Relativism

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Veritas248 View Post
peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism.htm
Relativism is the single most important issue in our world today.
Rejection of the moral law leads to the acceptance of ANYTHING.
Peter Kreeft’s refutation helped me get a relativist to see the error of his ways just last week. I think it is quite powerful.

rejection by who? the state? perfectly aligning civil law with Catholic morality would be a total disaster for both the state and the church. write a law banning all forms of homosexual behavior. now try to enforce it. you would have an outrageous invasion of personal rights by the police where the cure would be much worse than the disease.

Only atheists, and their brother “religio-political” systems adherents, want their RELIGION to be enacted as “civil law”.

Catholics know that it is never wise to mix the Church with temporal government. Temporal government is an institution which necessarily uses coercion, while the Church is utterly forbidden to use coercion to promote “conversion” (which in “governmental terms” equals “law enforcement”).

what you condemn as moral relativism is, in many cases, compromise inherent in any state that doesn’t invest the church with plenary authority over everything.

No. Relativism is the religion of constant human conflict.

While temporal government NEEDS to allow human conflict to work itself out in as “harmless” a way as possible, for individual people to allow NO standard of that right action is to exist is to allow “fallen human nature” to reign unopposed by “divine revelation”.

Even atheists have standards of behavior, which are their “divine revelation”. But without a “real anchor” in actual (God given) divine revelation, the “center of gravity” of their “personal revelations” will meander around and drift toward establishing actual evils as “moral and ethical”.

Such as abortion, which is now considered a “moral and ethical” practice.

even a casual reading of threads on this forum (“is it a sin to …”) wherein every aspect of human activity becomes a candidate for criminalization I mean condemnation shows what would happen if some degree of “moral relativism” were not necessary.

The final arbiter of what a sin is is the Church. That is where to go for a “ruling”.

The Church doesn’t “criminalize” anything, because it’s not in the punishing (enforcement) business.

Get this through your head: The Church is not interested in temporal governance of societies. It is only interested in having individuals possessing a real basis for deciding which behaviors are good and which are evil.

Atheists (relativists) are the religious folks interested in enslaving societies by applying their religious morals on temporal society via governance by criminalization.

It IS wise to have governance by criminalization (enforceable law), but deciding what is criminal by untrue religious conviction is “bad governance”.

 

[ERose]

I think there is something you guys are missing from your definition: Relativity does not just include morality or code of conduct, it also includes beliefs. It is not just a problem in the secular world but it is an even greater problem in the Church as a whole. Too many people are picking and choosing what they are willing to believe and I think that this makes relativism the greatest threat to Christianity period. Christianity is based upon absolutes and when you start stripping away those absolutes what happens the picture gets blurred and/or tainted and at one point or another so called Christians cease to worship the Christian God but instead worships a God designed by them and what they think their God should be like. In other words relativism is bringing back idolotry. Idolotry is running rampant throughout Christendom and not much is being done about it because relativism tells us that we do not have the right to tell someone else that their beliefs are wrong.

 

[Wirraway]

…

Get this through your head:…

yeah.

 

[tobias]

People who are moral are Catholic, whether they call themselves that or not.

People who are not moral are not Catholic, whether they call themselves that or not.

     :thumbsup:

Whatever the category, relativism is a denial of objective truth in that subset. Catholicism says that God is truth.

 

[Lisa44]

You seem to have misunderstood Buddhism. Motive is indeed important, but underlying it there is an objective morality:Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

Dhammapada vv 1-2

From the Buddhist point of view it is Christian morality that is a relative morality. Christian morality only applies to humans, God can do things that would be immoral if humans did them. There are two sets of rules, one set for men and a different set for God. In Buddhism all living beings, gods included, are subject to the same moral rules. There is only one set of moral rules.

rossum

Rossum, “The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth” - is relativism.

What is the ‘objective morality’ in Buddhism?

If there is no ultimate truth, that would contradict an objective morality wouldn’t it?

 

[rossum]

Rossum, “The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth” - is relativism.

No, it is a statement about the insufficiency of human language to express ultimate truth. All human language is contingent, hence it cannot express the ultimate.

What is the ‘objective morality’ in Buddhism?

