Moral Relativism: Right or Wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fredms3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fredms3

Guest
Moral relativism is the belief that there are no moral absolutes; that morality is relative to something (i.e. individual or society).

What is your position on this?
 
fredms3 said:
What is your position on this?
Click to expand...
What matters is the Catholic Church’s “position” on this, which is more accurately described as doctrinal teaching.

Such an idea is heretical and incompatible with the Catholic Faith.
 
fredms3 said:
Moral relativism is the belief that there are no moral absolutes; that morality is relative to something (i.e. individual or society).

What is your position on this?
Click to expand...
It all depends.

😃
 
fredms3 said:
Moral relativism is the belief that there are no moral absolutes; that morality is relative to something (i.e. individual or society).

What is your position on this?
Click to expand...
Absolutely bogus. Morality flows from God, and God does not change from person to person.
 
Morality is actually about Truth. And Truth cannot be mitigated or compromised. It is what it is.

Strictly speaking, the Truth is not a viewpoint, or an opinion, etc. It is Somebody. Jesus Christ, Who said, “I am the way, the Truth, and the life.” And since Jesus Christ is God, He is immutable (unchanging), because God is immutable. God is immutable because He is perfect, and any change from perfect would be imperfect.
 
fredms3 said:
Moral relativism is the belief that there are no moral absolutes; that morality is relative to something (i.e. individual or society).

What is your position on this?
Click to expand...
I don’t agree with moral relativism as it not only is incompatible with Catholicism, but more specifically it divides instead of unites for no other reason than that some people have different opinions and they’re too stubborn to look at both halves of a coin. If you want to go radical moral relativism then I can go kill an innocent person and justify that action because I believed it was ok. Its quite simply just a stupid idea.
 
Here’s moral relativism for you:
And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:
Click to expand...
Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
Click to expand...
Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Surprise! You get to come into Heaven, too! For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat, but y’all had voted that Christians don’t have to give food to the hungry: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink, but your society believed that giving handouts to the thirsty was ill-advised. I was a stranger, and you took me not in, but your society taught you to avoid strangers: naked, and you covered me not, but you were pretty sure that there were charities somewhere that would take care of that eventually: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me, but you left that to the priests and religious, because who wants to dirty their hands with icky charity work? Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, why are you being so mean as to hold us accountable for disobeying you, given that we heard from our friends that obeying Your commands was old-fashioned and silly? Then he shall answer them, saying: Fine, if you all voted to make evil acceptable, then you get a free pass.
Click to expand...
And everyone shall enter into life everlasting, because God forbid we should have to answer to Him.
Click to expand...
Matthew 25:31-46 (some changes made to allow for moral relativism).
 
Neildown said:
I don’t agree with moral relativism as it not only is incompatible with Catholicism, but more specifically it divides instead of unites for no other reason than that some people have different opinions and they’re too stubborn to look at both halves of a coin. If you want to go radical moral relativism then I can go kill an innocent person and justify that action because I believed it was ok. Its quite simply just a stupid idea.
Click to expand...
I think this post sums up the truth of it: no one wants to concede to a different opinion, no matter which side of the coin they are on. Each one with the differing opinion calls the other stubborn because of it. For example, the devout Jew is no more or less likely to agree with the Catholic, who is no more or less likely to agree with the Jew, on religious and moral matters. While one can call the other ‘stubborn’ for not ‘listening’ to the other and ‘seeing’ both sides of the coin, another would simply call them both devout to their own religion. Yet each side considers the other to be ‘wrong’. And each side can come up with ‘immoral’ teachings. Therefore, each one can claim that the other is ‘wrong’. But that Jew can claim that their teachings are absolutely true, and that the Catholic is the one embracing moral relativism, just as much as the Catholic can claim that the Jew is the one embracing moral relativism. The same can be applied to anyone.

Thank God we live in a plural society where it doesn’t matter what the other thinks unless someone wants to spend their lives arguing with people who are different than themselves. Is moral relativism right? Well, would YOU like to live in a world where another party was claiming your religion was wrong, and that you were guilty of moral relativism, that your teachings were false and incorrect, and that you are immoral? Because the Church, while the True Church, isn’t the only religion using the same language. It could be you on the receiving end. Does it matter what others think? Yes, because it drives their actions. It always matters.

We can argue that the Church teaches that moral relativism is wrong. But then, the Church allows freedom of religion, and respects a person’s right to choose their religion. So that can’t always be true, because not all religions overlap in all matters of morals.
 
Not only do I believe moral relativism is wrong, I believe it is our societies greatest downfall. I compare it to some of the heresies of past times and I think this ranks right up there. Ultimately, what it comes down to is Pride. Choosing one’s own opinion, emotions, thoughts, etc. and placing them above those of Truth. I think it is an incredibly damaging belief that ripples through society and devestates both Truth and Humility. Quite frankly I think it works to destroy all virtue while seeming “harmless” and “tolerant” to so many.

I could go on and on about it’s effects and potential damage, but I think you get my point, lol.
 
fredms3 said:
Moral relativism is the belief that there are no moral absolutes; that morality is relative to something (i.e. individual or society).

What is your position on this?
Click to expand...
How can moral relativism even exist since it fails its own definition by claiming to be a moral absolute?

If morality is relative, why should we accept that of the moral relativists?

See also polylogism, a related topic solohq.com/Objectivism101/Irrational_Polylogism.shtml.
 
Relativism is a philosophy that is an ideology because its object avoids intentionally the reality of the creation, it means to go against the natural law that is written by God inside heart of man and woman (humanity). This intellectual approach is going against the holy reason of humanity.

According to the teaching of catholic church, for understanding our own humanity and the creation, we have to study what is around us with objectivity. Roman Catholic Church gives us the keys: realistic philosophy, objective philosophy, charity, catholic theology under the catholic interpretation of the holy scripture, the use of sciences with objective methods.

With the time, Catholic church banned, by formal documents, some intellectual approaches and practices. This is the list, it is not short:

Pharisaism, Legalism, Externalism, Moralism, Scrupulism, Encratism, Manicheism, Catharism, Jansenism, Rigorism, Puritanism, Radical Feminism, Gender Theory, modernism, relativism, materialism, progressivism, fideism, communism, socialism, collectivism, nazism, absolute rationalism,…

Then the approaches that were not prohibited by a formal act of the church, but that are certainly far away of catholicism:

Dolorism; Pessimism, Neo-puritanism, Prudism, Prudishness, Victorianism, Neo-victorianism, Sexism, Masculinism, Misogynism, Machism, Misandrism, Absolute Physiologism, Theoretical Providentialism, Primary Anti-personalism…etc.

The list is so long.

THe holy spirit on some topics — Faith and moral — and under formal conditions gives us the Thruth.

Relativist moral is wrong, moral relativisism is wrong.
 
Boulder257 said:
Not only do I believe moral relativism is wrong, I believe it is our societies greatest downfall. I compare it to some of the heresies of past times and I think this ranks right up there. Ultimately, what it comes down to is Pride. Choosing one’s own opinion, emotions, thoughts, etc. and placing them above those of Truth. I think it is an incredibly damaging belief that ripples through society and devestates both Truth and Humility. Quite frankly I think it works to destroy all virtue while seeming “harmless” and “tolerant” to so many.

I could go on and on about it’s effects and potential damage, but I think you get my point, lol.
Click to expand...
So what is the solution? And how would that solution be implemented and realized?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top