Moral Relativism

[larkin31]

Hairsplitting Doublespeak -

yes, 'twas my point…

 

[JDaniel]

JD all the examples you used aren’t good analogies.

The original premise was if something always happens with a said event that happening can be determined to be it’s purpose. I think is a false premise for the reasons stated.

All the examples you used a possible events not guaranteed. I can be can be assured that every time I start my internal combustion engine car it will produce CO. Producing CO isn’t the purpose of my car.

Although your conditional examples also prove that you can’t prove purpose through results.

Well, Jon, it was not me who introduced results for possible purpose. My intention was to show the spuriousness of that. I herewith remove any and all of whatever I may have said that would have readers believe that my spurious claims of purpose are not real purposes.

The same way that other social animals determine “correct” behavior. Apes have social mores, Wolves have social mores, whales have social mores.

Jonner, I have to call you on this. Do you have any examples for me? Examples of “right reasoned” behavior?

The St. Thomas quote - we all share the same biology so we have similar morality because we all have the same natural needs. Lions eating dinner isn’t immoral.

I don’t remember this quote. Would you mind telling me where to find it?

P.S. How do you know I’m not writing from a “sanatorium”?

You got me there!

God bless,
I hope your Christmas was great,
jd

 

[PRmerger]

You can’t know what is in a persons heart.

Indeed.

But reason dictates that the act of a soldier throwing himself on a grenade is different in quality, substance, essence than that which Maximilian Kolbe did.

MK might have done what he did out of his training as a friar

Exactly. It was the “training”, that is, the sacramental grace he received as a Catholic that allowed him to do this. Truly, on his own he might have been like any other non-Christian and watched the other die, thankful it wasn’t himself.

The sacrifice is still the same - they still lay down their own life for another - there isn’t any “more” that you can do. They are giving “all”.

Again, I have given examples in which the quality of the act is quite different.

 

[jonfawkes]

Indeed.

But reason dictates that the act of a soldier throwing himself on a grenade is different in quality, substance, essence than that which Maximilian Kolbe did.

Exactly. It was the “training”, that is, the sacramental grace he received as a Catholic that allowed him to do this. Truly, on his own he might have been like any other non-Christian and watched the other die, thankful it wasn’t himself.

Again, I have given examples in which the quality of the act is quite different.

How is it different? I know you see a difference but don’t explain why.

Soldiers also have training, but some exceed their training, MK exceeded his training, that was the correlation I was drawing.

The end result is still the same though, they still lay down their life. You can’t sacrifice more than that, regardless of the prior circumstances.

 

[PRmerger]

Here is a Recent Congressional Medal of Honor winner - the whole site is worthy of looking at, but one example - cmohs.org/recipient-detail/3470/miller-robert-j.php

That brought tears to my eyes. Truly a hero.

That being said, he was a soldier, and did what he was paid to do. :sad_yes:

Essentially different from Maximilian Kolbe.

 

[PRmerger]

How is it different? I know you see a difference but don’t explain why.

Soldiers also have training, but some exceed their training, MK exceeded his training, that was the correlation I was drawing.

The end result is still the same though, they still lay down their life. You can’t sacrifice more than that, regardless of the prior circumstances.

Have you heard the story of the widow’s mite, jon?

This is a great illustration of our Lord how one’s gift–2 pennies–can be supremely different in the hands of 2 individuals.

 

[jonfawkes]

Have you heard the story of the widow’s mite, jon?

This is a great illustration of our Lord how one’s gift–2 pennies–can be supremely different in the hands of 2 individuals.

Sure, but the point of that story is that the widow’s gift was a greater offering because she had so little. This is laying down one’s life. How can you equate it. We aren’t talking monetary offerings. You can’t give more than your life.

That being said, he was a soldier, and did what he was paid to do.

Well technically, so did Maximilian.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure, but the point of that story is that the widow’s gift was a greater offering because she had so little. This is laying down one’s life. How can you equate it. We aren’t talking monetary offerings. You can’t give more than your life.

I think you see the illustration: the same gift. Supremely different.

And, yes, we’re not talking monetary offerings. Surely you see this is an analogy.

Let’s review for the SAT.

Christmas tree : ornament :: Earlobe : earring.

A : B :: C : D. A and C are not the same. Their relationship is by analogy only.

If I present such an analogy to you and you respond with, “Well, a Christmas tree is not an earlobe” would I be correct in assuming you have no ability to understand analogies?

Clearly, I am not saying that 2 cents is the same as giving one’s life.

Well technically, so did Maximilian.

If we’re talking technicalities, then of course each man’s life is, technically, the same, as all life is a gift from God and the dignity given to each is equal.

