"Moral Relativism Paves Way For Satanism", says expert

[John21652]

Moral Relativism paves way for Satanism, says expert.

Carlo Climati is the press director of the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University in Rome. He said that Satanism “destroys those universal values that are written in the hearts of each human being.” It creates “a society that is turned on its head, in which good becomes evil and evil becomes good.”

Do most people even truly understand what Moral Relativism is and why “good becomes evil and evil becomes good”?

 

[Flimmy]

I have many friends who believe in moral relativism. Matter of fact, I think all of my friends do, aside from two or three, maybe. It’s truly a shame.

As for what it is, or what they claim? I have two quotes here that summarizes what many people think:

Everything is subjective, yes. “We” may believe certain things as far as the murky waters of morality go; but in the public forum, especially government, when the good of all involved is concerned, this stuff simply has no place. Plus, it’s just retarded. How can you get hung up on whether or not a dude can marry a dude? Don’t we have BETTER THINGS TO DO, you know, like, fixing our economy, the war in Afghanistan, and now the one in Libya? Providing aid to the disaster in Japan? You know, IMPORTANT THINGS. This unnecessary fixation soapbox Christians have with gay marriage is simply vomit-inducing.

And another:

No. homosexuality is bad according to your “moral law.” Your “moral law” is not the same an someone else’s. “Moral law” has no place in legislation.

 

[AntiTheist]

Do most people even truly understand what Moral Relativism is and why “good becomes evil and evil becomes good”?

Moral relativism is the position the the truth or falsity of moral claims is not objective (i.e. that something can be be “moral” for one person but not for another). Related to this position is the idea that we should tolerate different moral positions (which is an incoherent and stupid position because it assumes that toleration is “objectively” good).

Personally, I think moral relativism is idiotic. I myself am a moral nihilist, which means that moral statements do not have a truth value – they are expressions of personal values in the same way that “peanut butter tastes good” is a personal value.

Now, “Satanism” can refer to a number of different things. One is a largely fictitious sect of maniacs (partially based on the deliberately provocative antics of groups like the Hellfire Club) that “worships” the Christian devil, either seriously or as a kind of joke. Another is a philosophy created by Anton LaVey in the 1960s consisting of atheism (i.e. not a literal belief in the devil), self-centered focus, and deliberately provocative symbolism designed to get attention. Yet another kind of “Satanism” is a pejorative term for any religion or religious practice that a Christian happens to disagree with (it is in this context that a Protestant could, for example, call Roman Catholicism a form of “Satanism”).

I fail to see any connection between “moral relativism” and any of the definitions of “Satanism.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

antitheist

**I fail to see any connection between “moral relativism” and any of the definitions of “Satanism.” **

You wouldn’t since you are an atheist.

But in Christian theology Satan is the one who introduced moral relativism into the human race through Adam and Eve.

Here’s how it went. God gave a commandment that He expected to be obeyed. It was objectively wrong to disobey, and there would be consequences if Adam and Eve did disobey.

Along comes the serpent (Satan) who puts it this way:

“That’s just God’s opinion. I have a different opinion that is as good as God’s. My opinion is that God doesn’t want you to become like Himself. So if you eat that fruit, you will become as God. Now wouldn’t you like my tea of moral relativism with that forbidden apple pie?”

And so they drank. And so we drink.

And here we are today; people still trying to tell us that Satan has nothing to do with moral relativism.

 

[m134e5]

Moral relativism is the denial of objective truth. Satan has generally been considered the original promoter of evil, and people aren’t going to follow something they think is truly evil. By denying objective truth- that there are definite right/wrong answers on questions of morality, people are forming in themselves a satanic mindset. Following a satanic religion after denying objective truth seems sensible to me.

As Catholics, we believe in objective truth. We have the natural law which God has given us naturally. Because our understanding of natural law has been clouded by sin, God gave us divine law as well. When a person rejects natural law and divine law, what is there to follow but whatever satan whispers into their spiritual ears? Moral relativism- “there is no good or bad”, “there is no male or female”, “there is no right or wrong”, “you are God- you decide what is right or wrong for you”- is what satan wants to replace natural and divine law with.

 

[John21652]

I have many friends who believe in moral relativism. Matter of fact, I think all of my friends do, aside from two or three, maybe. It’s truly a shame.

