Regarding Relativism

[couponfit]

Where is the line? I mean from a pastoral application when am I stop imposing my beliefs on others? For example, if I feel all people should have access to food and water, am I not being a libertairan? If I believe all should get from society as they need, then am I not being communist? Both those theologies are admonished by the church! If I seek to end abortion I realize I can’t kill abortion doctors, but can I push a law that would prevent a woman from getting cancer treatment? Can I push a law that would prevent all abortions under any case? Can i push for a law that will send young mothers to prison for spontaneous abortions?

I guess my question really is at what point do my beliefs get to be imposed on others? I’ve been to Muslim nations, where I had to practice my faith in secret! I’ve been to muslim nations where I was forced to fast and partake in celebrations and practices or be sent to prison!

Or let’s look at something simple, like church! I go but my friends do not! Do I force them? Do I nag them? Do I get together laws that make them? I ask because I’m not sure how to reconcile the free will of humanity from my own beliefs! I mean I’ve never met a non-sinner! So how do those who oppose moral relativism reconcile this? I ask because I really want to understand and felt it was necessary to ask in strong contrasts so I can get the concept better!

Thank you and God Bless.

 

[PrayForMeStJude]

For example, if I feel all people should have access to food and water, am I not being a libertairan?

I’m not sure you understand what it means to be a libertarian.

I hope you get some answers, but the questions you ask are more difficult than can be easily answered here.

I suggest that you read more (if you haven’t already) of the papal encyclopedias on the social teachings of the Church. This might help you develop more specific questions.

Also, perhaps check out “Render Unto Caesar” by Archbishop Chaput. It deals with Catholic participation in public and political life. And remember, the social teachings of the Church often have to be adjusted to fit the political system in which they exist. The way Catholics should act may differ in, say, a monarchy and a republic.

 

[couponfit]

I’m not sure you understand what it means to be a libertarian.

I hope you get some answers, but the questions you ask are more difficult than can be easily answered here.

I suggest that you read more (if you haven’t already) of the papal encyclopedias on the social teachings of the Church. This might help you develop more specific questions.

Also, perhaps check out “Render Unto Caesar” by Archbishop Chaput. It deals with Catholic participation in public and political life. And remember, the social teachings of the Church often have to be adjusted to fit the political system in which they exist. The way Catholics should act may differ in, say, a monarchy and a republic.

Thank you.

 

[Isolation]

Being a moral relativist is giving up your morals for the most leftist part of society to decide…which I suppose isn’t too much to ask for liberal people themselves.

EXAMPLE:

To talk badly about homosexuality should get you shunned from proper society, but hey theists are open season after all their clergy are all pedophiles and they still believe in God! Those theist may even kill you in the name of their God!

end exmaple:

This is my simple view of the matter, its moral absolutism only with liberals at the wheel instead of God. A real relativist would accept other cultures even if they were as bloody as the Aztecs with their sacrifices to their gods; I can assure you it isn’t likely even a liberal would stand aside and watch someones heart get ripped out as a cultural experience!

With that in mind, this is why I choose to vote in a manner that attains the highest morality, GOD’s morality!

Also to your comments on abortion, the Church would allow a woman to receive cancer treatment even at the risk of their child miscarrying; what they would not allow is for the child to be aborted which is what most doctors would say to do. (I have an aunt who was pregnant during Chemotherapy and her doctor immediately went to discussing when to schedule an abortion; thank God my aunt told him no and that now I have a healthy cousin turning 5 soon)

Spontaneous abortions are the medical term, but it is still a natural miscarriage-if the woman did not do anything to try and bring forth an abortion then why should charges be made?

And yes you should fight for laws criminalizing all active attempts to keep abortion legal under any circumstance. Honestly it isn’t a strong enough position to believe someone deserves to die if they were conceived under the case of rape or incest.

Finally to killing abortion doctors…well thou shalt not kill-even monsters like them…

 

[couponfit]

Being a moral relativist is giving up your morals for the most leftist part of society to decide…which I suppose isn’t too much to ask for liberal people themselves.

EXAMPLE:

To talk badly about homosexuality should get you shunned from proper society, but hey theists are open season after all their clergy are all pedophiles and they still believe in God! Those theist may even kill you in the name of their God!

end exmaple:

This is my simple view of the matter, its moral absolutism only with liberals at the wheel instead of God. A real relativist would accept other cultures even if they were as bloody as the Aztecs with their sacrifices to their gods; I can assure you it isn’t likely even a liberal would stand aside and watch someones heart get ripped out as a cultural experience!

With that in mind, this is why I choose to vote in a manner that attains the highest morality, GOD’s morality!