Avoid injury to living things.
Avoid taking what is not given.
Avoid sensual misconduct.
Avoid false and malicious speech.
Avoid using intoxicants.

If there is no ultimate truth, that would contradict an objective morality wouldn’t it?

Something can be objective without being ultimate. All I need is a morality that works for the duration of my current lifetime. I am not interested in any different moralities that might have existed before I was born or that might exist after I am dead; those moralities are of no practical use to me. All I need is a morality that works here and now.

rossum

 

[Cristiano]

How do figure that morality comes ONLY from natural law, which is your implication?

Natural law is a subset of supernatural law, and is “adequate” for salvation (maybe) if followed closely in an inculpable-of-mortal-sin fashion.

If one is moral, then one is “at least” acting according to natural law, which is contained within supernatural law, where “supernatural law” is equivalent to “Catholic law”.

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that establishes the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.

Augustine of Hippo equated natural law with man’s state before the fall from grace; as such, a life according to nature was no longer possible and men needed instead to seek salvation through the divine law (supernatural law) and grace. Thomas Aquinas restored natural law to its independent state, asserting that, as the perfection of human reason, it could approach but not fully comprehend the Eternal law and needed to be supplemented by Divine law (Supernatural law).

Natural law is not a subset of Supernatural Law even if both are positive divine laws, as in posted by God (through creation and through revelation).

Morality comes from natural law but it is not limited to it (as you made it clear). That is why we have cardinal and theological virtues.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
…

Get this through your head:…

yeah.

“Yeah” what?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
What is the ‘objective morality’ in Buddhism?

Avoid injury to living things.

Under your own principle of “morality must apply to ALL BEINGS”, why is it OK for a lion to kill his food, and not for me to kill my food?

Avoid taking what is not given.

Is this an absolute truth?

Avoid sensual misconduct.

Hmmmmm… this one needs further definition, I think.

Avoid false and malicious speech.

Is this an absolute truth?

Avoid using intoxicants.

“Avoid” or “Don’t” use intoxicants?

If it is an actual prohibition, is that not a statement of absolute truth? What is this absolute prohibition based on?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
If there is no ultimate truth, that would contradict an objective morality wouldn’t it?

Something can be objective without being ultimate. All I need is a morality that works for the duration of my current lifetime. I am not interested in any different moralities that might have existed before I was born or that might exist after I am dead; those moralities are of no practical use to me.

All I need is a morality that works here and now.

This is an “understandable” statement coming from one who is not concerned with his progeny.

Why should those concerned with the wise development of their progeny take this statement, or the person stating it, seriously or with any credibility?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that establishes the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.

Augustine of Hippo equated natural law with man’s state before the fall from grace; as such, a life according to nature was no longer possible and men needed instead to seek salvation through the divine law (supernatural law) and grace. Thomas Aquinas restored natural law to its independent state, asserting that, as the perfection of human reason, it could approach but not fully comprehend the Eternal law and needed to be supplemented by Divine law (Supernatural law).

Natural law is not a subset of Supernatural Law even if both are positive divine laws, as in posted by God (through creation and through revelation).

You had my agreement until this last (above) statement.

Why is natural law not a subset of supernatural law? You gave no reason to believe that?

I would posit that natural law is a subset of natural law, because natural law is the non-divine-revelation (not given directly to mankind through a member of the People of God) part of supernatural law “infused” into us by God which we have access to by “very careful listening” to that “small quiet voice”.

While I agree that the best way to salvation is via following public revelation, it is possible to be saved by following only natural law even if one inculpably commits sin (making those sins non-mortal).

Morality comes from natural law but it is not limited to it (as you made it clear). That is why we have cardinal and theological virtues.

You’ll have to forgive my unsophistication. I’m not overly educated in many of these things, and I simply can’t quite manage to make sense of your above pair of sentences.

If you could help out a rather dense brother, I’d appreciate it.

 

[rossum]

Under your own principle of “morality must apply to ALL BEINGS”, why is it OK for a lion to kill his food, and not for me to kill my food?

“All beings” means exactly that, it includes the lion himself. By starving himself to death he would injure himself. As a rule of thumb, if you have to kill something to avoid starvation then the smaller the victim the better.

Is this an absolute truth?

It is expressed in a human language so it cannot be. We have already discussed this.

