Relativism in Colleges

[BlindSheep]

koda:

I do not. I believe they present ideas to people (students) who are hopefully mature enough to think for themselves (in other words, not just parody what they were taught - but really decide what they believe). There are people who seem to have a problem with this concept - the questioning of parental wisdom or something - but IMO there comes a time in every persons life when they have to decide for themselves - a deep, intensly personal decision. And they need information to be able to do that. Stopping the flow of ideas (new or old) because you don’t agree with them just doesn’t seem right to me.

I agree. Stopping the flow of ideas is wrong, and that is just what relativism does, since, if there is no truth, or we each have our own truth, why seek THE truth at all? Why look for the reasons to believe/not believe something, if we know right off the bat that it isn’t any more or less true because of those reasons?
But go ahead and paint me, and all conservatives, as “stopping the flow of ideas”. I have no problem with people saying what they believe and why, whether the statement is “there is no soul” or “islam is the one true religion” or “eating meat is cruel” or whatever. What I object to is the attempt to shut down all discussion by claiming that belief* itelf *is error; claiming “nothing is true” and therefore, there is no point in discussing the reasons for beliefs or actions. THAT is stopping the flow of ideas.
Example:
1.Jim says “You cannot try to stop people from X because it is wrong force your beliefs on others.”
2. “It is wrong to force your beliefs on others” is Jim’s belief.
3. “You cannot” is Jim’s attempt to force that belief on me…
4. Therefore, he is contradicting himrself:

 

[Digger71]

(emphasis mine)
IOW, non-relativists are purely reactive and not living the full human life.

Their argument too…they just replace ‘relativist’ with ‘fundy’

 

[BlindSheep]

Digger71:

Their argument too…they just replace ‘relativist’ with ‘fundy’

I was stating their argument. The term was “non-relativist”, which of course includes “fundies”.
**They **are saying that **we **are purely reactive and not living the full human life. I was not saying it about them.

 

[steveandersen]

BlindSheep:

… It is not simply objectivity, or openness to the possiblity one might be mistaken about the truth; it is the belief that there** is no truth** (self refuting though it may be) and is the basis of the liberal worldview,

you know, I’ve been thinking about this notion that moral relativism is somehow a “liberal” thing in light of recent events in the US. There are actually people in this country ( people whom I would guess label themselves conservative) who were actually arguing in favor of torture…saying that it was “ok” in certain situations

 

[BlindSheep]

steveandersen:

you know, I’ve been thinking about this notion that moral relativism is somehow a “liberal” thing in light of recent events in the US. There are actually people in this country ( people whom I would guess label themselves conservative) who were actually arguing in favor of torture…saying that it was “ok” in certain situations

If they say it is ok because of the situation, that is not moral relativism; it is absolutism. Relativism would say “torture is ok in the societies that accept it” or “torture is ok for those who believe in it”.

 

[TableServant]

BlindSheep:

I don’t expect the college to align itself with a religious perspective; an anti-religious perspective, however, is just as biased and offensive.

And, if you tried to make this point to your professors…

 

[koda]

BlindSheep:

I agree. Stopping the flow of ideas is wrong, and that is just what relativism does, since, if there is no truth, or we each have our own truth, why seek THE truth at all? Why look for the reasons to believe/not believe something, if we know right off the bat that it isn’t any more or less true because of those reasons?
But go ahead and paint me, and all conservatives, as “stopping the flow of ideas”. I have no problem with people saying what they believe and why, whether the statement is “there is no soul” or “islam is the one true religion” or “eating meat is cruel” or whatever. What I object to is the attempt to shut down all discussion by claiming that belief* itelf *is error; claiming “nothing is true” and therefore, there is no point in discussing the reasons for beliefs or actions. THAT is stopping the flow of ideas.
Example:
1.Jim says “You cannot try to stop people from X because it is wrong force your beliefs on others.”
2. “It is wrong to force your beliefs on others” is Jim’s belief.
3. “You cannot” is Jim’s attempt to force that belief on me…
4. Therefore, he is contradicting himrself:

My sincere apologies - I misinterpreted you.
I do agree with you that there is “truth” and did not mean to lump you in with the bunch who wants to stop all thought that they disagree with. I didn’t mean to be so reactionary!

 

[steveandersen]

BlindSheep:

If they say it is ok because of the situation, that is not moral relativism; it is absolutism. Relativism would say “torture is ok in the societies that accept it” or “torture is ok for those who believe in it”.

A situational moral isn’t moral relativism?
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding but it seems that saying something is moral relative to its situation is well….not that absolute

I would imagine that the folks in DC pushing for torture think it is ok because they believe in it…that doesn’t make it right.