But, of course, we’re not talking technically are we?

 

[fhansen]

I think it’s in the same vein - If God says something is immortal (genocide) then suspends the “rule” to serve a higher purpose, the morality of the act is conditional. It’s not absolute.

“yeah it"s wrong, but not this time” - conditional thereby relative to the situation.

But God allowed sin from the beginning. According to Catholic teaching, He created man to be one way while allowing him to be another. This is the basis of the doctrine of original sin and this coincides with the meaning of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Objective morality exists but man is free to reject it-is free to create his own, subjective, morality. But in the end relative morality equates to amorality because it means that man chooses to define good and evil for himself- regardless of whether or not his choice is objectively right or wrong. Eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was in fact an unconscious rejection of objective morality.

But Gods plan from before the fall was to restore man-to form him actually-saving him while he’s yet in the midst of sin. God was offended by mans hiding his nakedness, knowing that man’s act was self-destructive, that his shame pointed to a division within himself. And yet, rather than wiping the slate clean and starting over, Gods purpose all along was to form man over* time*. So He works with man in the situation he finds himself in- in the situation man chose – fashioning clothes to cover him-knowing this shame business wasn’t going away easily, and wouldn’t until innocence lost was found again.

Continuing along the same lines, God chose a people through which to reveal His will and work out His plan for mankind-a dubious honor at best for those so chosen. In this way He’s sort of leading man out of the dark wilderness and into the light throughout history-through their hard-learned experiences. If at any point in time man isn’t yet perfected-if Gods will isn’t yet being done on earth-this doesn’t mean God gives up on man-He isn’t done with him yet; He’ll have His will obeyed perfectly in time when man comes to see the perfection of that will for himself. No moral codes will be necessary then-man will obey out of knowledge and love.

 

[jonfawkes]

I think you see the illustration: the same gift. Supremely different.

And, yes, we’re not talking monetary offerings. Surely you see this is an analogy.

Let’s review for the SAT.

Christmas tree : ornament :: Earlobe : earring.

A : B :: C : D. A and C are not the same. Their relationship is by analogy only.

If I present such an analogy to you and you respond with, “Well, a Christmas tree is not an earlobe” would I be correct in assuming you have no ability to understand analogies?

Clearly, I am not saying that 2 cents is the same as giving one’s life.

If we’re talking technicalities, then of course each man’s life is, technically, the same, as all life is a gift from God and the dignity given to each is equal.

But, of course, we’re not talking technically are we?

No, I get the story - the point is the widow had little to give so the little she gave was a bigger sacrifice than the rich man’s larger donation.

I’m saying that it’s not applicable because the sacrifice that the martyr and the hero are the same, their lives. they can’t sacrifice more. There is no rich man in these stories.

The technicality I was referring to is the job - the clergy’s job is to defend the faith - to death if necessary.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I get the story - the point is the widow had little to give so the little she gave was a bigger sacrifice than the rich man’s larger donation.

I’m saying that it’s not applicable because the sacrifice that the martyr and the hero are the same, their lives. they can’t sacrifice more. There is no rich man in these stories.

Again, you are saying that a Christmas tree is an earlobe. :whacky:

Try to see the bigger point: Jesus gave an example of a gift, which in one person’s hands is supremely different that that offered by another. It’s a difference in essence, in quality, and in substance.

The technicality I was referring to is the job - the clergy’s job is to defend the faith - to death if necessary.

LOL! The priesthood is not a job, jon.

 

[jonfawkes]

Again, you are saying that a Christmas tree is an earlobe. :whacky:

Try to see the bigger point: Jesus gave an example of a gift, which in one person’s hands is supremely different that that offered by another. It’s a difference in essence, in quality, and in substance.

LOL! The priesthood is not a job, jon.

Again I do see what the story connotes and again you are not saying how you see them different - just that they are different.

I’ve heard the clergy and the military both described as a calling. The reality is they both do thankless work for little pay and room and board. They both are willing to lay down their lives for a higher cause.

I think we may have run our course with this one.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Basic moral values are universal, absolute and true for persons in all places, at all times and under all conditions because the life of every person is immensely valuable.

 

[larkin31]

larkin31;7399005:

Do you accept or reject these statements?

Mostly reject. Especially the “absolute” parts. I really like parts of them, though.

The meaning of “absolute” in the context of moral relativism

should be obvious by now. It simply means “not relative”, i.e. “independent of time, place or circumstance”.ok

You are making man the moral measure of all things!

Yes, I sure am. Until a god or supernatural being or realm is demonstrated to be true, I will continue to hold mankind fully responsible for the ideas that man comes up with.