As for what it is, or what they claim? I have two quotes here that summarizes what many people think:

No. homosexuality is bad according to your “moral law.” Your “moral law” is not the same an someone else’s. “Moral law” has no place in legislation.

The existence of unjust laws down through the history of mankind is legion. So obviously there are many instances when someone’s law has been disliked by many others. So how was it arrived at that some laws are “unjust”? Clearly, there must be some method of arriving at what is just and unjust. Conversely, there would have to be some way of arriving at what is good. There has to be an objective standard, or else no-one would ever agree on what is just or unjust.

Doesn’t the United States Constitution mention ‘Inalienable’ and ‘self evident truths’? If they are self evident, then surely there is something which is objectively identifiable by many people? If that were not the case, the statements in the Declaration of Independence would not be held in universal esteem. Those two phrases are, in fact, pointers to moral statements.

The law and morality have been closely intertwined down through the ages, beginning with the ancient Greeks and the Romans. Justinian I, the Byzantine Emporer, even codified the Moral Law and it has been handed down through the generations. So anyone who says moral law has no place in legislation is therefore saying ‘anything goes’. That is how evil empires were founded and they were founded on moral relativity.

 

[John21652]

Moral relativism is the position the the truth or falsity of moral claims is not objective (i.e. that something can be be “moral” for one person but not for another). Related to this position is the idea that we should tolerate different moral positions (which is an incoherent and stupid position because it assumes that toleration is “objectively” good).

Personally, I think moral relativism is idiotic. I myself am a moral nihilist, which means that moral statements do not have a truth value – they are expressions of personal values in the same way that “peanut butter tastes good” is a personal value.

That’s a good description of what moral relativity is. I agree, it is idiotic.
It must, by definition, lead to moral chaos. However, I have great trouble deifferentiating between moral relativism and moral nihilism as you describe it. “Peanut butter tastes good” is a personal value, yes, but doesn’t moral nihilism give the same result?

As for toleration being “objectively” good, perhaps the “good” can be described in absolute terms, but ‘toleration’ can also be seen in varying degrees, from absolute to relative and perhaps varies as does the definition of the ‘good’?

Now, “Satanism” can refer to a number of different things. One is a largely fictitious sect of maniacs (partially based on the deliberately provocative antics of groups like the Hellfire Club) that “worships” the Christian devil, either seriously or as a kind of joke. Another is a philosophy created by Anton LaVey in the 1960s consisting of atheism (i.e. not a literal belief in the devil), self-centered focus, and deliberately provocative symbolism designed to get attention. Yet another kind of “Satanism” is a pejorative term for any religion or religious practice that a Christian happens to disagree with (it is in this context that a Protestant could, for example, call Roman Catholicism a form of “Satanism”).

I fail to see any connection between “moral relativism” and any of the definitions of “Satanism.”

The vatican spokesman mentioned satanism as religious people mean it, but he also widened the definition out by citing examples of criminality, so I took his view of satanism as being anything ‘bad’, from a Christian perspective, for the purposes of comparing and contrasting objective and realative morality.’ Morality, after all, is supposed to guide us towards good behaviour.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John

**The law and morality have been closely intertwined down through the ages, beginning with the ancient Greeks and the Romans. Justinian I, the Byzantine Emporer, even codified the Moral Law and it has been handed down through the generations. So anyone who says moral law has no place in legislation is therefore saying ‘anything goes’. That is how evil empires were founded and they were founded on moral relativity. **

And it is no accident of history that the central figure of the lawmakers whose figures are engraved over the Supreme Court building is Moses. Clearly the American system was built upon a respect for Judeo-Christian morality.

christianindex.org/1087.article

 

[Link0126]

Personally, I think moral relativism is idiotic. I myself am a moral nihilist, which means that moral statements do not have a truth value – they are expressions of personal values in the same way that “peanut butter tastes good” is a personal value.

That is moral relativism. You are saying there is no objective moral truth only subjective, just like peanut butter tasting good is subjective. It is an expression of truth, just subjective truth… it’s true for me, it tastes good to me. To claim that morality is similar to peanut butter tasting good means that the decision to murder someone, in your opinion, is no different than the choice of what flavor jelly I want on my toast.

 

[Peepers]

That’s a good description of what moral relativity is. I agree, it is idiotic.
It must, by definition, lead to moral chaos. However, I have great trouble deifferentiating between moral relativism and moral nihilism as you describe it. “Peanut butter tastes good” is a personal value, yes, but doesn’t moral nihilism give the same result?

