Moral Relativism

[PRmerger]

PS: The snow looks good. We’re at 840 meters with no snow forecast yet below 1700. Town folk drive up to here when it snows as it’s a complete novelty to them.

Friend, let’s not talk about the weather! That conversation should be left for boring dinner parties.

 

[jonfawkes]

Which is why we Catholic take the *entire *Word of God to discern truth.

Morality hasn’t changed. God’s Word is eternal. Just our understanding of it has developed.

Scripture has NEVER said that women are inferior to men. Like the Koran says.

You never did give the nuanced view of Ephesians 5: 22-24. It does seem to be saying that. Women are to take the inferior role as we take the inferior role to Christ.

 

[grannymh]

Not at all. Most Catholic Answers are actually both/and.

What I said was; “Yes, I do realize that “both-and” situations are often avoided because they present difficulties.” Emphasis mine for this post. The dictionary has a rather interesting description for the word situation. point 4. “A critical, problematic, or striking set of circumstances.” American Heritage College Dictionary

Nonetheless, I was originally referring to the “circular” idea in a variety of discussions on CAF. Of course, I can accept your “Not at all.” observation regarding “most Catholic answers” along with what I observe.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.

 

[PRmerger]

What I said was; “Yes, I do realize that “both-and” situations are often avoided because they present difficulties.” Emphasis mine for this post. The dictionary has a rather interesting description for the word situation. point 4. “A critical, problematic, or striking set of circumstances.” American Heritage College Dictionary

Nonetheless, I was originally referring to the “circular” idea in a variety of discussions on CAF. Of course, I can accept your “Not at all.” observation regarding “most Catholic answers” along with what I observe.

So where do you believe the “I know it’s inspired because it’s in the Bible! And I know it’s in the Bible because it’s inspired” circular reasoning fall–in a both/and* situation* or a both/and answer?

 

[ddarko]

Just in case you’re confusing “empirical” with “objective” -

Evidence can either be empirical or theoretical. Empirical means based on what is experienced or seen rather than on theory - it can be subjective as well as objective.

In the situation you gave, would you ponder some theory of absolutes and make calculations, or would you just know it was wrong? If you just know it is wrong then it’s empirical, not theoretical, founded on your overwhelming compassion for the victim and total lack of empathy for the perp.

In less urgent or extreme situations you would probably take the time to make a more considered judgment based on your life experience and other evidence. If it’s very complicated and you’re a fan of some theory of ethics then you might use the theory to help decide, but I’d suggest it would never be a good idea to favor theories over people.

You just knowing its wrong is not empirical.

Do you consider the principle of contradiction empirical?

How about your own proposition, “it would never be a good idea to favor theories over people”, is that empirical? Is that objective or just your subjective opinion?

Your experience that I exist as a mind that is not just a figment of your imagination, is that empirical?

How about the empirical method, is that empirical?

Unless, you are using the term empirical in a very different sense than the commonly used the above are NOT empirical truths.

My argument is that Morality is a similar truth that comes from human experience. It is as real and objective as my belief that you are actually real and not just a figment of my imagination.

God Bless

 

[PRmerger]

You never did give the nuanced view of Ephesians 5: 22-24. It does seem to be saying that. Women are to take the inferior role as we take the inferior role to Christ.

And children are to take the inferior role to parents. Yet that does not make my children inferior to me. As if.

 

[jonfawkes]

And children are to take the inferior role to parents. Yet that does not make my children inferior to me. As if.

They are inferior in many ways, inferior in their ability to care for themselves, inferior to provide an income to support themselves, inferior in experience to make well informed decisions, etc.

That is why you care for your children, because you love them and they need care. You have the superiority to provide it.

 

[davidv]

They are inferior in many ways, inferior in their ability to care for themselves, inferior to provide an income to support themselves, inferior in experience to make well informed decisions, etc.

That is why you care for your children, because you love them and they need care. You have the superiority to provide it.

They are equal in dignity.

What you call superiority isn’t. It is responsibility.

 

[jonfawkes]

They are equal in dignity.

What you call superiority isn’t. It is responsibility.

No, because of my superiority, I have the responsibility to care for them.

 

[PRmerger]

They are inferior in many ways, inferior in their ability to care for themselves, inferior to provide an income to support themselves, inferior in experience to make well informed decisions, etc.

That is why you care for your children, because you love them and they need care. You have the superiority to provide it.

Yep. Just like my husband provides for me. And Christ provides for the Church!

 

[jonfawkes]

Yep. Just like my husband provides for me. And Christ provides for the Church!

So you agree your husband is superior.

 

[PRmerger]

No, because of my superiority, I have the responsibility to care for them.

This is really a question of semantics.

