Objective truth and absurdity of relativism

[Peter_Plato]

There is only one app. It’s you.

There aren’t any rules. Such as ‘this you must obey’. There are simply guidelines.

The issue with this view is that it renders the basic “law” of justice – “to each his due” – into a law of radical injustice.

If the determiner of what is “due” is “you” – meaning your preference alone determines what is ‘owed’ you, then justice becomes capricious and arbitrary. How can anything be truly said to be ‘owed’ if it is purely determined by what you prefer rather than by just desert? Another ‘absurdity’ of relativism, I suppose.

 

[inocente]

A good parent is concerned for the welfare of their child unconditionally. The State ought to be concerned, ultimately, for the welfare of all citizens without compromise.

The State, in modern western countries, is quite willing to strike Faustian bargains - euphemistically called ‘social contracts.’ It no longer concerns itself with the welfare of citizens that it determines have no political influence. Ergo, the wealthy, the loud, the socially influential, the powerful, the esteemed all have influence and the State binds itself, contractually, to them and to them alone. The weak, the voiceless, the forgotten, are of no concern to the State. This is why abortion and ‘assisted death’ are big on the political agenda in modern western countries. Those in jeopardy of forfeiting their lives do not count as far as the State is concerned – they don’t exist. They aren’t even loved conditionally. Their welfare is of NO concern to the State.

Jesus was clear that these ‘little ones’ are the ones who do count as far as God is concerned. He has shared their suffering with them and they will share his glory with him. In the Kingdom of Heaven they will find unconditional love. In the meantime, those who eke out, through their power and influence, their ‘reward’ on Earth have received all that they will be owed. In Jesus’ words, “They have received their reward.”

You say, “It has never been the job of the State to love citizens unconditionally.” Actually, it has been the duty of States to do so, but they have almost universally failed. You can excuse that failure if you wish and, by doing so, render to Caesar his duly owed apologia, but let’s not confuse failure with responsibility as if the State shouldn’t be held accountable for its abominations.

Then I dare say you’d agree with our prime minister 11 years ago when he said “a society that avoids senseless suffering of its citizens is a better society”.

Oh, did I forget to say he was talking about gay marriage being passed into law here?

Are you arguing that Jesus wants nation states, or anarchy, or world government? How doth thou knowest? Perhaps rather than democracy you’d prefer life in North Korea with its benevolent leader.

And what has this to do with the OP?

*Just out of interest, do you suppose that the ‘unconditional love’ owed by a parent to her child is owed while that child is still in the womb, or is her unconditional love conditional on location of her child outside her body? Purely out of interest, you understand.

My sense from this comment…

…is that you view ‘unconditional love’ as a mere ‘guideline’ in a ‘game’ we are playing – a game where we shouldn’t take the rules too seriously, even when we proclaim some of those rules or guidelines to be “unconditional.”*

I imagine most mothers wouldn’t agree that their love while pregnant is conditional on them being allowed to get smashed on whiskey twice a week.

A guideline could be as little as an advisory, so it’s a bit of a hand waving word. The usual term in ethics is moral principle, which has the much more robust definition - it’s a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as a foundation for behavior.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Then I dare say you’d agree with our prime minister 11 years ago when he said “a society that avoids senseless suffering of its citizens is a better society”.

Oh, did I forget to say he was talking about gay marriage being passed into law here?

Are you arguing that Jesus wants nation states, or anarchy, or world government? How doth thou knowest? Perhaps rather than democracy you’d prefer life in North Korea with its benevolent leader.

And what has this to do with the OP?

I imagine most mothers wouldn’t agree that their love while pregnant is conditional on them being allowed to get smashed on whiskey twice a week.

A guideline could be as little as an advisory, so it’s a bit of a hand waving word. The usual term in ethics is moral principle, which has the much more robust definition - it’s a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as a foundation for behavior.

Pretty much what I expected you would say. No surprises here. You are becoming quite predictable.

 

[inocente]

Pretty much what I expected you would say. No surprises here. You are becoming quite predictable.

Good. Only relativists change their answers with their socks. Is that your point?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Good. Only relativists change their answers with their socks. Is that your point?

No, actually, a broken compass will be quite consistent pointing in the same direction relative to itself, but it will be quite useless in showing the proper direction.

