Moral Relativism

[inocente]

The only way to evade the **absolute **principle that we should do what we are convinced is right is to deny that we should do anything at all!

In other words moral relativism = moral nihilism.

But … how do we know we’re right? If we’re convinced we’re absolutely right and have closed the door to other possibilities, how would we ever work out we might be wrong?

Nihilism says morals are contrived, artificial and meaningless. Relativism is very different - morals are honest and meaningful but are contextual. So doing what we’re convinced is right is a neat motto but should only apply once we’ve openly looked at alternatives, otherwise we’d never move forward.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Nihilism says morals are contrived, artificial and meaningless. Relativism is very different - morals are honest and meaningful but are contextual. So doing what we’re convinced is right is a neat motto but should only apply once we’ve openly looked at alternatives, otherwise we’d never move forward.

It would appear that at first glance, moral relativism is a simply subset of moral nihilism. Relativism may be conceptually different from nihilism but that does not necessarily make it authentic. If context is the criteria for moral realism, can you show and example in which moral relativism is true whereas moral nihilism cannot also be true in the same context.

 

[inocente]

It would appear that at first glance, moral relativism is a simply subset of moral nihilism. Relativism may be conceptually different from nihilism but that does not necessarily make it authentic. If context is the criteria for moral realism, can you show and example in which moral relativism is true whereas moral nihilism cannot also be true in the same context.

I’m not a nihilist and know little of their ways but will have a go.

An absolutist might say that of course men and women should be treated equally, it stands to reason, it’s absolutely true. Yet the absolutist’s position may be a bit of a minefield here since employment opportunities with the RCC and some other religions don’t precisely follow this principle.

I guess a nihilist may say all such policies are meaningless and contrived.

While as a relativist I understand the reasoning and history, I’m OK with all that since it has deep meaning within those religions.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I’m not a nihilist and know little of their ways but will have a go.

An absolutist might say that of course men and women should be treated equally, it stands to reason, it’s absolutely true. Yet the absolutist’s position may be a bit of a minefield here since employment opportunities with the RCC and some other religions don’t precisely follow this principle.

I guess a nihilist may say all such policies are meaningless and contrived.

While as a relativist I understand the reasoning and history, I’m OK with all that since it has deep meaning within those religions.

Thank you for your response and I appreciate your thoughts. Regrettably, I still don’t see via your example how moral relativism can be true while moral nihilism cannot be true in the same context. It still appears to me that moral relativism is a subsidiary of moral nihilism and is essentially a contrivance to avoid correlation with moral nihilism.

 

[jonfawkes]

Thank you for your response and I appreciate your thoughts. Regrettably, I still don’t see via your example how moral relativism can be true while moral nihilism cannot be true in the same context. It still appears to me that moral relativism is a subsidiary of moral nihilism and is essentially a contrivance to avoid correlation with moral nihilism.

A nihilistic approach to nihilism - beautiful! - I can see the snake eating his tail.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

A nihilistic approach to nihilism - beautiful! - I can see the snake eating his tail.

I’m uncertain what you mean by this. Would you be so kind as to elaborate?

 

[inocente]

Thank you for your response and I appreciate your thoughts. Regrettably, I still don’t see via your example how moral relativism can be true while moral nihilism cannot be true in the same context. It still appears to me that moral relativism is a subsidiary of moral nihilism and is essentially a contrivance to avoid correlation with moral nihilism.

Each of these labels is very broad. Nihilists say that one or more aspects of life have no meaning and are pointless, presumably depending on their hang-ups and how depressed they feel. I don’t see how we as Christians, or even as healthy individuals, could possibly agree.

Absolutists range from those who say there are detailed, specific absolutes (e.g. use of artificial contraceptives is always wrong) through to those who say there is just one (or a few) high-level absolute principles, or even that the principles are there but unknowable.

Relativists range from pick-n-mix do-whatever-feels-good through to me, who is simply unwilling to write off other cultures just because they don’t fit with ours, and after applying a little science (see post #835) found it was unnecessary anyway.