As for toleration being “objectively” good, perhaps the “good” can be described in absolute terms, but ‘toleration’ can also be seen in varying degrees, from absolute to relative and perhaps varies as does the definition of the ‘good’?

The vatican spokesman mentioned satanism as religious people mean it, but he also widened the definition out by citing examples of criminality, so I took his view of satanism as being anything ‘bad’, from a Christian perspective, for the purposes of comparing and contrasting objective and realative morality.’ Morality, after all, is supposed to guide us towards good behaviour.

All moral choice is voluntary and subjective. If we accept and submit to a moral authority which is greater than ourselves that is also a choice. We choose an objective moral standard as our guide. But don’t we make relative moral choices against that standard? Is it better to lie in order to save a life when the objective standard is never to lie?

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

That is moral relativism. You are saying there is no objective moral truth only subjective, just like peanut butter tasting good is subjective. It is an expression of truth, just subjective truth… it’s true for me, it tastes good to me. To claim that morality is similar to peanut butter tasting good means that the decision to murder someone, in your opinion, is no different than the choice of what flavor jelly I want on my toast.

:yup::clapping::bowdown2:

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Peepers

Welcome to CAF!

**
We choose an objective moral standard as our guide. But don’t we make relative moral choices against that standard? Is it better to lie in order to save a life when the objective standard is never to lie? **

There is a higher objective morality that governs the lower objective morality. When confronted with the necessity to choose between two evils, as in the case of telling a lie to save a life, it is better to avoid the greater of the two evils. That is also an objective standard.

For example: we are told it is wrong to kill. That is an objective standard.** Never kill to advance your own selfish purpose.** However, if someone is about to take your life, you have the right to self-defense … and that includes the right to defend yourself by killing your assailant if necessary. This is an objective standard. Everybody has this right. So yes, the rule changes, but it is not a whimsical or subjective change that would apply only to yourself or to a distinct minority of murderers. Self-defense is a universal right. The civil laws of every nation grant that it is so.

 

[Peepers]

Peepers

Welcome to CAF!

**
We choose an objective moral standard as our guide. But don’t we make relative moral choices against that standard? Is it better to lie in order to save a life when the objective standard is never to lie? **

There is a higher objective morality that governs the lower objective morality. When confronted with the necessity to choose between two evils, as in the case of telling a lie to save a life, it is better to avoid the greater of the two evils. That is also an objective standard.

For example: we are told it is wrong to kill. That is an objective standard.** Never kill to advance your own selfish purpose.** However, if someone is about to take your life, you have the right to self-defense … and that includes the right to defend yourself by killing your assailant if necessary. This is an objective standard. Everybody has this right. So yes, the rule changes, but it is not a whimsical or subjective change that would apply only to yourself or to a distinct minority of murderers. Self-defense is a universal right. The civil laws of every nation grant that it is so.

Thank you for the welcome. Yes, I see your point. I might be inclined to say that in the case of a lie vs saving a life is clear cut, but there are moral choices all the time where it is not entirely clear (at least to me) where the higher good is. Even against an objective moral standard, as I understand it, I have difficulty sometimes.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Even against an objective moral standard, as I understand it, I have difficulty sometimes. **

So do I. But the alternative is a morally chaotic universe, which I certainly don’t prefer.

 

[Peepers]

I think we basically agree. I was just trying to say that while the moral standard itself is not relative, how I am able to apply it in my own life requires judgement of relative values and choices. I am probably not saying that very well,

 

[Peepers]

**Even against an objective moral standard, as I understand it, I have difficulty sometimes. **

So do I. But the alternative is a morally chaotic universe, which I certainly don’t prefer.

What I do not understand about your assertion is that we do in fact live in a world where moral relativism exists. This has always been so. There are Catholics, Hindis, Buddhists, and literally hundreds or thousands of religions, and a large number of secular moral codes which people follow, and individual libertarianism.

Are we currently in a chaotic universe because of this, or would you say that we are trending toward a chaotic universe over the past many millennia?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Peepers

**What I do not understand about your assertion is that we do in fact live in a world where moral relativism exists. This has always been so. There are Catholics, Hindis, Buddhists, and literally hundreds or thousands of religions, and a large number of secular moral codes which people follow, and individual libertarianism.