Also to your comments on abortion, the Church would allow a woman to receive cancer treatment even at the risk of their child miscarrying; what they would not allow is for the child to be aborted which is what most doctors would say to do. (I have an aunt who was pregnant during Chemotherapy and her doctor immediately went to discussing when to schedule an abortion; thank God my aunt told him no and that now I have a healthy cousin turning 5 soon)

Spontaneous abortions are the medical term, but it is still a natural miscarriage-if the woman did not do anything to try and bring forth an abortion then why should charges be made?

And yes you should fight for laws criminalizing all active attempts to keep abortion legal under any circumstance. Honestly it isn’t a strong enough position to believe someone deserves to die if they were conceived under the case of rape or incest.

Finally to killing abortion doctors…well thou shalt not kill-even monsters like them…

Thanks, that is helpful. I’d still like to read more responses.

 

[Lisa44]

Where is the line? I mean from a pastoral application when am I stop imposing my beliefs on others? For example, if I feel all people should have access to food and water, am I not being a libertairan? If I believe all should get from society as they need, then am I not being communist? Both those theologies are admonished by the church! If I seek to end abortion I realize I can’t kill abortion doctors, but can I push a law that would prevent a woman from getting cancer treatment? Can I push a law that would prevent all abortions under any case? Can i push for a law that will send young mothers to prison for spontaneous abortions?

I guess my question really is at what point do my beliefs get to be imposed on others? I’ve been to Muslim nations, where I had to practice my faith in secret! I’ve been to muslim nations where I was forced to fast and partake in celebrations and practices or be sent to prison!

Or let’s look at something simple, like church! I go but my friends do not! Do I force them? Do I nag them? Do I get together laws that make them? I ask because I’m not sure how to reconcile the free will of humanity from my own beliefs! I mean I’ve never met a non-sinner! So how do those who oppose moral relativism reconcile this? I ask because I really want to understand and felt it was necessary to ask in strong contrasts so I can get the concept better!

Thank you and God Bless.

No, you share the gospel with them in whatever way you can and if they don’t want it there is nothing you can do. You can give them a bible for a present, and then ask them a few months or a year later if they had a chance to read it.

Humans are not “free”. If they were “free” they wouldn’t need God.

As far as countries go, you follow the laws of your country.

 

[puzzleannie]

Where is the line? I mean from a pastoral application when am I stop imposing my beliefs on others? For example, if I feel all people should have access to food and water, am I not being a libertairan? If I believe all should get from society as they need, then am I not being communist? .

not necessarily, being a libertarian or a communist implies much more, and they are not the only people or parties who espouse such views so that analysis is much too simplistic. Simply to hold a view on one or two issues that happens to be shared be members of political movements, does not by definition make you a member of that movement.

 

[PrayForMeStJude]

Being a moral relativist is giving up your morals for the most leftist part of society to decide…which I suppose isn’t too much to ask for liberal people themselves.

EXAMPLE:

To talk badly about homosexuality should get you shunned from proper society, but hey theists are open season after all their clergy are all pedophiles and they still believe in God! Those theist may even kill you in the name of their God!

end exmaple:

This is my simple view of the matter, its moral absolutism only with liberals at the wheel instead of God. A real relativist would accept other cultures even if they were as bloody as the Aztecs with their sacrifices to their gods; I can assure you it isn’t likely even a liberal would stand aside and watch someones heart get ripped out as a cultural experience!

With that in mind, this is why I choose to vote in a manner that attains the highest morality, GOD’s morality!

Also to your comments on abortion, the Church would allow a woman to receive cancer treatment even at the risk of their child miscarrying; what they would not allow is for the child to be aborted which is what most doctors would say to do. (I have an aunt who was pregnant during Chemotherapy and her doctor immediately went to discussing when to schedule an abortion; thank God my aunt told him no and that now I have a healthy cousin turning 5 soon)

Spontaneous abortions are the medical term, but it is still a natural miscarriage-if the woman did not do anything to try and bring forth an abortion then why should charges be made?

And yes you should fight for laws criminalizing all active attempts to keep abortion legal under any circumstance. Honestly it isn’t a strong enough position to believe someone deserves to die if they were conceived under the case of rape or incest.

Finally to killing abortion doctors…well thou shalt not kill-even monsters like them…

You’re sort of blending aspects of cultural relativism and moral relativism.