A well-calibrated moral compass is one that is free to move but accurately locates your current position on the moral landscape.

I would think that good moral agents are also free to change their socks once in awhile.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No, because for instance if you look up what makes a sociopath, possible factors include genetics through to high levels of testosterone through to low family income or large family size. The form of the sociopath is damaged, and no amount of informing will fix the damage.

Sociopaths can indeed be made by genetic factors, in which case trying to inculcate (TEACH) a well informed conscience about right and wrong might be a tough sell. Low family income or large family size are very doubtful determiners of sociopathic behavior.

But I would assume we are talking about people who are not subject to medical conditions and who therefore are able to get a well formed (informed) conscience. That happens not by leaving a person alone with his conscience to develop as it may, but rather by TEACHING a young child the fundamental principles of right and wrong. You ought to have noticed somewhere along the way that parents who do not bother to TEACH (inform the consciences) of their children (or have no idea themselves of what a well informed conscience should even look like) get children who can be decidedly sociopathic, even to the point of murdering their parents.

This is why the Catholic Church puts such a high premium on the Catechism and teaching it to the young at an early age and throughout youth. You probably call that a legalistic theology. We call it forming a well informed conscience about right and wrong. We call it caring about how our children turn out because we know the devil is prowling about the world, seeking whom he may devour.

 

[tonyrey]

Brad Indeed. It is a rather simplistic command. Open to interpretation. Depending on the circumstances. Relative to the situation. Almost as fatuous as ‘Be good’. But taken as a starting point for further investigation, it’s reasonably acceptable as an invocation to treat your fellow travellers as well as circumstances might dictate. Which, funnily enough, My mate Sam was suggesting.

Correction: I'm sure the parable of the Good Samaritan isn't simplistic, nor is the example of the greatest love we can have for another person.

What are the exceptions to those rules?

 

[Bradski]

Correction: I’m sure the parable of the Good Samaritan isn’t simplistic, nor is the example of the greatest love we can have for another person.

What are the exceptions to those rules?

Not simple? It’s just…help someone in need. Unless…and you need to fill in the blanks yourself.

 

[inocente]

Correction: I’m sure the parable of the Good Samaritan isn’t simplistic, nor is the example of the greatest love we can have for another person.

The Samaritan is a great example of practical compassion though. He bandages the wounds and takes the victim to a place where he can recover. Then, having done all he can, he returns to his own business. Doesn’t miss a beat.

Martin Luther King saw the parable as a political statement about how society should be organized. “On the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life’s roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring”.

 

[inocente]

No, actually, a broken compass will be quite consistent pointing in the same direction relative to itself, but it will be quite useless in showing the proper direction.

A well-calibrated moral compass is one that is free to move but accurately locates your current position on the moral landscape.

I would think that good moral agents are also free to change their socks once in awhile.

btw by changing answers with socks I meant lack of integrity - commitment depending on feeling, only doing good that others can see, respecting the boss but not the janitor, etc.

 

[Peter_Plato]

btw by changing answers with socks I meant lack of integrity - commitment depending on feeling, only doing good that others can see, respecting the boss but not the janitor, etc.

I see. I was merely taking it to mean the relativist might change his moral opinion with the frequency that most of us change our socks.

I see your point, then, that the reason a relativist does so under the influence of others would be because his morality is moored purely on “subjects” as grounds for morality which means the influence of other subjects on his moral determinations can be as powerful as his own subjectivity because he has no mechanism for distinguishing correct morality from incorrect morality. In his view, correct morality is purely a subjective determination and, therefore, morality determined by other subjects is no more nor less correct than his own. Ergo, he can justify changing his mind whenever a subject with a different view of things becomes influential.

As to those who go about “only doing good that others can see,” what about those who won’t do good BECAUSE others will see? I would suppose that taking into serious consideration what “others” will see or not in making moral determinations implies that that person’s moral compass requires fixing. To stay with the metaphor, the compass needle is being unduly influenced by some “magnetic” object close by which means it isn’t properly aligning with true North. And the reason it isn’t doing so is because it is calibrated to point to itself and other selves like it instead of aligning with “the good” – true North, so to speak --in reality.

Was that your point, then?

