Relativity in the modern world

[JDaniel]

It should look something like an absolute moral principle but also not like one. I’ve been trying to point out that the absolute/relative distinction is not really the issue at all. “Relativist” is just an epithet used to criticize people who don’t think that the purpose of inquiry in ethics is to unearth eternal truths. The label is misleading because such people do not generally think that nothing is better or worse than anything else, and if they did, we could dismiss their views based on their own standards.

We aren’t relativists. No one is. We just don’t think we need to try to identify what is best before we can talk about what is better. They think that the pursuit of “best” or the belief of some people that they already know “best” is an enemy to creating a world that is unimaginably better than what it is now.

Hello, Leela:

I think you are misunderstanding what it means to be relativistic. Relativism occurs in such places as when we think that the act of someone who lived 150 years before our modern times, e.g., the killing someone in a duel, should not be considered murder/illegal/immoral because duels were socially acceptable methods of settling disputes 150 years ago. (They may still be in some countries.) Obviously, they are not today. So, “relative to the times” is the way the morality of such acts should be viewed.

Also, Sartre believed that to be authentic, a person must hold to core, personal, moral beliefs, and anything else, such a display of morality in public was nothing more than a sort of convention influenced by its presence in society. The conclusions from these two lines of thought might be quite different and not converge anywhere. Certainly, acting one way in public and another way in private would be relativistic, wouldn’t it?

jd

 

[otjm]

So it is OK for a married couple to decide to use NFP to prevent the birth of children for the entire marriage. Generally, they prefer a life living together with no children, even though they have lots of money.

Either you are playing “cat and mouse” - in other words, acting as a troll - or you do not understand basic concepts in logic. Either way, I have little or no time to waste with you.

NFP is moral because NFP is not contrary to the natural ends of the sexual act - that is, it is not like the Pill or a condom, which are immoral because they are contrary to the natural ends of the sexual act.

NFP being moral in itself can be used in an immoral way - as a refusal to being open to life. That does not make NFP in and of itself immoral, as the immorality is not in NFP but in the misuse of NFP.

Eating is a moral act. That does not mean that overeating is thereby a moral act - it is not. But the immorality is not in the eating, but in the misuse of eating.

If you cannot distinguish the difference between the two, go buy a book on basic logic. If you understand basic logic, don’t bother replying as I am not interested in a game of “cute”.

 

[bobzills]

Either you are playing “cat and mouse” - in other words, acting as a troll - or you do not understand basic concepts in logic. Either way, I have little or no time to waste with you.

NFP is moral because NFP is not contrary to the natural ends of the sexual act - that is, it is not like the Pill or a condom, which are immoral because they are contrary to the natural ends of the sexual act.

NFP being moral in itself can be used in an immoral way - as a refusal to being open to life. That does not make NFP in and of itself immoral, as the immorality is not in NFP but in the misuse of NFP.

Eating is a moral act. That does not mean that overeating is thereby a moral act - it is not. But the immorality is not in the eating, but in the misuse of eating.

If you cannot distinguish the difference between the two, go buy a book on basic logic. If you understand basic logic, don’t bother replying as I am not interested in a game of “cute”.

Your own reasoning shows that morality is subjective, relative and depends on the situation in which one finds oneself. This is true regardless of the ad hominem arguments you have put forth. An ad hominem argument means that you attack the integrity of the person giving the opposite view, rather than addressing his arguments. It is used when you have no real answer to the arguments being raised.
I think you have shown here that the morality of NFP does in fact depend on the situation and the circumstances in which it is used.
But it is true in many more cases. Let’s take another example: The act of killing.
Whether it is moral or immoral will again depend on the situation:
I. A prison guard pulls the lever to the gas chamber of a duly convicted murderer. In this case his action is moral and there is no sin.
2. A soldier in battle defending himself in war shoots an enemy soldier. His action is moral and there is no sin.
3. A wife poisons her husband in order to collect the insurance policy and live with her new boyfriend. In this case the action is immoral.
So whether killing is moral or immoral is relative to the situation at hand.

 

[JDaniel]

…the morality of NFP does in fact depend on the situation and the circumstances in which it is used.