Cultural Relativism is a concept in anthropology, international relations, etc. As a prescriptive concept it espoused the idea that professionals and students in those fields must study and deal with a culture on its own terms, rather than making value judgement about other cultures based on the values of one’s own culture. For example, according to cultural relativism it would be wrong to say that polygamy in Islamic countries is evil while monogamy in Western societies is morally fine. They want to remove such moral distinctions from the study of these other cultures. For some people it is just a set of professional guidelines (just like journalists are supposed to be unbiased) but others transform it from its prescriptive sense to a moral system which states that all cultural practices and moral systems are inherently equal.

Moral relativism, of course, is this more extreme end. Moral relativists state that all moral/ethical systems are inherently equal in value and there are no absolute, universal moral rules. They would argue that to be a moral person one must live up to whatever their own view of morality is and every religion/culture/society/individual essentially operates according to its own moral code. On the most extreme end of this spectrum is the idea that there is no morality at all.

I think we, as Catholics, must be very forceful in advocating the idea of absolute, universal morality, as revealed not only by God but through natural law. For the most part, our best and only tool is persuasion. When it comes to politics and public policy, it is very hard to draw the line sometimes. For example, murder is wrong, absolutely and universally, and we must forcefully oppose abortion because it is murder. There is not really any room for debate on that. On the other hand, Catholics also believe that birth control is morally wrong, but since it doesn’t kill anyone most Catholics would probably think that it should remain legal and that while it is harmful to people and society, if people and society choose to use it and suffer the harm, it is their fault.

I personally subscribe to what I suppose is a rather American idea: you have a right to do something, even if it is stupid or maybe morally wrong, so long as it doesn’t violate the rights of others. Abortion is morally wrong and violates the right to life of another human being, and therefore we must oppose it as a matter of public policy. Birth control, however, is morally wrong but when used between consenting adults it does not violate anyone’s rights and therefore Catholics are more free to form their own opinions about its legalization.

 

[couponfit]

You’re sort of blending aspects of cultural relativism and moral relativism.

Cultural Relativism is a concept in anthropology, international relations, etc. As a prescriptive concept it espoused the idea that professionals and students in those fields must study and deal with a culture on its own terms, rather than making value judgement about other cultures based on the values of one’s own culture. For example, according to cultural relativism it would be wrong to say that polygamy in Islamic countries is evil while monogamy in Western societies is morally fine. They want to remove such moral distinctions from the study of these other cultures. For some people it is just a set of professional guidelines (just like journalists are supposed to be unbiased) but others transform it from its prescriptive sense to a moral system which states that all cultural practices and moral systems are inherently equal.

Moral relativism, of course, is this more extreme end. Moral relativists state that all moral/ethical systems are inherently equal in value and there are no absolute, universal moral rules. They would argue that to be a moral person one must live up to whatever their own view of morality is and every religion/culture/society/individual essentially operates according to its own moral code. On the most extreme end of this spectrum is the idea that there is no morality at all.

I think we, as Catholics, must be very forceful in advocating the idea of absolute, universal morality, as revealed not only by God but through natural law. For the most part, our best and only tool is persuasion. When it comes to politics and public policy, it is very hard to draw the line sometimes. For example, murder is wrong, absolutely and universally, and we must forcefully oppose abortion because it is murder. There is not really any room for debate on that. On the other hand, Catholics also believe that birth control is morally wrong, but since it doesn’t kill anyone most Catholics would probably think that it should remain legal and that while it is harmful to people and society, if people and society choose to use it and suffer the harm, it is their fault.

I personally subscribe to what I suppose is a rather American idea: you have a right to do something, even if it is stupid or maybe morally wrong, so long as it doesn’t violate the rights of others. Abortion is morally wrong and violates the right to life of another human being, and therefore we must oppose it as a matter of public policy. Birth control, however, is morally wrong but when used between consenting adults it does not violate anyone’s rights and therefore Catholics are more free to form their own opinions about its legalization.

Thanks…that’s really good. Let me see if I got it.

SO you’re saying that Moral Relativism is when a person chooses to essentially let their own beliefs and actions be in accordance with the local customs or laws regardless of their faith? Is that a good summation?

 

[jschutzm]

Thanks…that’s really good. Let me see if I got it.

SO you’re saying that Moral Relativism is when a person chooses to essentially let their own beliefs and actions be in accordance with the local customs or laws regardless of their faith? Is that a good summation?

And let them change accordingly. A True moral relativist would say that Westernize Slavery which de-humanized the slaves and treated them as possessions use to be OK, but is now wrong. - It changed, with society.

It is not actually wrong or right - because morality is relative. There are no absolutes or objective truths when it comes to morality and ethics.

