Moral Relativism

[Elijah_Baley]

If we had moral absolutes written on our hearts then, for example, all Christians would have exactly the same view on contraception, when in reality not even sincere Catholics agree.

Depends on the understanding of both “Catholics” and “sincere.” If you understand it as if to say “practicing devout Catholics” or even simply “Catholics in communion in Rome” then this is patently false, you know.

To take another example, some say it’s absolutely wrong to kill but then exempt soldiers killing according to rules of war, or even exempt executioners in some states. In the real world there are no knowable moral absolutes, even though much morality is common across cultures because of what is written on all healthy hearts.

The morality which is common across cultures and is written on all healthy hearts is the moral absolutes. Really what’s happening is that we recognize “thou shalt not kill” as an extension of “thou shalt not murder” and we agree on the principle! The principle is the moral absolute where “thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt not murder” are the opinions we have about that absolute.

Maybe we’re mistaking what absolutism actually means. Absolutism is not about proposing a universal opinion. Rather, it’s the belief in universal underlying principles in moral debates.

To use an image and in so doing paraphrase Chesterton, opinions on morality are something like a carefully pruned bonsai tree. Absolutists do not propose every bonsai is the same, but that every bonsai is strikingly similar — otherwise you could not say something like “every bonsai.”

 

[inocente]

Mussolini’s relativism is the same as modern relativism. To a relativist, there is no moral truth and that all belief systems are of equal value (that is, are equally worthless) and that is exactly what Mussolini says.

You seem to be saying that if one person likes vanilla and another strawberry that means everything is flavorless.

There’s a difference between saying there are no knowable moral absolutes and saying there are no moral truths at all. But irrespective of whether there are moral absolutes, where is this clearly illuminated sign telling us all what they are? If different religions each claim their own moral code as god-given, what’s a girl to do when they disagree?

 

[fhansen]

You seem to be saying that if one person likes vanilla and another strawberry that means everything is flavorless.

There’s a difference between saying there are no knowable moral absolutes and saying there are no moral truths at all. But irrespective of whether there are moral absolutes, where is this clearly illuminated sign telling us all what they are? If different religions each claim their own moral code as god-given, what’s a girl to do when they disagree?

I’m not sure why a girl would bother with religion if she didn’t have a pretty fair inkling hers was absolutely true. I like your quote from Wesley. BTW, would you think it’s true in relative terms-or in absolute ones?

 

[slywakka250]

A simple analogy that refutes relativism:
let’s you are wearing a blue shirt, and I come up to you and try to convince you that it’s green. We cannot both be right.

I have a very hard time accepting this type of reasoning for some reason.

If I say that my shirt is green; If I say that I can fly; If I say that I am pro basketball player;If I see in my mind’s eye a square circle, If I say that 2 + 2 = 5, and I make these things true in my own mind, then I think they are true in reality as well.

I think on some level, our dreams and our imagination is more real than what we perceive as reality. That is why we can imagine all sorts of things. We can invent whole universes and possible worlds in our minds. Our consciousness is not evolved enough to be fully immersed in this wider version of the “real,” but when we have mystical and dream like experiences we start to grasp at it.

So in a way if I want my ‘blue’ shirt to be green, I can simply say that it is so, and so it is.

I see truth as multifaceted. I believe that all propositions of every variety are true. I just can’t accept the law of non-contradiction. I believe in a sense TRUTH is infinite. That all things, all thoughts, all perceptions, and conceptions, are a truth on to themselves. there are no false statements, and there are no wrong opinions.

I think we are all gods in a sense in that collectively us creatures of consciousness construct the universe and reality we perceive. At this point in our history we have agreed collectively that man is worthy of great respect and dignity. I don’t think it had to be the case, and as we know, some people, perhaps Hitler,etc, still disagree.

