Moral Relativism: Right or Wrong?

[InJesusItrust]

It means that the law of excluded middle applies to reality. It is just not possible for the law to apply and not to apply at the same time. That means for a set of mutually exclusive premises, at most one is true. Now we could claim that there is no truth. But that is self refuting truth for if “there is no truth” is true, we have a paradox because a statement itself is true. We could claim that no human knows the truth, but we can’t claim there is no truth.

If a premise is true then its negation is false. So yes, I believe that law points out that there is an absolute truth.

 

[fredms3]

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? )

For sure, that would be their respond also when asked on the same question – theirs is faith based, others, including us, are opinionated.

Truth can never be proven when people don’t believe the same thing ------ Then you are telling me then that you agree with moral relativism

 

[coolduude]

For sure, that would be their respond also when asked on the same question – theirs is faith based, others, including us, are opinionated.

Truth can never be proven when people don’t believe the same thing ------ Then you are telling me then that you agree with moral relativism

No, I don’t. Let me rephrase: Truth cannot be proven to others if they will not accept it. I believe in an ultimate Truth that flows from Christ and His Church, but how am I supposed to prove that to a Muslim friend of mine? And therein lies the problem: I cannot because he won’t accept it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No, I don’t. Let me rephrase: Truth cannot be proven to others if they will not accept it. I believe in an ultimate Truth that flows from Christ and His Church, but how am I supposed to prove that to a Muslim friend of mine? And therein lies the problem: I cannot because he won’t accept it.

Maybe not while he remains Muslim. . .in his heart/head. . .but that doesn’t mean we can’t try.

Pagan Romans did not believe in an ultimate truth that flowed from Christ and His Church, but when confronted with the teaching, they could. . .and did. . .choose.

IOW, just because at moment X person A does not accept a given truth does not mean that they will not accept it at moment Y. Even if nothing appears to change (say you are speaking to a practicing Muslim in April 2012, and again in May 2012, June 2012, etc. and each time he says he still believes in Islam, God is always working to bring us to the truth. We don’t know but that after hearing you month after month talking about Christ in a very different way from the Muslim understanding of Christ, a seed of doubt about the Muslim understanding could spring up, and then suddenly say in May 2015 he might say, “Talk to me more about Jesus.” I’m sure that some conversions took decades (think St Augustine) and probably never looked as though they could happen, but they can and do.

I guess what I’m saying is we cannot make a person accept what he doesn’t choose to accept, but we can always offer the opportunity for him to hear the truth by speaking (and living) it day after day. It might be just what God has planned.

 

[fredms3]

No, I don’t. Let me rephrase: Truth cannot be proven to others if they will not accept it. I believe in an ultimate Truth that flows from Christ and His Church, but how am I supposed to prove that to a Muslim friend of mine? And therein lies the problem: I cannot because he won’t accept it.

At least you know now what i’m trying to say. We believe that we have the truth, but others believe that also. Though we believe moral relativism is morally wrong but to others it is morally correct.

And we cannot force the issue on that, otherwise, we are bound to go against the teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ of loving our neighbors.

 

[ballin]

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.

Good question.

Actually the Catholic church requires a good state as one in which natural law is respected safeguarded.

So someone in a different religion, acting contrary to natural law would actually be rightfully stopped and banned. The state actually has the authority and an obligation to do so.

 

[meltzerboy]

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.

But who, or which religion, or which legal system, determines when “the conditions are right”? Your concept of a just war, for example, may be shaped by your religion or your own personal view. And what exactly is meant by “self-defense” and “defense of others” according to a universal morality? G-d is in the details.

 

[fredms3]

It means that the law of excluded middle applies to reality. It is just not possible for the law to apply and not to apply at the same time. That means for a set of mutually exclusive premises, at most one is true. Now we could claim that there is no truth. But that is self refuting truth for if “there is no truth” is true, we have a paradox because a statement itself is true. We could claim that no human knows the truth, but we can’t claim there is no truth.

If a premise is true then its negation is false. So yes, I believe that law points out that there is an absolute truth.

Indeed there is an absolute truth.

To one group, will say truth is upon them, others will also say that and so on and so forth.

The question is which is which and who will be judge?

 

[InJesusItrust]

If absolute truth exists absolute morality exists too. We can’t prove WHO is correct but just give arguments and reasons why a religion is true. In the end, I suppose that is why religious freedom is supported by the Church.

The final judge will be God who will either punish or reward based on your actions and culpability for ignoring the truth. If you really don’t care about truth and just want to live your life you might be punished for it. The bible says that people must love truth. This means even if it is uncomfortable you must seek the truth.

 

[fredms3]

That’s actually the truth of the matter — God will be the judge —.

Now with respect to the topic – Moral Relativism – Christians perspective is that it is morally incorrect because we believe Truth is Absolute.

For others, however, this is morally correct simply because their belief tells them so. We cannot undo that except by praying for them.

 

[Godfollower]

But who, or which religion, or which legal system, determines when “the conditions are right”? Your concept of a just war, for example, may be shaped by your religion or your own personal view. And what exactly is meant by “self-defense” and “defense of others” according to a universal morality? G-d is in the details.

Well, whatever group you happen to be a part of – let’s just say “The United States of America” – has its own rules. And those rules govern how that group determines punishment of actions and omissions that violate that group’s rules. I can stand inside or outside the group and tell you that the group’s rules are wrong; but I acknowledge the group’s right to determine its own rules vis-a-vis itself. In a pluralistic group, you’re stuck with the group’s rules. But God’s rules are His rules, and they simply do not depend on what anyone else says.

For example, let’s say you’re a physician. You’re a member of the AMA, you’re a member of your state’s medical association, you’re a citizen of the U.S. and of your state, you’re human, and you’re a child of God. Suppose the AMA passes a rule saying that any physician can have another person euthanized if it seems appropriate to the physician in light of the patient’s prognosis. That may be perfectly ethical under AMA guidelines and legal under Federal and state law; but it’s wrong.

If you want to know why it’s wrong, then I have to admit that I’ll be pointing (among other things) to the Bible and Church teaching. But that’s because the Catholic Church is so clearly right.

 

[fredms3]

One of the best example that is within the topic is actually the issue of abortion. We know the rule but there are exceptions to it and this is where the problem arise.

 

[fredms3]

Good question.

Actually the Catholic church requires a good state as one in which natural law is respected safeguarded.

So someone in a different religion, acting contrary to natural law would actually be rightfully stopped and banned. The state actually has the authority and an obligation to do so.

I believe other Christian religions and even non-Christian religions would have to have the natural law respected, most particularly with respect to what we call ‘Rights’.

The problem is where part of the natural law is being suspended for reasons they believe that it is for the good of the whole community.