Moral Relativism

quote:

---

It is wrong to murder, rape, cheat, steal, lie, worship idols,

---

If someone had a gun to your head and demanded that you say that the sky was green, not blue, in order for them to set you free, would you do it?It's not true that the sky is green, so it would be a lie for you to say that it is.If your grandmother asks you if you like her dress, and you don't really like it, but you tell her that you like the dress, are you guilty of an immoral lie?

Okay, I think I know where you are going to take this after seeing Shraf's comments.You are going to point out some occasion when doing one of these things is right.The question of moral absolutes then becomes one of timing. There's a time for everything. When we're here at peace in a free society all of those things are wrong. If I were a spy in a foreign country during a war, I might have to lie, cheat, and steal, to accomplish my mission. As long as the cause is just, and I remain conscientious of who the enemies are, I am in the right even though I may lie, cheat, and steal.Don't mistake this for a relativist approach in my thinking. I am not saying that a particular action in a particular situation may or may not be right or wrong. On the contrary, there is no grey area. I am saying that in every situation there is a definate right and definate wrong that must be judged based on circumstances. It requires humility, wisdom, and an anchor to truth (the Bible) to correctly divide right from wrong.

That DAWG won't hunt. How much more relativistic can you get than saying that right or wrong depends on the time, place and extenuating circumstances? You go even further and say that "I am saying that in every situation there is a definate right and definate wrong that must be judged based on circumstances." So every act is right or wrong depending on, in your own words, circumstances.But I believe we can all agree that determining right from wrong requires a moral foundation.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar If the right and wrong change due to the circumstances then what is the foundation if by foundation we mean a set of rules that cannot change?

First, I don't think there are very many basic rules, and those I considered in answering this are far more general than the absolutes others might prefer.The Golden Rule from Christianity, Judaism and Islam is one such example. This same rule appears within just about every moral system from Christianity, to Atheism, to Wicca. If you use it as a foundation stone, the conundrums Schraf and I laid out are resolved. In addition, as I said, this is common to every moral system I have examined.Some examples: There are many, many other examples but I think these are enough to show the point.If I had to pick one defining difference or characteristic, I would say that empathy is the single most important trait. The problem is that when religion or belief (and I added belief because a political or social belief beyond simply religious ones can lead to the same situation) becomes exclusive as opposed to inclusive, people tend to change the definition of others. Others are excluded. It is okay to kill them because they are not like us. It is okay to make them slaves because they are not like us.So I would say that the basis of determining right and wrong rests on the Golden Rule and empathy.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jarSo if we were to take those things we cherish most {family friends}
and be placed in a situation where defending them requires of us doing that which is in violation of the Golden rule we should hold fast to the golden rule and suffer the consequences?Is this correct?

see above.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jarIf I understand you correctly then if I gave you this situation for example, you could find a way to resolve the right action that should have been taken in terms consistent with the golden rule?

---

"O Lord our God, help us tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it..." [Mark Twain, "The War Prayer"]

See above.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jarAnd in that mans position could you live with having violated the golden rule?

Great question.Let me wander for a moment and hopefully, the path will lead to a clearing.The situation you outlined is the type of snapshot that is really most common. We have way too little information to make any judgements, we have no idea of the war, the causes or background, we know nothing about any of the individuals except that they are in opposition. We know that things broke down, that the situation had already moved into a lose-lose situation.We try to do the best we can with the knowledge that we have. but we never have the whole story, never have all the information we need to make the right decision. We struggle to do right.This is where religious folk have a slight advantage.You ask about living with the decision. One of the great advantages of my belief system is that I really believe that I have someone to help me carry such a load. I have the advantage of forgiveness. I have the support of being able to turn to Jesus and say, "Forgive me if I did wrong" and the knowledge that, if I am sincere, if I really did try to do best, I will be forgiven.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar Ay there's the rub. I cannot so callously excuse the act by appeal to and appoval from a higher power but must live or die with the error on my own.Such is the nature of responsibilty in my eyes.It is the same responsibilty that led me to long ago reject the Christian stance of accepting Christ's sacrifice since I will not have another suffer for my actions.Before I gave up on the sense of God as real I thought that such a gift must be a test to see if men would rather sacrifice another than take an account of their own actions and the subsequent punishment for themselves since I thought that was the measure of a true mans character.I chose responsibility rather than placing my sins upon an innocent man.It still leaves open the applicability of the golden rule to all situations though I do agree it covers a fair number. I have also never been able to delineate the point where responibilty ends for an individual on a world scale especially these days when one nations actions are so tightly bound to anothers fate.Perhaps we can only do our best as you say but the doubt still nags at me when I see the results of foreign policy and my place within it.

Not to worry. If you try your best and really try to "Love others as you love yourself", GOD will understand and forgive. You don't even have to ask.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

The question of moral absolutes then becomes one of timing. There's a time for everything. When we're here at peace in a free society all of those things are wrong. If I were a spy in a foreign country during a war, I might have to lie, cheat, and steal, to accomplish my mission. As long as the cause is just, and I remain conscientious of who the enemies are, I am in the right even though I may lie, cheat, and steal.

​

Don't mistake this for a relativist approach in my thinking.

---

Dude, that is EXACTLY a relativist approach in your thinking.A lie isn't always wrong, cheating isn't always wrong, stealing isn't always wrong.If it is wrong or not is relative to the circumstances surrounding the choice to do it or not.

quote:

---

I am not saying that a particular action in a particular situation may or may not be right or wrong. On the contrary, there is no grey area.

---

Please show me the clear "black" or "white" nature of each of these situations:Is it ALWAYS wrong to kill people?Is it ALWAYS wrong to kill people, even if they are clearly trying to kill you?Is it ALWAYS wrong to kill people, say with a nuclear bomb, which will definitely kill lots and lots of babies, toddlers, grandparents, and other innocents, if it will lead to a surrender of those peoples' government in a bloody war?Is it ALWAYS wrong for our government to kill people who have killed others?

quote:

---

I am saying that in every situation there is a definate right and definate wrong that must be judged based on circumstances.

---

Ahh, would that life were like mechanical engineering, huh?Math problems have right and wrong answers, but ethics and moral questions have infinite answers.What is it with you engineers, anyway? I have known a bunch of Creationists who are engineers. I think it has to with you all wanting to get the "right" answers and then be done. You seem very allergic to ambiguity and change.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-02-2004 07:58 PM

Jar, I am confused.First, you say:

I can also show you that even Christianity has tossed out Moral Absolutes.

Then, you say:

First, I don't think there are very many basic rules, and those I considered in answering this are far more general than the absolutes others might prefer. The Golden Rule from Christianity, Judaism and Islam is one such example.

So do you believe that moral absolutes are taught in Christianity or not?

---

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