I see morality as socially constructed, but perhaps on a sort of path of evolving toward some form of ultimate fulfillment. many of us see abortion and other murder as ‘wrong’, and I think it is wrong because we have made it so, not because of some ‘objective truth.’ It is simply the way things are now, that murder and abortion seem to be great evils, but in the future, perhaps at a time when we no longer live in physical bodies, but become more spirit like, murder will not be possible so it will no longer be relevant.

all morality and truth appear to be in fluid as man’s collective conscience evolves through a potentially infinite variety of transitions, through eternity, and perhaps towards an ultimate goal, but perhaps that goal must be discovered and even created and invented by ourselves.

–

Now I wrote this (above) fairly quickly just now, and I kind of jumped around, but this is my understanding of truth and morality. this is what makes the most sense to me right now. I’m open to getting back to Catholic ideas, but absolutism in the traditional sense really really bothers me for some reason.

 

[inocente]

Depends on the understanding of both “Catholics” and “sincere.” If you understand it as if to say “practicing devout Catholics” or even simply “Catholics in communion in Rome” then this is patently false, you know.

I’m going on the diverse views of those with “Catholic” as their profile on CAF, backed-up by real-world statistics that a large number of Catholics disagree. Whether any of them are not true Scotsmen I can’t say.

You’re right about misinterpretations of absolutism, and that goes for relativism as well. Both labels include a wide range of views, for example some absolutists think a mother stealing food for her starving kid is as bad as an armed bank robber.

But my point is that in the absence of any universally agreed way of knowing absolute moral imperatives, we’re really all just doing our best through our consciences, as God intended all along.

 

[inocente]

I’m not sure why a girl would bother with religion if she didn’t have a pretty fair inkling hers was absolutely true. I like your quote from Wesley. BTW, would you think it’s true in relative terms-or in absolute ones?

I don’t believe any of us can see more than a facet of divinity and so cannot, would not, claim my religion is better than another: For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. – 1 Cor 13:9-12 NIV

Love is a common denominator in morality, but surely it fights against sets of rules: Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away – 1 Cor 13:8.

 

[fhansen]

I don’t believe any of us can see more than a facet of divinity and so cannot, would not, claim my religion is better than another: For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. – 1 Cor 13:9-12 NIV

Love is a common denominator in morality, but surely it fights against sets of rules: Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away – 1 Cor 13:8.

I think it would be safer to say that love should be a common denominator in morality-but it certainly isn’t necessarily so in real life. And there are even plenty of religions that don’t seem to have much place for it.

 

[inocente]

all morality and truth appear to be in fluid as man’s collective conscience evolves through a potentially infinite variety of transitions, through eternity, and perhaps towards an ultimate goal, but perhaps that goal must be discovered and even created and invented by ourselves.

Most excellent thought, thanks.

 

[grannymh]

From post 31. Non-theist scientists usually see the human living organism as different in degrees from non-human living organisms because a spiritual side of human nature is not considered.

Grannymh!

I’m not sure if the bolded and greened words make sense! Could you please re-word?

God bless,
jd

Human nature is an unique unification of the non-material/material; spiritual/matter; rational/corporeal; body and soul. Ah, one says. The spiritual soul cannot be put under a natural science microscope. True. Thus, the only thing left that non-theist scientists can use to compare living organisms, that is species, is the anatomy and what one can do with it.

Darwin’s position, that all reality is material, is unable to address the uniqueness of the human species. Instead of expanding the points of view to include both the material and spiritual reality of humanity, the distinguishing uniqueness (spiritual soul) of the human species was eliminated. Consequently, man was considered only as a material being, an animal with higher degrees of certain abilities. The reasoning was that science, by definition, was limited to the natural world. This definition was then used to exclude the spiritual (supernatural) as that which separates humanity from all other species, also referred to as living organisms.

Degrees or points of difference are relative to the material/physical anatomy and its functions or abilities. Since soul is considered as created by God, it is not in the purview of the non-theist.