I think women can be ministers, others don’t. I eat meat, but maybe some future generation will say I was wrong. Probably be accused of the most heinous of all sins next – tolerance .

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Each of these labels is very broad. Nihilists say that one or more aspects of life have no meaning and are pointless, presumably depending on their hang-ups and how depressed they feel. I don’t see how we as Christians, or even as healthy individuals, could possibly agree.

I think reducing moral nihilism do to “hang-ups” and depressive states does not refute it and nor does it strengthen the arguments of moral relativism. This appears to be an appeal to sentiment. If moral relativism is valid and is not an intellectual device use to cognitively segregate it from moral nihilism (as a subset), then there must be a condition in which it is true and moral nihilism cannot be.

I have another question. You indicated that under moral relativism you have may moral beliefs that be ultimately contradicted but in different contexts. However, it would appear moral beliefs can be contracted by other within the same context (historical or otherwise). Two individuals or groups may hold opposing views on the same moral matter in the same context. Logically, a contradiction of moral views indicates that both views cannot be right. How can moral relativism be true in the case of negation within the same context?

I appreciate any clarification you may have.

 

[inocente]

I think reducing moral nihilism do to “hang-ups” and depressive states does not refute it and nor does it strengthen the arguments of moral relativism. This appears to be an appeal to sentiment. If moral relativism is valid and is not an intellectual device use to cognitively segregate it from moral nihilism, then there must be a condition in which it is true and moral nihilism cannot be.

To avoid confusion with pick-n-mix relativism, let me rename my position relibaptivism - I will be judged by God on the basis of how well I formed and used my conscience, not on how well I stuck to any supposed absolute rule-book. On the other hand, as I understand it nihilism says all morality is a pointless contrivance.

*I have another question. You indicated that under moral relativism you have may moral beliefs that be ultimately contradicted but in different contexts. However, it would appear moral beliefs can be contracted by other within the same context (historical or otherwise). Two individuals or groups may hold opposing views on the same moral matter in the same context. Logically, a contradiction of moral views indicates that both views cannot be right. How can moral relativism be true in the case of negation within the same context?

I appreciate any clarification you may have.*

For starters, Romans 14 (NIV)

*One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

… Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.*

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

To avoid confusion with pick-n-mix relativism, let me rename my position relibaptivism - I will be judged by God on the basis of how well I formed and used my conscience, not on how well I stuck to any supposed absolute rule-book. On the other hand, as I understand it nihilism says all morality is a pointless contrivance.

For starters, Romans 14 (NIV)

*One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

… Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.*

I do not think this verse advocates any form moral relativism. It’s would appear to promote accord and harmony with the constituent members of the Church by instructing them to avoid condemning each others actions. Differences of opinion and discipline arise and compelled assent to any observances without individuals being appropriately convinced, would be ultimately insincere. Nonetheless, what is intrinsic to the statement is a strong assertion against appropriation of God’s role as a moral judge, which means there must be a moral code to abide by.

Regardless, I do appreciate your time and effort in answering my query.

 

[jonfawkes]

I’m uncertain what you mean by this. Would you be so kind as to elaborate?

Nihilism sees morality as a contrivance and you see relative morality as a contrivance of nihilism. It’s a nihilistic approach to nihilism. The snake is a reference to ouroboros.

 

[fhansen]

To avoid confusion with pick-n-mix relativism, let me rename my position relibaptivism - I will be judged by God on the basis of how well I formed and used my conscience, not on how well I stuck to any supposed absolute rule-book. On the other hand, as I understand it nihilism says all morality is a pointless contrivance.

For starters, Romans 14 (NIV)

*One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

… Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.*

Think you-and St Paul-would have a harder time with this if you were to replace “one person considers one day more sacred than another” with “one person considers child sacrifice better than tithing.”