What you call “superior” I can agree to. In some aspects. Just like you alluded to.

But superior, as the Koran indicates, clearly, not.

 

[PRmerger]

So you agree your husband is superior.

I submit to him, in the sense that sub-mission means “*under *the same mission”. To the degree that we are, then I submit. If that means he’s “superior”, as semantics, go, so be it.

 

[PRmerger]

They are equal in dignity.

Indeed. And no other religion--paganism, Hinduism, Islam, etc–ever taught that truth until God revealed it to the Jews.

 

[inocente]

Ah. So here’s the evasion.

You can call it evasion all you want, you can repeat it all you want, you can start a thread whenever you want. If your purpose is ad hominem, baiting or derailing it won’t work with me. I already said I don’t believe the whole of scripture is inspired by God, so trying to debate me on absolutes from scripture might just be … circular.

But you really don’t believe in the “different strokes” thing. To wit: you’d walk out on racists. NOT different strokes, right?

You don’t need to keep personalizing things.

For far too many years racists justified the Atlantic slave trade, just as slavery was counted normal in some passages in the Bible. I detest it but it happened. Some folk used to burn witches, or send their kids down mines, or subjugate women, or to this day live in comfort while others live in abject poverty. We shudder at some of the morality of the past, yet somehow we alone live in an enlightened age where people in the future won’t look back and shudder at our some of our morality?

I also profoundly disagree that the homosexual act is in any shape or form a sin, but I’m guessing you may take another view. How do you know, where’s your proof, where’s your absolute?

Which is why we Catholic take the *entire *Word of God to discern truth.

Morality hasn’t changed. God’s Word is eternal. Just our understanding of it has developed.

Scripture has NEVER said that women are inferior to men. Like the Koran says.

Again, scripture was written by people, imperfect people, not dictated by God. Again, you subjectively pick one thing from the Quran, and subjectively use differential criteria looking at the same thing in the Bible. And once again I’m forced to repeat something now posted countless times:

As I already said several times, I’ve not read much of it. You’d be way better off discussing your views on the Holy Quran with one of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world rather than a Baptist. It’s also off-topic. You could always start a thread if you want.

Do you think it looks better in red than it did in black? Either way, please try to remember it this time. There’s an absolutely beautiful and unique sunset outside by which God may just be hinting to me that our discussion here is on its last legs unless you stop trying to debate the Quaran,

 

[inocente]

How about the empirical method, is that empirical?

Unless, you are using the term empirical in a very different sense than the commonly used the above are NOT empirical truths.

My argument is that Morality is a similar truth that comes from human experience. It is as real and objective as my belief that you are actually real and not just a figment of my imagination.

The definition I used is here.

We can, and almost always do, make moral choices without having to determine the nature of our existence and how we know that we know what we know that we know . We seem to use a process analogous to Rom 2:15, a combination of emotion and rational thought.

My argument is this: If we take a contentious moral issue such as the homosexual act or artificial contraception and look at how it is debated, for example here on CAF, no one takes a blind bit of notice about the chapter and verse wheeled out by the other side. Debaters will also try for absolutes from tradition on one side and science on the other. Again, none of it changes hearts and minds. It turns out that no one can point to a truth written on everyone’s hearts. We all have principles to live by but in the real world moral absolutes seem at best superfluous to the way we make personal moral decisions, and at worse can be dangerous if we put our own beliefs (in science, philosophy or religion) before the welfare of our fellow man.

 

[jonfawkes]

I submit to him, in the sense that sub-mission means “*under *the same mission”. To the degree that we are, then I submit. If that means he’s “superior”, as semantics, go, so be it.

“Men are managers of the affairs of women because Allah has made the one superior to the other.”–Sura 4:34

I don’t see how it’s different. You admit your husband is superior and so you submit. Seems in line with the Koran.

 

[davidv]

I don’t see how it’s different. You admit your husband is superior and so you submit. Seems in line with the Koran.

Are you serious? After all that has been presented, you call these two conditions the same? Your credibility is wearing very thin.

 

[jonfawkes]

Are you serious? After all that has been presented, you call these two conditions the same? Your credibility is wearing very thin.

I think your analytical skill are lacking. We established that a parent is more superior so carries a responsibility to care for their child. A woman submits to her husband as a means of support because his has the superiority to provide it. It is just as the Koran and Ephesians read. There is no disparity.

 

[davidv]

I think your analytical skill are lacking. We established that a parent is more superior so carries a responsibility to care for their child. A woman submits to her husband as a means of support because his has the superiority to provide it. It is just as the Koran and Ephesians read. There is no disparity.

Ephesians 5:21 states “Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Ephesians (NAB) 5)

If both are to be subordinate, how can one be superior.