Moral Relativism

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

Others are affected by poverty, disease, war, famine etc - point being, life isn’t a picnic for everyone Pollyanna.

The vast majority of human beings affirm the benevolence of God in one simple fact: they cling to life. One would not cling to life if one did not see it as a good that we should cling to. Life after all, in spite of poverty, hunger, and disappointment, is worth living.

---

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

Others are affected by poverty, disease, war, famine etc - point being, life isn’t a picnic for everyone Pollyanna.

The vast majority of human beings affirm the benevolence of God in one simple fact: they cling to life. One would not cling to life if one did not see it as a good that we should cling to. Life after all, in spite of poverty, hunger, and disappointment, is worth living.

---

Never said life wasn’t good - it’s just not sunshine, rainbows and unicorns for everyone. Not everyone sees as a series of abundant potential opportunities. Some do. I personally do but realize that it’s not the case for everyone.

 

[larkin31]

Never said life wasn’t good - it’s just not sunshine, rainbows and unicorns for everyone. Not everyone sees as a series of abundant potential opportunities. Some do. I personally do but realize that it’s not the case for everyone.

Nor is there any automatic correlation between life (the fact of living) and “God,” a statement of faith. Life can have full intrinsic value without the supernatural to puff it further.

 

[davidv]

Nor is there any automatic correlation between life (the fact of living) and “God,” a statement of faith. Life can have full intrinsic value without the supernatural to puff it further.

How can a relativist insist on intrinsic value when all is relative?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jonfawkes

Never said life wasn’t good - it’s just not sunshine, rainbows and unicorns for everyone.

Did anybody here say it is?

*“As a catholic” is a subjective view. “As a catholic” differentiates me from other people that are non-Catholics. I can believe it but it doesn’t make it an objective fact. *

Help me clarify this if you will. In your view is there nothing we can know with certainty, nothing that is objectively true or false, objectively moral or immoral, for everyone?

 

[jonfawkes]

Jonfawkes

Never said life wasn’t good - it’s just not sunshine, rainbows and unicorns for everyone.

Did anybody here say it is?

*“As a catholic” is a subjective view. “As a catholic” differentiates me from other people that are non-Catholics. I can believe it but it doesn’t make it an objective fact. *

Help me clarify this if you will. In your view is there nothing we can know with certainty, nothing that is objectively true or false, objectively moral or immoral, for everyone?

Tony was implying it.

There are things that we can agree on and hold on to with great conviction - but no objective truths. I think we can hold ourselves and others to moral standards. I think these things change with the time and society that we live in. I think it’s a good thing. Living under a bronze age morality would be counter productive and immoral in this day and age. The only constant is change.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

Living under a bronze age morality would be counter productive and immoral in this day and age. The only constant is change.

So torturing people for the hell of it is right or wrong depending on whether you lived in the bronze age or in modern times?

Would you recognize gay marriage as something that may not have been moral once, but now should be recognized by the Church because we no longer live in the bronze age?

 

[Betterave]

Right and Wrong are qualitative statements.

No, they’re not; they are abstract terms.

They have to be defined by someone for them to have any meaning. Soooooo someone is defining them - who?

What do you mean “defined by someone”? ‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ are abstract terms understood by all competent language users. Why do you think they need to be “defined by someone,” whatever that means?

 

[John21652]

Tony was implying it.

There are things that we can agree on and hold on to with great conviction - but** no objective truths**. I think we can hold ourselves and others to moral standards. I think these things change with the time and society that we live in. I think it’s a good thing. Living under a bronze age morality would be counter productive and immoral in this day and age. The only constant is change.

In an earlier post, our head hunter friend said this -

Our god has given us the universe - what else could we want?

Yet here he tells us there no objective truths!

