What do you think of relativism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter goodcatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
crenfro said:
I think it’s a way of avoiding responsibility for our actions and justifying bad ones.
Click to expand...
I agree and this is what I’ve seen on this message board too, (if that is allowed to be said).
 
I read your post 3 times and still didn’t fully grasp it. I’m no philosophy major that’s for but thought relativism belonged in the philosophy sub forum. Thanks anyway.
 
By Cardinal Burke. (not everyone’s cup of tea) Can I say that btw?
You know the longer I am catholic and the more I study it, the more conservative I become. But there is a small part of me that wonders whether I am becoming too biased.
 
It’s really nothing you need to worry about in your investigation. I just can’t help but throw a little philosophy in from time to time. Gotta justify my degree somehow 😛 Strictly speaking, a relativist does believe in absolute truth in moral matters - the absolute truth depends on what their kind of relativism is.

Regardless about the philosophy lingo, Catholics are bound to their morality because they believe that moral statements express truth values, and those truth values are determined by God. So there’s no ifs, ands, or buts about it. They believe good and evil are real properties that exist in reality. So there’s no wiggle-room.
 
Just another question I’d like to ask on this.
Do you think a person who likes relativism is more likely to fall for other isms like…modernism, progressivism, liberalism, communism…?
Sorry I don’t want to confuse the issue. Just the opposite . I need to clarify in my own mind whether I jump to conclusions, when a person expresses a view that seems to favour relativism.
 
Last edited:
Rhubarb said:
I know the distinctions are kind of nitpicky. Unfortunately philosophers’ jobs are to split hairs.
Click to expand...
Nope. Philosophy is the art of making distinctions.

It isn’t the art of picking nits. Or splitting hairs, for that matter.

If the job of philosophers was to split hairs, they wouldn’t get paid very much.

Oh… 😝
 
So I think that depends on what you mean by the -isms. Not to criticise, but those phrases are used an awful lot as blanket terms that cover so many different things that it’s really hard to talk about them so simply. Progressivism, liberalism, communism, etc, aren’t all monoliths. There’s a huge spectrum of these ideas.

Now if by “relativism” you mean “doesn’t use God (as Catholics understand God) as a benchmark to judge their morality by” then I would guess probably there’s a correlation? I don’t have any statistics at my fingertips. But my gut tells me probably - again depending on what you mean by those -isms.
 
Haa.

Making distinctions is splitting hairs. Those distinctions can be preeeeeetty subtle. Especially with contentious philosophers or very complex theories.
 
Last edited:
Rhubarb said:
Haa.

Making distinctions is splitting hairs. Those distinctions can be preeeeeetty subtle. Especially with contentious philosophers or very complex theories.
Click to expand...
Nope, there is a very fine distinction to be made between making distinctions and splitting hairs. Only highly competent philosophers are capable of noticing such subtle differences. That is where the “art” of philosophy comes in. Kind of like Bonzai for the mind – just substitute mental constructs for trees.
 
HarryStotle said:
Nope, there is a very fine distinction to be made between making distinctions and splitting hairs.
Click to expand...
Oh do tell. Ooh, I’m too excited to wait for a reply. So I’ll preempt it.

Because MY definition of splitting hairs is “1. make small and overfine distinctions.” So, like, definitionally, splitting hairs IS making distinctions. Fine, small distinctions. Distinctions non-philosophers and bad philosophers might not easily pick up on - thus I say philosophers are especially the sort of people who split hairs. But anyway. Anyone who has studied philosophy - at least analytical philosophy, knows that philosophers LOVE small and overfine distinctions. Like say, between emotivism, quasi-realism, expressivism, prescriptivism, norm-expressivism, etc. All of which are non-cognitivist theories, if you recall.

It’s kind of like, a tree of a bonsai and a split hair are similar. One thing splits into two branches. Except the hair is… overly fine and small. There’s less space between the Y split parts. But the structure is the same.
 
Last edited:
Ok one example.
A relativist is more likely to believe in Pro Choice Abortion. They would say “depends on the circumstances”. In catholic circles we use the term “catholic liberalism”
Is that logical or a sweeping generalisation?
 
for rhubarb

progressive/liberal catholics tend to believe that women should be allowed to become female priests. Such desire for changes in the Church come from a relativist mindset, to my way of thinking
 
If by relativism you mean “morals not grounded in Church teaching” (Which I know is an oversimplification) then you’re probably right? I haven’t seen any studies or anything to that effect. There’s certainly reasoning that can lead to that intuition.

But, I mean, even Catholic morality depends on circumstances. Whether or not a mortal sin has occurred, for example, depends on the circumstances. Whether or not you’re allowed to kill someone depends on the circumstances.
 
I’m just thinking that a relativist mindset has such an insidious effect, on the way we see the world. And if you have this kind of thinking you are more vulnerable to be swayed and influenced by the exotic and esoteric and feel-good philosophies such as Buddhism.
 
I would imagine if one thought that right and wrong depends on one’s tastes, they would go in a direction their tastes lead them? That seems to make sense. For example, if someone thought what they like equals “the good”, and they liked eating spaghetti, it seems reasonable they’d be more inclined to join a cult that is all about eating spaghetti for their worship. (silly analogy, I know. Just trying to make it clear)

My only caution is (and I’m not saying you’re doing this) is that I see a lot of people use the term “relativism” and “objective” as sort of buzzwords. There are a lot of ethical theories that are objective in a very full sense that don’t rely on God or divine command.
 
I used to be very pro-choice. But I gotta say Catholic ideas about how the fetus doesn’t choose to die and thinking about the fact that you may have just killed someone who humanity sorely needed has made me reflect a lot more.

Now I’m not totally pro-life but I lean more towards it.

Still in favor of capital punishment though
 
goodcatholic said:
By Cardinal Burke. (not everyone’s cup of tea) Can I say that btw?
You know the longer I am catholic and the more I study it, the more conservative I become. But there is a small part of me that wonders whether I am becoming too biased.
Click to expand...
Cardinal Burke didn’t write the booklet. He wrote the foreword.
 
goodcatholic said:
Do you think a person who likes relativism is more likely to fall for other isms like…modernism, progressivism, liberalism, communism…?
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, yes and yes.

Btw - we should really say “social liberalism” because classical liberalism is different. Classical liberalism is what the founders of America were.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top