Moral Relativism

[inocente]

Fred: Well, this was already posited and answered by Our Lord 2000 years ago: “Teacher, what good must I do to have eternal life?” “Because the Church has been sent by Jesus to preach the Gospel and to “make disciples of all nations…, teaching them to observe all” that he has commanded (cf. Mt 28:19-20), she today once more puts forward the Master’s reply, a reply that possesses a light and a power capable of answering even the most controversial and complex questions. This light and power also impel the Church constantly to carry out not only her dogmatic but also her moral reflection within an interdisciplinary context, which is especially necessary in facing new issues.” --originally posted by the late, great Pope JPII.

The CC provides the framework for Christians to understand why eating shellfish is ok, but homosexuality is not.

You see what I mean though, that these kinds of arguments can’t work with non-Christians in a multicultural society?

Well let’s face it, not even with many Christians. Five years ago homosexual union was legalized here. At the time around 80% of the population defined themselves as Catholic, and while admittedly many don’t go to church regularly, two-thirds agreed with a change that the Church opposed. Even as I write this I can hear Fred calling them Cafeteria Christians, and while that may make Fred feel better, it doesn’t help win them over. I feel we must radically change our arguments to reclaim the high ground, not to deny our faith but to reaffirm its value.

(Admittedly while personally supporting that change, in conscience but also on the basis that it’s a sideshow that draws attention away from the broken state of civil union).

 

[inocente]

Moral Relativism was born when the first human person ignored the responsibilities of his human nature.

Something was born at that point, sure . I’ve been trying to think of an answer to your post #112 but believe it must include a non-verbal element, something we can’t explain in words. It’s kind of like having all those love songs and sonnets because no one of them can capture the enormity. On the other hand, the preparations for Christmas in our house are doing my head in.

 

[PRmerger]

You see what I mean though, that these kinds of arguments can’t work with non-Christians in a multicultural society?

Of course they will work with non-Christians in a multicultural society!

That’s like saying that because an English major doesn’t understand the quadratic formula we shouldn’t teach that to our students.

If it’s true for a Math major, then it’s still true for an English major.

And if it’s true for a Catholic, then it’s still true for a non-Christian in a multicultural society.

 

[PRmerger]

Well let’s face it, not even with many Christians. Five years ago homosexual union was legalized here. At the time around 80% of the population defined themselves as Catholic, and while admittedly many don’t go to church regularly, two-thirds agreed with a change that the Church opposed. Even as I write this I can hear Fred calling them Cafeteria Christians, and while that may make Fred feel better, it doesn’t help win them over. I feel we must radically change our arguments to reclaim the high ground, not to deny our faith but to reaffirm its value.

Fine. Even if a Math major doesn’t understand the quadratic formula, and professes “I deny the quadratic formula”, doesn’t change its truth.

 

[PRmerger]

Even as I write this I can hear Fred calling them Cafeteria Christians, and while that may make Fred feel better, it doesn’t help win them over.

Jesus’ teaching on divorce surely didn’t “help win them over” either, but nontheless, he proclaimed it.

I feel we must radically change our arguments to reclaim the high ground, not to deny our faith but to reaffirm its value.

Are you proposing that we ought to make Christianity more palatable? To remove the “hard sayings” in order to “help win them over”?

 

[inocente]

Of course they will work with non-Christians in a multicultural society!

Don’t understand. There’s no pill to turn atheists or Buddhists into Christians. If they don’t believe in God then why would they be convinced by quoting scripture or tradition at them?

And if it’s true for a Catholic, then it’s still true for a non-Christian in a multicultural society.

Which is why we should be telling our atheist and Buddhist buddies the reasoning behind our morality, the personal and social consequences of not following it (in this world as they may not believe in any other).

Fine. Even if a Math major doesn’t understand the quadratic formula, and professes “I deny the quadratic formula”, doesn’t change its truth.

Math is based on axioms, faith on belief in God. If someone says “I don’t believe in your god” then we can shout “This is true because God says so” as loud and as often as we like without changing their mind, while whispering once “This is true because of these real consequences” may do the trick.

Jesus’ teaching on divorce surely didn’t “help win them over” either, but nontheless, he proclaimed it.