It is with great delight that I say, our head hunter is ripe for conversion. He has abandoned his god. For how could it be that his god gave him the universe and yet he and his tribe have failed to see that the universe he was given is held together by, and operates according to, Objective Truths. Me thinks he has spent too much time sharpening sticks, boiling the pot and thinking of his stomach, all the while wallowing in a subjectivity which has not set his mind free to explore the rationality of his (supposedly) god given universe and his place in it. His tribe of subjectivists is doomed. All the while, there has been waiting for he and his fellows, a discoverable set of Immutable Laws, mind independent, observable, universal and from which the free and rational mind can discern a morality which is thoroughly objective and through which the species to which he belongs can free itself of the whimsical pangs of passionate, self serving behaviour to which, unfortunately, certain tribes are inclined and of which others, equally unfortunately, have been subjected. Such is the nature of tyranny. The rule of the tyrrannical headhunter is at an end. The world shall be set free of the subjective whims of tyrants, individual and collective, and wayward tribes shall give up their head hunting and come to understand that man’s social nature is best served by the thorough understanding of the objectivity which exists in the world and of right morals discerned accordingly by rational men. True Reason is not a slave to the passions, cranking out arbitrarily chosen ends.

 

[larkin31]

Tony was implying it.

There are things that we can agree on and hold on to with great conviction - but no objective truths. I think we can hold ourselves and others to moral standards. I think these things change with the time and society that we live in. I think it’s a good thing. Living under a bronze age morality would be counter productive and immoral in this day and age. The only constant is change.

Indeed.

and taxes

 

[djeter]

http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/truth_freedom3.jpg?w=358&h=203
Truth does not limit genuine freedom, but it does limit license. For instance, one does not have the “freedom” to murder or steal.
Why? Because, principally, doing so is against the truth of the dignity of the human person. No sensible person would argue that
genuine freedom has been limited by this truth.

"Skepticism about ethics is widespread. There is a pervasive belief that there is simply no objective good and bad, or right and wrong. By `objective’ I mean the feature a statement has when it is true (or false) independently of whether anyone believes it to be true (or false). By far the most common form that moral skepticism takes is the espousal of one or another version of relativism.

There are numerous varieties of relativism, but what they all share is the central dogma that moral propositions, instead of having objective truth — truth for all people in all places at all times — are true relative to one standard but not another. While it is impossible to examine all the species of relativism, the doctrine is so common that some of its general features and problems should briefly be stated, problems that affect every specific version."
David Oderberg, Moral Theory

A nice overview.

dj

 

[jonfawkes]

In an earlier post, our head hunter friend said this -

Yet here he tells us there no objective truths!

It is with great delight that I say, our head hunter is ripe for conversion. He has abandoned his god. For how could it be that his god gave him the universe and yet he and his tribe have failed to see that the universe he was given is held together by, and operates according to, Objective Truths. Me thinks he has spent too much time sharpening sticks, boiling the pot and thinking of his stomach, all the while wallowing in a subjectivity which has not set his mind free to explore the rationality of his (supposedly) god given universe and his place in it. His tribe of subjectivists is doomed. All the while, there has been waiting for he and his fellows, a discoverable set of Immutable Laws, mind independent, observable, universal and from which the free and rational mind can discern a morality which is thoroughly objective and through which the species to which he belongs can free itself of the whimsical pangs of passionate, self serving behaviour to which, unfortunately, certain tribes are inclined and of which others, equally unfortunately, have been subjected. Such is the nature of tyranny. The rule of the tyrrannical headhunter is at an end. The world shall be set free of the subjective whims of tyrants, individual and collective, and wayward tribes shall give up their head hunting and come to understand that man’s social nature is best served by the thorough understanding of the objectivity which exists in the world and of right morals discerned accordingly by rational men. True Reason is not a slave to the passions, cranking out arbitrarily chosen ends.

Your god has tricked you - you seek freedom from the world, my god shows me I am part of the world and belong here. You are destined for misery with promises from your god of something greater later, the gift from our god is here and now.

P.S. how long is your hair? Longer is better, helps get it out of the pot.

 

[grannymh]

No, they’re not; they are abstract terms.

What do you mean “defined by someone”? ‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ are abstract terms understood by all competent language users. Why do you think they need to be “defined by someone,” whatever that means?

When one goes back to the origin of humanity in order to understand our own human nature, we find that God is the Someone Who defined the right way and wrong way Adam needed to act.

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

Living under a bronze age morality would be counter productive and immoral in this day and age. The only constant is change.

So torturing people for the hell of it is right or wrong depending on whether you lived in the bronze age or in modern times?