Having read many of your posts herein, bobzills, I would have to concede that you are an intelligent and normally clear thinker. But, in this case, you’re not. Look:

(1) contraception, in and of itself is created to stand in the way of participation in God’s creation of a new boy or girl;

(2) NFP, is not. NFP may be used only in specific circumstances where the married couple are still open to life, but are trying to avoid that participation in God’s creation - at certain, few times, in their lives, for specific reasons. But, NFP is no guaranty that life will not ensue from the marital act, in which case, the parents must be open to it. C’mon, I know you know this! I have two children that were created during times when my wife and I were using NFP because I was in school and she wasn’t working.

I met a man whose family consisted of two parents and 22 brother and sisters. Where this occured was in New England, on a farm with a large house. Certainly, the parents were able to afford it and the house was big enough for all of them. In today’s world, the typical house is 3 - 4 bdrms./2 baths. Try to imagine 24 people in it. Also, try to conceive that the law would permit it. If a couple already has several children and could not, at that time, afford to buy and pay for a bigger house, then it is reasonable to “space” apart the arrival of more children. If their desire is to completely shut off future children, then we have a moral issue. If on the other hand, the couple’s intention is to buy a bigger house, when able, and have more children, then the intent is reasonable and moral.

But it is true in many more cases. Let’s take another example: The act of killing.
Whether it is moral or immoral will again depend on the situation:
I. A prison guard pulls the lever to the gas chamber of a duly convicted murderer. In this case his action is moral and there is no sin.

Maybe not: a Catholic would be advised not to take that job. I have heard such advise along those lines. As a Catholic, if I had this job I’d make sure I confessed every day!

1. A soldier in battle defending himself in war shoots an enemy soldier. His action is moral and there is no sin.

You inserted “defending himself” into your propostition. Why? I don’t need to explain it to you, of all people, as you’re way smart enough to figure that out.

1. A wife poisons her husband in order to collect the insurance policy and live with her new boyfriend. In this case the action is immoral.

Agreed.

So whether killing is moral or immoral is relative to the situation at hand.

Perhaps not. Perhaps it only seems that way.

jd

 

[Shike]

The label is misleading because such people do not generally think that nothing is better or worse than anything else, and if they did, we could dismiss their views based on their own standards.

The label is not misleading. “Relativist” is used to describe someone who takes a purely subjective stance in ethics. A relativist generally does think that some things are better or worse than other things, but it is according to a subjective preference.

We just don’t think we need to try to identify what is best before we can talk about what is better.

Word games. Either what you talk about is objectively or subjectively better. If it’s subjectively better, who cares. If it’s objectively better than there is a universal truth (or reason) as to why that is the case. And if there’s a universal truth as to why that is the case, then it would seem that there is an objective standard for which to judge against.

Your own reasoning shows that morality is subjective, relative and depends on the situation in which one finds oneself.

Ah, here might be the problem. Just because the morality of a given act depends in part on the situation one finds oneself, doesn’t mean that morality in general or a moral act in particular is subjective. You are mixing relativism (the view that morality is subjective) with the word relative (meaning dependent on which option is present). They are not the same.

With your quote above I can accept everything after the comma. But the subjectivity of morality as a whole has no place here and does not follow, at least considering what the other poster has said.

peace,
Michael

 

[bobzills]

Perhaps not. Perhaps it only seems that way.

jd

Thanks for your post here. You are right of course, there is a certain absolute nature to morality whether an act is right or wrong. But at the same time, I don;t think we can forget about the morality relative to the situation. Yes, relativity of values and morality can be carried too far, but at the same time, we have to take it into account if we are supposed to determine whether an act is moral or not. Take for example the act of fasting. Now if you are fasting moderately during the lenten season to show your love and appreciation for the Sacrifice of Our Lord, then it is a good action and it is moral. However, suppose you are fasting excessively because you want to harm yourself or injure your health in some way. Then it is not good because of your bad intention. So the morality is shaped by the circumstances and by the situation.
If you kill a soldier in battle to protect your buddies or in self defense, then you are OK. However if you kill a soldier needlessly in a case where he has a white flag and he has his arms up in the air, then you have done something seriously wrong. So it is important to consider the situation and it cannot be left our of the discussion when you are talking about the morality of an issue.

