Is this moral relativism?

[BruceK]

I had this ongoing debate with this person over the issue over the Church’s stance on contraception, his words are in bold:
Based on several statistics, 95% of American(married) Catholics who use birth control use contraception and a majority of priests reject the Church’s stance on contraception and, ultimately Humanae Vitae
I replied: What supposidly 95% of American Catholics practice or reject is subjective and relativistic and therefore totally irrelevent. <<

His answer: **What 95% of American Catholics practicing birth control and a majority of priests practice or reject is subjective but it is not relativistic. St Thomas Aquinas wrote that the natural law is known subjectively. 95% of married Catholics practicing birth control listening to the melodies and inclination of their conjugal relations reject HV’s(Humanae Vitae) edicts. A majority of preists, listening to the experiences of married Catholics, agree. Or maybe, they just recognize that since HV’s central premise is demonstrably false and it is inherently conttadictory, that it can’t be taken seriously as moral guidance. **

The philosophical question is this, is his citation of ‘95% of married Catholics’ reflect that of relativism and moral sudjectivism? If so please explain.

 

[Scottgun]

First off, anytime someone gives a statistic, make sure they cite a source. I’ve heard many variations on the “x percent of Catholics practice contraception” (and I put the x because I’ve heard it at 75, 80, 85, 90, you get the picture) so many times and have yet to see a source on it. The only survey I can recall was one that asked Catholics if contraception was always wrong. Well, you know how people will hedge their bets when they get an “always” question. It didn’t follow that someone answering no to it was actively contracepting. It also didn’t follow that they formally rejected the Church’s teaching.

So, while I am fairly certain that waaay too many Catholics do indeed contracept, I want to see some of these high numbers substantiated and in what context.

In answer to the philosophic question, it doesn’t necessarily prove relativism unless you can show that it is formal refection of the Church’s teaching as opposed to say, bad catechesis, ignorance, etc.

P.S. Don’t let him get away with this piece of triumphalistic question-begging:

**

Or maybe, they just recognize that since HV’s central premise is demonstrably false and it is inherently conttadictory, that it can’t be taken seriously as moral guidance.

**

 

[KindredSoul]

I agree with Scottgun that you shouldn’t be too hasty to accept his percentage without sources, context, and knowing the sources are accurate. I also agree that your friend is begging the question with the last part of his argument.

If 95% of Catholics thought murder was a-okay, would that make it so? What if 95% of Catholics thought it was okay to steal? Would this be explained away by saying “The Church’s teachings on these things is demonstrably false”? No. It wouldn’t reflect the truth of the matter at all. By your friends’ logic, it is conceivable that these things would suddenly become okay if ever a majority of Catholics said so. But Truth is Truth, not a popularity contest.

If Thomas Aquinas said Natural Law was known subjectively, it was most likely to indicate that people can learn certain elements of Natural Law on their own (subjectively)–so that, as Paul said, even unbelievers or those with no access to the Church have no excuse for breaking it. In an age where many were illiterate and distance communication was not so swift, Catholics still didn’t have the “we didn’t know” excuse regarding violations of Natural Law, because it could be known through subjective experience. I do not believe Thomas Aquinas is speaking of the Law itself being subjective, therefore, so much as the means of knowing it…but fifty people who know it subjectively would all believe in the same objective Natural Law. Unless he was simply mistaken (not being infallible, after all) then Thomas Aquinas would also, being a devout Catholic, not conclude that true Natural Law would contradict Church Teaching. Because of that, if Natural Law has anything to say about contraceptives, that only means people using contraceptives are in even bigger danger, because if it’s a matter where Natural Law is enough, Natural Law will lead one in the same direction as Church Teaching. If anything, in this case Thomas Aquinas’ logic would accuse contracepting Catholics of being in denial–they should know, from the Natural Law, that contraception is wrong, but they deny this for the sake of convenience or some warped sense of “practicality.”

In any case, this is irrelevant for modern Catholics who have the ability to easily discover what the Church says on the matter. There is no need to stumble in the dark or come to one’s subjective conclusion on such matters as on which the Church has spoken clearly. Even assuming Natural Law somehow would not be enough to guide them to the Truth, or assuming that Natural Law is unclear on the matter, the Church has made the Truth known–and they are without any excuse whatsoever for not believing Her, even as they continue to label themselves Catholic.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[DOShea]

Or maybe, they just recognize that since HV’s central premise is demonstrably false and it is inherently conttadictory, that it can’t be taken seriously as moral guidance.