Thank you for your question.
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[jdwood983]

You seem to be saying that if one person likes vanilla and another strawberry that means everything is flavorless.

No, not that everything is flavorless but that the opinion of which is the better flavor is worthless.

 

[inocente]

No, not that everything is flavorless but that the opinion of which is the better flavor is worthless.

Then I don’t understand. The folk who don’t believe in absolutes debate their opinions and try to come to common agreement, which is the opposite of what dictators do, but you were saying they’re the same.

 

[GratefulFred]

1st Post Quote:
Nope, wrong. Any consistent system of morals and ethics starts from certain premises that tell you why it is wrong, e.g., to kill innocent people, and why it is good to perform some given action. And those premises are sometimes grounded in assumptions about the physical world. If those premises are grounded in scientifically fallacious assumptions about the physical world, then we can dispute that moral belief system by disputing those fallacious beliefs about the physical world. For example:

A Muslim might believe that it’s moral to stone adulterous women to death because the Koran says so, and because they believe that the Koran is the message of Allah, and that Allah really exists. But if we dispute that Allah exists, then we can dispute this moral precept (that it’s moral to stone adulterous women) in Islam.

---

Well, I am neither a PhD Candidate nor a trained theologian so my thoughts are not eloquent.

A system of moral and ethics: This implies more than one system - relativism. But what I see is, for the lack of a better image, a tree. IF one sets as his basis a particular branch then his logic out to the leaf seems consistent to him. He, for whatever reason, IGNORES the trunk and the roots, which if considered, would logically lead to a better, more informed conclusion. So for me, depending on relativism is tantamount to not wanting to see the more important absolute.

Sometimes grounded in assumptions of the physical world: “sometimes” seems again to allow for relativism because it allows for “sometimes not.” And physical world, from a physics guy is understandable, but also a limited view. Are emotions and the ability to mentally reason a part of the physical world? And assumptions, seems to me, are man centered, and not God centered. Man assumes. God reveals. Big difference. We miscommunicate if one talks about man’s morality while the other talks about God’s morality revealed to man.

I do agree that fallacious assumptions can and should be disputed.

Islamic stoning: I would not try to argue that Allah does not exist. Rather I would argue that Mohammed was NOT ordained by God but rather Mo set himself up as God’s voice. Unlike Jesus, Mohammed was not foretold by a long line of prophets. Unlike Jesus, Mo performed no miracles. Unlike Jesus who taught love, service to others, tolerance, and left revenge to God, Mohammed was into control - my way or die. Much of Mohammed’s Islam is borrowed from Judaism and Christainity and paganism known and misunderstood by Mohammed. Mohammed then added his own ideas.

Mohammed may have been sincere in trying to reach toward God, or not, but he saw a harsh God where Christains see a loving God who revealed Himself to us.

Stoning may prevail in the Islamic World. What prevails is not necessarily morally correct. That is, if one accepts that Morality comes from God and not man.

 

[jdwood983]

Then I don’t understand. The folk who don’t believe in absolutes debate their opinions and try to come to common agreement, which is the opposite of what dictators do, but you were saying they’re the same.

To a relativist, Mussolini’s way and America’s way are just “different methods” of running a government; one is not better than the other. They must accept this position because they don’t believe in objective truths. Only an absolutist would be able to distinguish between which is good and which is bad because they do believe in objective truths.
Dictators often try not imposing their moral beliefs on others, they tend to just ignore it and do what they want (cf Mussolini, Mao, Castro, etc). They don’t try coming to a common agreement by debate, they generally use a gun.

My two lines that you quoted were speaking from a relativists point of view, and not an absolutist–to be sure, I am an absolutist. That may have lead to some confusion, perhaps?

 

[inocente]

To a relativist, Mussolini’s way and America’s way are just “different methods” of running a government; one is not better than the other. They must accept this position because they don’t believe in objective truths. Only an absolutist would be able to distinguish between which is good and which is bad because they do believe in objective truths.