I was saying that calling others names is not a good way to convince them even if it makes Fred feel better.

Are you proposing that we ought to make Christianity more palatable? To remove the “hard sayings” in order to “help win them over”?

No , it’s the way we try to teach them.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

Rightful authority is relative since it relies on decisions about what is rightful and what type of instructions are acceptable in good conscience. Not killing is relative to things like the rules of war. The definition of criminal is highly relative since it needs a whole bunch of stuff behind it to say what is criminal, for example does it include political prisoners, what is the age of criminal responsibility, etc.

People disagree on how far the terms extend, but they do not disagree with the statement as a whole. Relativism says that “It is right to submit to rightful authority” and “it is right to flip the bird to rightful authority” and “there is no rightful authority” have equal value as moral principles.

The three points above depend on time and living space. In other words, they are conditional and not necessarily universal. I say not necessarily because in real life, applications or extensions of those principles could actually be based on objective truth which serves as the basis for human morality.

While some great moral truths may be written on paper as principles, they, in themselves, can be different from the universal, objective truth which is universal to all cultures at all times, before we were born, and after we die.

How?

This is well said except for one detail. There is really no need that cultures agree on the basis [objective truth] for a principle which explains same.
As soon as any kind of agreement is implied, one is back to first step of Relativism.
An objective, universal truth, throughout human history, has never been dependent on any hint of agreement since the time that the first human lived.

Universal, objective truths were established with the creation or appearance of the first, true, fully complete human nature. I deliberately used the word appearance because non-theists are held to universal, objective truths even though they do not believe in God. This is possible because both theist and non-theist possess the same human nature.

Of course: Man’s perception of great universal truths did not establish the moral truths but was a realization of the moral truths established by God outside time. But it is still man’s realization of great moral truths.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think the teaching of Christ is wishy-washy - although sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils. That still should not affect our absolute trust in Christ and His teaching.

If we have absolute trust in Christ’s example and His** teaching** it enables us to make all our moral decisions because He is the Model and on His principles we base our decisions. The command to love others as He has loved us leaves no room for equivocation. We may make mistakes but we are expected to be faithful not infallible.

Reason and compassion are not incompatible. In fact it is normally reasonable to be compassionate. Even if we make mistakes they don’t invalidate the principle of being reasonable. Do they?

When the Good Samaritan takes pity, he starts with a spark of compassion and then follows through with reason to do a bang-up job. The spark of compassion is unreasoned emotion, so “we should be reasonable” is incomplete. Otherwise Jesus could have just said “we should be reasonable” and not have bothered with the parable.

If you try to correct it to read “we should show mercy” then it doesn’t tell us much. We need the parable and so on to understand the process and its purpose. Once we understand, “we should show mercy”, “do unto others”, “do least harm”, etc. are shorthands to remind us of processes we cannot usefully define by simple statements alone. “Do unto others” is neat, but even that doesn’t work for a soldier on a battle field.

We all know what we mean by these shorthands because we’re all part of the same choir, but we forget how many concepts are needed first for others to interpret them correctly without getting mightily confused.

All these refinements of the basic commands of Christ are covered by the absolute principle that we should choose the greater good or the lesser evil in the context of loving others. It is unreasonable to expect more than that. The fact that our decisions are relative to specific situations does not imply that all moral principles are relative - unless you say they are relative to persons, but does that mean relativity reigns supreme?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7379183

 

[grannymh]

Something was born at that point, sure . I’ve been trying to think of an answer to your post #112 but believe it must include a non-verbal element, something we can’t explain in words. It’s kind of like having all those love songs and sonnets because no one of them can capture the enormity. On the other hand, the preparations for Christmas in our house are doing my head in.

Maybe the enormity of something simple like an objective truth is doing my head in… since I still would like to see a statement of truth which is concise, concrete objective, universal, with no conditions depending on what we think we know and no perceptions.
As for Christmas.

Blessings to all.

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

 

[Betterave]

You proposed the universal moral law that “It is wrong to defend one’s position by ignoring what your critic has said and simply repeating yourself.” Just never seen it written down before, not sure if it always applies universally.

Let’s start with an easier question: Are you not sure whether it applies here?? (You seem to be acting as if it doesn’t.)

