Moral Relativism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fieryjades
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
dennisknapp:
Moral relativism is self-defeating.

It says, “the only moral truths are that there are no moral truths,” which is a moral truth.

To say there are no moral truths and then declare a moral truth is to contradict yourself, and therefore make your argument meaningless.

Peace
Click to expand...
Actually, this is fallacious. The person who states that “the only moral truths are that there are no moral truths” is just confused with his terminology. The statement “there are no moral absolutes” is a statement of general truth, not of morality. You’re right in pointing out that moral relativists are on the whole inconsistent, but that says nothing about the validity of their position. It is absolute relativism (“there are no absolutes”) that is self-refuting. Not moral relativism. That’s a subject that I haven’t the time to address at the moment, save to say that in addition to Kreeft’s book, anyone interested should also check out Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air by Gregory Koukl and Francis J. Beckwith. It’s a wonderfully concise book.
 
Sgt Sweaters:
Actually, this is fallacious. The person who states that “the only moral truths are that there are no moral truths” is just confused with his terminology. The statement “there are no moral absolutes” is a statement of general truth, not of morality. You’re right in pointing out that moral relativists are on the whole inconsistent, but that says nothing about the validity of their position. It is absolute relativism (“there are no absolutes”) that is self-refuting. Not moral relativism. That’s a subject that I haven’t the time to address at the moment, save to say that in addition to Kreeft’s book, anyone interested should also check out Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air by Gregory Koukl and Francis J. Beckwith. It’s a wonderfully concise book.
Click to expand...
Can you further clarify what you mean?
 
I’ll try to put this as succinctly as possible while still doing it justice (though bear in mind that much more qualified people have written whole books on the subject).
There are really two types of relativism: absolute relativism and moral relativism. Absolute relativism says that “there is no objective truth.” This of course is self-refuting, because that is an absolute statement; the speaker has made an objective claim. It is patently false, just as the assertion, “this is a false statement.” In order to be true, the statement must be false! Therefore absolute relativism cannot stand on its own two feet.
Moral relativism is different. When one says “there are no moral absolutes,” that person has not made a moral claim, but a claim about morals. Since it is not a moral statement itself, it cannot be self-refuting. I feel that the surest way to refute moral relativism is to draw out its implications, which its adherents often don’t even think about.
Now some truths are indeed relative. I’m right in saying that chocolate ice cream is great. You, however, might loathe the stuff, and instead say vanilla is great, which I hate. Our views conflict, but we’re both right, because there is no objective value in the stuff. The problem is that some people treat morals as they do flavors of ice cream. You might not like to steal, but I do. Who’s to say who is right and who is wrong?
But if you take that same view further, then you end up with people that want to know what’s wrong with them torturing babies. It’s just what they happen to like! And so with such a view of morals there is a complete moral equivalence between Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler.
This is what a true moral relativist must admit.
Briefly, I’d like to mention the “seven fatal flaws” of relativism from the book I mentioned earlier by Koukl and Beckwith:

1: Relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing
2: Relativists can’t complain about the problem of evil
3: Relativists can’t blame or accept praise
4: Relativists can’t make charges of unfairness or injustice
5: Relativists can’t improve their morality
6: Relativists can’t hold meaningful moral discussions
7: Relativists can’t promote the obligation of tolerance

Let me know if you want any of those fleshed out! 🙂
Hope this helped.
 
Thanks for the reply! I’d love if you could flesh all these out.
 
**1: Relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing
**Wrongdoing of course implies that something wrong has been done. Well how can this be if everything I do is right for me, and everything you do is right for you? I can’t state that you beating your pets for fun is wrong, because under your personal moral rules, that is a completely legitimate activity. What’s more, I can’t even insist that you be consistent in such things, because consistency may not be “right” for you!

**2: Relativists can’t complain about the problem of evil
**Well, you can’t complain about something that doesn’t exist. The only way you can have evil is if you have an absolute good to use as a standard. As Christians, we recognize evil by what we know as good. But if everything, in your view, is good, then how can you claim evil? Under the relativist’s view, we live in a perfect world.