Yet it is obvious that any rational being is faced with the choice of being positive or negative, creative or destructive, selfish or unselfish regardless of any other characteristic - and that is** the objective basis **

of all moral values.You list three choices, then use an unclear pronoun (“that”) to refer to one of these choices, but I cannot tell which one. Could you clarify which one you mean? Then I will respond to your claim that about the “obviousness” of a choice to be made by “rational beings” and whether or not this is the “basis” of morality and whether this is in any way relevant to a discussion of whether morality is objective or subjective or a combination of the two.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;7400896:

Do you accept or reject these statements?

Mostly reject. Especially the “absolute” parts.
Why?

I really like parts of them, though.

That’s promising.

The meaning of “absolute” in the context of moral relativism should be obvious by now. It simply means “not relative”, i.e. “independent of time, place or circumstance”.

okThat’s even more promising!

You are making man the moral measure of all things!

Yes, I sure am. Until a god or supernatural being or realm is demonstrated to be true, I will continue to hold mankind fully responsible for the ideas that man comes up with.
How about intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe? Would they be irrelevant?

Yet it is obvious that any rational being is faced with the choice of being positive or negative, creative or destructive, selfish or unselfish regardless of any other characteristic - and that is the objective basis of all moral values.

You list three choices, then use an unclear pronoun (“that”) to refer to one of these choices, but I cannot tell which one. Could you clarify which one you mean?
All!

Then I will respond to your claim that about the “obviousness” of a choice to be made by “rational beings” and whether or not this is the “basis” of morality and whether this is in any way relevant to a discussion of whether morality is objective or subjective or a combination of the two.

Fair enough…

 

[larkin31]

larkin31;7401797:

Why?
That’s promising.

That’s even more promising!

How about intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe? Would they be irrelevant?
All!
Fair enough…

Why is any of this relevant? I don’t feel like playing 20 questions.

 

[PRmerger]

Again I do see what the story connotes and again you are not saying how you see them different - just that they are different.

If I were asked to describe the difference between the widow’s mite and that which was given by a rich noble, it would be difficult to put this esoteric difference into words. But Jesus was able to convey this qualitative difference, yes? Surely those who heard this message understood its meaning. As you do today.

If I were asked to describe the love I have for my children vs the love I have for my husband, I would not be able to put it into words, but surely you understand that these two loves differ in quality, substance and essence.

And I think you understand the qualitative difference between a soldier that gives his life in duty, and the gift of life freely given by Maximilian Kolbe out of pure agape love for God, as manifested in an act of love for another.

I think we may have run our course with this one.

As you wish. But I certainly have more to offer.

 

[PRmerger]

've heard the clergy and the military both described as a calling. The reality is they both do thankless work for little pay and room and board. They both are willing to lay down their lives for a higher cause.

This, jon, shows an impoverished understanding of the priesthood.

When a man is ordained, what existed 30 seconds prior to this act* exists no more*. The universe is changed forever at the ordination of a priest. He is ontologically changed. Paraphrasing Fr. Vincent Serpa, if we could look into the soul at what happens at the moment of ordination, nuclear fission would appear as child’s play.

This does not happen when a man or woman enlists.

 

[larkin31]

Yet it is obvious that any rational being is faced with the choice of being positive or negative, creative or destructive, selfish or unselfish regardless of any other characteristic - and that is** the objective basis **of all moral values.

Neither choice among any of these polarities (artificial as they are) is* always* right. I remain uncertain what your point is with these.

 

[jonfawkes]

If I were asked to describe the difference between the widow’s mite and that which was given by a rich noble, it would be difficult to put this esoteric difference into words. But Jesus was able to convey this qualitative difference, yes? Surely those who heard this message understood its meaning. As you do today.

If I were asked to describe the love I have for my children vs the love I have for my husband, I would not be able to put it into words, but surely you understand that these two loves differ in quality, substance and essence.

And I think you understand the qualitative difference between a soldier that gives his life in duty, and the gift of life freely given by Maximilian Kolbe out of pure agape love for God, as manifested in an act of love for another.

As you wish. But I certainly have more to offer.

The story of the widow’s mite is the opposite of esoteric. There isn’t any hidden meaning - it’s all right there.

The widow had little so what she gave was a greater sacrifice. The rich man although he gave a larger amount it wasn’t a sacrifice. There was plenty more were that came from. The reason is right there in the story.

You seem to have some vague sense of why Maximilian Kolbe’s sacrifice is greater. I can tell you why the widow’s was greater.

Are you saying that Human lives have of different values? If you give up your life it is worth less than a priests life? How so?