Moral Relativism: Right or Wrong?

[Boulder257]

So what is the solution? And how would that solution be implemented and realized?

Great question and one that is not easily answered. The solution has to be implemented by every individual. It requires turning away from oneself and turning towards God. Relinquishing the sin of Pride and focusing on humility.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

For you Moral Relativism (MR) is right…did i get you right Juliane?

It was a joke…See…Moral RELATIVISM…It “depends”…oh never mind.

 

[Rence]

Great question and one that is not easily answered. The solution has to be implemented by every individual. It requires turning away from oneself and turning towards God. Relinquishing the sin of Pride and focusing on humility.

In other words…it can’t be implemented because people are free to make their own choices and they make them based on their own values and beliefs, which are formed by their culture and those surrounding them. People would most likely consider relinquishing the sin of ‘pride’ if they thought of certain behaviors or actions as “sinful”. But if their values and beliefs tell them otherwise, there is no motivation to relinquish another person’s claim that something is sinful, and a sin of ‘pride’.

 

[fredms3]

The Constitution provides for freedom of religion. Let’s say if one believe that doing thing is approved according to their religion, then how can we tell them that what they are doing are morally incorrect.

 

[michelleds]

I do not understand how people can get so confused by elevating the US Constitution to the level of theology.

The problem with moral relativism, and you can see it in Rence’s posts, is that one is left with nothing to stand on–if I believe that theft is perfectly legitimate, then how can you tell me its wrong? when someone says that people are free to make their own choices, this is correct in that people have free will, which God gave to them. However, when used as a sloppy way of saying that whatever someone chooses is valid for them is to spout nonsense.

if i choose to fly under my own power by jumping off a building, will gravity cede to my wishes? what if i want to run through the rain and not get wet? there’s an old saying that if wishes were horses even beggars would ride and I think it’s relevant here. people can be wrong, seriously wrong, no matter how diligently or sincerely they hold their beliefs.

as St. Thomas said, “Right is right even if no one is doing it and wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.”

don’t confuse political theories with Theology.

 

[fredms3]

There’s no confusion with regards to mentioning Constitution with respect to the topic. Putting aside Constitution would still result to the same point in question.

With their belief, this is morally correct to do. With others this is also morally correct.

Just to put specifics on this i just would like put this question:

Is killing morally incorrect?

 

[Godfollower]

The Constitution provides for freedom of religion. Let’s say if one believe that doing thing is approved according to their religion, then how can we tell them that what they are doing are morally incorrect.

Easy: “You’re wrong.” For example, there are people in this country who insist that husbands have a God-given right – duty, even – to discipline their wives physically (that is, beat them) to teach them proper moral behavior; and that fathers and brothers have a moral obligation to kill their daughters / sisters if they (the daughters / sisters) engage in premarital sex.

I say they’re wrong. I don’t care what their religion tells them; they’re wrong. And the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution doesn’t protect them; they’re still wrong.

There’s no confusion with regards to mentioning Constitution with respect to the topic. Putting aside Constitution would still result to the same point in question.

With their belief, this is morally correct to do. With others this is also morally correct.

Just to put specifics on this i just would like put this question:

Is killing morally incorrect?

It depends. But I want to be clear that it does not depend on what your religion is. Murder is wrong. Killing in self-defense, in defense of others, in pursuit of a just war, and in certain other circumstances – all of these actions are, if the conditions are right, morally acceptable.

 

[fredms3]

Easy: “You’re wrong.” For example, there are people in this country who insist that husbands have a God-given right – duty, even – to discipline their wives physically (that is, beat them) to teach them proper moral behavior; and that fathers and brothers have a moral obligation to kill their daughters / sisters if they (the daughters / sisters) engage in premarital sex.

I say they’re wrong. I don’t care what their religion tells them; they’re wrong. And the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution doesn’t protect them; they’re still wrong.

