A critique of moral relativism

bluegenes, we still have capital punishment today. 'Barbarians' are people who required death sentences for much lesser crimes. It seems to me that what has changed over the years is our reaction to adultery. It's not so 'evil' now, as it was to the Israelites, who viewed fidelity as a direct command of God.The point is, that relativism has no means to decide that it is just to require someone's life as payment for a crime. In a few decades, society may decide that the crimes committed were not such a big deal after-all. That happens very frequently. Then, all of a sudden, the old culture becomes barbarian to our eyes. There is no doubt that what is considered moral changes over time, but we ALL act like absolutists. We act like we know the truth, we act like we are superior, and we don't hesitate to judge others according to our ways.If this was not true, no one would continue harping upon the 'evil' God of the OT as some kind of proof.

I know you said 'by my personal values', but would I be correct to assume that you think your values are 'better' than the ones in the Bible stories? Not in a snooty way, but just as in 'humans are becoming more moral with time'?Because,well, 'values' are in fact, values. Things which we hold dear, which we think are important. Dare I say 'true'?The things which a given society finds important may indeed change. I still feel that everyone acts upon what they feel, deep down, to be important or just behaviour. IN that sense, all are absolutist. They see a scale in their minds, where actions range from atrocious, to nearly perfect. No one stops, in daily life, to consider that these actions may or may not be 'really' good. I have the opposite opinion from you, and that is: relativism can not work.I also question why it is only the "religious" who talk about absolutes? Why is it either or, and all atheists end up in the relativist camp? Can't atheists also believe that there may exist an almost perfect way of life? I do understand that what is perfect will be very different for some groups and some individuals. We need to have a perfect code for societal behaviour, for family behaviour, and for individual behaviour. That we continue to look for these codes, and strive for them, and enforce them, is evidence that we are all absolutists at heart.

That sounds nice, but I don't find it in practice too often. In fact, whenever there is a morality topic and I say something like 'only the individual doing the action can decide whether or not it was moral' then folks start twisting it around to mean 'whatever we think is good, is good'. People hate that thought. They think I am condoning Hitler or something. It's the relativists who don't understand that this is their philosophy.

Hm...you sound like a perfectionist.

Well I hinted at one problem. It seems that because Christians are generally talking about absolutes, the atheists automatically feel they belong in the opposite camp, but don't always know what 'relativist' means. Sure, I just speak way more frequently with relativists, and this was not intended to be a generalization.

We have manslaughter charges also. IIRC murder to any degree depends on whether it was an abetted or aided murder, and whether someone was the actual 'murderer' or just the accessory. There is also 'justifiable homicide'.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Nah, he is just asking if completely unjustified, cold blooded, irrational killing of another person can be considered 'absolutely' wrong, or whether anyone, past or future, might find it morally acceptable. As long as most people want to stay alive, 'murder' as defined above, will be unlawful, I hope.For the record, looking for one universal moral is barking up the wrong tree IMO. Only a minority of people believe that an action is always wrong, or always right, regardless of circumstance. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Paul,Do you feel that murder, as in, killing someone for no reason whatsoever, or for a trivial reason like owed debts, or even hatred, is morally, as well as legally, wrong?The point is really simple, and if you get it, you can argue it.If you condemn murder, you may do so for a number of reasons. These reasons may or may not be absolutes.For example, it may ALWAYS be wrong to take a life.OrIt may be ok to take a life when a greater good will be gained from it.Once you put a finger on the 'greatest good' possible, that is your absolute. That is your standard. Against that, all other actions may be weighed. Almost everyone is absolutist in that sense.Consider if you had/have children. Their happiness would be the 'absolute' and all things would be graded according to how well they performed. In a job, production is foremost.The thing is, absolutists are idealists, and they believe there is a 'best possible solution' for life, while relativists believe that all solutions are temporary and only relevent for one society or time.

Look it up, absolutism covers a range of positions too. Most absolutists are not saying there is any moral code which will always work.We may say 'love of God' is always good, or 'love of neighbor' is always good' but the ways and means for accomplishing love are always relative.Absolutism has flaws. I may believe that I can love God by killing those who hate God. That is, unless I believe that God condemns killing.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

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.

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.

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 womanPreviously unmarriedCommitted to a monogamous relationshipCommitted to children if and when they comeNFP 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.

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.

Paul, please, don't be so naive. In the religious moral system of a great, large, huge amount of people, ALL forbidden sexual behaviours ARE equivalent. That is, they are ALL wrong. In Catholicism, for example, they are all as wrong as murder, as genocide, as suicide. They are 'mortal sins'.I know that feels extremely harsh, because we are conditioned to believe that morality is determined by how we affect others. In actuality, that is NOT how many Christians make moral judgements, even though behaviours which harm others are generally condemned.I hope you can understand that in the context of moral relativity, there are many different standards. Please understand that with different standards for 'right' there are different equivalent 'wrongs'. No one is forcing you to like it, but those are the facts. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Tusko, pardon the intrusion. The issue is not consent, per se. We don't generally look for the consent of animals when we decide to eat them, keep them as pets, or use them for milk and wool.What we do look for is respect, equality, and love for our fellow humans. It is irrelevent whether we believe overall in an absolute morality, or in a relative morality. At this very moment, we have to make decisions AS IF our morality was the only one in existence.So...one person feels that love of God is of utmost importance in morality. God only 'allows' certain persons to marry, so any other marriage is immoral.Another person does not believe in God, but feels that love of neighbor is of utmost importance in morality. Thus, any marriage which may be harmful to someone is immoral.It can be demonstrated to a point whether certain marriages are harmful, as in, when someone can not legally give consent.