**3: Relativists can’t place blame or accept praise
**Once again, the concepts of “blame” and “praise” require a standard. If the relativist seeks to “blame” someone for something, what he is really saying is that whatever so-and-so did didn’t quite suit his fancy, which is a moot point. It doesn’t mean so-and-so’s action was wrong. And similarly, to be praised simply means that someone happened to like what you’ve done. But so what?

**4: Relativists can’t make charges of unfairness or injustice
**Fairness and justice imply that we must, for some reason, treat people equally. This doesn’t make any sense under moral relativism. Instead, I’ll say that Bob over here is always right, because I like him more anyway, whereas Tim is always wrong, because I don’t like the way he cuts his hair. Who’s to say I have a bad system? You see, the words mean nothing when there’s no system. There is not justice and there is no injustice either.

**5: Relativists can’t improve their morality
**Relativists cannot improve their morality, but only change it arbitrarily, because once again, there is no standard to work off of. There is no end goal, nothing to work toward. If I strive my entire life to be more like Christ, and my brother works all of his life to be more like Hitler, then under relativism we are doing the exact same thing. Not that it matters, for if everything is a-ok anyway, then why would you even want to change anyway?

**6: Relativists can’t hold meaningful moral discussions
**Relativists have no points to make. The closest the relativist can come to a “discussions” on morality is stating what he or she holds to be right for them, and then to sit and listen (if they think that’s appropriate) while you tell them what you think is right. The discussion stops there, because they can’t defend their point of view, because what you think is right, and they cannot criticize yours either, because what you think is right. You’ve hardly accomplished an idea exchange!

**7: Relativists can’t promote the obligation of tolerance
**The Relativist might think that his or her view is the right view, but cannot insist that you think the same thing, or even insist that you recognize it as a rational view. This is where relativism fails, I think, most often. You’ll often hear “Don’t force your morality on me!” To which you should respond, “Well, why shouldn’t I?”
 
Sgt Sweaters and all,
But what do you do if the person you are talking to says that moral behavior such as not murdering people, not stealing, etc. was not because God said so, but because as societies developed, they saw that this was best for the people in the society. I understand the “might makes right” idea - that perhaps because of punishment of criminals, this make the majority of people act according to societies’ laws.

But what do you say when a person feels that moral ideas are all thought up by humans and no God was ever around to give them ideas?

You see, I think I’m understanding (finally) how to explain why this position doesn’t work, but I’m not there yet.

Let’s take for example, stem cell research using embryonic cells. (And this is just an example - I don’t want this example to make the topic veer off into a discussion of stem cell research.) Group A of the population of a society feels that is wrong because it is killing life and using it as “spare parts”. Group B thinks it’s right because it may help already born humans be cured of illnesses. If Group B gets legislation passed that allows embryonic stem cell research, they have “the might” so all of a sudden, this is “right”. But the people in Group A of course, still feel that this is completely wrong.

So is the answer to my original question that one cannot count on society to decide what is moral or not because of the vast differences in human opinion? That there must be some authority other than the humans in power or with the most votes?

Finally, do you think an athiest with a point of view such as the one I described ever see that it really doesn’t fly?!

Thanks,
Aunt Martha
 
40.png
AuntMartha:
Sgt Sweaters and all,
But what do you do if the person you are talking to says that moral behavior such as not murdering people, not stealing, etc. was not because God said so, but because as societies developed, they saw that this was best for the people in the society.

But what do you say when a person feels that moral ideas are all thought up by humans and no God was ever around to give them ideas?
Click to expand...
I still think that society making rules still has to have a standard, where did their standard come from. As Catholics we beleive God has written natural law on our hearts - which in effect explains the ‘society made standard’. Good vs. evil had to originate from someplace… It seems extremely egotistical to say that WE people came up with standards of good and evil on our own.
 