Sorry pardon. I am skeptical of any moral absolutes by not believing that any moral principle or imperative must necessarily apply to all people for all time. Morality always depends on context and society. Thus in that sense I am definitely a relativist.

Let’s try to use a simpler analogy so you’ll maybe understand my point: If I am arguing for the nutritional merits of apples, but I keep using the word ‘potatoes’ instead of ‘apples,’ then my argument will be very confused. If I claim that I am using the word ‘potato’ in the sense in which everybody else uses the word ‘apple,’ then my argument will still be confused. Do you understand that? And do you understand that that has been the nature of my objection to your confused argument in this thread?

*normative *relativism is opposed to absolutism? *Descriptive *relativism is not, so it is at best tangentially relevant to our purposes here.]

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh

How?

The above relates to the concept of objective as an adjective in the second definition “Having actual existence or reality” and the third definition “Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices” and as a noun in the first definition “Something that actually exists” American Heritage College Dictionary

What I am trying to point out is that we need to understand that most of what we think is objective is actually based on someone practicing the theory of relativism.
Furthermore, since so many people think subjectively, it is very difficult to actually put into words an objective truth.

Personally, I do not know how to solve this dilemma. I do know that the Catholic Church uses objective thinking which in my humble opinion is the most logical way to answer life’s more serious questions such as what happens after our anatomy decomposes. Moral Relativism cannot produce universal, objective answers – not because of what it says, but because of the way it is practiced.

Blessings,
granny

 

[grannymh]

Do you understand that only *normative *relativism is opposed to absolutism? *Descriptive *relativism is not, so it is at best tangentially relevant to our purposes here.]

Has anyone described the practice of relativism?

While I am not quite sure what all absolutism entails, I would offer that any practice of relativism, because it relies on subjective thinking, would be opposed to any absolute objective truth.

Now, when it comes to the universal objective truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect, one should dig deeper regarding human nature. When one does that, one can find out that the human person has the ability to love all creatures along with the ability to choose how to act toward all of creation including responsible stewardship.

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.

 

[Betterave]

There is no one true religion. If we define a true Scotsman as one who adheres to a given doctrine then it is we who are making the choice, not God.

That sound like another nonsense claim to me. Why would you say this? You appear to be misusing the true Scotsman fallacy.

(Your if-then statement appears to be a non sequitur based on calling our definition of a true Christian/Catholic a (mere) “choice,” which as such you take to be opposed to the (mere?) choice of God (which you have declared to be the choice to choose everything/everybody equally). But our definition is obviously not a mere choice, and it is obviously *not *necessarily opposed to the mind of God. The Holy Spirit guides us into all truth.)

The sheep helped their brothers and sisters, the goats didn’t. There’s one and only one humanity and so we are all brothers and sisters. Differing physicality and beliefs cannot change that. God is on everyone’s side, He doesn’t give up on anyone - the split happens after we die.

That doesn’t make sense. The juridical split that happens after we die is based on the moral split that happens before we die. If it wasn’t, it would be arbitrary and unjust.

You said that should folk in the future believe that eating the flesh of other creatures was immoral, they would be “eternally off-base”. I was wondering how you reach that conclusion.

I know that eating the flesh of other creatures is not intrinsically immoral; this *means *that it wasn’t in the past, isn’t now, and won’t be in the future.

To give another example, if people in the long distant past thought it was OK to keep slaves and we don’t, it’s for God not us to judge them. To say that those hypothetical folk in the future are off-base is to impose our morality on them, the morality we share right now in 2010, which seems to require a get-out clause if morality is in any sense made up of absolutes.

There’s your “get-out clause” again, but I still don’t know what you’re talking about. Are you just blatantly begging the question?? “If morality is made up of absolutes, then we require a ‘get-out clause,’ since those absolutes will no longer hold in the future or didn’t hold in the past.” That’s a terrible argument, if that’s what you’re trying to say.

I’ve not yet seen any reasoned argument for preferring one system of morality to the exclusion of all others on this or any other thread. I believe that rather than putting all our eggs in one basket we can do better by being open to all sensible systems. If you think different then suggest a single system and we can discuss its merits.