It depends. But I want to be clear that it does not depend on what your religion is. Murder is wrong. Killing in self-defense, in defense of others, in pursuit of a just war, and in certain other circumstances – all of these actions are, if the conditions are right, morally acceptable.

1.They would also say you’re wrong…for they also believed in the truthfulness of their belief just as we are.

1. Well i agree that it depends. But wouldn’t you think that to them killing “in the name of religion” might fall on what you’re saying ‘if the conditions are right’?

 

[Jeanne_S]

For you Moral Relativism (MR) is right…did i get you right Juliane?

I am pretty sure Juliane’s answer was tongue in cheek…

 

[Godfollower]

1.They would also say you’re wrong…for they also believed in the truthfulness of their belief just as we are.

1. Well i agree that it depends. But wouldn’t you think that to them killing “in the name of religion” might fall on what you’re saying ‘if the conditions are right’?

I know they would disagree with me, and I know that they would claim that killing in the name of their religion was acceptable.

But they’re wrong. To accept moral relativism would be to say, not just that they’re allowed to have an opinion, but that they’re actually morally correct when they kill in the name of their religion. Under moral absolutism, they’re morally wrong.

And that’s the truth of it.

 

[fredms3]

I know they would disagree with me, and I know that they would claim that killing in the name of their religion was acceptable.

But they’re wrong. To accept moral relativism would be to say, not just that they’re allowed to have an opinion, but that they’re actually morally correct when they kill in the name of their religion. Under moral absolutism, they’re morally wrong.

And that’s the truth of it.

That;s actually what’ we’re saying here…We would say they’re wrong and them saying we’re wrong.

Who will be the judge…They will continue doing what they believe is morally correct though for us is morally incorrect…

Now, don’t you think religion play a very important part in this issue?

 

[Godfollower]

That;s actually what’ we’re saying here…We would say they’re wrong and them saying we’re wrong.

Who will be the judge…They will continue doing what they believe is morally correct though for us is morally incorrect…

Now, don’t you think religion play a very important part in this issue?

No, I don’t.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong, regardless of what any particular individual might think. If I were the only person on the entire planet claiming that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine, I would still be right, no matter how many people disagreed with me; and it wouldn’t matter whether the people disagreeing with me were doing so because they believed I was a heathen (“one of those Christian types”) or simply a misguided fellow believer.

As for who will be the judge, that’s just it; there isn’t one. God is good, and He knows both the difference between good and evil, on the one hand, and what each person’s specific intent is, on the other. He won’t need to make a judgment of any kind, because He already knows our hearts and minds.

So, when we stand before Him on judgment day, it won’t matter how many people believed what about right and wrong. And it won’t matter what religion we claimed or what church we attended or what philosophical studies we undertook or what conclusions we ultimately reached about the nature of good and evil. We will stand condemned for our sins, and we will hope in the infinite mercy of God through His Son Jesus.

But, as for what is right and what is wrong, we don’t get a vote.

 

[fredms3]

No, I don’t.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong, regardless of what any particular individual might think. If I were the only person on the entire planet claiming that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine, I would still be right, no matter how many people disagreed with me; and it wouldn’t matter whether the people disagreeing with me were doing so because they believed I was a heathen (“one of those Christian types”) or simply a misguided fellow believer.

As for who will be the judge, that’s just it; there isn’t one. God is good, and He knows both the difference between good and evil, on the one hand, and what each person’s specific intent is, on the other. He won’t need to make a judgment of any kind, because He already knows our hearts and minds.

So, when we stand before Him on judgment day, it won’t matter how many people believed what about right and wrong. And it won’t matter what religion we claimed or what church we attended or what philosophical studies we undertook or what conclusions we ultimately reached about the nature of good and evil. We will stand condemned for our sins, and we will hope in the infinite mercy of God through His Son Jesus.

But, as for what is right and what is wrong, we don’t get a vote.

We’re on the same boat brother and i agree on you that what is right is right and wrong is wrong.

While on earth what do you think will be our standard on telling what we do is right or wrong?

