Massachusetts Catholic School Bars Same-Sex Couple From Prom

[GreenJeans]

Disagreement does not mean one is correct. One may disagree that slavery is bad but one is not correct no matter what experience one has had.

I would argue that absolutism requires a supreme law-giver and an interpreter that is infallible. These students may claim to hold to absolutes but their understanding of absolutism must be incorrect if it contradicts the law giver.

And if their absolutes are based on private judgement, what you call experience, that does not seem very absolute does it?

I agree that people can be mistaken. History shows that people have believed all sorts of misteken things. My observation is that the kids disagree with some of their seniors. The think the seniors are mistaken, and they are acting on that idea.

I wouldn’t use the word absolutism to describe the kids attitude because they are not engaging in what you describe as absolutism. They are not basing their ideas on some supreme lawgiver; they are basing them on their own observation. It’s the same as thousands of other things they observe and learn in life. Few of them are based on a supreme lawgiver. Many do not even see gays and gay sexual activity as an issue.

One can make a firm statement without reliance on a supreme lawgiver.

 

[fix]

I agree that people can be mistaken. History shows that people have believed all sorts of misteken things. My observation is that the kids disagree with some of their seniors. The think the seniors are mistaken, and they are acting on that idea.

So? That observation may be a correct observation but what does it mean other than it is an observation?

I wouldn’t use the word absolutism to describe the kids attitude because they are not engaging in what you describe as absolutism. They are not basing their ideas on some supreme lawgiver; they are basing them on their own observation. It’s the same as thousands of other things they observe and learn in life. Few of them are based on a supreme lawgiver. Many do not even see gays and gay sexual activity as an issue.

That is my point. It is some type of scoial relativism.

One can make a firm statement without reliance on a supreme lawgiver.

Yes, it would be hit or miss though.

 

[GreenJeans]

So? That observation may be a correct observation but what does it mean other than it is an observation?
That is my point. It is some type of scoial relativism.

Yes, it would be hit or miss though.

1. You are correct that I have presented an observation. That’s all it is. Nothing deeper.
2. I don’t know what you mean by relativism. When I use the term it means a person observes a set of two or more conflicting ideas and says no single member of the set can be demonstrated to be correct. That’s why I say the kids are not engaging in relativism. They are observing a set of two conflicting ideas and saying one can be shown to be correct while the other can be shown to be incorrect.

If the kids were engaging in relativism, they would say they cannot determine if either idea is correct.

1. I don’t understand what would be hit or miss.

 

[fix]

1. I don’t know what you mean by relativism. When I use the term it means a person observes a set of two or more conflicting ideas and says no single member of the set can be demonstrated to be correct. That’s why I say the kids are not engaging in relativism. They are observing a set of two conflicting ideas and saying one can be shown to be correct while the other can be shown to be incorrect.

I agree they may not be strict relativists. When a conflcit arises and a choice is made I may conclude they reason one choice is good and one bad. How they reason that is based on their private judgement which excludes objective moral truth.

If the kids were engaging in relativism, they would say they cannot determine if either idea is correct.

In a strict academic sense I may agree. They may have some ill defined sense of an objective right and wrong but they are confused.

1. I don’t understand what would be hit or miss.

Like many I read here they may claim to believe in absolutes but they do not always get it right because their reasoning excludes much objective truth.

 

[GreenJeans]

I agree they may not be strict relativists. When a conflcit arises and a choice is made I may conclude they reason one choice is good and one bad. How they reason that is based on their private judgement which excludes objective moral truth.

In a strict academic sense I may agree. They may have some ill defined sense of an objective right and wrong but they are confused.

Like many I read here they may claim to believe in absolutes but they do not always get it right because their reasoning excludes much objective truth.

They have been presented with what many of their seniors consider objective truth. They have rejected it. Therefore, they have included it in their evaluation.

 

[fix]

They have been presented with what many of their seniors consider objective truth. They have rejected it. Therefore, they have included it in their evaluation.

Yes, that is true. Again, the process they use is incomplete. They make themselves the final arbiter of what is true and what is false. The problem is truth exists outside of them. If they fail to grasp that then they are making judgments erroneously. This brings us back to relativism. If they miss the absolute they are judging based on relativistic reasoning.

