Moral Relativism

[davidv]

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

Whether you realize it or not, this is a denegration of Holy Scripture. Scripture is rich with meaning, revealing the Living God. From the CCC:

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75
110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.“77
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78
112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79
The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (”. . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81). 114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

This means there is no such thing as ‘there is no hidden meaning’ to Scripture.

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?

Nothing presented by the other indicated that they did. Why do you think they did?

If you give up your life it is worth less than a priests life? How so?

This is not the proper question. It presumes what is not true.

 

[PRmerger]

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

I didn’t say there was a hidden meaning. I said the difference between the widow’s mite and that given by a rich noble was esoteric. It can be understood best by the parable Jesus gave. Rather than Jesus waxing profound on why someone’s gift–even if it’s the very same quantity–can be profoundly different, he simply gave an example. No more words needed to be said.

And I, too, am giving an example, and no words need to be said. It is simply understood that a soldier’s heroic sacrifice, while valorous, differs in quality and substance and essence, from that of a priest, who offered his life for another out of love for Christ.

Not to mention, the death that Maximilian Kolbe endured was* horrific.* Yet done in great joy, with hymns still being sung and praise given to God.

No comparison whatsoever.

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.

Right. And the disciples didn’t have to question: well, why is hers greater? DIdn’t the rich man do good as well? What if he meant to give more later? What if it really was a sacrifice for the rich man because he loved his money more than she did?

The story is profound. And simple. And they understood the difference.

Just like you do with the Maximilian Kolbe example, despite your feigned “I don’t get it” persona.

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.

Yes. I simply can’t convey it in words, just like our Lord couldn’t. Or didn’t.

But everyone understood.

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?

No. Not at all.

I am saying that there’s a qualitative, substantial, essential difference between a soldier who gives his life and that of a person who, out of love for God or fellow man, offers his life in place of another.

 

[jonfawkes]

I didn’t say there was a hidden meaning. I said the difference between the widow’s mite and that given by a rich noble was esoteric. It can be understood best by the parable Jesus gave. Rather than Jesus waxing profound on why someone’s gift–even if it’s the very same quantity–can be profoundly different, he simply gave an example. No more words needed to be said.

I am saying that there’s a qualitative, substantial, essential difference between a soldier who gives his life and that of a person who, out of love for God or fellow man, offers his life in place of another.

The gift in the widow’s story isn’t the same quality - that’s the point. There is a discrepancy. The rich give more monetarily than the widow. There is a discrepancy. The widow’s is valued more. A discrepancy. Jesus lays out why her’s is valued more - he expresses it in words and quantifies exactly why -

Mark 12: 43-4

Calling his disciples to himself, he said to them, "Amen, I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury.

For they have all contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood."

Luke 21: 3-4

3
He said, “I tell you truly, this poor widow put in more than all the rest;
4
for those others have all made offerings from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has offered her whole livelihood.”

It’s all laid out right there, no hidden meaning. Nothing esoteric about it.

If someone lays down their life there isn’t any discrepancy in value. Both gave everything. There is no holding back or opportunity to give more later. That’s it, you’ve given everything. Done. No one is giving their superfluous life - they are giving all of it.

Guess we’ve come to an impasse - you are unable to express your reason for valuing one over the other, I am unable to see the difference. C’est la vie.

 

[PRmerger]

Guess we’ve come to an impasse - you are unable to express your reason for valuing one over the other, I am unable to see the difference. C’est la vie.

You say you can’t see the difference, but I am certain you can.

Just like you can see the difference between a dog giving his life for another, and a soldier.

 

[PRmerger]

The gift in the widow’s story isn’t the same quality - that’s the point. There is a discrepancy.

YES! Thank you for making my point! :extrahappy:

The rich give more monetarily than the widow. There is a discrepancy. The widow’s is valued more. A discrepancy.

Yup. :dancing:

Jesus lays out why her’s is valued more - he expresses it in words and quantifies exactly why -

He paints a picture of a thousand words through a parable.

That’s exactly my point. He could have waxed poetic about the vast difference, in quality, substance and essence between 2 people with the same donation, but instead he told a parable.

They understood his meaning through this story.

It’s all laid out right there, no hidden meaning. Nothing esoteric about it.

Yes. Nothing hidden. The meaning is not esoteric.

But, again, I did not say the meaning was esoteric. I said that the difference between the two people’s gifts was esoteric. Hence, the need for a parable.

If someone lays down their life there isn’t any discrepancy in value. Both gave everything. There is no holding back or opportunity to give more later. That’s it, you’ve given everything. Done. No one is giving their superfluous life - they are giving all of it.

Right. ALL of it has been given. But, there’s a difference in substance, quality and essence between a man who gives his life heroically in battle and a man who offers his life out of love.

LOVE.

I think you get it.

 

[jonfawkes]

You say you can’t see the difference, but I am certain you can.

Just like you can see the difference between a dog giving his life for another, and a soldier.

Wow!!! that is just plain offensive - by extension you are saying that compared to Maximilian Kolbe soldiers are dogs. What a sad little world you live in.

Hope you find your way.

 

[PRmerger]

Wow!!! that is just plain offensive - by extension you are saying that compared to Maximilian Kolbe soldiers are dogs. What a sad little world you live in.

Hope you find your way.

I can see it’s been a few years since you took the SAT, because you keep trying to say that a Christmas tree is an earlobe.

When one makes a comparison, by analogy, one is not saying they are the same thing.

Here’s another example:

Cow : milk :: Hen : eggs.

A cow is not a hen.



And to keep insisting that the person offering the analogy is saying that cows are hens is to demonstrate one’s failure to grasp basic concepts of logic.