 

[coolduude]

Moral relativism is wrong as other posters have pointed out. But once that is determined, how is the Truth determined? Being Catholics, we can point to Christ and the Church as fountains of the Truth. But how will a non-Catholic or non-Christian believe that? How can Truth be demonstrated if one is not willing to believe in the Church?

 

[InJesusItrust]

We can determine that not everything can be correct and true through logic, more specifically the law of excluded middle. Some premises are mutually exclusive, so only at most one can be correct.

Some may argue that ultimate reality does not follow that law. But then we could argue that since reality does not follow that law that we can deduce reality does follow that law, because mutually exclusive premises like “reality does not follow the law” and “reality does follow the law” can both be true. Thus it is self-refuting.

 

[fredms3]

Moral relativism is wrong as other posters have pointed out. But once that is determined, how is the Truth determined? Being Catholics, we can point to Christ and the Church as fountains of the Truth. But how will a non-Catholic or non-Christian believe that? How can Truth be demonstrated if one is not willing to believe in the Church?

For us Catholics we believe that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth…For Muslims they have the Koran and etc…

For others truth is not about our Church…it’s about theirs — for them killing has its justification and therefore morally correct.

For us killing also has its justification, other those those justifcation is morally wrong.

So what do you think is the difference?

 

[coolduude]

For us Catholics we believe that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth…For Muslims they have the Koran and etc…

For others truth is not about our Church…it’s about theirs — for them killing has its justification and therefore morally correct.

For us killing also has its justification, other those those justifcation is morally wrong.

So what do you think is the difference?

One is faith based, the other opinionated. IMO, and perhaps this is due to ignorance, my original question remains unanswered. In a world where people do not believe the same thing the Truth can never be proven (but perhaps this statement can be proven wrong? )

 

[coolduude]

We can determine that not everything can be correct and true through logic, more specifically the law of excluded middle. Some premises are mutually exclusive, so only at most one can be correct.

Some may argue that ultimate reality does not follow that law. But then we could argue that since reality does not follow that law that we can deduce reality does follow that law, because mutually exclusive premises like “reality does not follow the law” and “reality does follow the law” can both be true. Thus it is self-refuting.

This is a good post and will certainly keep me thinking for a while. Thanks!

 

[underacloud]

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?

The important Catholic principle relevant to the relativity of sin is invincible ignorance. This does not at all deny moral truths, but how they relate to each individual.

All people have a conscience, formed by God’s natural moral laws and by relevation. As Catholics, we have the natural law and Catholic teaching to follow. For others, they also have the natural law, by which they know that certain things are intinsically wrong - murder, rape, stealing, etc. They may also have some degree of revealed law through their own religion; as such, other Christians may share many revealed truths with us; Jews and Muslims also share some common revealed truths.

So each person’s conscience and understanding of moral truth relies on natural law and what God has revealed to them through whatever other means. Invincible ignorance is the principle that although someone commits what may objectively by considered a sin, they may not in fact have sinned, due to their lack of knowledge of the matter through no fault of their own.

What this implies for people who kill in the name of their religion is a little unclear. It’s probably the case that they should have known better, through natural law, and thus their ignorance is perhaps vincible (ie they have sinned, but their guilt may be mitigated). I find it hard to believe that they could commit such acts and it be considered invincible ignorance, but it’s very hard to speculate on such matters; God is the ultimate judge of each person.

 

[coolduude]

We can determine that not everything can be correct and true through logic, more specifically the law of excluded middle. Some premises are mutually exclusive, so only at most one can be correct.

Some may argue that ultimate reality does not follow that law. But then we could argue that since reality does not follow that law that we can deduce reality does follow that law, because mutually exclusive premises like “reality does not follow the law” and “reality does follow the law” can both be true. Thus it is self-refuting.

I re-read the post and have a question. If the premise is self-refuting, as you demonstrated, does that therefore mean there is indeed an ultimate reality? (or ultimate truth)