 

[Leela]

The label is not misleading. “Relativist” is used to describe someone who takes a purely subjective stance in ethics. A relativist generally does think that some things are better or worse than other things, but it is according to a subjective preference.

Word games. Either what you talk about is objectively or subjectively better. If it’s subjectively better, who cares. If it’s objectively better than there is a universal truth (or reason) as to why that is the case. And if there’s a universal truth as to why that is the case, then it would seem that there is an objective standard for which to judge against.

You call it word games, but I think you are setting up a false dichotomy between subjective and objective morality. In insisting on imposing yor categories on other people you will always fail to understand what I am saying. Why must there be one single right way to live for morality to be real? Perhaps morality is like food where there is no single perfect food but at the same time some foods are ojectively more nutritious than others.

 

[Shike]

Why must there be one single right way to live for morality to be real? Perhaps morality is like food where there is no single perfect food but at the same time some foods are ojectively more nutritious than others.

Oh I agree, there’s no single right way to live. How the moral principles are applied in our individual lives is unique. For instance, taking your example that we should be sensitive to the needs of others around us; how this looks will depend (ie. relative, but not the same as subjective or relativism bobzills!) on the individual. For instance, maybe one person will focus on the materially poor while another will focus on the rich and lonely.

Taking your food example, as long there is an objective reason, such as objectively more nutritious, there will be a universal principle that can be derived from the situation. Universal principle is code talk for an absolute.

I don’t understand why you’re so intent on the “pefect food”… you don’t have to explicity reference it to come up with universals.

peace,
Michael

 

[4Horsemen]

I think that both absolutists and relativists (subjectivists?) can agree that murder is absolutely, inherently wrong, but can be judged in a relative sense by the circumstances surrounding it. (I chose murder since it’s basically, universally understood to be not only against civil law but against a certain “moral code” that some label "Natural Law). That’s why we have courts of justice to determine the degree of culpability in this regard. Was the murderer really insane? Was s/he. a priori, the one who pulled the trigger or an accessory to the crime? Age is considered, whether a teen can be tried as an adult. In the court of law, the defense will come up with a number of “justifications” (too broad a term), or “reasonable doubt”. The crux of the issue seems to be that both theists and non-theists have an understanding of what is foundational to “moral law,” at least when it concerns murder. I would agree. Christians understand this as God attempting to make Himself known to all men and women.

Cultures have come and gone as they slip into relativism. The glory and grandeur of Greek and Roman cultures fell apart when the citizens became lax after bringing in new gods, mostly after conquering nearby provinces. They lost sight of the very nature of what held them together, their shared myths and belief system, and that which was debated in the public squares and written about in morality plays. Plato’s work, The Cave comes to mind.

It seems that the non-theist is like the men chained up in a cave in Plato’s allegory. They catch a bit of light from fire and see only shadows of artifacts and strange shapes of statues, and they base their entire way of thinking, philosophy, on only what they can see with their own two eyes. When one person is forcibly removed out of the cave and enters the real world outside, he comes to know natural reality as opposed to man-made constructions. He sees in the light of the sun. Wishing to reveal the truth to his former prisonmates, he returns but now he can only see dimly in the cave.

The person who has seen the light of Truth can never go back.
“I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” Jesus tells us.

 

[bobzills]

I think that both absolutists and relativists (subjectivists?) can agree that murder is absolutely, inherently wrong, but can be judged in a relative sense by the circumstances surrounding it. (I chose murder since it’s basically, universally understood to be not only against civil law but against a certain “moral code” that some label "Natural Law). That’s why we have courts of justice to determine the degree of culpability in this regard. Was the murderer really insane? Was s/he. a priori, the one who pulled the trigger or an accessory to the crime? Age is considered, whether a teen can be tried as an adult. In the court of law, the defense will come up with a number of “justifications” (too broad a term), or “reasonable doubt”. The crux of the issue seems to be that both theists and non-theists have an understanding of what is foundational to “moral law,” at least when it concerns murder. I would agree. Christians understand this as God attempting to make Himself known to all men and women.