 

[BlindSheep]

steveandersen:

A situational moral isn’t moral relativism?
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding but it seems that saying something is moral relative to its situation is well….not that absolute

Ok, what about killing someone - is it absolutely wrong? What about in self-defense? See what I mean?

steveandersen:

I would imagine that the folks in DC pushing for torture think it is ok because they believe in it…that doesn’t make it right.

Are they saying “it’s ok because we believe it” or “it’s ok because it’s neccessary…it’s proportionate…etc.”? (not that I would agree with them, I’m just pointing out the difference)
moral relativism, the view that moral truth or justification is relative to a culture or society

 

[WanderAimlessly]

An interesting article on the top 10 conservative colleges. Some Catholic Universities made the list

**Group names top 10 conservative colleges
**Schools said to shun curricula favored by ‘liberal academia’

Posted: December 16, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

A noted conservative organization has released a list of the top 10 colleges and universities it says espouse like-minded social and political beliefs.

“Each year, hundreds of thousands of students begin their college search. Admission guides, seminars, advice from friends and help from advisers all offer different perspectives. Presented with so many options, confusion often clouds this important decision-making process,” says the Young America’s Foundation, a Virginia-based group that promotes “traditional values” to the nation’s young adults.
Full Story

PF

 

[steveandersen]

BlindSheep:

Ok, what about killing someone - is it absolutely wrong?

No it is not
And it has always been that way
That is my point and why I scratch my head when I hear people complain about these darned kids today and their newfangled relativism

Lots of things (even something big like taking a life) are relative and they have always been that way

That is why we have courts and individual confession
The circumstances surrounding a deed and state of mind surrounding it are all very important in determining the appropriateness of the action.

….Are they saying “it’s ok because we believe it” or “it’s ok because it’s neccessary…it’s proportionate…etc.”? (not that I would agree with them, I’m just pointing out the difference)
moral relativism, the view that moral truth or justification is relative to a culture or society

I still fail to see the difference. Either way you’re adjusting your actions to circumstances.

I agree that sometimes that is what you have to do but I do not see how this is anything new or particularly liberal.

For example. My not-to-distant ancestors were surfs, tied to the land, until the 1830’s or 40’s because that was what their culture allowed until the Liberal movement came along and said it was wrong.

 

[BlindSheep]

steveandersen:

No it is not
And it has always been that way
That is my point and why I scratch my head when I hear people complain about these darned kids today and their newfangled relativism

Lots of things (even something big like taking a life) are relative and they have always been that way

I’m sorry, but I have to say you’re wrong. The act of killing someone is intrinsically evil. The reason it is permissable in self-defense is only that the intent is to save your own life, not to kill the other person. If it were possible to stop them from killing you, without killing them, you would have to. If you shoot someone and they survive, and your goal was to stop them from shooting you, you still did what you intended to do, but if your goal was to kill them, their survival means you failed. So in self-defense, the other person’s death isn’t desired, only saving your own life is. Killing them deliberately would still be absolutely wrong.

That is why we have courts and individual confession
The circumstances surrounding a deed and state of mind surrounding it are all very important in determining the appropriateness of the action.

I assume you’re talking about the lessening of culpability when a person is not acting with full knowledge or consent. This does not, however, mean the act itself is any less objectively evil; it means the person is less to blame for that evil.

I still fail to see the difference. Either way you’re adjusting your actions to circumstances.
I agree that sometimes that is what you have to do but I do not see how this is anything new or particularly liberal.
For example. My not-to-distant ancestors were surfs, tied to the land, until the 1830’s or 40’s because that was what their culture allowed until the Liberal movement came along and said it was wrong.

Was it wrong, or not wrong? Relativism would say it was right in the past, and wrong now. This is not the same thing as diminished culpability, which acknowledges that the act itself is always wrong.
Consider these situations:
1)A woman has an abortion because she is forcibly strapped down and operated on against her will.
2) A woman has an abortion, but she is ignorant and honestly believes what she is aborting is “not yet a human being”, and all information availiable to her confirms this belief.
3) A woman who knows she is killing a human being chooses to have an abortion anyway.

• The Catholic position would be that all three abortions were iobjectively evil, but that only the last woman commited a mortal sin.
• The Relativist position would be that all of the abortions were neither objectiviely good nor objectively evil…not only would they not say “this woman is not responsible” they would not say “this should not have been allowed to happen”.

 

[BlindSheep]

steveandersen:

I’m not quite sure what your problem is with that quote especially if you are a student of the social sciences

while certainly there are moral absolutes, extending dualistic thinking to all aspects of life is something that teenagers do and, with wisdom, the rest of us grow out of.
Relativism in thought does not necessarily mean moral relativism (unless of course you have dualistic thinking)

Many of the things we do every day do not touch on moral issues so the notion of right or wrong do not come into play.
I’m an engineer, I design things for a living. While clearly there are absolutes in that if the bridge falls it is a failure; there are many ways to make a bridge that won’t fall. What color do you make the bridge; what materials do you use; what sort of capital costs, life span, and maintenance costs do you want, etc. All these things are important considerations but there is no right or wrong good or bad to it. Some things are better than others in different circumstances…that is life That is why you become educated so that you can make your choices and defend them.