I would, first of all, ask the person to define what they are calling “HV’s central premise,” because two different people can read it and come away with a different “central premise.”

Second, I would ask why, if HV’s central premise (whatever it is) is wrong, then why have all the predicted ill effects on society as a result of ignoring it come so startlingly true? Higher divorce rates? Increase in unwed pregnancy? Abandonment of children? Destruction of the family as a unit? And all the downstream bad behavior that results from those?

In a nutshell, what you have is the Pope, using only human reason, says this is what the Chuch teaches and why. IF we ignore these things, these basic concepts that respect the dignity of human life, then what we will see is a gradual shift to X. And X is precisely what we see today as a problem. How could that be if the content of HV is nothing but falsehood?

Truth is not reached by consensus. It matters not if 99.9% of Catholics think it is wrong, what matters ultimately is, is it the Truth or not. Catholic skeptics just love to throw that Galileo case back in our face, but why do they not see the same error when they themselves commit it? The entire scientific community in Galileo’s day believed in the Ptolemaic model of the solar system and orbital motion. They had a consensus that planets moved in a loop-de-loop fashion, but it was not true. What ultimately judged the truth in this instance is the evidence revealed through telescopes. Likewise, today, what society has turned into is that evidence through the lens of the telescope predicted exactly by HV 41 years ago.

Truth is always ignored at some peril to civilization. We have many, many problems today and bounce around trying to pin down a cause, all the while tripping over the very evidence that would zero us in on the cause. It has become a world of Me and"My" rather than a world of “our.” It’s MY body, it’s MY child, it’s MY right, it’s fine with ME, I can do what I want, I get to pick what I want to believe, I decide if something is true for ME.

When you discuss ethics from a moral perspective, there are always those who will come into the discussion with the notion that man, totally apart from God, is capable of forming his own “moral code” that is based, they say, on survival, that is, what’s best for the group as a whole to survive. That is why, for example, they would see murder as wrong, because it reduces numbers and makes the group more vulnerable to an outside attack. But watch how fast they back-peddle from this idea if you apply those same ideas to things like abortion, contraception, and many of the teachings in HV.

I propose they cannot have it both ways. Either society builds its morals around what’s best for its survival - and these societal behaviors would be wrong, or it gets its morals from an outside, higher standard of Truth (God) - and these societal behaviors are wrong. So take your choice, but either way, the behaviors are wrong. And that “wrong” is pure evidence that the teachings of HV are RIGHT!

 

[Kay_Cee]

What 95% of American Catholics practicing birth control and a majority of priests practice or reject is subjective but it is not relativistic. St Thomas Aquinas wrote that the natural law is known subjectively. 95% of married Catholics practicing birth control listening to the melodies and inclination of their conjugal relations reject HV’s(Humanae Vitae) edicts. A majority of preists, listening to the experiences of married Catholics, agree. Or maybe, they just recognize that since HV’s central premise is demonstrably false and it is inherently conttadictory, that it can’t be taken seriously as moral guidance.

The philosophical question is this, is his citation of ‘95% of married Catholics’ reflect that of relativism and moral sudjectivism? If so please explain.

It doesn’t matter. What he is giving you is a fallacy in logic called *argumentum ad populum. *It is the fallacy of believing something only because it is popular.

The fact that many people accept the use of contraception as moral does not make it so. Truth is truth even if nobody believes it. A lie is a lie even if everybody believes it.

The morality of contraception should be argued solely on the grounds of whether or not it is moral, not on an appeal to the masses.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Morals have nothing at all to do with averages.

The anti-Christian movement conflates ethics with morals so as to dismiss morals and allow control over social behavior through ethics.

Ethics is about what society perceives as good or bad as a whole. It is set by social influencers and general communication or the media. If many people with social influence believe that wearing yellow on Fridays is good and there are comparatively few opposing the thought, then the ethics for that society become “one should wear yellow on Fridays”. And anyone not doing so becomes judged and disrespected.

Morals are entirely a different issue. Morals are set by what is perceived to be the edict of the highest authority and enforced by that authority. Thus anyone wanting to manipulate morals must be perceived as the highest authority. Thus “God doesn’t exist” and “morals are subjective” and the effort to conflate ethics with morality because ethics can be manipulated. These sayings and efforts become the ethics for the society as its manipulators dictate.

