Moral Relativism

Didn't read all the way through this topic, but since it was dying anyway, I'll just stick my two cents in. 100% agreed.I am absolutely sure there are absolutes. I think it is absolutely absurd to deny the existance of absolutes.If there is an imminent and transcendant God, then there MUST be absolutes. Since many people are anti-God in their thinking, they have to get away from absolutes, or else they will be led to God.IMO, there are two ways that relativists like to think in order to get away from absolutes:a) there are absolutes, but they change and evolve as societies and knowledge evolves.b) There may or may not be absolutes, but it is impossible for us to know for sure if they exist and what they are.or a combination of a and b.Those who think this way are offended to the highest degree by those who believe they have found absolute truth and who are not afraid to express their beliefs with absolute confidence of their veracity.

What are those absolutes?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sigh... I'm getting dejavoo...How many would you like me to mention, and in what category of truth?About God?God is righteous, just, love, eternal, immutable, veracity, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and sovereign. He is the one and only God. One in essence; three in person. Jesus Christ our Lord and creator is deity and humanity inseparably united forever to pay the penalty for the sins of all.About morals?It is wrong to murder, rape, cheat, steal, lie, worship idols, etc...About polotics?Kerry is indecisive, untrustworthy, fickle, historically wrong and self-contradicotry on policy, narcisistic, and will therefore be an ineffective leader of this nation in the war on terrorism.About me?I am a 19-year-old male Christian with blonde hair and blue eyes. I am studying Mechanical Engineering....About life?Those who work hard are more likely to prosper than those who do not. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but if you can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, but have not love, you are only a resounding gong or clanging symbol. Death removes the glory of this life, therefore seek to love the Lord and obey his commandments so that you can carry this love and happiness in your soul to the next. Children should obey parents, and parents should not be unfair to their children. Sex is for marriage between one man and one woman for life. In a sinful world, there must be a balance between authority and freedom. Freedom without authority is anarchy. Authority without freedom is tyrrany. Communism sux. Naziism sux... etc. and so forth.I suppose your next question is: how do I know these are absolutes?

Let's stick to the topic, moral relativism. Did you ever see Shoes of the Fisherman?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Crashfrog says,

Moral relativism would be "There exists no source of moral absolutes." In the absence of such sources, human societies must use their judgement to arrive at rules everyone can live by that allow for the greatest quality of life for all members.

Why should the greateset quality of life for all members matter? Why not the greatest quality of life for yourself?

Anyway, in my example, it was the society itself who was determining their own morals. I wasn't applying my personal morality, just demonstration how moral relativism lets one do the right thing without being straitjacketed by inconsistent, authoritarian beliefs. It doesn't mean there's no right and wrong; moral relativism means that societites determine their own morals. I'm free to judge their morals based on the practical results, not on their agreement with my god or whatever.

You judge their morals on the their practical results... I am assuming that the result is practical if it leads to better quality of life for a large number of people. But here again you are assuming that quality of life is a good thing, that it should be strived for. Why?Also, you say:

It [moral relativism] doesn't mean there's no right and wrong; moral relativism means that societites determine their own morals.

OK. By DEFINITION, morals have to do with what is right and what is wrong. So when you say that moral relativism does not mean there is no right and wrong, you are contradicting yourself, because moral relativism is "There exists no source of moral absolutes." If there exists no moral absolutes, there exist no absolute right and wrong. Contradiction. Correct me if you meant to say something else or if I misunderstood you.

I don't believe there are any truly universal moral codes. What I do believe, however, is that there are universal rules for the generation of "proper" moral codes. One of those, to me, is that the moral code reduces the suffering of all persons, whenever possible. Another such rule is that those that set moral codes must themselves also be bound to them - lawgivers are not above the law. ​ So long as a society's moral code follows those rules, I'm inclined to accept it as valid. That's how I'm able to judge the morals of another society - not based on how their morals agree with mine but on how well their morals serve all members of their society.

Umm... you seem to be saying that there DOES exist a higher moral code that the societal moral codes should try to produce. But there still is an ABSOLUTE moral code that you seem to be affirming: All members of society should be happy. Where do you come up with this moral? Why should people be happy? You can say that unhappy societies will not survive. So what? Why does it matter if a society survives or not? What does anything matter but your own happiness?Moral relativism, carried to its logical conclusion, says that no moral absolutes exist, that our feelings of morality are simply produced by society. Therefore, these feelings have no real meaning and need not be followed if they interfere with your own personal happiness.So, what is anything wrong with these scenarios?You steal a crust of beard from a hungry man when you yourself are well fed are cared for because the act of stealng gives you pleasure.You torture to torture to death a 5-year old girl who has never and will never harm anything simply because it gives you sadistic pleasure and a feeling of power that makes you happy. Also, the death of this girl (an orphan) will have no impact on either your survival or the survival of the society, because she had just been diagnosed with cancer and was going to die anyway in a year or so anyway.Does anyone else have a problem with these scenarios? I think this is the logical conclusion of moral relativism, please show me if I am wrong in my reasoning. I find these conclusions totally disgusting and repugnant.Where did our morals come from?I do not believe that our sense of morals, of right and wrong, are based purely on society trying to survive. Obviously, to some extent, they are shaped by society, but there are some morals that all societies everywhere accept, such as in the scenarios above. I believe that they were placed in us by God. I don't have time right now to argue that, later I will. In this post I just wanted to show that moral relativism is a deadly way of thinking that will make selfish, scheming monsters of people who totally and truly embrace it.