Perhaps it is a mixture of relativism, skepticism, and materialism.

 

[GreenJeans]

Yes, that is true. Again, the process they use is incomplete. They make themselves the final arbiter of what is true and what is false. The problem is truth exists outside of them. If they fail to grasp that then they are making judgments erroneously. This brings us back to relativism. If they miss the absolute they are judging based on relativistic reasoning.

Perhaps it is a mixture of relativism, skepticism, and materialism.

I still don’t understand what you mean by relativism. If the kids moved to relativism, it would be a step closer to their seniors’ position. The kids now reject the validity of their senior’s position. If they adopted a relativistic attitude, they would acknowledge the possibility that their seniors were correct, and the possibility they were wrong. As it is, they reject their senior’s position and adopt the opposite.

I doubt they care about truth existing outside of them. Their seniors tell them gays and gay sex are harmful. This harm is not posited outside of their sphere; it is proposd as real harm in their world. They look for it and don’t see it. That’s how they evaluate things.

 

[stbruno]

I think many people because we live in a free country believe that everyone should be entitled to do anything they wish…That’s a sorry definition of rights or privileges. For example, No one has a right to have a driver’s license, it is a privilege which can be suspended if you violate the driving laws.

And some freedoms are privileges as well.
However, I believe that with freedom comes responsibility.
And a Catholic school has a responsibility to uphold Catholic values, morals and traditions not bend them to meet secular relativism…

Homosexual lifestyles are not acceptable in the Catholic faith…it’s a moral wrong, but all people without discrimination are loved by God…not their sin.

So if a Catholic school has a rule about who can and can attend dances…then that is their privilege to do so. I bet that Underclassmen can’t attend proms either, nor Kids from other schools unless they are a date of the enrolled student. And same sex couples are not allowed to attend either.

I support the administration on this one completely.

 

[fix]

I still don’t understand what you mean by relativism. If the kids moved to relativism, it would be a step closer to their seniors’ position. The kids now reject the validity of their senior’s position. If they adopted a relativistic attitude, they would acknowledge the possibility that their seniors were correct, and the possibility they were wrong. As it is, they reject their senior’s position and adopt the opposite.

I doubt they care about truth existing outside of them. Their seniors tell them gays and gay sex are harmful. This harm is not posited outside of their sphere; it is proposd as real harm in their world. They look for it and don’t see it. That’s how they evaluate things.

As I said they may be inconsistent relativists with a mixture of materialism and skepticism and such but the basic thread is relativism.

You seem to be saying that if one cannot observe some discreet negative finding then these immature folks are confident in asserting it must be good?

One may claim slavery is no problem does that mean one’s conclusions are correct?

 

[GreenJeans]

As I said they may be inconsistent relativists with a mixture of materialism and skepticism and such but the basic thread is relativism.

You seem to be saying that if one cannot observe some discreet negative finding then these immature folks are confident in asserting it must be good?

One may claim slavery is no problem does that mean one’s conclusions are correct?

Again, I don’t know what you meana by relativism. If one does not exhibit the characteristics of a relativistic attitude, why would they be relativists, inconsistent or not?

I am saying the kids are told by some of their seniors that gays and gay sex will have negative effects on society. They look for these negative effects. They don’t see them. Therefore, they conclude these seniors are wrong. At that point they may see gays and gay sex as good, or they may see it as benign. However, they do not see it as bad, and reject their seniors’ views.

One may indeed claim slavery is no problem. And if someone said there are problems one could look for those problems. If they observed them, then they would agree there were problems. If they did not observe them, they would conclude the problems did not exist.

 

[fix]

Again, I don’t know what you meana by relativism. If one does not exhibit the characteristics of a relativistic attitude, why would they be relativists, inconsistent or not?

They do exhibit relativism. What is the basis for there determination that behavior is good?

I am saying the kids are told by some of their seniors that gays and gay sex will have negative effects on society. They look for these negative effects. They don’t see them. Therefore, they conclude these seniors are wrong. At that point they may see gays and gay sex as good, or they may see it as benign. However, they do not see it as bad, and reject their seniors’ views.