From such ethics standards, the belief in morals is challenged throughout society and those believing in morals are judged and disrespected.

 

[BruceK]

The source for that statistic is from Janet Smith’s research. The other person’s would still prove moral subjectivism, would it not?

First off, anytime someone gives a statistic, make sure they cite a source. I’ve heard many variations on the “x percent of Catholics practice contraception” (and I put the x because I’ve heard it at 75, 80, 85, 90, you get the picture) so many times and have yet to see a source on it. The only survey I can recall was one that asked Catholics if contraception was always wrong. Well, you know how people will hedge their bets when they get an “always” question. It didn’t follow that someone answering no to it was actively contracepting. It also didn’t follow that they formally rejected the Church’s teaching.

So, while I am fairly certain that waaay too many Catholics do indeed contracept, I want to see some of these high numbers substantiated and in what context.

In answer to the philosophic question, it doesn’t necessarily prove relativism unless you can show that it is formal refection of the Church’s teaching as opposed to say, bad catechesis, ignorance, etc.

P.S. Don’t let him get away with this piece of triumphalistic question-begging:

---

 

[hatsoff]

I had this ongoing debate with this person over the issue over the Church’s stance on contraception, his words are in bold:
Based on several statistics, 95% of American(married) Catholics who use birth control use contraception and a majority of priests reject the Church’s stance on contraception and, ultimately Humanae Vitae
I replied: What supposidly 95% of American Catholics practice or reject is subjective and relativistic and therefore totally irrelevent. <<

His answer: What 95% of American Catholics practicing birth control and a majority of priests practice or reject is subjective but it is not relativistic. St Thomas Aquinas wrote that the natural law is known subjectively. 95% of married Catholics practicing birth control listening to the melodies and inclination of their conjugal relations reject HV’s(Humanae Vitae) edicts. A majority of preists, listening to the experiences of married Catholics, agree. Or maybe, they just recognize that since HV’s central premise is demonstrably false and it is inherently conttadictory, that it can’t be taken seriously as moral guidance.

The philosophical question is this, is his citation of ‘95% of married Catholics’ reflect that of relativism and moral sudjectivism? If so please explain.

He is correct that his position is subjective but not relativistic. If it were relativistic, then it would entail asserting that there is no universally correct or moral position on HV. However, this guy clearly thinks that there is a universally correct position: rejecting HV.

What makes it subjective is the process of determining the correct answer. He contends that one must mind the natural law written on our hearts—a subjective experience. It is not something which can be objectively determined, according to him, by appealing to doctrine or evidence.

That said, I would like to remind him that the single greatest strength of the Church is its unity. If he wishes to prioritize his own personal judgment over the dogma handed down by Church tradition, then, from a Catholic perspective, he is headed down a dangerous road indeed.

 

[tjm190]

As one of those X-percent of catholics who reject the teaching on contraception, I can safely say your friend’s logic is highly invalid.

 

[Scottgun]

The source for that statistic is from Janet Smith’s research. The other person’s would still prove moral subjectivism, would it not?

Really? Is there a link to it? I’d like to read it. I don’t quite understand your second question.

 

[BruceK]

Really? Is there a link to it? I’d like to read it. I don’t quite understand your second question.

I believe he bases this on Dr. Smith’s essay Contraception, why not?
Based on what my antagonist had said;
What 95% of American Catholics practicing birth control and a majority of priests practice or reject is subjective but it is not relativistic. St Thomas Aquinas wrote that the natural law is known subjectively. 95% of married Catholics practicing birth control listening to the melodies and inclination of their conjugal relations reject HV’s(Humanae Vitae) edicts. A majority of preists, listening to the experiences of married Catholics, agree. Or maybe, they just recognize that since HV’s central premise is demonstrably false.

Would that be moral subjectivism on his part?

 

[KindredSoul]

I believe he bases this on Dr. Smith’s essay Contraception, why not?
Based on what my antagonist had said;
What 95% of American Catholics practicing birth control and a majority of priests practice or reject is subjective but it is not relativistic. St Thomas Aquinas wrote that the natural law is known subjectively. 95% of married Catholics practicing birth control listening to the melodies and inclination of their conjugal relations reject HV’s(Humanae Vitae) edicts. A majority of preists, listening to the experiences of married Catholics, agree. Or maybe, they just recognize that since HV’s central premise is demonstrably false.

Would that be moral subjectivism on his part?

