Moral Relativism

[PRmerger]

It’s very nice to spout dogma but it doesn’t speak to those to don’t share the faith, which is where I thought the direction of the discussion was in. No need to preach to the choir.

Try it - take something that is “moral” and see how it relates to self preservation of the “in-group” -

This means it could be a morality of one or the whole human race or the world entire. It’s depends on how big do you see your group.

Again, the quadratic formula is true, no matter if you’re a Math major or an English major.

You agree with that, don’t you, jon?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s very nice to spout dogma but it doesn’t speak to those to don’t share the faith, which is where I thought the direction of the discussion was in. No need to preach to the choir.

You may call truth dogma, as if one is dismissing it, but it doesn’t change its truth.

Imagine if you declare that Canada is north of the U.S. And someone responds, “That’s nice to spout dogma, but it doesn’t speak to me. I’m not a geographer.” :whacky:

 

[jonfawkes]

My point is that to a non-christian or atheist - you loose them at “divine will”. Divine will means nothing to a buddhist or atheist. You might as well say morality is based on glibshinogboo. We all agree on “north” not so much with “divine will”

 

[PRmerger]

My point is that to a non-christian or atheist - you loose them at “divine will”. Divine will means nothing to a buddhist or atheist.

Ok. Fair enough. Leave “Divine Will” out of the equation. There still is an objective truth, and morality is doing that which lead us toward the Good and avoiding that which leads us away from the Good.

**We all agree on “north” **not so much with “divine will”

That’s a presumption, isn’t it? To someone who doesn’t know where Canada is, or what north is, saying “Canada is north of the US” is akin to saying “Canada is glibshinogboo of the US”, right?

 

[jonfawkes]

Ok. Fair enough. Leave “Divine Will” out of the equation. There still is an objective truth, and morality is doing that which lead us toward the Good and avoiding that which leads us away from the Good.

That’s a presumption, isn’t it? To someone who doesn’t know where Canada is, or what north is, saying “Canada is north of the US” is akin to saying “Canada is glibshinogboo of the US”, right?

Good is an abstract until applied to a specific. Specifics can be relative. Good to me Hamburger - to a cow not so.

No, can still have a general understanding of direction. You can not know where Canada is but still know what north is. North is still north even if you don’t believe in political boundaries. You don’t have to believe in Canada to see there is land north of “here”. We have to agree what "north defines. Magnetic or true, etc. It’s still relative to our agreement.

 

[tonyrey]

If we have absolute trust in Christ’s example

Not all but many of them have a lot! Truth and virtue are not the monopoly of Christians…

Ultimately we all trust own judgment, whether it is moral or otherwise. Even if we rely on some one else’s we are trusting our judgment of that person’s decision!

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.

Again, some non-Christians work on the basis of least harm rather than least evil, and may leave out the context of loving others completely.

Not all absolute principles are valid.

They may come to exactly the same conclusion in some cases, but via a very different route that starts from another set of principles.

They may and they may not; they may be right and they may not! In either case it does not prove that moral relativism is true.

 

[grannymh]

How do you figure the Catholic Church uses objective thinking? You said earlier that “so many people think subjectively.” Does the Church weed out subjective thinkers?

There are some good comments in your post 142. However, I will address the question "Does the Church weed out subjective thinkers? The answer is not necessarily because humans can think both subjectively and objectively. What the Catholic Church does is to base its doctrines on objective truths.

Practically speaking, objective thinking and subjective thinking are not a mutually exclusive either-or. This simply means that both can be used and often are.
Subjective refers to something taking place within a person’s mind rather than in the external world. Subjective thinking can utilize one’s emotions and/or previous experiences as a source of information. Operating by gut instinct is another description. Objective thinking uses external information from an independent existing source. Another view is that subjective thinkers relate back to their own personal likes and dislikes, etc. An objective thinker bases his likes and dislikes on the facts surrounding the real object.

One can be objective when buying a new car and subjective when deciding the car’s color. Fortunately, human nature’s intellect and will are part of the process which sorts out information and chooses how it should be used.

As far as Catholicism. Divine Revelation is external to our minds and feelings. Granted we take into our minds Divine Relation and act upon it; but Divine Revelation itself cannot be influenced by one’s subjective emotions or personal prejudices. The Church does not interpret and thus guard Divine Revelation by looking for people’s reactions. It focuses on the external reality of the objective Gospel message and the actions of Jesus Christ.

When it comes to determining what is a moral action, one should be able to spot the pitfalls of subjective thinking. Moral relativism is what it implies. In other words, it is related back to the person’s own personal mental conception of good and evil without anything external or separate from her or his wishes which can act as a guide.

In real life, many people do have similar mental conceptions of good and evil and thus philosophies like humanism and utilitarianism, etc. do come about. While parts of these philosophies do produce good, the problem arises when one side of the street acts one way to achieve the common good and the other side sees a different common good and acts in opposition.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55: 6-9

 

[larkin31]

This is exactly why the human person is worthy of profound respect is the basis for morality because the presence of human nature has already been established.

As a generality, I agree with this. But I see no evidence of it being an “absolute” (true for all places, all times, all conditions). There was a time that humans did not exist, after all.

 

[larkin31]

…Not all absolute principles are valid.
They may and they may not; they may be right and they may not! In either case it does not prove that moral relativism is true.

There is no “proving” anything about this either way. The only strong evidence we have for morality is the kind produced in behaviors (actions) and human thinking and writing. Since it is human based (I will assume that animals cannot “think” or “discuss” morally), morality is strongly governed by human cultural bias and understanding. THIS is what produces many different gods over the centuries and many different sets of ethics–and more than one of them asserting a kind of absolute truth. Although some values are nearly universal, this is still a long step from “absolute.”

 

[Elijah_Baley]

As a generality, I agree with this. But I see no evidence of it being an “absolute” (true for all places, all times, all conditions). There was a time that humans did not exist, after all.

Make it “persons are worth respect.” Then you’d be able to lump God into it, and your objection wouldn’t apply.

 

[larkin31]

Make it “persons are worth respect.” Then you’d be able to lump God into it, and your objection wouldn’t apply.

I think you misunderstood me. I don’t see how you address my point. Am I missing something?

Did you make a funny at my expense??

 

[Elijah_Baley]

I think you misunderstood me. I don’t see how you address my point. Am I missing something?

Did you make a funny at my expense??

God is three persons, you know, and has always existed — from our perception — because He is outside time and transcendent to the universe. So “persons” have always existed, and the objection that there was a time without humans becomes irrelevant.

Of course, not believing in the Trinity would make this counter ineffective. So it was more a little bit of silly glibness than anything.

 

[larkin31]

God is three persons, you know, and has always existed — from our perception — because He is outside time and transcendent to the universe. So “persons” have always existed, and the objection that there was a time without humans becomes irrelevant.

Of course, not believing in the Trinity would make this counter ineffective. So it was more a little bit of silly glibness than anything.

 

[jdwood983]

It is not logically inconsistent to believe that moral absolutism is wrong.

It can be said that a Relativist may disagree with a moral absolutist, but they cannot say that he/she is wrong without being contradictory. Moral Relativism is the idea that all morals are personal (though some morals may be shared with society) and all moral systems belonging to the people are right. If you disagree with this assessment, then you are disagreeing with what Moral Relativism truly is! So I don’t see how a Relativist can say that an Absolutist is wrong.

And the opposite of absolute morality is not “no morality”. You are basing this claim on a definition that ASSUMES an absolute morality to begin with. But you can’t do this. You must ESTABLISH first the actual presence of this thing you call “absolute morality.” And if you base it on “God,” then you had better ESTABLISH the existence of “God” and not simply assume it.

Morality is either objective or subjective, it can’t be both or ‘something in the middle’ because there is no ‘something in the middle’–this all follows (more or less) from the Law of Non-contradiction. Absolute Morality is Objective Morality and Relative Morality is Subjective Morality, so clearly the opposite of objective/absolute morality is subjective/relative morality. But then the opposite of absolute morality really is “no morality,” as I stated before
There is no need to establish the actual presence, it can be done purely by definitions–which is good because Philosophers like definitions.

 

[grannymh]

As a generality, I agree with this. But I see no evidence of it being an “absolute” (true for all places, all times, all conditions). There was a time that humans did not exist, after all.

Since I am not all that familiar with absolutes, I prefer objective truth which means that it exists without our affirmation or conditions. Universal because the truth can exist in any place which humans occupy. All times would refer to their human’s first appearance or existence going forward, not pre-existence.

Once there was an actual, true, fully complete human person, there was also an unity to humanity even though individual tribes developed their own characteristics. We all are brothers and sisters is correct. We all because of humanity’s unity are worthy of profound respect

 

[larkin31]

It can be said that a Relativist may disagree with a moral absolutist, but they cannot say that he/she is wrong without being contradictory. Moral Relativism is the idea that all morals are personal (though some morals may be shared with society) and all moral systems belonging to the people are right.

No. This last part in bold has not been asserted by any consensus of “moral relativists.” In fact, I do not know of a single one that has ever asserted this. Who has ever asserted this?

Actually, I think that you cannot even summary moral relativism correctly; you keep sleeping into absolutist terminology.

 

[larkin31]

Since I am not all that familiar with absolutes, I prefer objective truth which means that it exists without our affirmation or conditions. Universal because the truth can exist in any place which humans occupy. All times would refer to their existence going froward, not pre-existence.

Once there was an actual, true, fully complete human person, there was also an unity to humanity even though individual tribes developed their own characteristics. We all are brothers and sisters is correct. We all because of humanity’s unity are worthy of profound respect

I agree with your value of respect. I am simply noting that it is neither an absolute nor an objective claim.

 

[grannymh]

I agree with your value of respect. I am simply noting that it is neither an absolute nor an objective claim.

I did edit my post a bit…

I am glad you agree with the value of respect.
The truth regarding the human person being worthy of our profound respect is neither an absolute nor an objective claim because it simply is not a claim. It is a fact of life.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is part of human nature.

 

[larkin31]

I did edit my post a bit…

I am glad you agree with the value of respect.
The truth regarding the human person being worthy of our profound respect is neither an absolute nor an objective claim because it simply is not a claim. It is a fact of life.

This just dodges the issue of the discussion here.

 

[grannymh]

This just dodges the issue of the discussion here.

True. Why confuse discussions with facts?