Seeks God:
I still think that society making rules still has to have a standard, where did their standard come from. As Catholics we beleive God has written natural law on our hearts - which in effect explains the ‘society made standard’. Good vs. evil had to originate from someplace… It seems extremely egotistical to say that WE people came up with standards of good and evil on our own.
Click to expand...
What would our reference point be, if not God?
 
40.png
AuntMartha:
Sgt Sweaters and all,
But what do you do if the person you are talking to says that moral behavior such as not murdering people, not stealing, etc. was not because God said so, but because as societies developed, they saw that this was best for the people in the society. I understand the “might makes right” idea - that perhaps because of punishment of criminals, this make the majority of people act according to societies’ laws.

But what do you say when a person feels that moral ideas are all thought up by humans and no God was ever around to give them ideas?
Click to expand...
When talking to someone of that view, the first thing you need to point out is how unworkably simplistic it is, unless you’re prepared to get very detailed and technical. For, “society” is not a cut and dry term. There are countless layers and subgroups of each society, often with opposing views on things of right and wrong. How is one to know whether the majority (and what is that, 51% of “society”) agrees on any one moral rule? Or, perhaps, is it decided by persons in power? Well, that already has a term, and it’s “tyranny.” With this view, no one can have any political opinions! Because there’s nothing to disagree about, because whatever is legal, is right!
But if your relativist friend somehow gets around this, try pointing out some implications of the view. Let’s say that it became law, with overwhelming support, that every year on some set day, people must converge at some point and kill their firstborn child. Now logically, if society determines morality, it would make no sense whatsoever to oppose this. A moral opposition that was a minority would actually be in the wrong, for going against the true morality of the society it lives in. Thus, some of the greatest villains in history have been moral reformers. No rational person can accept this.
So is the answer to my original question that one cannot count on society to decide what is moral or not because of the vast differences in human opinion? That there must be some authority other than the humans in power or with the most votes?
Click to expand...
Interestingly, many moral relativists deny objective moral truth precisely because there are such differing opinions. But I’m not comfortable using the opposite of that statement in our argument for truth. It’s not as if we happen to disagree, and therefore need an arbitrator (e.g., God). We’re getting things rather out of order there. I personally take the view that C. S. Lewis put forth in his The Abolition of Man. If you study the various great cultures and religions, you find that morality is really not quite as divergent as perhaps an anthropologist would lead you to believe. The remarkable thing is how very similar we have all been through the ages. For instance, as Lewis points out in Mere Christianity, there’s never been a culture that has celebrated cowardice, etc. The moral continuity throughout the history of man is, Lewis believed, strikingly good evidence for an absolute standard. And, as buffalo and Seeks God have already pointed out, that standard must be God.
Finally, do you think an athiest with a point of view such as the one I described ever see that it really doesn’t fly?!
Click to expand...
Depends on how honest they are intellectually.
 
40.png
Fieryjades:
As a Catholic, I believe in God’s laws/morals and follow Church’s teachings. However, society todays seems to be following “personal morals” i.e. moral relativism. Does anyone have ideas or strategies to combat moral relativism?

Peace be with you!
Fieryjades
Click to expand...
Live your life and on’t concern yourself with the morals of your neighbors. Good fences make good neighbors.
 
40.png
Peter_Atlanta:
Live your life and on’t concern yourself with the morals of your neighbors. Good fences make good neighbors.
Click to expand...
Is just sitting back while others travel down the path to destruction truly charitable?
 
Sgt Sweaters, thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. What you said made sense to me, you have clarified several things I was confused about.

I really liked this:
Sgt Sweaters:
The moral continuity throughout the history of man is, Lewis believed, strikingly good evidence for an absolute standard. And, as buffalo and Seeks God have already pointed out, that standard must be God.
Click to expand...
You see, the person I am speaking of does believe in an absolute standard of sorts, he just mistakenly attributes it to some societal creation rather than God. But I think once I am able to show him how the “society creates morality” thing just doesn’t work, as was discussed here in this thread, we’ll begin to be on the same page.

Thanks,
Aunt Martha
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top