Your friend is simply mistaken; this is not mere Subjectivism, which by itself–without becoming Relativism–implies that anybody would come to the same answer but maybe by subjective means. In that case, the Church’s answer and the laity’s answer would all be the same, even if the laity came to it in a different way than the Church…this is the sort of Subjectivism I believe that Aquinas would have been talking about, since he was plenty wise enough to realize that two contradictory claims cannot both be true.

But when they come to different answers, and we assume the majority is right simply for being the majority, we cross the line into Relativism. By your opponent’s logic, if 95% of married Catholics reject the Church’s teaching, then the teaching is false…if we are consistent with that logic, then if one hundred years from now 95% of married Catholics embrace the Church’s teaching whole-heartedly, the teaching is suddently correct. That means truth is dependent on the majority’s opinion–that truth is relative, which is the very meaning of Relativism. Yet it is a fallacy to believe that. If, for example, the majority of people decide that there is no such thing as the Sun, that doesn’t make them right. Truth is not determined by popular vote. The truth is the truth no matter if the majority of people believe it or if no one does.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Leela]

The philosophical question is this, is his citation of ‘95% of married Catholics’ reflect that of relativism and moral sudjectivism? If so please explain.

Though your question is not really about the 95% statistic, people seem to be focussing on that aspect of your OP. I think we should all be able to agree that there are a substantial number of Catholics who use contraceptives and leave it at that for the purposes of your question which is whether Catholics using contraceptives are an example of moral relativism.

The answer depends on what you mean by moral relativism. As the term is most commonly used, “relativist” is simply an epithet used to malign a person who disagrees with a moral claim the Church makes.

In philosophy, relativism is the view that what may be true or ethical for one person may not be true or right for another person. If a Catholic believes that using contraceptives is permissable for everyone, then that person is not a relativist. I’m not sure what the person means by “moral subjectivism” in contrast to “moral relativism.”

Here are some definitions to help move this discussion forward:

Moral realism: The view that moral propositions such as “slavery is evil” have truth value; the view that moral propositions do not suffer in epistemological standing when compared to scientific statements.

Relativism: the idea that any theory is as good as any other; the idea that the same proposition can be true relative to one conceptual scheme and false relative to another. This view conflates justification with truth.

Pragmatism: the idea that what you are justified in believing or warranted in asserting or able to treat as a candidate for your assent depends upon what concepts or modes of reasoning are available to you; the idea that what makes a theory or an interpretation good or bad depends upon the purposes you might reasonable want it to serve.

Moral nihilism: The view that there is no such thing as truth in ethics

Moral skepticism: The view that if there are moral truths, we do not justified beliefs about them. In other words moral knowledge does not exist.

Moral relativism: the view that what may be wrong for one group based on its fundamental assumptions may not be wrong for another group whose moral reasoning is based on different assumptions. Associated with a denial of moral realism

Moral pragmatism: the view that what may be justifiable for one group based on its fundamental assumptions may not be justifiable for another group whose moral reasoning is based on different assumptions, but the truth of a given moral proposition is independent of whether or not anyone is justified in believing it, In other words, justification is relative to an epistemic context, but truth (whether ethical or scientifc) is truth; asociated with moral realism and denial of both moral relativism and moral absolutism.

Moral absolutist: one holding to moral realism and claiming to have access to the Moral Law. Pragmatists aren’t interested in the question of wether or not a Moral Law exists “out there” because they can’t see how we could ever compare a moral assertion in question to the Moral Law.

Relativist: a epithet used to accuse someone of holding to moral relativism and denying the existence of truth. Pretty much no one takes this position, so it is merely an epithet for anyone who doubts a moral absolutist about his claim to have special knowledge of the Moral Law.

 

[hatsoff]

Your friend is simply mistaken; this is not mere Subjectivism, which by itself–without becoming Relativism–implies that anybody would come to the same answer but maybe by subjective means.

That’s not strictly true. Relativism denies the existence of a universally-applicable correct answer. Absolutism, in contrast, argues that a correct answer exists to be found—but that does not mean people will always (or even usually) find it, especially if that searching process takes on a subjective character.

To everyone else, please note that the fellow in question did not claim 95% of Catholics use contraception, or even that 95% of married Catholics use it. Rather, he said that 95% of married Catholics who practice “birth control” use contraception. So, if you don’t use birth control, then you’re left out of the count.

This makes the 95% figure far less impressive, assuming of course it’s even true.