Yes, how do they define negative? How are the criteria they choose to define negative based in an absolute objective truth?

One may indeed claim slavery is no problem. And if someone said there are problems one could look for those problems. If they observed them, then they would agree there were problems. If they did not observe them, they would conclude the problems did not exist.

The problem is how one defines problem.

 

[GreenJeans]

They do exhibit relativism. What is the basis for there determination that behavior is good?

Yes, how do they define negative? How are the criteria they choose to define negative based in an absolute objective truth?

The problem is how one defines problem.

1. I can’t respond to your writings about relativism since I don’t know what you mean by the term.
2. Are you asking how the kids determine if behavior is good, or are you asking a general question about good? The kids first determine it is not harmful. That makes he behavior benign. I have no idea how they then move from benign to good, probably many different ways. Some do. Some don’t.
3. Their seniors have said gay behavior would have various effects and they have labeled them negative. They say gays and gay sex are harmful. The kids 1) look for the effects, and 2) observe the effects for harmful aspects.

1. If they don’t see the effects, they dismiss the seniors’ forecast. 2) If they see the effects, they judge if the effect is harmful. When the effect is observed, they can’t see any reason to join their seniors’ judgement that it is harmful.

1. I have no reason to presume the kids are looking for an absolute objective truth, so I can’t respond about how they choose absolute objective truth.
2. I agree aboiut defining what is a problem. That is the issue in #3.2 above. In some areas there is agreement about what is a problem. This was the case with slavery. In other cases there is no agreement. This is he case with gays. As I said in an earlier post, the kids have values that differ from those of their seniors.

 

[setter]

1. I can’t respond to your writings about relativism since I don’t know what you mean by the term.

I notice that you have stated the same in an earlier post. Not to presume that fix would agree with these, but here are definitions of Relativism and Absolutism:

Relativism. In ethics, there are two main type of relativism. Descriptive ethical relativism simply claims as a matter of fact that different people have different moral beliefs, but it takes no stand on whether those beliefs are valid or not. Normative ethical relativism claims that each culture’s (or group’s) beliefs are right within that culture, and that it is impossible to validly judge another culture’s values from the outside.

Absolutism. The belief that there is one and only one truth; those who espouse absolutism usually also believe that they know what this absolute truth is. In ethics, absolutism is usually contrasted to relativism.

ethics.sandiego.edu/LMH/E2/Glossary.asp

1. Are you asking how the kids determine if behavior is good, or are you asking a general question about good? The kids first determine it is not harmful. That makes he behavior benign. I have no idea how they then move from benign to good, probably many different ways. Some do. Some don’t.

1. Their seniors have said gay behavior would have various effects and they have labeled them negative. They say gays and gay sex are harmful. The kids 1) look for the effects, and 2) observe the effects for harmful aspects.

1. **If they don’t see **the effects, they dismiss the seniors’ forecast. 2) If they see the effects, they judge if the effect is harmful. When the effect is observed, they can’t see any reason to join their seniors’ judgement that it is harmful.

So the students are determining “harmful effects” from a form of rationalism? Are they not ignoring the harmful moral effects? Would not one expect a wholistic understanding of man as body and spirit for students attending a Catholic school?

1. I have no reason to presume the kids are looking for an absolute objective truth, so I can’t respond about how they choose absolute objective truth.

If the students are not attempting to look for or argue from a position of truth, are they not just another clamoring opinion? Cannot there be only one “absolute objective truth” to choose from?

1. I agree aboiut defining what is a problem. That is the issue in #3.2 above. In some areas there is agreement about what is a problem. This was the case with slavery. In other cases there is no agreement. This is he case with gays. As I said in an earlier post, the kids have values that differ from those of their seniors.

You point? Is it that all opinions merit equal consideration? What is the basis of the values for the kids? Who is right on these moral issues? Is there an absolute basis for knowing what is right and wrong in areas of morality?

 

[GreenJeans]

I notice that you have stated the same in an earlier post. Not to presume that fix would agree with these, but here are definitions of Relativism and Absolutism:

Relativism. In ethics, there are two main type of relativism. Descriptive ethical relativism simply claims as a matter of fact that different people have different moral beliefs, but it takes no stand on whether those beliefs are valid or not. Normative ethical relativism claims that each culture’s (or group’s) beliefs are right within that culture, and that it is impossible to validly judge another culture’s values from the outside.

