is knowledge that can be measured, is destructive to both the Society and State of a given people because they ultimately become moral philosophies based on “Proportionality”, “Utility”, and “Legality”, three concept that are in themselves, if ones studies history, are in constant flux.

When you think about it, the goal of all moral philosophies is the perfection of man, either as an individual or in the context of his society his society. But this implies a certain understanding of what makes a human truely human. One of the dangers, as pointed out by both John Paul II and Benedict XVI, is the philosophies that are prevelant today, use as their criteria for judging the ultimate good is the creation of a perfect society. The creation of a utopian state is more important that the individual who makes up that state. This points then to a morality based on a judgement of what works for the greatest number people or what causes the least amount of harm or in the end what the state through its laws has determined the means of its own subjective concept of perfection. But as Pope Benedict has pointed out in “Christianity and the Crisis of Culture” ultimately this leads to a society ruled by the “Law of the Jungle” not by the “Rule of Law”.

Again, I am writing about why I think those modern moral philosophies we tend to categorize under the one title “Relativistic” are a danger to our society and the proper goal of our state. Also, as I wrote above, the modern philosophical systems in question tend to use as their criteria either the consequences that result from an act, or the proportionality of good in relationship to the evil done (this seems to come from more of those modern moral philosophies which come from Catholic/ Christian theologians and are not atheistic in nature), or how practical they seem to be in distributing the greatest good for the most people, or finally the legality of the act.

But hopefully I will be able to devlope this in a little while.
 
TOME said:
I believe the moral philosophies we tend to group together under the title “Relativism” has had and continues to have a very negative affect on our society and more importantly our State. Also, the negative affects of these philosophies have affected not only American society but Western Culture as well. Pope Benedict’s work, “Christianity and the Crisis of Culture” articulates my thoughts and what I would hope to say far better than I know I am able to express so I hope all will take the time to read this work. Also, I found at least, that this work reflects the thinking of Pope John Paul II as well, but, John Paul II’s moral theology as we all know is deeply rooted in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, so I do acknowledge that what I intend to write, if it makes sense, is merely a reflection of their thoughts and not mine own.

I see that some consider the use of the term “Relativism” negatively and as a perjorative. Part of me has to agree with this thought because from experience I have seen this term used the same way a term like “Modernism” is so often used, namely as an all encompassing perjorative of those things a particular person finds offensive. In my opinion, the real weakness, of using a term like “Relativism” or “Modernism” in an effort to group various theological or philosophical thoughts into one category then to condemn that category, lies in the fact that in its use there is an implied metaphysics or ecclesiology or Christology which should be actually be articulated.

For me, “Relativism” is actually a convienent lable to categorize the various moral philosophies whose roots stem from the philosophies coming from the “Age of the Enlightenment” and whose starting points begins with a negative, namely, there are no moral absolutes. More often than not these moral systems are materialistic in that they deny the existenance of anything other than what can be experienced through the senses and therefore are thought to be pure rational. Another characteristic of these moral philosophies is the rejection of a “Natural Law” based on the existenance of a God (a divine creator) especially as found in the works of St Thomas,but this makes sense given their rejection of any concept of a metaphysical reality.

However, not all “Relativists” are rooted in the strictly material world. Here I am thinking of Catholic/Christian moral theologians such as Charles Curran and Richard McCormick (I think there might be a good possibility that either one or both would take offense if not umbrage if they read my descriptions of them - if so I apologize to them, its from ignorance not malice). They do not reject the existence of God or the concept of a “Natural Law” and if we objectively study their works I think one would find that there is a deep scriptural basis on which thier moral teachings are rooted, all though personally I disagree with their application of scriptural principles in thier concrete moral system.