---

If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?

How do you possibly make the transition between these two mutually exclusive statements. and...

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Nope.

I don't see how my statements are mutually exclusive. According to moral relativism, our feelings of what is right and wrong or simply a result of the society in which we were raised. You feel bad when you do something the society sees as morally wrong. However, if you believe that the only reason you feel bad is that you are being affected by society, you might start reasoning that it is ok for you to break a moral rule because it is not something that should or needs to be followed. It only feels like it should be followed. After all, in another society, you reason, this would be accepted as good, not bad. So you go ahead and break that moral rule because you are tired of being affected by society and it brings you pleasure and happiness to commit that specific act.For example, maybe you like to have sex with children. In most societies today this is frowned upon. But if no one found out, if you were never going to be punished, wouldn't it be worth the feelings of guilt to have this pleasure of sex with children? The guilt doesn't mean anything, really, it is just there because that specific society doesn't like that act. if you were raised in a different society, then you would not feel guilt at all! So screw all the moral rules of your society! Do what makes you feel happy, even if you feel a little guilt!Do you see how I made the transition now? And why this philosophy is so insidious?

---

If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?

The film brings up an interesting point that I'd like your opinion on. Kiril Lakota is in conclave electing a new Pope. During discussion with other Prelates he recites a tale from the time when he was a prisoner in a Siberian Labor Camp. He once stole some bread to feed another dying inmate. Are you sure?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, I don't see how you made the transition and I can also show you that even Christianity has tossed out Moral Absolutes.Read Leviticus lately? How about Exodus and Judges?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Please explain why you think there is no transition between the statements and how they are mutually exclusive. Yes, I have read Leviticus, Exodus and Judges... please show how "Christianity has tossed out Moral Absolutes."

---

If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?

Standards are either societal or individual. If you accept the first then the second is excluded. Certainly.How do you feel about selling your daughters?Do you eat seafood?Should it be okay for me to have slaves as long as they are not from the US?Have you ever gotten a haircut or worn wool blend clothes?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar says:

Standards are either societal or individual. If you accept the first then the second is excluded.

That is my point. In moral relativism, there is no reason to accept the standards of society - you can make your own standards that make you happy, even at the expense of others.However, I don't believe in moral relativism. I believe there are absolute morals, and that these morals are taught in the Bible, and these standards cannot be ignored without facing the consequences.Now for your examples of how Christianity does not teach moral absolutes. The teachings you specified are, indeed, not moral absolutes. They were temporary laws given to a specific culture, the Isrealites, at a specific time in history.Two examples were about slavery. Slavery, in the ancient times, was extremely common, practiced by practically all peoples. The Isrealites were unique and even progressive because they limited slavery. However, the time had not yet come to totally abolish it. But, slavery did have special qualifications. For example, every 7 years slaves were to be freed, etc. The Isrealites were also commanded to treat slaves humanely.The law about seafood was for health reasons. Nowdays it no longer applies.I'm not sure about the clothing law, it may have been a way of distinguishing the Isrealites from all the other pagan nations. At any rate, it no longer applies either.However, the Bible does teach other laws that ARE moral absolutes. These are not laws that depend on the culture, society, or time period. Moral laws such as not worshipping idols, not murdering, etc. The exact opposite of your statement is true, jar. Christianity has not tossed out moral absolutes. It completely embraces them.

---

If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?

(Wrote out a very lengthy post on my feelings on the subject of this thread last night in response to Hankdawg and could have sworn I hit Submit Reply, but it seems to have never appeared. Don't want to type it all over again, so will just reply this...)

quote:

---

Slavery, in the ancient times, was extremely common, practiced by practically all peoples. The Isrealites were unique and even progressive because they limited slavery. However, the time had not yet come to totally abolish it.

---

But if morality is absolute, why would God have allowed or encouraged it at that time any more than today? Whether their form of slavery progressive or not, moral principles are still principles and not adaptable if morality is truly absolute, is that not so? I doubt anyone would classify God as being manipulative and telling them that because it was what they wanted to hear, so why was he compromising absolute truths?(...and this from Message 121)

quote:

---

Since many people are anti-God in their thinking, they have to get away from absolutes, or else they will be led to God.

---

I am absolutely sure that, (for example) contrary to what you said in Message 123, marriage is acceptable between two men or two women as well and it is the restriction of their right to do so that is immoral. This is why I don't believe in absolute morality. I think that many if not all people believe by natural intuition and judgment they know what is right and wrong and thus are born morals that they try (or don't) to follow... but those changes from person to person - so it is relative to each individual. I assure you that I am just as absolutely sure that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality as many are that there is. I don't believe in moral absolutes among the entire world for this very reason - that two people can be so absolutely sure that they are both right even with conflicting views - not because I want to separate myself from God. It seems to be a common misconceptions that atheists are trying to push God away, but I simply don't believe that there is a God to push away (at the very least, not the one of the Bible), and that is what makes me an atheist.For the same reason, in my opinion anyone who (as with many teenagers I've known who fit typical "rebel" stereotypes) claims to hate God and to be an atheist is either lying or misinformed as to what an atheist is. To hate Him requires that you believe in His existence.

So, the moral standards were relative and societal. The Hebrews as a society set standards that were different than other societies around them, and we see different moral standards today than 2000 years ago or 4000 years ago.As to societal standards being changed to individual standards, that happens under any system. But society reigns that trend in.But let's look at the example that I am also discussing with Dawg.Would you say that not stealing is an absolute moral standard?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion