|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A critique of moral relativism | |||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Rrhain writes: When they prove themselves to be relativists, it most certainly does. Again, it doesn't matter what they say. It doesn't matter what they believe. It only matters what they do.
Modulous writes: No it doesn't. An absolutist is someone who believes that there are absolute answers to moral questions. You did not just say that, did you?
Modulous writes: Yes - since it is about what a person believes is true, not what is actually true. Yes, this is what I was thinking. I agree, Modulous, and I retract all my questions. Or, well, they've already been answered I guess I was just initially confused by how some of the terminology was being used.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5953 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
PaulK writes: But it must be pointed out that "both are forbidden in the OT" is not a relevant connection for the purposes of NJ's argument. Two reasosn to consider are the fact that Christians happily permit some things forbidden in the OT without seeing anything wrong with them - and forbid things accepted in the OT. (Therefore not even NJ thinks that that alone is an adequate reason). Secondly it assumes that the only reason for fobidding something is that it is forbidden in the OT - which conradicts NJ's assertion that there are reasons behind the prohibitions. Paul, if it helps, the Christian mainstream position is that any form of sex except between a man and woman mutually intending to bear offspring in a monogamous relationship, is absolutely morally wrong. The consent of another person to have sex in any other way will not legitimize the act. Society's acceptance of any other type of sexual relation will not condone the relation in their minds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I haven't been calling for a suspension because there is some doubt. But if the only similarity is that both are forbidden in Leviticus or other OT writings then he's essentially arguing that neither is wrong for any good reason. I think it goes deeper than that. Nemesis believes that God only accepts marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. He asks that if we remove God or some other source of absolute morality, how then do we determine what is a valid marriage? The fact that sexual acts are forbidden in the OT is only incidental since nemesis also asked about marrying lawnmowers (not mentioned) and marrying children (which by our definitions was the done thing in the times surrounding the OT) and marrying trees (not mentioned in OT), and I think polygamy came up (no big problem for the Hebrews). There is probably further confusion afoot because marriage and sex where meant to be almost one and the same thing in the OT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
That's not true, though is it ? Even the Catholic Church allows the use of NFP techniques as contraception. The mainstream Protestant churches - and most of the rest - are even more liberal. And no Christian church I know of regards fertility as a necessary requirement for marriage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Then he's picking a lousy way of arguing his point. He ought to say it explicitly if that's what he means. Of course it does look as if he's being deliberately vague as a tactic so maybe that's why he doesn't say it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5953 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
PaulK writes: That's not true, though is it ? Even the Catholic Church allows the use of NFP techniques as contraception. The mainstream Protestant churches - and most of the rest - are even more liberal. And no Christian church I know of regards fertility as a necessary requirement for marriage. You can find people who take both sides in all of the above, but forget that I said 'mainstream'. Let's leave it at 'some' Christians, of which nemesis is one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Does he ? Does he think that all forms of contraception - even "natural" NFP techniques - are immoral ? Does he think that infertile people should not be allowed to marry and should never have sex ? Has he actually said so, or are you simply assuming that he takes a very rare position ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Then he's picking a lousy way of arguing his point. He ought to say it explicitly if that's what he means. Of course it does look as if he's being deliberately vague as a tactic so maybe that's why he doesn't say it. I thought he was quite specific, upon being asked and the meaning was clear to me before being asked. It started quite vague but then - he was responding to a rather vague comment by someone else when it started. He went into great detail about marriage, lawnmowers, and relativity upon be asked though. I saw quite specific claims being made, not vague ones. But then - perhaps that's the central problem here - the disagreement on whether it was specific enough. Then again - since it was like 8 months ago and people generally refer to their memories rather than the posts, that might contribute to the general feeling...what do you think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I'm talking about the current series of posts which aren't directly related to the marriage issue. He's not being specific now, he's being vague and evasive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5953 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
PaulK writes: Does he ? Does he think that all forms of contraception - even "natural" NFP techniques - are immoral ? Does he think that infertile people should not be allowed to marry and should never have sex ? Has he actually said so, or are you simply assuming that he takes a very rare position ? Please don't make me discuss what another member thinks. This was not about fertility or contraception. Those issues come up with the advent of technology. I went to church initiated marriage classes, and this was the rap: Man and woman Previously unmarried Committed to a monogamous relationship Committed to children if and when they come NFP is supposedly taking advantage of nature. Some like it, some don't. Other kinds of contraceptives may be interfering with nature. None of that is particularly relevent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I'm not making you. You CHOSE to. I'm just asking you to explain why you think that's what he believes when it seems very unlikely to me. And if you don't know it then I think you shouldn't have done it at all. But it was your decision to to it - unprompted by me. So don't blame me for 'making' you do it. Because it isn't true. I've discussed the issue of contraception with Catholics in the past and the Catholic church seems confused on the matter. Still the official position is that NFP is acceptable and it is therefore not required that every sex act be for the purpose of reproduction. Moreover, infertile couples are permitted to marry and have sex and therefore producing children is not a necessary part of marriage or sex to the RC Church either. And the Catholic Church takes a relatively hard line on this issue so to suggest that mainstream Christianity takes an even harder line is quite wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5953 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Paul, none of this stuff has anything to do with the topic.
My first post to you said all I needed to say. You are picking it apart, and that is fine, but I don't want to do that here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Your first post misrepresented mainstream Christian doctrine. Your second admitted that but said that we should assume that NJ had those views - for no good reason. And in the third you insisted that you didn't want to talk about NJ's views (and tried to blame me for "making" you do it) - having just done exactly that.
So I have to wonder what the real point of any of it was.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I'm talking about the current series of posts which aren't directly related to the marriage issue. Seems to me that the current series of posts came up after the old posts were brought up by somebody else connecting them. It was brought up again here and nemesis commented that all sins are sins, homosexuality, lying and bestiality. Then the debate turned primarily towards the comments from eight months ago. I don't see anything I agree with, but I'm not sure vague really cuts it. What would you see as vague about his comments?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Two points off the top of my head. The "is murder wrong" question where he doesn't explain which definition of murder he's using (despite all the discussion) and only in his last post did he mention that he meant "absolutely wrong" which presumably means wrong in an absolute sense.
The second is the basis of the link between homosexuality and bestiality in his argument which he refuses to explain. And there's no explicit references or links in the posts you list. It seems more like general memories (which may or may not refer back to the threads you have in mind)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024