So far I have tried to briefly describe or define some of the general characteristics of the various moral philosophies that have been bunched together under the title “Relativism”. Hopefully my time and circumstances will allow me to develope my thoughts more fully and explain why I do believe relativism has had and contiues to have a negative affect on our society and our state.
Click to expand...
Thank you for posting your well thought out, articlate thoughts. You make some excellent points. My biggest problem with the lose term of “relativism” is that most who sling it are writing off a large percentage of the population as being purposfully “godless”. As you point out, there are Christology centered philosophies whose conclusions you disagree with. This brings us to the question of whose conclusions society should be governed by. We are, after all, a secular society. We have freedom of relgion. Some faiths do not see immorality in divorce and remarriage and artificial birth control, for example, but they are hardly “godless”, selfish sinners (though some on this forum would argue that they are 🤷). This type of thought seems to flow from the “I’m right so you must be wrong” school which has been the root of so much persecution throughout history (religious and otherwise). And therein lies my fear - a narrow theocracy is not what most Americans want for government. Saudi Arabia has one - it looks rather unpleasant. Yet we would have to agree that those folks are very “devout” in their sense of the word - which again brings us back to my main question: who gets to decide? All relgions believe they are right. Do you want to be forced to live under someone else’s rules? 🤷
 
elts1956 said:
Yes, Spirit Meadow, certain periods of the Roman Empire, the French and English Courts (remember good old Harry VIII) were sown with seeds of relativism. However, to me, it seems relativism has never lost it’s power for those who think in those terms. This includes our present society. Look at the represebtatuves if the U.S. government, more and more relativism to explain away the belief in absolutes. They slip and slide quite easily for those who want to form their own moral conscience in whatever way they want.

As a species, we are mostly selfish and self centered. Whatever is convenient for many people, be it abortion, contraception, lying, stealing, is the path that is followed. I have been following a thread that is made up of mostly young people just beginning their dating lives. You should see the relativism there. And a lot of this has happened because of lack of proper religious education. Right conscience has not been formed So as long as sin doesn’t effect them personally, it doesn’t exist, or there are grades of guilt and sin for the same absulute. Go figure. I can’t.

So I suppose that what you are saying is that relativism doesn’t impact civilization any MORE today than during the Roman, French and English empires and others. That it hasn’t gotten any worse. Perhaps this is true, but it certainly hasn’t gotten any better due to lack of use.
Click to expand...
I don’t deny the concerns, but my point is that every generation feels that secularism and relativism are having a field day, and point to some past they think was better. The reality is that they were not better, the subjects were just different. The 20th century saw the greatest concerns expressed in laws to protect the chld, the adult worker, the care of homeless, orphans, schooling of our children, etc etc etc than at any time in history. These show real concerns for the human person, something that was fairly recent.

It has become, whether for good or ill, a political term now, used to bash those one disagrees with. To the degree that it has become the bell word of the pseudo news infortainment of Fox, it no longer has any real meaning as such. It has been totally distorted in its very meaning.
 
Just wanted to state my thanks to Tome and Swan for their excellent and thoughtful statements. It is just this type of real discourse that I find valuable here. You are both great teachers and certainly give me much to think on. Your demeanor is to be applauded. I for one always look forward to what both of you have to say.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
The exceptions but prove the rule. The fact that a significant number of people become upset at all is significant. And you are looking at history in much too narrow a way. You can’t look at decades, you must look at centuries. It is most obvious then, but I agree that it does take time to investigate and actually read about what life was life during various historical periods. It’s much easier to simply slap a label on things and not spend the time.
Click to expand...
:confused:
 
First, SpiritMeadow, thank you for your kind words, they mean a lot to me. Actually, I was tempted to simply reply “Thanks Buddy” but having once accused you of being the metrix through which my condemnation and the condemnation of all mankind entered the world you would know the spirit in which my thanks would be given. Thanks again!

Swan, I have to agree with SpiritMeadow that your post are insightful and in particular the last one I read. My mind had been pretty much on a particular train of thought, however, I think looking at the questions you raised they may change the perspective of this thread but, for me, gets to the essence of the thread, namely, what kind of society do we really want?

Here, I am going to present a few thought off the top of my head and after some time and observing other’s responses I will be able to write a little more intelligently.

I think from the OP what is implied, in a not to subtle fashion, is that many here do not want a society whose moral foundation is rooted on a morality that in reality has no roots. From this little statement I think it is clear I reject those moral systems we commonly lable as “Relativistic”. Earlier I began an attempt to explain why I reject those systems but frrely acknowledging that most of my thoughts and opinions have been highly influenced by the writings of Popes Benedict and John Paul II and of coarse St Thomas and I should add a couple of professors who taught me a long time ago and I am sure are now turning over in their graves because I some of the things I have written.