Cultures have come and gone as they slip into relativism. The glory and grandeur of Greek and Roman cultures fell apart when the citizens became lax after bringing in new gods, mostly after conquering nearby provinces. They lost sight of the very nature of what held them together, their shared myths and belief system, and that which was debated in the public squares and written about in morality plays. Plato’s work, The Cave comes to mind.

It seems that the non-theist is like the men chained up in a cave in Plato’s allegory. They catch a bit of light from fire and see only shadows of artifacts and strange shapes of statues, and they base their entire way of thinking, philosophy, on only what they can see with their own two eyes. When one person is forcibly removed out of the cave and enters the real world outside, he comes to know natural reality as opposed to man-made constructions. He sees in the light of the sun. Wishing to reveal the truth to his former prisonmates, he returns but now he can only see dimly in the cave.

The person who has seen the light of Truth can never go back.
“I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” Jesus tells us.

If you change the word from murder to killing, then it becomes less clear. The relativist might argue that murder is immoral killing because it is killing relative to certain conditions and situations which make it immoral, which brings us back to the relativistic argument. If you are a soldier and if in self defense, you kill an enemy soldier who is threatening you and your platoon, you have done no wrong, whereas if you kill a man who waves a white flag and has his hands up in surrender, you have done something immoral, and it is called murder. So murder, by its definition, is immoral killing due to the circumstances and relative to the situation, whereas killing in self defense is killing morally due to the circumstances and relative to the situation of defending yourself.

 

[Leela]

Oh I agree, there’s no single right way to live. How the moral principles are applied in our individual lives is unique. For instance, taking your example that we should be sensitive to the needs of others around us; how this looks will depend (ie. relative, but not the same as subjective or relativism bobzills!) on the individual. For instance, maybe one person will focus on the materially poor while another will focus on the rich and lonely.

Taking your food example, as long there is an objective reason, such as objectively more nutritious, there will be a universal principle that can be derived from the situation. Universal principle is code talk for an absolute.

I don’t understand why you’re so intent on the “pefect food”… you don’t have to explicity reference it to come up with universals.

peace,
Michael

If all you mean by a “universal principal” is something like, “some foods are more nutritious than poison,” then fine. There exist universal principles. I just don’t see why someone has to believe in some ultimate judge to be able to say such things or have some “point of reference” as Reggie keeps insisting. And I still don’t want to call such a statement an absolute because I repudiate your whole absolutist/relativist dichotomy. I don’t know what its supposed to mean to say that some statement is “absolutely true” verses simply saying that it is true.

 

[otjm]

Your own reasoning shows that morality is subjective, relative and depends on the situation in which one finds oneself. This is true regardless of the ad hominem arguments you have put forth. An ad hominem argument means that you attack the integrity of the person giving the opposite view, rather than addressing his arguments. It is used when you have no real answer to the arguments being raised.
I think you have shown here that the morality of NFP does in fact depend on the situation and the circumstances in which it is used.
But it is true in many more cases. Let’s take another example: The act of killing.
Whether it is moral or immoral will again depend on the situation:
I. A prison guard pulls the lever to the gas chamber of a duly convicted murderer. In this case his action is moral and there is no sin.
2. A soldier in battle defending himself in war shoots an enemy soldier. His action is moral and there is no sin.
3. A wife poisons her husband in order to collect the insurance policy and live with her new boyfriend. In this case the action is immoral.
So whether killing is moral or immoral is relative to the situation at hand.

No, it is not.
THere is an absolute in moral law and that is that intentionally killing an innocent person is morally wrong. A a person has a right to defend thenmselves from unjust aggression, up to and including killing the aggressor, but a part of moral law also dictates that lesser force is always to be applied if possible.

That in part has been the issue with number one, as John Paul 2 pointed out in his commentary on capital punishment - if the criminal can be successfully incarcerated (up to and including life imprisonment with no parole), that is to be used before the step of execution, and JP2’s commentary would make the execution immoral.