Absolutism. The belief that there is one and only one truth; those who espouse absolutism usually also believe that they know what this absolute truth is. In ethics, absolutism is usually contrasted to relativism.

ethics.sandiego.edu/LMH/E2/Glossary.asp

So the students are determining “harmful effects” from a form of rationalism? Are they not ignoring the harmful moral effects? Would not one expect a wholistic understanding of man as body and spirit for students attending a Catholic school?

If the students are not attempting to look for or argue from a position of truth, are they not just another clamoring opinion? Cannot there be only one “absolute objective truth” to choose from?

You point? Is it that all opinions merit equal consideration? What is the basis of the values for the kids? Who is right on these moral issues? Is there an absolute basis for knowing what is right and wrong in areas of morality?

1. I’m familiar with those definitions, but I don’t see that Fix is applying them. That’s why I don’t understand what he means.
2. Perhaps the kids are using a form of rationalism, or perhaps our understanding of the human decision making process is insufficient to describe what they do.
3. I doubt they are ignoring moral effects. Their standards are such that there is no moral problem.
4. I see no reason to expect kids from a Catholic school to act any differently from those of a public school. There may be a difference if the Catholic school accepts only kids with a given level of intelligence, but that would apply to any pribvate school. I base this on the observation that Catholics don’t act any differently than the general population.
5. Of course the kids are another opinion among many.
6. I don’t know what objective truth means. How does it differ from truth?
7. My point is I agree with Fix when he says, “The problem is how one defines problem.”

 

[fix]

1. I can’t respond to your writings about relativism since I don’t know what you mean by the term.
2. Are you asking how the kids determine if behavior is good, or are you asking a general question about good? The kids first determine it is not harmful. That makes he behavior benign. I have no idea how they then move from benign to good, probably many different ways. Some do. Some don’t.

What do you mean by saying not harmful? You are using that is a very narrow way as in no physical harm?

1. Their seniors have said gay behavior would have various effects and they have labeled them negative. They say gays and gay sex are harmful. The kids 1) look for the effects, and 2) observe the effects for harmful aspects.

I do not know what you mean by negative and harmful? You mean the kids simply evaluate these things in terms of immediate physical pain or not?

1. If they don’t see the effects, they dismiss the seniors’ forecast. 2) If they see the effects, they judge if the effect is harmful. When the effect is observed, they can’t see any reason to join their seniors’ judgement that it is harmful.

Again, this criterion seems very nebulous and arbitrary.

1. I have no reason to presume the kids are looking for an absolute objective truth, so I can’t respond about how they choose absolute objective truth.

Yes, relativism.

1. I agree aboiut defining what is a problem. That is the issue in #3.2 above. In some areas there is agreement about what is a problem. This was the case with slavery. In other cases there is no agreement. This is he case with gays. As I said in an earlier post, the kids have values that differ from those of their seniors.

Values? What do you mean by values?

 

[GreenJeans]

What do you mean by saying not harmful? You are using that is a very narrow way as in no physical harm?

I do not know what you mean by negative and harmful? You mean the kids simply evaluate these things in terms of immediate physical pain or not?

Again, this criterion seems very nebulous and arbitrary.

Yes, relativism.

Values? What do you mean by values?

1. The kids look for injury to a person. If they do not detect any, they say behavior is not harmful. The people who told them there would be harm can’t point to it either. So, they have no interest in pursuing the question. They may not have a concept of harm or injury that satisfies you, but they don’t really care. They think they do. So they act on it. And the results of that action are what we are seeing.
2. I realize you don’t know what I mean by negative and harm. Negative is the description provided to the kids by some of their seniors. When they ask what it means their seniors can’t tell them, so they just wing it. Harmful is also what their seniors told them about gays and gay sex. When they ask what that means, their seniors don’t know, either. So the kids wing it. When they ask their seniors to point out the negative and harm, their seniors can’t, so they dismiss them.
3. I agree the criteria are nebulous and arbitrary. but they have acted on it. It is interesting that they consider arbitrary and nebulous criteria to be superior to what their seniors offer. They see nothing in that offering.
4. Again, since I don’t know what you mean by relativism, I can’t respond.
5. Values are social norms the kids use to guide their behavior. A social norm is an accepted way of acting in a specific situation. An accepted way of acting is one which is in congruence with the prevailing social attitude. The kids have a keen sense of this, even if their seniors don’t understand.
6. Consider what a high school kid would think when presented with your responses. What alternative does he have other than to figure things out for himself?