Still not with you, jd. Moral standards are about what is best for us, society and the world, so a relativist definitely has criteria for choosing. I can argue that it’s the absolutist who is being dictatorial by wanting the rest of us to collectively override our conscience in favor of some mystically hidden truths. We know that everyone (apart from sociopaths ) has a conscience, while in contrast where are these eternal moral truths that only some can see (and incidentally can’t quite agree on )?

 

[tonyrey]

We know that everyone (apart from sociopaths ) has a conscience, while in contrast where are these eternal moral truths that only some can see (and incidentally can’t quite agree on )?

Isn’t it an eternal moral truth that we should do what what we are convinced is right? In other words our ultimate authority is our conscience…

 

[inocente]

Isn’t it an eternal moral truth that we should do what what we are convinced is right? In other words our ultimate authority is our conscience…

I’d be deliriously happy with that compromise, although being picky we should maybe say it’s the only eternal moral truth and the conscience must be well formed. Always Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide - Pinocchio and Jiminy Cricket or Sonny Boy Williamson depending on what you think is right.

 

[tonyrey]

I’d be deliriously happy with that compromise, although being picky we should maybe say it’s the only eternal moral truth and the conscience must be well formed. Always Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide - Pinocchio and Jiminy Cricket or Sonny Boy Williamson depending on what you think is right.

It’s not a compromise but the thin end of the wedge!. If you accept one eternal, absolute moral truth why not more?

How about “It is always true that we should seek the lesser of two evils?”

 

[inocente]

It’s not a compromise but the thin end of the wedge!. If you accept one eternal, absolute moral truth why not more?

How about “It is always true that we should seek the lesser of two evils?”

Ah, with you, a slippery slope.

How do I know which is the lesser? Do you tell me, do I have a rule book, or am I OK to use my conscience without ever being aware of that rule? Or do I go with least harm instead of least evil? What is evil anyway? Stop me, I’m melting.

We’re into Trolley Problem territory. It’s only Wikipedia, but look at the cognitive science and neuroethics sections. We may have a moral grammar inside our heads, not a set of rules but the requirements to make decisions, and we may have “a strong emotional response as well as a reasoned cognitive response that tend to oppose one another”.

Where did I hear that before? They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them. - Rom 2:15 NIV

 

[jdwood983]

Still not with you, jd. Moral standards are about what is best for us, society and the world, so a relativist definitely has criteria for choosing. I can argue that it’s the absolutist who is being dictatorial by wanting the rest of us to collectively override our conscience in favor of some mystically hidden truths. We know that everyone (apart from sociopaths ) has a conscience, while in contrast where are these eternal moral truths that only some can see (and incidentally can’t quite agree on )?

A relativist has criteria for choosing only if he’s right and that absolutism is wrong, and therein lies the self-contradiction of relativism. Relativists don’t believe in objective truths, yet they accept that relativism is right and absolutism is wrong, something they shouldn’t be able to do! If relativism is wrong and absolutism is right, then a relativist is just bending his conscience to admit some (particular) sin is good and not bad.

Also, if moral standards are about what is best for society, then isn’t someone who is taking absolute morality to the people doing a good thing? Compare Mussolini’s relative-moral Italy to Moses’ absolute-moral Israelites, isn’t introducing absolute morality a good thing when comparing the quality of life between those two? I’d much rather live under a moral absolute ruler than a moral relativist ruler any day of the week.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

A relativist has criteria for choosing only if he’s right and that absolutism is wrong, and therein lies the self-contradiction of relativism. Relativists don’t believe in objective truths, yet they accept that relativism is right and absolutism is wrong, something they shouldn’t be able to do! If relativism is wrong and absolutism is right, then a relativist is just bending his conscience to admit some (particular) sin is good and not bad.

The trouble I run into is when people say they only want a “soft” relativism. where there are some moral truths but not the ones which have always existed.