Actually, you’re right, the quote itself is just a statement of fact about how the thinking of college students changes over the years of college. Still, if these are the facts, they are troubling. If going to college encourages a relativistic worldview, I’d say something is wrong.

 

[Ahimsa]

BlindSheep:

Ok, a little background: I’ve returned to school at age 26 to finish my degree; in the years since I last attended, I converted to Catholicism, having formarly been a liberal agnostic.
Does anyone else out there feel like one of the main objectives of universities is to promote cognitive and moral relativism? I’m taking psychology, literature, computer science and interpersonal communication this semester, and only the computer science class has avoided promoting relativism. The psych and lit classes seem to be designed to promote one idea; that believing absolutely in anything (except relativism) is immature, stupid, generally the root of all the world’s problems. The whole agenda seems to be to eradicate any belief system the students may already have. The language in the textbooks themselves is basically “nyah nyah: if you believe in anything, you’re dumb and immature”.I worry that my failure to “understand” (accept) this perspective will hurt my grades. Anyone else feel this way? How do you deal with it?

That’s what secular college is for. That’s also why Christian colleges (and Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc., colleges) exist.

 

[AndyF]

BlindSheep:

I still do not understand what you’re saying. Are you saying I don’t know what relativism is? Are you claiming that the nature of relativism as an idea, that is, an idea about thought itself, means it is not an ideology which can be “promoted”? In a sense, you are right in that relativism is self-refuting, and therefore, those who use it to attempt to undermine the ideas of those they disagree with are subject to it themselves. However, the ideas that “reletivism is the highest/most mature form of thought” and “belief in absolutes is a sign of immaturity” are indeed “pushing” relativism, paradoxical as that may be; furthermore, these ideas are only good for tearing down belief systems. As a way of life, relativism does not work. It undermines every attempt at thought and decision making, makes it impossible to commit to anything. It is not simply objectivity, or openness to the possiblity one might be mistaken about the truth; it is the belief that there** is no truth** (self refuting though it may be) and is the basis of the liberal worldview,

  It wasn't a loaded question. I was simply asking you to define it.

  You seem to know  enough about it's attributes to formulate one, even if it is non-official. 

  Still waiting.

  Andy

 

[BlindSheep]

Ahimsa:

That’s what secular college is for. That’s also why Christian colleges (and Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc., colleges) exist.

So you feel that secular colleges have a duty to eradicate objectivism in their students?

 

[Ahimsa]

BlindSheep:

So you feel that secular colleges have a duty to eradicate objectivism in their students?

Eradicate objectivism? You mean, do away with the natural and social sciences? I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

 

[BlindSheep]

Ahimsa:

Eradicate objectivism? You mean, do away with the natural and social sciences? I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

No, to see these as existing “within relativism”; and therefore, not allowing any discussion of the possibility that the sciences should be used in one way and not another, since there is nothing **absolutely **true…nothing. Not “don’t commit murder” not “it’s wrong to blow up the earth”…nothing. And I don’t mean that the school simply won’t endorse any absolutes, but that it will discourage the students from holding such beliefs.
For instance, my literature professor blew a fuse because I said that while I could appreciate what he was saying the cultural and psychological significance of child sacrifice, I couldn’t agree with him that it was therefore “not wrong”.

 

[Ahimsa]

BlindSheep:

No, to see these as existing “within relativism”; and therefore, not allowing any discussion of the possibility that the sciences should be used in one way and not another, since there is nothing **absolutely **true…nothing. Not “don’t commit murder” not “it’s wrong to blow up the earth”…nothing. And I don’t mean that the school simply won’t endorse any absolutes, but that it will discourage the students from holding such beliefs.
For instance, my literature professor blew a fuse because I said that while I could appreciate what he was saying the cultural and psychological significance of child sacrifice, I couldn’t agree with him that it was therefore “not wrong”.

I think your professor would be at fault for trying to get you to agree that child sacrifice was “not wrong.”

But I think what he was trying to do was to get the students to take a look at such behavior without presupposing the rightness or wrongness of such behavior – and supposedly by doing so, gain some insight into the social and psychological causes that lead to child sacrifice. If you simply dismiss it as “wrong,” then you might tend to not try to find underlying social reasons for the (admittedly deplorable) phenomenon.

 

[BlindSheep]

Ahimsa:

If you simply dismiss it as “wrong,” then you might tend to not try to find underlying social reasons for the (admittedly deplorable) phenomenon.

Not necessarily, though.