 

[fix]

1. The kids look for injury to a person. If they do not detect any, they say behavior is not harmful. The people who told them there would be harm can’t point to it either. So, they have no interest in pursuing the question. They may not have a concept of harm or injury that satisfies you, but they don’t really care. They think they do. So they act on it. And the results of that action are what we are seeing.
2. I realize you don’t know what I mean by negative and harm. Negative is the description provided to the kids by some of their seniors. When they ask what it means their seniors can’t tell them, so they just wing it. Harmful is also what their seniors told them about gays and gay sex. When they ask what that means, their seniors don’t know, either. So the kids wing it. When they ask their seniors to point out the negative and harm, their seniors can’t, so they dismiss them.
3. I agree the criteria are nebulous and arbitrary. but they have acted on it. It is interesting that they consider arbitrary and nebulous criteria to be superior to what their seniors offer. They see nothing in that offering.
4. Again, since I don’t know what you mean by relativism, I can’t respond.
5. Values are social norms the kids use to guide their behavior. A social norm is an accepted way of acting in a specific situation. An accepted way of acting is one which is in congruence with the prevailing social attitude. The kids have a keen sense of this, even if their seniors don’t understand.
6. Consider what a high school kid would think when presented with your responses. What alternative does he have other than to figure things out for himself?

To sum up you observe that kids do not grasp absolute moral norms. They live their lives based on narrow understanding of right and wrong. They look to culture as their guide to decide what is right and what is wrong.

I agree and I see that as a problem. If “values” are the norm and those values are not based in absolute moral truth then we have a form of relativism that allows for pretty much any behavior.

 

[GreenJeans]

To sum up you observe that kids do not grasp absolute moral norms. They live their lives based on narrow understanding of right and wrong. They look to culture as their guide to decide what is right and what is wrong.

I agree and I see that as a problem. If “values” are the norm and those values are not based in absolute moral truth then we have a form of relativism that allows for pretty much any behavior.

So, we agree. The kids are doing the best they can with what they have. They can’t do nothing since time and life go on.

I would observe that most of humanity chugs along without subscribing to absolute moral truth. And even those who might acknowledge its existence don’t know how to determine if they have correctly discerned it. They wing it, too.

I now understand what you mean by relativism. I think you mean rejection or indifference to abslute moral truth.

 

[fix]

I now understand what you mean by relativism. I think you mean rejection or indifference to abslute moral truth.

Here is a proper definition:

Any doctrine which denies, universally or in regard to some restricted sphere of being, the existence of absolute values, may be termed Relativism.

newadvent.org/cathen/12731d.htm

If people see values as a way to act or not act and those values are not based in absolute truth then as those values change behavior will change. That change often contradicts what is objectively true.

 

[setter]

So, we agree. The kids are doing the best they can with what they have.

This is an unacceptable compromise for a Catholic institution!

They can’t do nothing since time and life go on.

Sort of like drift along with the crowd through life…What role does direction and backbone play in your life?

I would observe that most of humanity chugs along without subscribing to absolute moral truth. And even those who might acknowledge its existence don’t know how to determine if they have correctly discerned it…

Jesus Christ, the living Son of God, who is Truth incarnate, observed the very same phenomenon in his day:

"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.” Matthew 7: 13

They wing it, too.

Btw – No one “wings it” into heaven.

“And some one said to him, ‘Lord, will those who are saved be few?’ And he said to them, ‘Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.’” Luke 13: 23-24

I now understand what you mean by relativism. I think you mean rejection or indifference to abslute moral truth.

So, are you ready yet to confess your beliefs? Or are you content just being an “observer” of life?