Would you recognize gay marriage as something that may not have been moral once, but now should be recognized by the Church because we no longer live in the bronze age?

Yep and Yep.

 

[jonfawkes]

No, they’re not; they are abstract terms.

What do you mean “defined by someone”? ‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ are abstract terms understood by all competent language users. Why do you think they need to be “defined by someone,” whatever that means?

If they are abstract they have no meaning.

If they are understood by all competent language users there must be a working definition.

What is “right” and what “wrong” is subjective to the values of the speaker. They are qualitative terms. So it matters who is defining “right” and “wrong”.

 

[djeter]

http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/truth_freedom3.jpg?w=358&h=203
Truth does not limit genuine freedom, but it does limit license. For instance, one does not have the “freedom” to murder or steal.
Why? Because, principally, doing so is against the truth of the dignity of the human person. No sensible person would argue that
genuine freedom has been limited by this truth.

"Skepticism about ethics is widespread. There is a pervasive belief that there is simply no objective good and bad, or right and wrong. By `objective’ I mean the feature a statement has when it is true (or false) independently of whether anyone believes it to be true (or false). By far the most common form that moral skepticism takes is the espousal of one or another version of relativism.

There are numerous varieties of relativism, but what they all share is the central dogma that moral propositions, instead of having objective truth — truth for all people in all places at all times — are true relative to one standard but not another. While it is impossible to examine all the species of relativism, the doctrine is so common that some of its general features and problems should briefly be stated, problems that affect every specific version."
David Oderberg, Moral Theory

A nice overview.

dj

Whoops!..And here is the link I forgot to post for you to explore more on the topic

payingattentiontothesky.com/2011/01/26/relativism-by-david-oderberg/

dj

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes
*
Yep and Yep. *

Why do you label yourself a Catholic when you apparently believe there is no objective morality to be taught? If there is anything that distinguishes Catholicism from the heresies it is that what was true 2,000 years ago is still true, and that what was moral or immoral 2,000 years ago is still moral or immoral.

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes
*
Yep and Yep. *

Why do you label yourself a Catholic when you apparently believe there is no objective morality to be taught? If there is anything that distinguishes Catholicism from the heresies it is that what was true 2,000 years ago is still true, and that what was moral or immoral 2,000 years ago is still moral or immoral.

Never said I was good at it.

 

[grannymh]

jonfawkes

Living under a bronze age morality would be counter productive and immoral in this day and age. The only constant is change.

So torturing people for the hell of it is right or wrong depending on whether you lived in the bronze age or in modern times?

Would you recognize gay marriage as something that may not have been moral once, but now should be recognized by the Church because we no longer live in the bronze age?

Is torturing a respectful treatment of the human body? in the bronze age? in modern times? How does gay marriage respect the procreative purpose of human nature? in the bronze age? in the modern age?

When one thinks in an objective manner, one should be able to recognize that the only constant change in the above examples is the change from one century to another.
The right to profound respect belonged to the human person no matter how others acted.

When one looks at human nature as an objective fact or truth, there is no real reason to take up the issue of timing. Furthermore, the Catholic Church per se has never changed its position regarding the supernatural value of the human person. On the other hand, various humans have freely changed their actions toward the human person because, like Adam, they have preferred their own desires, their own greed, and their own personal evaluations.

Blessings,
granny

Basic Catholic teaching on Human Nature from the point of origin to today.
is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc

 

[William2415]

I haven’t taken the time to read all of the posts on this thread (too many of them). Has anybody pointed out the simple fact that moral relativism is logically inconsistant - it is self-contradictory.

For example, the old saying that there is an exception to every rule. This statement is itself a rule, and if there is an exception to every rule there must be an exception to this one also. Therefore there must exist a rule which has no exception. And thus the original statement “there is an exception to every rule” contradicts itself and cannot be true.

Moral Relativism is the same; it bascially says that there are no absolutes and that therefore person A cannot tell person B that he is wrong. Yet in telling person A that he cannot tell person B that he is wrong, you are in fact telling person A that he is wrong which violates the whole premise of moral relativism, i.e. it is self-contradictory and therefore cannot be true.