An honest moral relativist would have to say that rape is wrong NOW, but in the future or in certain situations, may be OK or legal. If a law passed today, allowing parents to execute their children up to age 18, a moral relativist may not “like” this, personally, but would have to go along with it and couldn’t say it was “Wrong” or “ill-moral” to kill your 14 yr. old. (not if they are honest and sincere in their relativistic view…which most are not)

What is OK in one situation or culture, is NOT OK in another. Things change, so there is not objective standard or absolute.

There are Hard Moral Relativist who are kinda like “anything goes” and believes in absolutely NO objective or innate morality. And then there are Weak Moral Relativists which believe that there are perhaps ‘some’ absolutes, but most things are totally dependent on the society.

Most people argue that morality is relative, but in fact act as-if it is absolute. Which to me negates or weakens their position. (makes them intellectually dishonest)

By Contrast…

A Moral Absolutist says there are things which are absolutely right and absolutely wrong. Western Slavery was always objectively wrong… people back then just allowed themselves to believe it was OK. But it TRULY was wrong.

A Moral Universalist is like an absolutist but only when applied to individuals. It still allows for a certain degree of situational ethics to be taken into account. The idea is that we should apply the same moral standard to all similar individuals. A citizen, regardless if he is in China or the U.S. should hold to certain morals.
A Universalist would say that “stealing” is universally wrong, however, in the case of Robin Hood, since the Sheriff stole from the peasants, it was OK for Robin Hood to steal from him… in that situation. But overall, stealing is wrong.

 

[couponfit]

And let them change accordingly. A True moral relativist would say that Westernize Slavery which de-humanized the slaves and treated them as possessions use to be OK, but is now wrong. - It changed, with society.

It is not actually wrong or right - because morality is relative. There are no absolutes or objective truths when it comes to morality and ethics.

An honest moral relativist would have to say that rape is wrong NOW, but in the future or in certain situations, may be OK or legal. If a law passed today, allowing parents to execute their children up to age 18, a moral relativist may not “like” this, personally, but would have to go along with it and couldn’t say it was “Wrong” or “ill-moral” to kill your 14 yr. old. (not if they are honest and sincere in their relativistic view…which most are not)

What is OK in one situation or culture, is NOT OK in another. Things change, so there is not objective standard or absolute.

There are Hard Moral Relativist who are kinda like “anything goes” and believes in absolutely NO objective or innate morality. And then there are Weak Moral Relativists which believe that there are perhaps ‘some’ absolutes, but most things are totally dependent on the society.

Most people argue that morality is relative, but in fact act as-if it is absolute. Which to me negates or weakens their position. (makes them intellectually dishonest)

By Contrast…

A Moral Absolutist says there are things which are absolutely right and absolutely wrong. Western Slavery was always objectively wrong… people back then just allowed themselves to believe it was OK. But it TRULY was wrong.

A Moral Universalist is like an absolutist but only when applied to individuals. It still allows for a certain degree of situational ethics to be taken into account. The idea is that we should apply the same moral standard to all similar individuals. A citizen, regardless if he is in China or the U.S. should hold to certain morals.
A Universalist would say that “stealing” is universally wrong, however, in the case of Robin Hood, since the Sheriff stole from the peasants, it was OK for Robin Hood to steal from him… in that situation. But overall, stealing is wrong.

Ok. That helps a lot. Thanks. Often times when I read about moral relativism it refers to treating others with the respect of choosing their religion as an aspect of moral relativism. How would that apply if I still continue to be a catholic in this case?

 

[jschutzm]

jschutzm;8800436:

And let them change accordingly. A True moral relativist would say that Westernize Slavery which de-humanized the slaves and treated them as possessions use to be OK, but is now wrong. - It changed, with society.

It is not actually wrong or right - because morality is relative. There are no absolutes or objective truths when it comes to morality and ethics.

An honest moral relativist would have to say that rape is wrong NOW, but in the future or in certain situations, may be OK or legal. If a law passed today, allowing parents to execute their children up to age 18, a moral relativist may not “like” this, personally, but would have to go along with it and couldn’t say it was “Wrong” or “ill-moral” to kill your 14 yr. old. (not if they are honest and sincere in their relativistic view…which most are not)

What is OK in one situation or culture, is NOT OK in another. Things change, so there is not objective standard or absolute.

There are Hard Moral Relativist who are kinda like “anything goes” and believes in absolutely NO objective or innate morality. And then there are Weak Moral Relativists which believe that there are perhaps ‘some’ absolutes, but most things are totally dependent on the society.

Most people argue that morality is relative, but in fact act as-if it is absolute. Which to me negates or weakens their position. (makes them intellectually dishonest)

Ok. That helps a lot. Thanks. Often times when I read about moral relativism it refers to treating others with the respect of choosing their religion as an aspect of moral relativism. How would that apply if I still continue to be a catholic in this case?