 

[inocente]

The question is what is its source. When there is a question as to what is moral or not, what (or Who) is our final authority.

I think the way we make moral decisions is biological (Paul says as much in Rom 2:14-15).

What we come to think is right is informed by our faith, but for example I doubt we would automatically conclude genocide is good if the only holy book that came down to us was 1 Samuel.

There are many areas where we don’t submit to any final authority – math, music, philosophy, science, etc. Why should morality be different?

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.

My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. - John 15:12-13 NIV

According to Jesus a soldier laying down her life for her friends shows the greatest love. While noble, Kolbe’s love can’t be any greater.

 

[larkin31]

Is the point that some martyrdom’s are more martyr-ish than others? What’s this got to do with moral relativism?

 

[PRmerger]

IThere are many areas where we don’t submit to any final authority – math, music, philosophy, science, etc. Why should morality be different?

This, inocente, is categorically false.

2 + 2 = 4. That is the final authority. People can argue as much as they want that it actually equals 3, but, in the end, the Truth of Math will win.

Same with music, philosophy, and science.

People can argue against the final authority of gravity, but if they walk outside a 3rd story window, the Truth of Gravity will win.

 

[inocente]

This, inocente, is categorically false.

2 + 2 = 4. That is the final authority. People can argue as much as they want that it actually equals 3, but, in the end, the Truth of Math will win.

Same with music, philosophy, and science.

People can argue against the final authority of gravity, but if they walk outside a 3rd story window, the Truth of Gravity will win.

We must be using very different definitions of the word authority.

2 + 2 = 4 is true only given certain axioms. In base 3, 2 + 2 = 11, in base 4 it’s 10. In Boolean arithmetic 1 + 1 = 1.

We don’t bow to any authority trying to tell us whether Bach, Steve Reich or Miles Davis is absolutely best.

And it doesn’t matter if we accept the authority of Einstein or Newton, gravity is still going to get us.

 

[inocente]

Is the point that some martyrdom’s are more martyr-ish than others?

What’s this got to do with moral relativism?

Might be off-base here, but I think it started with the idea that there’s some way to absolutely know the greatest good.

 

[tonyrey]

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

Can you explain why they are artificial? And circumstances to which they do not always apply (with regard to moral choices and decisions)?

You haven’t explained why intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe are irrelevant to the nature of morality…

 

[PRmerger]

Might be off-base here, but I think it started with the idea that there’s some way to absolutely know the greatest good.

It seems now that the moral relativists are trying to convey that a sacrifice of one’s life is an absolute good. There are no qualifiers to this, in their opinion.

Ah, the irony!

 

[PRmerger]

We must be using very different definitions of the word authority.

:dts:

2 + 2 = 4 is true only given certain axioms. In base 3, 2 + 2 = 11, in base 4 it’s 10. In Boolean arithmetic 1 + 1 = 1.

Fair enough. But this is true all the time, yes? In Boolean arithmetic is sometimes 1 + 1 equal to a triangle?

We don’t bow to any authority trying to tell us whether Bach, Steve Reich or Miles Davis is absolutely best.

Yes, and this is an opinion.

But in music, there is also absolute truth. When your piano teacher says play this note,
http://www.learnmusicalnotes.com/images/notes/G-Clef-Note-F.jpg do you get to decide to play C#? Or must you play F?

And it doesn’t matter if we accept the authority of Einstein or Newton, gravity is still going to get us.

Exactly! What’s the final authority? Does gravity exist or does it not? In the end, the authority of gravity will get you down (ha ha!)

 

[jonfawkes]

It seems now that the moral relativists are trying to convey that a sacrifice of one’s life is an absolute good. There are no qualifiers to this, in their opinion.

Ah, the irony!

That was never my point. My point was the value of a human life is the same regardless who lives it. Giving up that life for another is an equal sacrifice regardless who does the giving.

I never said it was an absolute good.

 

[PRmerger]

That was never my point. My point was the value of a human life is the same regardless who lives it. Giving up that life for another is an equal sacrifice regardless who does the giving.

I never said it was an absolute good.

It does seem like suddenly you’re saying that there’s no qualifiers in understanding a basic truth. That’s absolutism.

The relativist is, peculiarly, an absolutist on this issue.

Methnks you have it backwards. Where you should be absolute, you’re not; where you should be relative, you’re not.

 

[PRmerger]

That was never my point. My point was the value of a human life is the same regardless who lives it. Giving up that life for another is an equal sacrifice regardless who does the giving.

I never said it was an absolute good.

Coincidentally, I heard this today on Catholic radio:

“A wicked rich person is somehow *worse *than a wicked poor person.”

Clearly, “wicked” is “wicked”, but, it’s tacitly understood that there’s a difference in quality, substance and essence between the two.

Just like it justifiably offends our sensibilities far greater to hear about a priest sexually abusing a child rather than a layman. But, really, is the value of one abused child greater than another? Clearly not.

 

[jonfawkes]

It does seem like suddenly you’re saying that there’s no qualifiers in understanding a basic truth. That’s absolutism.

The relativist is, peculiarly, an absolutist on this issue.

Methnks you have it backwards. Where you should be absolute, you’re not; where you should be relative, you’re not.

No, I’m not putting any qualifiers of value on it. It’s just a statement of condition - one life is lost in favor for another. One life is one life.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I’m not putting any qualifiers of value on it. It’s just a statement of condition - one life is lost in favor for another. One life is one life.

Yeah, but the sacrificial gift freely given out of love for a complete stranger is supremely and profoundly different than the act of a soldier jumping on a grenade to save his platoon.