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.

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?

Nope.

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.

Morals are relative to circumstance, yes; relative to other people's views, no.In other words, by moral relativism I mean looking at ten people's unique estimations of what is right and wrong in a particular situation and allowing each view an equal potential validity. Moral relativism says that although I THINK my view is probably right, a couple other contradictory views may also be right and I may be wrong.By absolute moral standards I mean there is a definate right and wrong in every situation regardless of what one person or ten people come up with as right and wrong. One or all may have found the right answer or none of them may find the right answer.In other words, right and wrong exists regardless of whether or not one has found it. Right and wrong is an objective reality, not a man-made concept. Haha... but it is! That's precisely what I'm arguing against. There may sometimes be more than one "right" solution to a moral problem, but to every moral problem there is a definate right and wrong. Yep, pretty much.

Thank you for your reply. I just realized I didn't answer your questions: Nope. The wrong version of killing a person even has its own special word: murder. Killing is okay in a just war, self-defense, and capital punishment. This is self-defense. So its ok.BTW, the word translated "kill" in the KJV of the ten commandments conotes the criminal sense so is actually the word for murder.. so don't let that confuse you. Thats a tough one, but it still depends on the situation. Obviously in most cases, the distinction must be made between civilians and enemy combatants and "collateral damage" must be prevented at all costs, however, in some cases, there is no clear distinction between enemy combatants and civilians. No.

Thank you for your reply.Jar, do not mistake my belief in moral absolutes for inflexibility, and do not mistake my flexibility for moral relatvisim.By moral absolutes, I mean that right and wrong is an objective reality that exists in any moral dillema regardless of our viewpoint.Right and wrong are relative to circumstances, absolutely. They are not relative to one person's viewpoint over another's. Yep.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 08-03-2004 01:18 AM

Thank you for your reply. ALWAYS! uh oh... perhaps you believe in an absolute? Do you believe killing is ever justified?This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 08-03-2004 02:33 PMThis message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 08-03-2004 02:44 PM

Not everyone agrees fully on it because we are all sinful beings led astray by our sinful desires, arrogance, emotionalism, and subjectivity. Nevertheless, there is a sense of right/wrong that everyone strives to define. This intuitive need by all to divide the right from wrong shows that right and wrong are absolute objective qualities that all concientious people pursue. Without God, this is true. With God, everything makes sense. true Complexity and ambiguity are not synonymous. Lack of knowledge of complexity might make understanding ambiguous, but there is a clarity, which we all attempt to approach. In some cases this moral clarity is easy to obtain and in some cases it is more difficult. All I am saying is that regardless of whether we find this moral clarity, it exists.

Are you absolutely sure this is the correct moral stance? If so, how do you know? Might you be wrong?Might it be better to put to death certain criminals knowing that this deterence factor would end up saving far more innocent lives than would be lost by wrongful conviction?What magnetism is your moral compass guided by? and are you sure that magnetic north is true north? Is killing ever justified when there is a chance innocent may be killed as well?What is more valuable: life or principle?

Actually, I must correct the general here.Forgiving others is a requirement of being forgiven by God.There is a passage, I forget the reference exactly, that says: "if you do not forgive your brother, I will not forgive you." And in another passage, Peter asks Jesus how many times he must forgive his brother; seven times he asks? Jesus says, no, seventy seven times... in otherwords, never stop forgiving.
And in another passage it says: speak and act as one being judged by the law that brings freedom. No mercy will be shown to those who show no mercy to others. Mercy triumphs over judgement.

So what do you believe constitutes "right"? and how did this sense evolve? I'm not talking about any of that. I'm talking about day to day life and death. There are a variety of values, or as Jar said a moral foundation, upon which the circumstances can be reviewed to divide right from wrong. Almost everyone has a scale of values. It takes a properly constructed scale of values and set of virtues, plus humility, and wisdom to "process" the "relevant factors" to get a right or wrong solution. There are a set of absolute virtues and proper scale of values that upon application will yield the "right" solution.For example: You being an atheist believes that there is no afterlife. You believe that this life that we are experiencing right now is all we will ever have. This places a premium value of a "good" life on your scale. This leads to a variety of different philosophies, some of which seem contradictory to a person of my beliefs. You may want to abstain from something like capital punishment for fear of wrongly killing one innocent person, thus depriving that innocent person of "the good life". On the other hand, if a fetus is doomed to grow up in a bad society with unprepared teenage parents, it is better to end that life because the chances are it will not be "good".Your placement of this life so high on your scale of values also leads to other philosophies that people who believe in God deem cowardly. If, as Maximus Decimus Meridius said, "what we do in this life echoes in eternity" then our virtues and beliefs may become more important to us than life itself. The athiest may be less willing to fight and die for virtues and beliefs when all virtues are relative anyway and there is nothing to believe in. Well, neither can you objectively show me that the qualities of right and wrong are products of evolution, so I guess its a stalemate.

Thank you for your reply. Well, I would cite the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I'm afraid that would cause this discussion to spin off of the topic of moral relativism and onto specifics of morality and polotics.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 08-05-2004 01:06 PM

I think you're missing the point.Morality is COMPLETELY situationally oriented. IOW the distinction between right and wrong depends entirely on the situation.The point is that a particular action in a particular situation cannot be BOTH right and wrong at the same time depending on who is observing.

It was awesome! We had a ton of fun.I spose I could do that after I get the pictures off of my friend's computer tomorrow. Umm... Yes? Some situations are always alike. Some are more complicated. But in any moral situation something is right and something is wrong. Alright... whatever that is?