You see, that’s part of the problem. There are people who CLAIM to be moral relativists but in fact… are not, or misconstrue what it means. Moral Relativism is not about “respect” it is about believing that there is NO true right and wrong. Which is in STRONG conflict with the belief that there is one God, our Father.

IF there is truly a God who made us…then we are HIS creations and we owe it to HIM to find out why he created us, what he expects of us, and live by his rules.

This is incompatible with Moral Relativism in its truest form. But like I said… MOST people who call themselves moral relativists are, in fact, NOT. They still want there to be laws and rights and wrong and to be angry when a Priest molests a teenager. But if they truly believed in what they claimed to believe…then they would not be so angry. They would see it more indifferent. More like “ahh…that sucks for that child, but it’s not like molestation is TRULY wrong…we just ‘think’ it is, NOW.”

So I have a hard time respecting moral relativists so long as they invalidate their own position by acting as-if things are truly wrong.

In fact I’d argue that the mere FACT that we get angry about things, proves that morality is NOT relative, and hints that there is some objective truths out there. Even if certain cultures at certain times haven’t always followed those rules.

Taken to the logical extreme, TRUE moral relativism would mean that “justice” is a silly, temporary, and injust concept. It would punish people for going against societies norms, when there is nothing truly or at least objectively, wrong with what they did.

I mean MAYBE the thug who robbed the convenience store had good reason… who are we to judge… RIGHT?

Not only should a moral relativist claim that all religions are more or less equal, but so are all actions. In essence.

One thing Moral relativists often forget is that ‘exceptions don’t prove the rule’ - Simply because at one time there was slavery or a certain tribe followed inbreeding, does not prove that it is OK. If anything, it may prove the rule.

The fact that just about everyone who has a drivers license, at one time has failed to stop or yield, or has sped, does not prove that speed limits and stop signs are relative. If anything it proves that they DO exist, since we are breaking them and we feel guilty about it.
That’s not a perfect analogy…but it makes the point. "Exceptions don’t prove the rule. "

Again, most people use moral relativism to make whatever they are doing or believe “OK” by claiming that it is relative. Or to get out of having to argue their point. Relativism is a great way to say “there is no truth” or “why argue”
So Moral Relativism supports those who can’t reason and argue for themselves. They can get out of an argument by claiming that it is all relative and you are right for what YOU think and they are right for what they think.

The high cost of moral relativism is that if I truly believe what you did was wrong… but morality is relative, I lack the means to come to you and argue my point and change your actions. The high cost of this is that society breaks down into smaller and smaller sub-groups who think differently about things, but there is no way to keep everyone behaving the same way. Unity breaks down under the guise of “you’re OK, I’m OK” - when really we are not.

Which is precisely why it is incompatible with Theism (aka believing in God) God stands as the ultimate arbitrator or definition of right and wrong. HE alone defines what is ‘good’
That which opposes him or is in conflict with him is by definition ‘wrong’ because he created everything.

As his creations, it is our goal, or should be, to discover WHAT that is and how WE can work with him, not against him.

 

[couponfit]

You see, that’s part of the problem. There are people who CLAIM to be moral relativists but in fact… are not, or misconstrue what it means. Moral Relativism is not about “respect” it is about believing that there is NO true right and wrong. Which is in STRONG conflict with the belief that there is one God, our Father.

IF there is truly a God who made us…then we are HIS creations and we owe it to HIM to find out why he created us, what he expects of us, and live by his rules.

This is incompatible with Moral Relativism in its truest form. But like I said… MOST people who call themselves moral relativists are, in fact, NOT. They still want there to be laws and rights and wrong and to be angry when a Priest molests a teenager. But if they truly believed in what they claimed to believe…then they would not be so angry. They would see it more indifferent. More like “ahh…that sucks for that child, but it’s not like molestation is TRULY wrong…we just ‘think’ it is, NOW.”

So I have a hard time respecting moral relativists so long as they invalidate their own position by acting as-if things are truly wrong.

In fact I’d argue that the mere FACT that we get angry about things, proves that morality is NOT relative, and hints that there is some objective truths out there. Even if certain cultures at certain times haven’t always followed those rules.

Taken to the logical extreme, TRUE moral relativism would mean that “justice” is a silly, temporary, and injust concept. It would punish people for going against societies norms, when there is nothing truly or at least objectively, wrong with what they did.

I mean MAYBE the thug who robbed the convenience store had good reason… who are we to judge… RIGHT?

Not only should a moral relativist claim that all religions are more or less equal, but so are all actions. In essence.

One thing Moral relativists often forget is that ‘exceptions don’t prove the rule’ - Simply because at one time there was slavery or a certain tribe followed inbreeding, does not prove that it is OK. If anything, it may prove the rule.

The fact that just about everyone who has a drivers license, at one time has failed to stop or yield, or has sped, does not prove that speed limits and stop signs are relative. If anything it proves that they DO exist, since we are breaking them and we feel guilty about it.
That’s not a perfect analogy…but it makes the point. "Exceptions don’t prove the rule. "

Again, most people use moral relativism to make whatever they are doing or believe “OK” by claiming that it is relative. Or to get out of having to argue their point. Relativism is a great way to say “there is no truth” or “why argue”
So Moral Relativism supports those who can’t reason and argue for themselves. They can get out of an argument by claiming that it is all relative and you are right for what YOU think and they are right for what they think.

The high cost of moral relativism is that if I truly believe what you did was wrong… but morality is relative, I lack the means to come to you and argue my point and change your actions. The high cost of this is that society breaks down into smaller and smaller sub-groups who think differently about things, but there is no way to keep everyone behaving the same way. Unity breaks down under the guise of “you’re OK, I’m OK” - when really we are not.

Which is precisely why it is incompatible with Theism (aka believing in God) God stands as the ultimate arbitrator or definition of right and wrong. HE alone defines what is ‘good’
That which opposes him or is in conflict with him is by definition ‘wrong’ because he created everything.

As his creations, it is our goal, or should be, to discover WHAT that is and how WE can work with him, not against him.

I feel like I’m getting somewhere with this thank you. If I said: You have your beliefs and I have mine, and I respect you. That’s not moral relativism! Correct? WHen would it become moral relativism?

 

[jschutzm]

… If I said: You have your beliefs and I have mine, and I respect you. That’s not moral relativism! Correct? When would it become moral relativism?

CORRECT! - That is not moral relativism… that’s just avoiding an argument and “agreeing to disagree” to keep a friendship or avoid a fight.

It would become relative if you truly felt that there is no way to know which religion is at least 51% closer to the truth OR if you truly felt that there is no true sense of right and wrong.

But I would seriously doubt that EITHER side TRULY believed that there is no objective truth and that both religions are just as correct and equal. Or else neither one would be religious.

I believe in objective morality and objective truth. So I have a very hard time seeing where anything is truly relative. If anything, I believe that relativism only illustrates someone who has ill-formed knowledge - gaps in their understanding, which is leading to the appearance of relativism. If they knew more… they would resolve their confusion and discover the objective truth of the matter. I say this, so you realize the bias I have and the perspective I can’t help but give you. I will always argue for objective truth…whether we know it or not.

I mean if I TRULY believed that Hinduism is just as equal and right as Catholicism… how or why would I be either? They aren’t the same. So the fact that I choose one over the other implies that I think ONE is at least 51% closer to the actual truth then the other religion, or I’d switch or be neither. RIGHT?

Simply because the Atheist thinks he is right and the Christian believes that he is also… Does not make BOTH of them correct. One of them has some flawed logic…somewhere. We just might not be able to point out or prove which is right. So we may drop the argument because there is no solution in sight. But that doesn’t make it relative.

You could USE that word ‘relative’ as a figure of speech to describe a situation where we either side can not convince the other, but that is actually an incorrect way of saying it.
OR
again, incorrectly, to describe a situation where 2 sides seem deadlocked and we as society can not move the argument to one side or another.

But as a hard Objectivist (believing in an absolute truth) I’d argue that the truth of the matter is separate from our knowledge of it.

In Philosophy, if something can’t be definitively proven, that does not make it relative OR untrue. It merely means it is not a “matter of fact” So it would be better to say that whether Hinduism is true or Catholicism is true, is not a “matter of fact” that we ALL agree on. But it is not in reality, relative. Though people miss-use the word.

In Philosophy, a ‘matter of fact’ is anything for which there is an agreed upon method to prove and test whether an idea is true.

“The speed of light is approximately 186,000 miles per second” IS a matter of fact… because there is a process to prove this.

“Steve’s Place Pizza makes the best Pizza in N. California” or “The Oakland A’s are the best baseball team EVER!” are NOT matters of fact…because we don’t have a precise way of proving that.

I’d argue that objectively… there is a pizza place that makes the best pizza in N. California. That is the truth of the matter. We just may not know who it is, because we don’t have all the information we need or a systematic way to study the problem.

I also believe that God created logic and reason and gave us that gift. We can therefore use our logic and reason to know God and come to the right conclusion, if we keep seeking.

 

[PrayForMeStJude]

Thanks…that’s really good. Let me see if I got it.

SO you’re saying that Moral Relativism is when a person chooses to essentially let their own beliefs and actions be in accordance with the local customs or laws regardless of their faith? Is that a good summation?

A moral relativist could come to that conclusion but no, that’s not exactly what I meant. Moral relativism is believing there is no absolute right and wrong, that there is no way of knowing which systems of belief and morality are true and right.

A moral relativist would either say we should judge people by whatever moral systems they personally hold rather than some absolute moral rules, or would say that we shouldn’t bother judging at all since there is no such thing as morality or truth.

Its a silly position to hold, and I think I can prove it by quoting a popular music artist: “If you swear that’s there’s no truth, and who cares, how come you say it like you’re right?”

 

[couponfit]

CORRECT! - That is not moral relativism… that’s just avoiding an argument and “agreeing to disagree” to keep a friendship or avoid a fight.

It would become relative if you truly felt that there is no way to know which religion is at least 51% closer to the truth OR if you truly felt that there is no true sense of right and wrong.

But I would seriously doubt that EITHER side TRULY believed that there is no objective truth and that both religions are just as correct and equal. Or else neither one would be religious.

I believe in objective morality and objective truth. So I have a very hard time seeing where anything is truly relative. If anything, I believe that relativism only illustrates someone who has ill-formed knowledge - gaps in their understanding, which is leading to the appearance of relativism. If they knew more… they would resolve their confusion and discover the objective truth of the matter. I say this, so you realize the bias I have and the perspective I can’t help but give you. I will always argue for objective truth…whether we know it or not.

I mean if I TRULY believed that Hinduism is just as equal and right as Catholicism… how or why would I be either? They aren’t the same. So the fact that I choose one over the other implies that I think ONE is at least 51% closer to the actual truth then the other religion, or I’d switch or be neither. RIGHT?

Simply because the Atheist thinks he is right and the Christian believes that he is also… Does not make BOTH of them correct. One of them has some flawed logic…somewhere. We just might not be able to point out or prove which is right. So we may drop the argument because there is no solution in sight. But that doesn’t make it relative.

You could USE that word ‘relative’ as a figure of speech to describe a situation where we either side can not convince the other, but that is actually an incorrect way of saying it.
OR
again, incorrectly, to describe a situation where 2 sides seem deadlocked and we as society can not move the argument to one side or another.

But as a hard Objectivist (believing in an absolute truth) I’d argue that the truth of the matter is separate from our knowledge of it.

In Philosophy, if something can’t be definitively proven, that does not make it relative OR untrue. It merely means it is not a “matter of fact” So it would be better to say that whether Hinduism is true or Catholicism is true, is not a “matter of fact” that we ALL agree on. But it is not in reality, relative. Though people miss-use the word.

In Philosophy, a ‘matter of fact’ is anything for which there is an agreed upon method to prove and test whether an idea is true.

“The speed of light is approximately 186,000 miles per second” IS a matter of fact… because there is a process to prove this.

“Steve’s Place Pizza makes the best Pizza in N. California” or “The Oakland A’s are the best baseball team EVER!” are NOT matters of fact…because we don’t have a precise way of proving that.

I’d argue that objectively… there is a pizza place that makes the best pizza in N. California. That is the truth of the matter. We just may not know who it is, because we don’t have all the information we need or a systematic way to study the problem.

I also believe that God created logic and reason and gave us that gift. We can therefore use our logic and reason to know God and come to the right conclusion, if we keep seeking.

Since I feel like I’m learning something let me ask some more questions from an absolutist point of view. If I believed killing is wrong and against the bible as a Catholic should, then when is it ok? Military? Physical Defense? Emotional Defense? To prevent murder? In other posts regarding politics and some my friend posted, there seems to be a strong belief that liberals are wrong or mean or something to that point. Note the word liberal and not pro choice or anti-catholic or something specific. As I’m not sure any one liberal meets all or elements of being a liberal. But I guess what I wonder is how say conservatives justify a large military that has at times gone beyond a defensive only position and has at times done things that are wrong. I mean do we say for example, that liberals are wrong even though they point out military wrong doing they are simply being mean to do so? I’m asking from a catholic perspective.

Thanks again for your help!