 

[Peter_Plato]

The Samaritan is a great example of practical compassion though. He bandages the wounds and takes the victim to a place where he can recover. Then, having done all he can, he returns to his own business. Doesn’t miss a beat.

Martin Luther King saw the parable as a political statement about how society should be organized. “On the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life’s roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring”.

Or – more likely – that the architects and builders of the “edifice which produces beggars” need reforming.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m sure the parable of the Good Samaritan isn’t simplistic, nor is the example of the greatest love we can have for another person.

There is a vast difference between “simple” and “simplistic” - as you have implied by using the term yourself! If you were consistent, Brad, you would have written "Not simplistic? It’s just…help someone in need. "

 

[Peter_Plato]

The Samaritan is a great example of practical compassion though. He bandages the wounds and takes the victim to a place where he can recover. Then, having done all he can, he returns to his own business. Doesn’t miss a beat.

Martin Luther King saw the parable as a political statement about how society should be organized. “On the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life’s roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring”.

Again, the fact that the Jericho Road is changed will not impact whether or not “men and women will be constantly beaten.” The robbers and thugs will find ways to upgrade their ways and means to accomplish robbery and thuggery on the New and Improved Road™ with new and improved methods. No, it is not the road that needs to be transformed, it is the robbers and thugs.

This little talk by R.C. Sproul is quite informative in that regard.
youtu.be/OQAfFjf4QtY

I sense that your focus on the “new and improved Jericho Road” means you take a political and interventionist view of theft and thuggery – i.e., give people what they want and everything will be hunky-dory for ever, thereafter. No more theft and violence if people just get what they want. :nope:

Ain’t going to happen. Which is why we need to educate people to understand themselves, their own proclivities and see from a larger perspective the reality – including sin – that exists around us and within us, and what to do about it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Then I dare say you’d agree with our prime minister 11 years ago when he said “a society that avoids senseless suffering of its citizens is a better society”.

Oh, did I forget to say he was talking about gay marriage being passed into law here?

I would suppose that the value of your prime minister’s words depends entirely upon what he counts as “senseless” and as “suffering.” His words, in fact, sound like pandering to potential voters.

A mother or father may, at some point, decide that working to support a family or their spouse is causing them inordinate “suffering” and, therefore, it is “senseless” for them to continue doing so. This becomes a ready and irrefutable excuse for avoiding all responsibility. If we begin to think that any little burden or demand upon us causes us to “suffer,” then I wouldn’t think a “better society” is likely to be formed since avoiding all the “senseless” suffering might extend to include the labor and trouble required to build that society.

The question with regards to building better societies or better Jericho Roads is how much the citizens involved are willing to tolerate some suffering for the sake of their fellow citizens. A society built on egoism won’t likely go very far nor tolerate very much “suffering,” since self-absorbed narcissists have very little tolerance for it because they see all suffering as “senseless.”

Jesus was pretty clear that we will all need to take up our crosses. If all we have is a society of citizens unwilling to take up any cross whatsoever and avoid entirely the daunting task of shouldering any responsibility they deem to be “senseless,” we will not end up with a “better society,” regardless of what your prime minister insists is the cure-all for society.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

No, because for instance if you look up what makes a sociopath, possible factors include genetics through to high levels of testosterone through to low family income or large family size. The form of the sociopath is damaged, and no amount of informing will fix the damage.

HiYay Do you have a website that links to what you have said above, dear inocente.

Many forensic psychologists, psychiatrists and criminologists use the terms sociopathy and psychopathy interchangeably. Leading experts disagree on whether there are meaningful differences between the two conditions. I contend that there are clear and significant distinctions between them.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), released by the American Psychiatric Association in 2013, lists both sociopathy and psychopathy under the heading of Antisocial Personality Disorders (ASPD). These disorders share many common behavioral traits which lead to the confusion between them.

Key traits that sociopaths and psychopaths share include:

A disregard for laws and social mores
A disregard for the rights of others
A failure to feel remorse or guilt
A tendency to display violent behavior
In addition to their commonalities, sociopaths and psychopaths also have their own unique behavioral characteristics, as well.

psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath

Anthony Hopkins became a Catholic after playing Dr. Hannibal “The Cannibal” Lecter in the film The Silence of the Lambs. I’ve seen that movie three times over the years. Scary as hell!
hngn.com/articles/168101/20160110/anthony-hopkins-hannibal-lecter-actor-regrets-reprising-movie-role-getting.htm

Serial Killer Myth #1: They’re Mentally Ill or Evil Geniuses
Serial killers are rarely insane or brilliant–just deadly!
Posted Jun 16, 2014

The sensationalized images of serial killers (link is external) presented in the news and entertainment media suggest that they either have a debilitating mental illness such as psychosis or they are brilliant but demented geniuses like Dr. Hannibal “The Cannibal” Lecter in the iconic film The Silence of the Lambs.

Neither of these two stereotypes is quite accurate. Instead, serial killers are much more likely to exhibit antisocial personality disorders such as sociopathy or more likely psychopathy, which are not considered to be mental illnesses by the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), released by the APA in 2013, lists both sociopathy and psychopathy under the heading of Antisocial Personality Disorders (ASPD). These disorders share many common behavioral traits which lead to the confusion between them. Key traits that sociopaths and psychopaths share include:

A disregard for laws and social mores
A disregard for the rights of others
A failure to feel remorse or guilt
A tendency to display violent behavior
psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201406/serial-killer-myth-1-theyre-mentally-ill-or-evil-geniuses

I think we also have to consider the Department of National Defence’s approach to moral and ethical decision making outlined in the Defence Ethics Program (DEP).

I’ll have to get back later to replay to another comment you made. Thanks and life is worth living at least in my part of the world! Take care.

 

[inocente]

I see. I was merely taking it to mean the relativist might change his moral opinion with the frequency that most of us change our socks.

I see your point, then, that the reason a relativist does so under the influence of others would be because his morality is moored purely on “subjects” as grounds for morality which means the influence of other subjects on his moral determinations can be as powerful as his own subjectivity because he has no mechanism for distinguishing correct morality from incorrect morality. In his view, correct morality is purely a subjective determination and, therefore, morality determined by other subjects is no more nor less correct than his own. Ergo, he can justify changing his mind whenever a subject with a different view of things becomes influential.

As to those who go about “only doing good that others can see,” what about those who won’t do good BECAUSE others will see? I would suppose that taking into serious consideration what “others” will see or not in making moral determinations implies that that person’s moral compass requires fixing. To stay with the metaphor, the compass needle is being unduly influenced by some “magnetic” object close by which means it isn’t properly aligning with true North. And the reason it isn’t doing so is because it is calibrated to point to itself and other selves like it instead of aligning with “the good” – true North, so to speak --in reality.

Was that your point, then?

Yes. So not Matt 6:5 but also not giving in to peer pressure, Mark 15:15. Perhaps integrity could be summarized as consistency through strong principles, which include not allowing irrelevant facts or feelings to alter decisions.

As I understand it, that’s moral relativism, the belief that morality is relative to points of view, and that no point of view is objectively truer than any other. But the word relativism pops up confusingly all over the place. Two I remember are descriptive relativism, which is just a recognition that morality varies across different cultures, and cultural relativism, the belief that humans are best understood through the lens of their culture (which implies that human nature is not fixed but to some extent malleable).

 

[inocente]

Again, the fact that the Jericho Road is changed will not impact whether or not “men and women will be constantly beaten.” The robbers and thugs will find ways to upgrade their ways and means to accomplish robbery and thuggery on the New and Improved Road™ with new and improved methods. No, it is not the road that needs to be transformed, it is the robbers and thugs.

This little talk by R.C. Sproul is quite informative in that regard.
youtu.be/OQAfFjf4QtY

I sense that your focus on the “new and improved Jericho Road” means you take a political and interventionist view of theft and thuggery – i.e., give people what they want and everything will be hunky-dory for ever, thereafter. No more theft and violence if people just get what they want. :nope:

Ain’t going to happen. Which is why we need to educate people to understand themselves, their own proclivities and see from a larger perspective the reality – including sin – that exists around us and within us, and what to do about it.

Just to be sure, those weren’t my words, I was quoting Martin Luther King.

He refers to the parable of the Good Samaritan a number of times. He talks of when he himself drove from Jerusalem to Jericho, and says it’s a dangerous road where you could easily be ambushed. He speculates that the priest and Levite didn’t stop because they were afraid the victim was faking, that it’s a setup, “‘If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?’. But then the Good Samaritan came by, and he reversed the question: ‘If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?’” - biblegateway.com/blog/2012/04/why-didnt-they-stop-martin-luther-king-jr-on-the-parable-of-the-good-samaritan/

The quote about the road comes from King contrasting self-interest with compassion in speeches against the Vietnam war and unfettered capitalism: “If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.” - informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm

(In that speech he quotes “say it plain” from a poem by a black writer, a phrase which reappears in the poem read out at the inauguration of the first black president, “Say it plain: that many have died for this day” - nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20text-poem.html?_r=0)

btw that “little talk” is 71 minutes, does Sproul do a littler version?

I would suppose that the value of your prime minister’s words depends entirely upon what he counts as “senseless” and as “suffering.” His words, in fact, sound like pandering to potential voters.

A mother or father may, at some point, decide that working to support a family or their spouse is causing them inordinate “suffering” and, therefore, it is “senseless” for them to continue doing so. This becomes a ready and irrefutable excuse for avoiding all responsibility. If we begin to think that any little burden or demand upon us causes us to “suffer,” then I wouldn’t think a “better society” is likely to be formed since avoiding all the “senseless” suffering might extend to include the labor and trouble required to build that society.

The question with regards to building better societies or better Jericho Roads is how much the citizens involved are willing to tolerate some suffering for the sake of their fellow citizens. A society built on egoism won’t likely go very far nor tolerate very much “suffering,” since self-absorbed narcissists have very little tolerance for it because they see all suffering as “senseless.”

Jesus was pretty clear that we will all need to take up our crosses. If all we have is a society of citizens unwilling to take up any cross whatsoever and avoid entirely the daunting task of shouldering any responsibility they deem to be “senseless,” we will not end up with a “better society,” regardless of what your prime minister insists is the cure-all for society.

The prime minister was summarizing the debate after Congress had voted. The argument that the State ought to treat all citizens equally had won out against the opposition. So that was the context, of civil rights, that a State which strives to treat all law-abiding citizens equally is better than one which doesn’t - “A society that avoids senseless suffering of its citizens is a better society.”

 

[inocente]

HiYay Do you have a website that links to what you have said above, dear inocente.

Oh, I’m no expert or anything. I just thought of personality disorders as a way of contrasting informed with formed, looked up psychopathy and found citations to various theories here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Causes

If you’re interested in this kind of stuff, there’s a very interesting neurological explanation for racism, which argues that it arises out of a learned fear response to the unfamiliar. We can learn to suppress the fear, and it seems this can be achieved even by short exposure to simple virtual realities. Again, I’m no expert, only heard a talk on it, but the following articles do a good job of explaining what was said in the talk:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_race
bbc.com/news/science-environment-23709836

*I think we also have to consider the Department of National Defence’s approach to moral and ethical decision making outlined in the Defence Ethics Program (DEP). *

Googled it, Canadian, yes? Didn’t really understand, is it basically a benchmarking exercise?

I’ll have to get back later to replay to another comment you made. Thanks and life is worth living at least in my part of the world! Take care.

And you!

 

[fisherman_carl]

Anthony Hopkins became a Catholic after playing Dr. Hannibal “The Cannibal” Lecter in the film The Silence of the Lambs. I’ve seen that movie three times over the years. Scary as hell!
hngn.com/articles/168101/20160110/anthony-hopkins-hannibal-lecter-actor-regrets-reprising-movie-role-getting.htm

That is interesting. I found this article.

Sir Anthony Hopkins told the Catholic Herald this week that he “couldn’t live with” the certainty of being an atheist.

The actor, who was knighted in 1993, said: “Being an atheist must be like living in a closed cell with no windows”.

Sir Anthony said: “I’d hate to live like that, wouldn’t you? We see them, mind you, on television today, many brilliant people who are professional atheists who say they know for a fact that it’s insanity to have a God or to believe in religion. Well, OK, God bless them for feeling that way and I hope they’re happy.”

He added: “But I couldn’t live with that certainty, and I wonder about some of them: why are they protesting so much? How are they so sure of what is out there? And who am I to refute the beliefs of so many great philosophers and martyrs all the way down the years?”

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/02/11/sir-anthony-hopkins-i-couldnt-be-an-atheist/