Are we currently in a chaotic universe because of this, or would you say that we are trending toward a chaotic universe over the past many millennia?**

I do not think we are trending toward a chaotic universe. If anything, the reverse. For the first time in history communication systems have made it possible for people all over the globe to talk to each other at the same time, as in this forum. Out of talk comes agreement or disagreement, to be sure. But only by talk can consensus building begin.

The United Nations is, for example, one forum in which and by which justice can be talked about and secured for all people everywhere. We are still struggling with that, but progress has been made. For one thing, there have been no major wars since the United Nations was founded after World War II. That’s a good sign that consensus building is possible on a universal scale.

Moral relativism exists, to be sure. But that does not negate the fact that there are objective moral values that all the world must adhere to. The United Nations is a universal attempt to find out what those objective moral are, and to enforce them. If this is not true, then we might as well go back to the age before 1945 when consensus building about truth and morality was hardly even possible on a world-wide scale and the nations of the world were constantly at war with each other with no ultimate power to hold them back.

 

[Peepers]

Peepers

**What I do not understand about your assertion is that we do in fact live in a world where moral relativism exists. This has always been so. There are Catholics, Hindis, Buddhists, and literally hundreds or thousands of religions, and a large number of secular moral codes which people follow, and individual libertarianism.

Are we currently in a chaotic universe because of this, or would you say that we are trending toward a chaotic universe over the past many millennia?**

I do not think we are trending toward a chaotic universe. If anything, the reverse. For the first time in history communication systems have made it possible for people all over the globe to talk to each other at the same time, as in this forum. Out of talk comes agreement or disagreement, to be sure. But only by talk can consensus building begin.

The United Nations is, for example, one forum in which and by which justice can be talked about and secured for all people everywhere. We are still struggling with that, but progress has been made. For one thing, there have been no major wars since the United Nations was founded after World War II. That’s a good sign that consensus building is possible on a universal scale.

Moral relativism exists, to be sure. But that does not negate the fact that there are objective moral values that all the world must adhere to. The United Nations is a universal attempt to find out what those objective moral are, and to enforce them. If this is not true, then we might as well go back to the age before 1945 when consensus building about truth and morality was hardly even possible on a world-wide scale and the nations of the world were constantly at war with each other with no ultimate power to hold them back.

I am not disputing an objective moral standard. I am asking if you would agree with me that moral relativism is prevalent? Every society and every religion and every philosophical system has proposed or believed in a different moral standard. The world is a diverse place and it always has been. If it is true that moral relativism is wide spread, and always has been widespread, then does this not call into question the conclusion that such moral relativism inevitably results in chaos? Is this a case of the theory disagreeing with observed evidence?

I agree that modern communications and media helps to shine a light on the bad guys. A state actor cannot escape scrutiny. In this sense, there is clearly a subset of moral standards which most people agree on, regardless of the larger set of moral standards which are adopted by any person or group of people.

 

[AntiTheist]

I am not disputing an objective moral standard. I am asking if you would agree with me that moral relativism is prevalent?

To be clear, Peepers seems to be talking about descriptive moral relativism, i.e. the notion that we can describe the world’s moral systems in terms of the fact that each of them has a different idea of “good” that is “true” within that particular system.

You can use descriptive moral relativism while still being a moral objectivist.

Descriptive moral relativism is different from normative moral relativism, which asserts that good really is relative to each particular system or, in some cases, to each particular individual. To a normative moral relativist, the “goodness” of an act has to be measured in terms of a particular system, but the normative moral relativist holds that the act is actually, objectively “good” for that particular person or system (if that sounds contradictory, it is, because normative moral relativism is idiotic).

My own position, moral nihilism is indeed different for it denies that the term “good” has any objective meaning whatsoever. Under moral nihilism, we can’t say that “it’s actually bad to eat meat for Hindus, but it’s actually good for non-Hindus to eat meat,” like we can under normative moral relativism. To a moral nihilist, the eating of meat isn’t actually “bad” in any ultimate sense for a HIndu, and it isn’t actually “good” in any ultimate sense for a non-Hindu. It’s just the act of eating meat, nothing more.

To a moral nihilist, the fact that Hindus describe eating meat as “bad” is nothing more than an expression of their culture’s values – it is not an indication that it is “actually” bad to them (which is what a normative moral relativist would say).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AntiTheist

My own position, moral nihilism is indeed different for it denies that the term “good” has any objective meaning whatsoever.

Does the above sentence have any “objective meaning whatever”?