 

[PrayForMeStJude]

Since I feel like I’m learning something let me ask some more questions from an absolutist point of view. If I believed killing is wrong and against the bible as a Catholic should, then when is it ok? Military? Physical Defense? Emotional Defense? To prevent murder? In other posts regarding politics and some my friend posted, there seems to be a strong belief that liberals are wrong or mean or something to that point. Note the word liberal and not pro choice or anti-catholic or something specific. As I’m not sure any one liberal meets all or elements of being a liberal. But I guess what I wonder is how say conservatives justify a large military that has at times gone beyond a defensive only position and has at times done things that are wrong. I mean do we say for example, that liberals are wrong even though they point out military wrong doing they are simply being mean to do so? I’m asking from a catholic perspective.

Thanks again for your help!

Look up just war theory. Theologians have dedicated lifetimes to this issue, but a quick reading of St. Thomas Aquinas’s writings on the subject is a good place to start.

Note that it isn’t necessarily killing which is absolutely and universally wrong, but rather murder.

 

[jschutzm]

Since I feel like I’m learning something let me ask some more questions from an absolutist point of view. If I believed killing is wrong and against the bible as a Catholic should, then when is it ok? Military? Physical Defense? Emotional Defense? To prevent murder? In other posts regarding politics and some my friend posted, there seems to be a strong belief that liberals are wrong or mean or something to that point. Note the word liberal and not pro choice or anti-catholic or something specific. As I’m not sure any one liberal meets all or elements of being a liberal. But I guess what I wonder is how say conservatives justify a large military that has at times gone beyond a defensive only position and has at times done things that are wrong. I mean do we say for example, that liberals are wrong even though they point out military wrong doing they are simply being mean to do so? I’m asking from a catholic perspective.

Thanks again for your help!

I agree about labeling people as Liberal. I try very hard to NOT use that label. One can be liberal in 1 aspect, but conservative in another. Those labels are often used to dismiss a person’s claim and thus can be a form of ‘ad hominem’ attack (attacking the man)
So I try to be more specific in my words and say more precisely “anti-theist” or “secularist” or “atheist” or something more precise. I’m not saying all those are the same, that all atheists are anti-theists or all secularists are anti-catholic – I’m just saying that we should try to use precise language instead of broad labels.

Anyways…

I am a fan of the Just War Doctrine - google that. It has MANY criteria that must be met. It can ONLY be used to mount a defense and if everyone adhered to it… we’d essentially have no wars, because war would only be to defend life, liberty, and land.

Just War Doctrine has even been modified to address Chemical/Biological weapons and WMDs. It addresses conscientious objectors and prisoners of war.

Just War, in a way, also covers Security Guards, Police Officers and even defending your own life… because if life is seriously threatened, all negotiations have failed, and no matter what… one way or another, a life will be lost… a Christian can make that decision and choose to kill the attacker to save those lives entrusted into their care. (aka your family in case of a home invasion) Because “Just War” allows one to mount a defense, so long as all other options are off the table or proven unfeasible and the alternative is dire (death)

Therefore a Moral Abosolutist doesn’t merely throw their hands up in the air and concede “I guess it is all relative” - instead they seek a deeper understanding and a new Principle to guide that decision. They may even draw a line between murder (wrong) and killing (justified under rare and dire circumstances)

YES, Christians have made some bad decisions. Our country has also made some bad calls.

The Catholic church has also had some bad Popes, as well.

So we are faced, therefore, with 2 decisions. 1) Do we abandon our country or revolt against the government OR 2) Do we reform it, correct it, right the ship which is listing to the right, and bring it back to center?

In the case of the Church… though it made some bad calls in the past, even had some terrible Popes. Notice that none of those things fundamentally changed it’s core teachings, aka “doctrines” of the faith. In other words, the church never changed what it teaches, even if at times individuals didn’t follow them.

Remember… exceptions don’t prove the rule. Because a Pope in the medieval period was more involved in politics and killing off his rivals, doesn’t mean that’s what the faith believes is OK. In fact, the fact that these terrible Popes didn’t change anything… seems to prove that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church as Jesus promised the apostle Peter.

I mention this… because as you ponder these things, or talk about them to others… these issues or inconsistencies may come up.

 

[PrayForMeStJude]

OR 2) Do we reform it, correct it, right the ship which is listing to the right, and bring it back to center?

Here in the States I think our ship might be listing too far to the left, actually…

 

[jschutzm]

Here in the States I think our ship might be listing too far to the left, actually…

Left - Right - North - South - same point. I went right instead of left in my example because using the term left is often a synonym for liberal… and as I said, I don’t like that label, because I see those terms abused so often by political parties and the modern media.

But, if I HAD to choose liberal/left or conservative/right to completely summarize my views on everything… I’d more identify with the conservative/right, then anything else. And the 3 largest reasons are my stance on Absolute Morality, SSM, and Abortion - my stance on those 3 important issues line more up with what most people would call “conservatives” then what people label as “liberal”