 

[KindredSoul]

That’s not strictly true. Relativism denies the existence of a universally-applicable correct answer. Absolutism, in contrast, argues that a correct answer exists to be found—but that does not mean people will always (or even usually) find it, especially if that searching process takes on a subjective character.

I don’t think we disagree here, but I should have used a different word, since looking back over it I didn’t phrase it carefully.

I originally said Subjectivism–as in the sort Aquinas would have been speaking of if he ever really said Natural Law could be known subjectively–would lead everyone to the same truth just by subjective means. I should have worded it that subjective means could lead everyone to the truth. As in, it’s technically possible that everyone would happen upon the one and only truth subjectively, even if in reality it tends not to be the case. I should think that Aquinas, who certainly believed in one objective truth, meant something similar to that as opposed to saying everyone coming to different answers were right or could become right just by gaining a majority–the latter being what the OP’s opponent’s suggestion would imply when followed through to its logical conclusion.

Thanks for calling my attention to my less-than-sound-wording.

As for the rest of your post about the 95% not being that impressive in context, thanks; that’s a great observation!

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[BruceK]

Though your question is not really about the 95% statistic, people seem to be focussing on that aspect of your OP. I think we should all be able to agree that there are a substantial number of Catholics who use contraceptives and leave it at that for the purposes of your question which is whether Catholics using contraceptives are an example of moral relativism.

The answer depends on what you mean by moral relativism. As the term is most commonly used, “relativist” is simply an epithet used to malign a person who disagrees with a moral claim the Church makes.

In philosophy, relativism is the view that what may be true or ethical for one person may not be true or right for another person. If a Catholic believes that using contraceptives is permissable for everyone, then that person is not a relativist. I’m not sure what the person means by “moral subjectivism” in contrast to “moral relativism.”

Here are some definitions to help move this discussion forward:

Moral realism: The view that moral propositions such as “slavery is evil” have truth value; the view that moral propositions do not suffer in epistemological standing when compared to scientific statements.

Relativism: the idea that any theory is as good as any other; the idea that the same proposition can be true relative to one conceptual scheme and false relative to another. This view conflates justification with truth.

Pragmatism: the idea that what you are justified in believing or warranted in asserting or able to treat as a candidate for your assent depends upon what concepts or modes of reasoning are available to you; the idea that what makes a theory or an interpretation good or bad depends upon the purposes you might reasonable want it to serve.

Moral nihilism: The view that there is no such thing as truth in ethics

Moral skepticism: The view that if there are moral truths, we do not justified beliefs about them. In other words moral knowledge does not exist.

Moral relativism: the view that what may be wrong for one group based on its fundamental assumptions may not be wrong for another group whose moral reasoning is based on different assumptions. Associated with a denial of moral realism

Moral pragmatism: the view that what may be justifiable for one group based on its fundamental assumptions may not be justifiable for another group whose moral reasoning is based on different assumptions, but the truth of a given moral proposition is independent of whether or not anyone is justified in believing it, In other words, justification is relative to an epistemic context, but truth (whether ethical or scientifc) is truth; asociated with moral realism and denial of both moral relativism and moral absolutism.

Moral absolutist: one holding to moral realism and claiming to have access to the Moral Law. Pragmatists aren’t interested in the question of wether or not a Moral Law exists “out there” because they can’t see how we could ever compare a moral assertion in question to the Moral Law.

Relativist: a epithet used to accuse someone of holding to moral relativism and denying the existence of truth. Pretty much no one takes this position, so it is merely an epithet for anyone who doubts a moral absolutist about his claim to have special knowledge of the Moral Law.

**I may very well be confusing the terms moral relativism with moral subjectivism. A Relativist is simply someone who holds that knowledge, truth or values are relative; that is, the criteria varies with the individual, culture, or environment. It doesn’t necessary mean epithet or perjoritive. If you don’t mind me asking, you’re obviously not a Catholic or a christian for that matter so why are you regularly participating in a catholic discussion board? Just curious **

 

[Leela]

**I may very well be confusing the terms moral relativism with moral subjectivism. A Relativist is simply someone who holds that knowledge, truth or values are relative; that is, the criteria varies with the individual, culture, or environment. It doesn’t necessary mean epithet or perjoritive. If you don’t mind me asking, you’re obviously not a Catholic or a christian for that matter so why are you regularly participating in a catholic discussion board? Just curious **

For one thing, I am interested in discussing such issues as moral relativism.