What is moral relativism?

[Bubba_Switzler]

This subject came up in another thread on Biblical genocide (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=504698) and I realized I was not entirely clear on what moral relativism is and what precisely is the Catholic beef with it.

I recall from Catholic school that moral relativism is bad. Very bad.

But moral relativism can mean one of two things:

1. There is no absolute right and wrong, each person has an opinion.
2. There is an absolute right and wrong but whether a choice is right or wrong may depend on complex circumstances.

Both of these are in contrast to simple moral absolutes such as “genocide is always immoral.”

Murder is defined as wrongful killing. However, it is not always wrong to kill. Specifically, Catholicism recognizes justifiable homicide (e.g. self defense and just war). So circumstances are clearly important there. But I don’t recall a comparable distinction regarding lieing. And I specifically recall being told that it is always wrong to lie, even if lives are at stake (e.g. lieing to the gestapo about hidden Jews).

Your thoughts?

 

[rr1213]

Third option as to moral relativism—(3) there are “pluriform truth”, an heretical position asserted by former Presiding Bishop Griswold of the Episcopal Church.

 

[Scoobyshme]

This subject came up in another thread on Biblical genocide (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=504698) and I realized I was not entirely clear on what moral relativism is and what precisely is the Catholic beef with it.

I recall from Catholic school that moral relativism is bad. Very bad.

But moral relativism can mean one of two things:

1. There is no absolute right and wrong, each person has an opinion.
2. There is an absolute right and wrong but whether a choice is right or wrong may depend on complex circumstances.

Both of these are in contrast to simple moral absolutes such as “genocide is always immoral.”

Murder is defined as wrongful killing. However, it is not always wrong to kill. Specifically, Catholicism recognizes justifiable homicide (e.g. self defense and just war). So circumstances are clearly important there. But I don’t recall a comparable distinction regarding lieing. And I specifically recall being told that it is always wrong to lie, even if lives are at stake (e.g. lieing to the gestapo about hidden Jews).

Your thoughts?

I believe that number 1 is the more correct definition of moral relativism.

There is also the concept of having to choose the lesser of two evils. The example you gave is a useful one. You’re hiding Jews in the attic and the Nazi SS comes knocking on your door. “Have you seen any Jews hiding around these parts?” If you answer, “Yes, they’re in my attic,” then they, and possibly you, get executed. The execution would be a grave evil. If you answer, “No, can’t say that I have,” then you have lied, but the lying in this case is not as evil as the executions would’ve been.

Culpability would be another issue related to this, however. Remember, for a sin to be mortal, it must contain three elements: Serious matter, full knowledge, and full consent. In the case of the latter, one could argue that full consent could be mitigated by fear of death.

 

[Joe_5859]

Yes, # 1 is what is meant by moral relativism. Peter Kreeft has some great stuff on moral relativism. His book A Refutation of Moral Relativism is quite a thorough look at the whole thing.

#2 is more of a circumstance-based approach to morality. Circumstances do play a role (particularly with regard to culpability), but it is important not to take that too far, or else you end up back in #1. Some moral theologians will say that the morality of an act is always contingent on the circumstances. That’s not correct.

John Paul II’s excellent encyclical Veritatis Splendor does a great job of articulating the proper Catholic approach to moral issues.

 

[Joe_5859]

There is also the concept of having to choose the lesser of two evils. The example you gave is a useful one. You’re hiding Jews in the attic and the Nazi SS comes knocking on your door. “Have you seen any Jews hiding around these parts?” If you answer, “Yes, they’re in my attic,” then they, and possibly you, get executed. The execution would be a grave evil. If you answer, “No, can’t say that I have,” then you have lied, but the lying in this case is not as evil as the executions would’ve been.

We have to be careful here. Lying is an intrinsically evil act. And Catholic teaching is very clear that we may never do evil that good may come of it. The ends does not justify the means.

However, it is not lying to withhold the truth from those who have no right to it, such as in the example above.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Thanks, everyone, for your points. I seem to recall #2 being described as “situational ethics” though I may have that confused.

To Joe’s point, this is what I recall. I specifically remember being told that it was wrong to lie even in that situation, which struck all of us as morally counterintuitive.

And it is odd that there are situations when it is ok to kill but never ok to lie. It would, for example, be ok to kill the gestapo to defend the Jews in hiding.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Lying is an intrinsically evil act.

Would you mind giving your source for that claim?

 

[Joe_5859]

Thanks, everyone, for your points. I seem to recall #2 being described as “situational ethics” though I may have that confused.

To Joe’s point, this is what I recall. I specifically remember being told that it was wrong to lie even in that situation, which struck all of us as morally counterintuitive.

And it is odd that there are situations when it is ok to kill but never ok to lie. It would, for example, be ok to kill the gestapo to defend the Jews in hiding.

Murder is intrinsically evil and never permissible. Killing can be acceptable in certain circumstances (just war, self-defense, etc.) because the intent is protect innocent life, not to take it.

I’m not a trained moral theologian or anything, so I may miss some of the nuances, but I would say that it would be an obligation for someone hiding Jews to not tell the Gestapo where they are hiding. To do so is not to lie because the Gestapo does not have a right to that information.

I really should brush up on my moral theology, though.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Murder is intrinsically evil and never permissible. Killing can be acceptable in certain circumstances (just war, self-defense, etc.) because the intent is protect innocent life, not to take it.

But that’s just my point. The Church does make a distinction between rightful and wrongful killing. We have a word for wrongful killing, “murder”.

I’m not a trained moral theologian or anything, so I may miss some of the nuances, but I would say that it would be an obligation for someone hiding Jews to not tell the Gestapo where they are hiding. To do so is not to lie because the Gestapo does not have a right to that information.

Right, but why the games? While of course it would be absurd to say that you must go out of your way to inform the gestapo of the Jews in hiding, it seems like a bit of sophistry to avoid lying when you are directly questioned.

I really should brush up on my moral theology, though.

That’s what we’re here for.

 

[Joe_5859]

Would you mind giving your source for that claim?

The eighth commandment.

If your point is to draw a distinction between “lying” and “bearing false witness”, then that may be fair enough. The word “lying” is more the popular shorthand for sins against the 8th commandment, which I think leads people (like me) to use it rather sloppily in conversations like this.

Now you’ve gone and prompted me to look in the Catechism.

2482 “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” [281] The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: “You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” [282]

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.

[281] St. Augustine, De mendacio 4,5L 40:491.
[282] Jn 8:44.

I see what you mean. Perhaps I articulated my point poorly.

 

[oneplustwo]

Another thought to consider here is the timeframe…because I believe part of what moral relativism claims is that what was morally wrong in a different culture a thousand years ago is not necessarily morally wrong in our culture today.