As to #2, there have been extensive questions about both the Viet Nam war and the last go-round with Iraq as to whether or not the war itself was morally justified, so your example is simplistic in a great amount; however, it is correct that killing the attacking soldier (all other things being equal) would be morally permissible; not because of the circumstances, but because the attacker would be an unjust aggressor. It is not the circumstances that make the moral law chageable; the moral law is the same - intentionally killing someone is limited by whether or not they are innocent or not.

Issue 3 resounds in the same.

What you are calling relativity is not about the moral law itself, but the issue of sinfulness or lack thereof.

The point of Relativism is that it denies that there is objective absolute truth. The Church holds to the contrary; if you doubt that, look at any number of repeated statements the magisterium has made about abortion. Relativism in denying any objective truth to morals reduces all conduct to a subjective valuation.

The Church holds that there is both objective and subjective issues of morality. The objective issues are revealed truth - the 10 Commandments are a prime example. The subjective issues are the individual’s action, and to repeat what the Baltimore Catechism taught, there are three elements of a serious, or mortal sin: 1) the issue must be serious (your example of killing suffices); 2) the individual must know that it is serious, and the individual must intend the act. That does not equate with Relativism, as relativism would deny that there arre acts which are intrinsically wrong. The church does not so hold. You can say that the Church then holds that morality is relative, but that is not within the definition of what Relativism holds.

A Relativist may define an act as morally good, or not morally bad, based on nothing more than a subjective relational determination between the two parties. The Church may say that the individual is not morally guilty of the act, but would say so for a far different reason. The Relativist is constantly trying to define the rightness or wrongness of an act by the changing situation; the Church says that the rightness or wrongness of an act is intrinscially determined as opposed to situationally determined. Abortion is always intrinsically seroiusly wrong and evil. The Relativist is never sure of the morality of an act as they ahve no absolute standard with which to compare; they deny there are any absolutes. Further, they have no way of responding why, if acts are supposedly moral in a given situation, that evil comes out of them.

And as to your comment about NFP, I satnd by my statement about logic. The morality of NFP is not right or wrong. The morality of refusing to be open to life is what is wrong, whether it is NFP, abstinenece in marriage, or a form of contraception. The Church holds that Contraception if intrinsically evil. The Church holds that NFP is not intrinsically evil. NFP does not become evil; the evil is in the intention of the party using it. Go back to my example about eating; eating is a morally good act; overeating is an issue of intent. Basic Church Morality 101 requires the ability to distinguish between the objective and the subjective. Relativism 101 denies that there is any objective; or if there is, that it simply does not matter (which is the equivalent of denying that it exists), and that only the subjective applies. Miss that point, ignore it or deny it and there is no intelligent conversation to be had.

 

[Shike]

If you change the word from murder to killing, then it becomes less clear. The relativist might argue that murder is immoral killing because it is killing relative to certain conditions and situations which make it immoral, which brings us back to the relativistic argument. If you are a soldier and if in self defense, you kill an enemy soldier who is threatening you and your platoon, you have done no wrong, whereas if you kill a man who waves a white flag and has his hands up in surrender, you have done something immoral, and it is called murder. So murder, by its definition, is immoral killing due to the circumstances and relative to the situation, whereas killing in self defense is killing morally due to the circumstances and relative to the situation of defending yourself.

Yes, fine. But relative to a concrete situation is not relativism!!! For example let’s say every time you have the killing of a human and A, B, and C circumstances are met, it is considered murder. You provided an example where not all cirmcumstances A, B, and C are met (and therefore not murder). Moral relativism does not follow from this!!!

Moral relativism is where morality is subjective and, for instance, even if circumstances A, B, and C are met for me and considered murder… if they are all met for you it might not be considered murder. What is true morally for me isn’t necessarily true morally for you given the same exact circumstances.

 

[Shike]

I just don’t see why someone has to believe in some ultimate judge to be able to say such things or have some “point of reference” as Reggie keeps insisting.

Well, in one sense you wouldn’t be prohibited from saying such and such about morality even if you don’t believe in God; one’s beliefs (fortunately) don’t dictate reality.

Ignore the above if you meant “has” in the logical consequence sense, and that logical consequences are good to believe. But I think the original point was about perfection and standards and not God specifically. I don’t fully understand the argument either (I blame my lazy mind and the fact that I don’t quite have the time now to go back over everything said so far), but I definitely picked up a few insights in this thread anyways.

