What do you think of relativism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter goodcatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

goodcatholic

Guest
Here’s a definition:

Relativism is the belief that there’s no absolute truth, only the truths that a particular individual or culture happen to believe. If you believe in relativism, then you think different people can have different views about what’s moral and immoral.

Can you justify being a Catholic and also believing in relativism? I used to be quite a fan of relativism. That truth depends on a person’s opinion or view of the world.
But now I see relativism as an insidious disease of the mind. That might sound extreme and I can elaborate more if you wish. Now, suffice to say that it can attract a whole host of other “isms” which will distract a Christian from the real truth.
 
It’s actually extremely dangerous to delve into relativism. We know that Christ’s Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth according to Scripture. Therefore we are denying the infallibility of the Church by stating that there is no absolute truth. Absolute truth is in Christ, to deny the existence of absolute truth is to deny Christ. Relativism is responsible for the corruption of morality in society and for the rise in modernist heresy in the Church. Stay away from it.
 
Last edited:
I’m not a fan of relativism. It’s very squishy, theologically speaking, and is diametrically supposed to a Catholic worldview.
 
goodcatholic said:
Can you justify being a Catholic and also believing in relativism?
Click to expand...
Nope, quite clearly condemned by the Church on several occasions. Pope Benedict was one of it’s main opponents during his papacy.
 
Cultural relativism and individual relativism, as meta-ethical theories, aren’t given much credence by professional philosophers. They’re both theories that are usually dismissed with very simple arguments.

But the colloquial use of “relativism” that is often bandied about here is a whole host of ideas about ethics, and each one usually has arguments for or against. For instance, I’ve heard virtue ethics, deontology, moral nihilism/error theory, various non-cognitivist theories, and the like are all mischaracterized as “relativism”.
 
That being said, Catholic theology doesn’t allow for… most of those theories that are mischaracterized as “relativism” because Catholic morality treats normative facts (about what one ought to do) the same as naturalistic facts (about what actually is). Catholic teaching says that both of these kinds of facts have a hard truth value, either true or false, and therefore no arguing about whether a moral proposition is true or false may really be done. (at basic levels, clearly, propositions can get pretty complicated that mix up things)
 
goodcatholic said:
Can you justify being a Catholic and also believing in relativism?
Click to expand...
I guess it is relative to the moral question you are talking about. For example, capital punishment. In the past, capital punishment was allowed and thought to be a just punishment. However, relative to today’s society, it is sometimes taught that Catholics are not to be in favor of capital punishment because there are other satisfactory ways to protect society and punish the criminal.
Also I am not sure if slavery, stretching someone on the rack, burning a witch or heretic at the stake, were always considered to be wrong but its morality was relative to the society and customs of that time.
 
Rhubarb said:
But the colloquial use of “relativism” that is often bandied about here is a whole host of ideas about ethics, and each one usually has arguments for or against. For instance, I’ve heard virtue ethics, deontology, moral nihilism/error theory, various non-cognitivist theories, and the like are all mischaracterized as “relativism”.
Click to expand...
Ok I will have to bow to the more informed here. You might need to elaborate or speak in more layman’s terms.
 
AlNg said:
For example, capital punishment. In the past, capital punishment was allowed and thought to be a just punishment. However, relative to today’s society, it is sometimes taught that Catholics are not to be in favor of capital punishment because there are other satisfactory ways to protect society and punish the criminal.
Click to expand...
You might have a point here. I was thinking more in terms of Church teachings/scripture. example “Jesus might be the way, truth and life. it depends”
 
Last edited:
VIrtue ethics is what Aristotle taught, famously in the Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle said (in a very brief and broad-stroked nutshell) that things are morally good when a thing behaves according to its nature. And that humans can achieve this best by developing good habits that lead to a good life - one should strive for a “golden mean”, which is a middle ground between two vices. For instance, between the vices of cowardice and recklessness is courage.

Deontology is typified in Kant’s ethics, where morality is couched in what obligations and responsibilities we have towards one another. Kant also explicated the “categorical imperative” which is formulated in a few ways - the one I always remember is “always act in a way that you would want that way to be considered a general rule for all people”

Moral nihilism and error theory says that there are no moral truths - that the proposition “X is good/bad” cannot be true or false, and that moral facts don’t really exist. In essence, nothing is good or evil and we base what we call morality on other things. (in this broad stroke I know this sounds bonkers but the arguments are actually better if you read them out - even if you might consider them bonkers)

Non-cognitivism is an umbrella term for lots of ethical theories, and their common theme is that sentences about ethics are’t actually propositions. Like error theories, non-cognitivist theories say that moral sentences can’t be true or false. Unlike error theories, they say they can’t be true or false not because there is no truth value, but because the sentences aren’t propositions - in essence, if you say “X is bad” what you really are doing is expressing some attitude about X and not a truth ABOUT X. These theories are very complicated and complex. I did a grad course on them and they take huge books to even start explaining why the author things they’re right.

These aren’t “relativism” because they have very specific arguments that do not rely on the arguments of moral relativism. Cultural relativist believes that moral statements can be true or false - it’s just that how a culture views an act is what makes it true or false. Likewise an individual relativist thinks a moral statement is true or false based on what THEY think of the act. Both kinds of relativist does believe in the truth and falsity or moral statements. They believe these statements express something real about the world.
 
Last edited:
Rhubarb said:
Likewise an individual relativist thinks a moral statement is true or false based on what THEY think of the act. Both kinds of relativist does believe in the truth and falsity or moral statements. They believe these statements express something real about the world.
Click to expand...
Yeah it’s kind of like the view on slavery back then in America. Many thought it was wrong and many thought it was right. Apply it to the thoughts of those relativists today and they’ll tell you slave owners were wrong. How hypocritical, wouldn’t they be saying it is the view of the individual that matters? Of course, many relativists I know are all pro choice. Really makes a lot of sense.
 
I don’t think many Southerners used expressly cultural relativism to say that slavery was right. They had a lot of arguments. Though one could certainly formulate an argument for slavery at that time that DOES use cultural relativism.

I know the distinctions are kind of nitpicky. Unfortunately philosophers’ jobs are to split hairs.
 
Hello.

I’m so tempted to say “I"m not sure one way or the other,” but I won’t do that. 🙂

I think it’s dangerous, and a lie, because by saying there is no absolute truth, you are proving that it’s a lie, because by saying there isn’t anything, you are still saying something about something being absolute, which relativism isn’t supposed to do. Real relativism wouldn’t be able to claim anything.

I think it’s a way of avoiding responsibility for our actions and justifying bad ones.

My two cents…
 
crenfro said:
’m so tempted to say “I"m not sure one way or the other,” but I won’t do that. 🙂
Click to expand...
You have and I thank you for it because we need humour otherwise these topics can all bore us all the way to …New Zealand? 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top