Hmmmmm… this one needs further definition, I think.

As with Christianity, there are liberal and conservative views within Buddhism. It is also worth pointing out that this includes actions related to all our senses. Gluttony is a misconduct related to taste for instance.

“Avoid” or “Don’t” use intoxicants?

Don’t use is obvious - if you are drunk/drugged then you will be more likely to break the other four. Also selling or dealing in intoxicants is one of the wrong livelihoods.

If it is an actual prohibition, is that not a statement of absolute truth? What is this absolute prohibition based on?

It is a statement in a human language.

rossum

 

[rossum]

This is an “understandable” statement coming from one who is not concerned with his progeny.

Why should those concerned with the wise development of their progeny take this statement, or the person stating it, seriously or with any credibility?

There is a whole set of moral rules in the Bible that are no longer considered relevant by Christinas - the Mosaic rules. That is the sense in which I am talking. In the past it may have been very important not to eat a prawn cocktail, nowadays it is not. My interest in those rules is purely historical because they no longer have any impact here and now. If God decides to change the rules again in future then that is for the future, not for here and now.

rossum

 

[fannypanny]

well from what I have come to realise, relativism has got a lot to do with lukewarmness. Lukewarmness being the devil in disguise (that being the title of St Josemaria’s book). So basically i think relativism and lukewarmness go hand in hand and have alot to do with being middle of the road on decisions. So for example - making a venial sin because it is not that serious and technically not a mortal sin. or another type is - this is my morals and those are your morals. Parralleling - this is what I think is right and this is what you see as right, so you can not mix the 2. When ideally everyone should pretty much have the same concept of what is right or wrong. However, due to media, trends etc. many stand in the middle and are unable to choose their position.

I also think the Tyra Banks show is one such show that supports relativism. This is due to the format and content of the show.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Under your own principle of “morality must apply to ALL BEINGS”, why is it OK for a lion to kill his food, and not for me to kill my food?

“All beings” means exactly that, it includes the lion himself. By starving himself to death he would injure himself. As a rule of thumb, if you have to kill something to avoid starvation then the smaller the victim the better.

So, I’d be allowed to kill and eat a “smaller” human being to avoid starvation?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
If it is an actual prohibition, is that not a statement of absolute truth? What is this absolute prohibition based on?

It is a statement in a human language.

And once again the use of the “there is no truth because their IS human language” ploy to do whatever you want.

Thanks for the demonstration of the “libertine-ism” of relativism, and by implication, as buddhism is really simply highly-codified relativism, buddhism.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
This is an “understandable” statement coming from one who is not concerned with his progeny.

Why should those concerned with the wise development of their progeny take this statement, or the person stating it, seriously or with any credibility?

There is a whole set of moral rules in the Bible that are no longer considered relevant by Christians - the Mosaic rules. That is the sense in which I am talking. In the past it may have been very important not to eat a prawn cocktail, nowadays it is not. My interest in those rules is purely historical because they no longer have any impact here and now. If God decides to change the rules again in future then that is for the future, not for here and now.

But you keep saying you HAVE no God, and you follow a universal and utterly timeless set of principles?

Since you’ve said that there actually IS an ultimate truth, by saying that the so-called paradox (koan), “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth”, is simply self-contradictory, how can you claim that their is no ultimately objective morality based on those ultimate truths?

You SAY it’s an ultimately objective moral principle not to buy-sell-imbibe intoxicants.

Why is that, if you think that there are no ultimately objective truths?

 

[adstrinity]

This has to be said. It’s spam, but, it has to be said: clears throat I don’t feel strongly one way or the other about relativism.

 

[Lisa44]

Good questions Cats and Dogs. I couldn’t penetrate Rossum’s circular logic.

It kindof makes my brain melt.

 

[Lisa44]

Actually, lol, relativism has always made my brain melt to some extent.

This is anecdotal, but how irritating is it when someone says - “all paths lead to the same place”, or, “It doesnt matter what you believe in”, or, “all religion is about control” or…

Or, my favorite of all time, this came out of the mouth of John Edwards: “I embrace ALL Faith beliefs.”

(I was thinking, oh, you embrace Satanism do you???)

Anyone care to add a relativistic saying that annoys you?