I think the best thing to take away from this thread, if anything, is that there really are objective morals… to help us not hurt ourselves and others and to strive towards a certain goal.

And I still don’t want to call such a statement an absolute because I repudiate your whole absolutist/relativist dichotomy. I don’t know what its supposed to mean to say that some statement is “absolutely true” verses simply saying that it is true.

To be specific I was talking about absolute truths (noun) not something being absolutely true (verb).

“It is raining outside right now” – at 10:00am it is true, at 10:30am it is false. Time changes the truth value of the proposition.
“Murder, the taking of an innocent human life is wrong” – at 10:00am it is true (morally wrong) and at 10:30am it is true (morally wrong).
Hopefully this eases your mind about absolute statements. Nothing more than that they don’t change in truth-value. Another example, A or not-A is an absolute, a logical absolute in fact.

So far I think I’m going to stick with relativism being the belief that all moral acts are subjective, ie that there is no objective wrongness component. Totally subjective morals cannot be applied sucessfully to other human beings, morals that have an objective component can.

Rhetorical question:
Can we or can we not judge another person’s conduct by some objective standard?

peace,
Michael

 

[bobzills]

Yes, fine. But relative to a concrete situation is not relativism!!!
.

So everything is relative to the definition you have in mind. I read the topic as relativity in the modern world, not relativism in the modern world?

 

[bobzills]

The Church holds that Contraception if intrinsically evil…

I don’t think that this is true. From what I read contraception can be right relative to the situation at hand. For example, it the case of rape, the American bishops have declared that it is acceptable for the victim to use contraception in that case. So once again, we have the morality of the action determined relative to the circumstances surrounding it.

 

[4Horsemen]

If you change the word from murder to killing, then it becomes less clear. The relativist might argue that murder is immoral killing because it is killing relative to certain conditions and situations which make it immoral, which brings us back to the relativistic argument. If you are a soldier and if in self defense, you kill an enemy soldier who is threatening you and your platoon, you have done no wrong, whereas if you kill a man who waves a white flag and has his hands up in surrender, you have done something immoral, and it is called murder. So murder, by its definition, is immoral killing due to the circumstances and relative to the situation, whereas killing in self defense is killing morally due to the circumstances and relative to the situation of defending yourself.

How about replacing “murder” with “grand larceny” (think Bernie Madoff–not that I want to judge him personally). I’d prefer to list “abortion” which is intrinsically evil, but the term is so loaded, and I don’t think this is the place to get into a discussion of the issue itself. You could also change “murder” to “child abuse”, “wife-beating” or anything people consider absolutely wrong (yet, let’s keep in mind that there are varying degrees of culpability).

 

[Shike]

So everything is relative to the definition you have in mind. I read the topic as relativity in the modern world, not relativism in the modern world?

Yes, you read the topic of the thread correctly (I don’t know if the op meant relativity or relativism). But, the problem is that you pointed to relative circumstances and then claimed morality was subjective. Doesn’t follow.

peace,
Michael

 

[Shike]

I don’t think that this is true. From what I read contraception can be right relative to the situation at hand. For example, it the case of rape, the American bishops have declared that it is acceptable for the victim to use contraception in that case. So once again, we have the morality of the action determined relative to the circumstances surrounding it.

Contraception in the form of the pill which is an abortifacient? Where is this declaration of the American bishops? Can I trouble you for a link?

When is rape ever right? When is murder ever right? Sure, we could change those words to sex and killing, but then that isn’t the same now is it.

 

[bobzills]

How about replacing “murder” with “grand larceny” (think Bernie Madoff–not that I want to judge him personally). I’d prefer to list “abortion” which is intrinsically evil, but the term is so loaded, and I don’t think this is the place to get into a discussion of the issue itself. You could also change “murder” to “child abuse”, “wife-beating” or anything people consider absolutely wrong (yet, let’s keep in mind that there are varying degrees of culpability).

In the case of Madoff, there are honest hedge funds and dishonest hedge funds. Once again it is relative to the situation and relative to the way in which the hedge fund is operated.,