But we’re not talking about any of those systems of morality so that’s a red herring! We’re talking about moral absolutism vs. moral relativism. Moral absolutism does not entail that we have chosen one particular system for explaining moral justification and have put all our eggs in that basket! Do you understand that?

I’m finding your posts confusing too. We have differing worldviews, both consistent to ourselves, but I’m not sure how we can get over this hurdle to come to a common understanding. Of the two sides in the OP, the opponent is still the more convincing to me.

This is not about differing worldviews. It is about your fallacious reasoning and erroneous use of terms.

 

[grannymh]

I am skeptical of any moral absolutes by not believing that any moral principle or imperative must necessarily apply to all people for all time. Morality always depends on context and society. Thus in that sense I am definitely a relativist.

Apparently you understand the difference between an objective truth and a subjective truth

I’ve not yet seen any reasoned argument for preferring one system of morality to the exclusion of all others on this or any other thread.

That is because applications are being discussed rather than the objective basis for a morality code. Catholicism’s system of morality is based on the true nature of the human person. Because of this, it is the preferred system…in my humble opinion.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16-17

 

[larkin31]

I don’t really understand the first post in this thread: can someone clarify for me the question he/she asks? Is it simply asking for a definition? For a defense? And of what?

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t really understand the first post in this thread: can someone clarify for me the question he/she asks? Is it simply asking for a definition? For a defense? And of what?

As a result of your post I reread the OP and realise that he has presented an illogical argument on the part of his friend:

“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…”

His question is “So is there any help to bust his ‘logic’ and help my case?”

The answer is that there is no logic in his argument that supports moral relativism…

 

[PRmerger]

Don’t understand. There’s no pill to turn atheists or Buddhists into Christians. If they don’t believe in God then why would they be convinced by quoting scripture or tradition at them?

Indeed. I would not ever use Scripture or tradition in an apologetics discussion with atheists or Buddhists. I would appeal to reason.

And reason dictates that there are moral absolutes. A moral law. And therefore a moral lawgiver.

Which is why we should be telling our atheist and Buddhist buddies the reasoning behind our morality, the personal and social consequences of not following it (in this world as they may not believe in any other).

Of course.

Who in the world is arguing to the contrary on this point?

Math is based on axioms, faith on belief in God. If someone says “I don’t believe in your god” then we can shout “This is true because God says so” as loud and as often as we like without changing their mind, while whispering once “This is true because of these real consequences” may do the trick.

Perhaps in Christian apologetics that is a tactic–saying “because God says so”, but Catholic tradition as a rich history of providing apologia that appeals to reason.

And just as math has data and axioms, so does morality. A religious faith is not required to discern that we are obligated to do good and avoid evil.

I was saying that calling others names is not a good way to convince them even if it makes Fred feel better.

Huh? Who’s proposing that calling others names is a good way to convince atheists and Buddhists about the Truths of Christianity?

No , it’s the way we try to teach them.

But of course. Catholic teaching is that we always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.

 

[larkin31]

As a result of your post I reread the OP and realise that he has presented an illogical argument on the part of his friend:

“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…”

His question is “So is there any help to bust his ‘logic’ and help my case?”

The answer is that there is no logic in his argument that supports moral relativism…

I still don’t see his point.

 

[jdwood983]

As a result of your post I reread the OP and realise that he has presented an illogical argument on the part of his friend:

“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…”

His question is “So is there any help to bust his ‘logic’ and help my case?”

**The answer is that there is no logic in his argument that supports moral relativism… **

Correct. I put logic in quotes because I knew it was faulty, I just couldn’t see how to phrase it to my friend that he was indeed incorrect. Thanks to the friendly posters here, I’ve been able to show him the illogic of his argument. Unfortunately, he has yet to respond, as I am dying to see how he responds.

 

[larkin31]

Correct. I put logic in quotes because I knew it was faulty, I just couldn’t see how to phrase it to my friend that he was indeed incorrect. Thanks to the friendly posters here, I’ve been able to show him the illogic of his argument. Unfortunately, he has yet to respond, as I am dying to see how he responds.

Which illogic, exactly? I actually enjoy arguing the logic of relativism. So which “illogic” do you mean?