 

[inocente]

I do not think this verse advocates any form moral relativism. It’s would appear to promote accord and harmony with the constituent members of the Church by instructing them to avoid condemning each others actions. Differences of opinion and discipline arise and compelled assent to any observances without individuals being appropriately convinced, would be ultimately insincere. Nonetheless, what is intrinsic to the statement is a strong assertion against appropriation of God’s role as a moral judge, which means there must be a moral code to abide by.

Regardless, I do appreciate your time and effort in answering my query.

Twas Romans 14 that started me down the road to relibaptivism.

A fun theory says the church in Rome was communal, huddled together, and the ex-Jews are scandalized by Gentiles who don’t observe the Sabbath, that’s a sin. It’s also a sin when those immoral lowlifes eat unclean meat, where the animal isn’t slaughtered and butchered according to custom. The ex-Jews get their own back by buying meat that had been sacrificed to Venus (it was wholesome but especially cheap, having already served its purpose). Now the Gentiles, some of whom presumably used to worship Venus, get scandalized in turn.

Paul steps in and says you know what, you’re both right. He’s not talking about really serious stuff like stealing or killing of course, but these are still moral issues for the Jews and Gentiles. He asks who do any of you think you are to put words in the mouth of God when you all belong to the Lord? We are condemned when we don’t act in conscience, for everything that does not come from faith is sin.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Nihilism sees morality as a contrivance and you see relative morality as a contrivance of nihilism. It’s a nihilistic approach to nihilism. The snake is a reference to ouroboros.

Thanks for the clarification on your comment. My perspective is that moral relativists seem to see themselves outside of being a subset of moral nihilism, when if fact they are a subset. A contrivance to avoid decomposition into moral nihilism.

 

[jonfawkes]

Thanks for the clarification on your comment. My perspective is that moral relativists seem to see themselves outside of being a subset of moral nihilism, when if fact they are a subset. A contrivance to avoid decomposition into moral nihilism.

Yes, it’s a beautifully nihilistic statement.

 

[inocente]

Thanks for the clarification on your comment. My perspective is that moral relativists seem to see themselves outside of being a subset of moral nihilism, when if fact they are a subset. A contrivance to avoid decomposition into moral nihilism.

Would it be possible to stick with standard definitions rather than private contrivances that rely on not picking up a dictionary or reading my posts, unless you can cite references of course?

From thefreedictionary.com:

Relativism - Philosophy A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

Nihilism

1. *Philosophy *
   a. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
   b. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
2. Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
3. The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.
4. also Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination.
5. Psychiatry A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one’s mind, body, or self does not exist.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Yes, it’s a beautifully nihilistic statement.

I’m glad you like it

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Would it be possible to stick with standard definitions rather than private contrivances that rely on not picking up a dictionary or reading my posts, unless you can cite references of course?

Please accept my apology as it seems I’ve unintentionally offended you. As a point of clarification, I was speaking to moral nihilism and not nihilism in general. I cite the following:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism

 

[Betterave]

… We have here the beginnings of a debunking explanation of moral realism: we believe in moral realism because moral experience has a perceptual phenomenology,

…

Whether or not you agree with any of this, do you see where it’s coming from?

Yes, I do see where it’s coming from. I’m familiar with such studies/theorizing. So what’s the relevance? What’s *your *argument?

There are absolutists on CAF who say artificial contraception is so wrong in all circumstances that a condom with holes in it (to allow the chance of procreation) must be used to produce a semen specimen for the doctor (although how a single guy would use it is left unsaid).

Relevance?

 

[In_Spiration]

Can you summarize what is salient in the article, and *explain *its salience, i.e., how it provides evidence for inocente’s claim: We acquired some of what we call morality from ancestor species…?

I won’t make the case, since I don’t buy it. I was just figuring that inocente probably had it in mind. I’m most familiar with it from a blog run by Larry Arnhart called Darwinian Conservatism. For instance, this post. If you’re interested in a more academic defense, you could search the blog or look into his book.