Is our society imploding because of relativism. I believe it is. Above I began to explain that in my understanding of the moral philosophies we tend to lable as “Relativist” these philosophies share several common characteristic. The primary characteristic, in my opinion, is these philosophies based the morality of an act not on the nature of the act itself but on the measureable consequences of the act. Or the morality of an act is determined by what a particular state, in a particular time and place, declares, through its laws, to be moral.

Considering those moral systems which determines the morality of an act based on the consequences of the act we find two particular philosophies prevelant in our society. The first system is one based on Utility, that is if the act seems to work in the end and produces what is determined by society to be a good effect or effects, then that act is a good act. What immediately comes to mind is the old Marxist addage, “The ends justifies the means”. Or a system that bases its morality on the proportion or ratio of good results versus bad results may seems in line with the Thomistic concept of “Double-Fold” effect, however, as promulgated these are essential differences between the two among which are proportionalist philosophy often rejects that there are acts that are intrinsiclly good and others evil in and of themselves. Proportionalist philosophy holds there are act that produce good and bad results and it is the obligation of the individual to choose those acts that are most likely to produce the greatest good effects and reduce the evil effects to a minimum. If more good is produced that bad then it was a good act.

Underlying utilitarianism and also implied in proportionalism is the concept that a good act is determined by the amount of general welfare (i.e. happiness) it produces. However, just by taking a quick glace I think one can see some serious and dangerous consequences both of these systems will produced when taken to their logical conclusion. And one serious and most dangerous consequence, pointed out in the writings of both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, is a morality based on consequence not objective moral norms ultimately leads to a state governed by the “Rule of the Jungle” not a society under the “Rule of Law”.

I haven’t studied law however from what I have read in the past I understand that in todays law schools the dominant philosophy in our schools is the philosophy of “Legal Positivism” that is whatever act a state or a society determines to be in its best interest is a moral act. First, as an American, I find it interesting that if legal positivism is the predominent philosophy in our law schools this from what I remember is a philosophy that developed according to the continental system primarily in late 19th century Germany and is by nature opposed to the legal system this country was founded on - the English system of law with its foundation rooted in the concept of “Prescedence” not posited law. So the question could be asked isn’t legal positivism un-american? (How’s that for posing a question using strictly liberal terminology?) However, and more importantly, I think that with a little thought and if we take a moral system based on legal positivism to its logical conclusion it is easy to comprehend the dangers of such a moral system. In its extreme, it must be remembered that all the horors perpertrated by Nazi Germany on its citizens during the 1930s were completely legal by under Nazi Laws and actually did not violate and international law at the the but I doubt anyone one of us would hold the belief that what was done was legal therefore was moral as well.

I find it interesting however it may be off the topic here but I would suggest all who are participating in this particular thread to read different works either by Pope John Paul II or others writing on his moral theology/philosophy especially in light of his understanding of human anthropology. As I just wrote, it may be off this topic per se however I think knowledge of Pope John Paul II’s writings on human anthropology is essential to a fuller understanding of his moral theology.
 
Let’s make it real simple:

A: No imploding is going on.

B: As posted on another forum: “We no longer want to feel guilty or shameful or sinful.”

All we are seeing in Western society is the fulfillment of scripture which tells us; 2 Timothy 4: 3 “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

There are no absolutes. It’s all good. What’s the big deal? God forbid.

Peace,
Ed
 
Newbie2 said:
:confused:
Click to expand...
Hi Spiritmeadow, as I wrote before, I agree that relativism has existed throughout history. So, given the Ten Commandments, the Church, the theologians etc. that have written regarding morals, why is relativism still in existence today? Is it the ill human condition that cannot be cured?

That being said, I use the concept of relativism myself in certain instances, but those instances are not in regard to absolutes.

So what has happened to the people Christ intended us to be? Why haven’t morals changed more for the better? They have improved somewhat, but given the fact we are even discussing the way people deal with absolutes means we still have immorality. What do you think is happening, or not happening in society?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top