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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
Christ has ALREADY suffered for your actions. Now it is your choice to accept his sacrifice or reject it. Why would you suffer the consequences of your actions and go to hell rather than accepting Christs' freely and lovingly offered gift of forgiveness and go to heaven?
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.
You unfortunately percieved this incorrectly. It is not a test of your character (everyone has already failed that countless times). It is simply a gift. A free gift you and everyone else do not even deserve, but is being offered anyways. A gift you can choose to accept or reject. A gift of eternal life with God in heaven. You say you would rather choose responsibilty for your actions - as if that will help you in the long run. At least you recognize that you do deserve a punishment for your actions. Now you must decide if you will accept Christs' offer to take that punishment away or not. Christ longs for you to do so, He entreats you to accept it, but in the end it is your choice. Please, please think about this and reconsider your earlier decision.
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.
No, NO, NO! This is NOT what Jesus taught!
Jesus said this in John 3:
"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
This does not say "God will understand" or something like that. It all hinges on believing and trusting in Jesus. If you do, good, if you don't, nothing, not all the good intentions in the world or trying your best to follow the golden rule, will save you. The gift of eternal life must be accepted by each individual; it is not automatically given to all.
If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?
Yes, Jesus is God. He said so himself. Many times.
So you don't like John? How about Matthew?
< !--UE-->"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven."[/qs]"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." [/qs]
< !--UE-->"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." [/qs]"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" [/qs]"actions can be the eqivalent of love. [/qs]
Ok, ok. Yes, we are off-topic. I would like to open a thread with you discussing the claims of Jesus regarding entrance into heaven, his claims of being God, etc beause I think these matter are of fundamental importance to the Christian faith.
In the meantime...
A moral absolute: Do not murder. (Murder is not the same as killing, by the way. The Hebrew and Greek words used in both the OT and NT are for murder, not for killing. Killing is justifiable in many instances.) This moral absolute applies to all people in every situation at all times.
If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?
A foreign country has sent its troops in to remove a threat they say resides here. I am but a shopkeeper who works long hours to feed a family who,while I was working,died as a result of a bombing run by this occupying force. I am not a violent man and only wished to live in peace but my heart was full of grief and when I saw the soldier beating on a neighbour friend of mine I grabbed a metal pipe and hit him over the head and then I kept hitting in anger and subsequently caused him to die.I am so sorry and I no longer know what was right or wrong about the action but only that I now must live alone with loss and sorrow.[/qs]
Yes, murder was involved. The shopkeeper should only have applied the neccessary force to stop the beating of his neighbor, not kill the soldier.
If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?
Such is your point of view not mine. I am no lost sheep nor am I someone looking for forgiveness.It is also prudent when gifts are freely offered to be wary.Temptation is a powerful tool if you get my drift.
[/qs]
Yes, that is my point of view and also the Bible's point of view. Based on what the Bible says, you need forgiveness or you will go to hell. Therefore, you should be looking for forgiveness if you don't want to go there. Also, what is there to "be wary about" in this offer? Freely offered gifts are given all the time: Christmas, birthdays. etc. One is not wary when accepting these gifts.
You misunderstand me I am not looking to escape my responsibility which is what I find the central tenet of christianity to be.Give your sins to christ and your reward is heaven that is powerful incentive to do the very opposite which is to avoid your responsibility for those questionable acts and impulses that one follows in their lives.Behold your next sentence.[/qs]
Here is what you just said: The central tenet of Christianity is to escape your resonsibility [for your sins]. I agree. But then your next sentence says that avoiding your responsibility by giving your sins to Christ is the exact opposite. What? How is it opposite when it is the same? You say Christianity is A, and doing A is the exact opposite of A. A being escaping your responsibilty of sin. That makes no sense.
However I think that might be misreading your sentence. Did you mean that Christianity is taking resonsibilty for your own actions? That is not true. Christianity is giving your responsibility to Christ.
It is not something that you need to save me from since I long ago dropped the notion of a creator God and now see it as being the likely product of human frailty rather than any actual supernatural being.I am content with life as it unfolds and I have no fear of an end to it. [/qs]
Well, if you don't believe God exists then, yes, you don't need to be "saved." But if God does exist and Christianity is true, then you DO need to be saved. Why do you believe God does not exist? (Should we talk about this in another thread?)
If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?
No, he was engaging in an act of war, an act of killing, not murder. He did not kill them out of anger. He had a valid reason to - he had been told by his military officers to do so in order to remove a threat.
In this scenarios, was the shopkeepers family the threat or did the bomb accidently kill them?
If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?
Which do you think is more important to God; that you take unearned forgiveness from Him when you have wronged another human being, or that you earn forgiveness from the human being you have wronged?
I know which one I would consider more impressive.
Good question. First of all, when you wrong another person you are also sinning against God. Your relationship with God is what determines if you get into heaven or not. Therefore, it is more important to ask for forgiveness from God than to ask forgiveness from the person you hurt. If you only ask for forgiveness from the person you hurt, you have still not been forgived by God because you have not asked for it.
This is NOT to say asking for forgiveness from others is not important. It is. And I agree it is more impressive because it requires swallowing a lot more of our pride to do it. But it is, in the eternal scheme of things, not as important.
If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?
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.
Well said! In every situation there is a right and a wrong thing to do. That is NOT moral relativism. As stated earlier, moral relativism is "there exists no source of moral absolutes." Just because you should do something in a different way in different situations does not mean there is not an objective right and wrong way to do that thing in each situation.
With that said, I agree to some extent with schraf when he says that "life is chock full of complexity and there is a great deal you cannot know." However, in almost every situation I beleive that you can know enough [not all, but enough] to make the right choice. And if you don't know enough but made the best choice you could, I don't think God would look at that as a sin.
If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?
Well, then, I guess that we Agnostics and Atheists are just a lot more concerned with our effect on other people.
It seems that your God likes followers who are kind of weak in the responsibility department. I mean, you just told me that it's more important to get forgiveness to God than the person you wronged, but who sufffers more from your wrong? The person or God?
Man, I thought that Christians were all about stepping up to the ethical and moral plate, but I guess not.
Please don't mischaracterize Christianity. Of COURSE we are concerned with personal responsibility, ethics, morals, and the effect we have on other people. I NEVER said we were not. I would argue that we are actually MORE concerned about how we treat others because we want to be good representatives for our God and make Christianity attractive.
However, when you ask a question like "what is more important being forgiven by humans or being forgiven by God" I am going to answer what is more important in the eternal scheme of things. And again, let me emphasize that a crime agaist a fellow human is ALSO a crime against God. God feels each and every sin against him and is deeply saddened, and angered, by them. You should ask for forgiveness FROM BOTH humans and God.
Hangdawg says:
Actually, I must correct the general here.
Forgiving others is a requirement of being forgiven by God.
Agreed. I was talking about asking for forgiveness, not forgiving.
We are getting kinda off track, I want to get back on track and try to reach a consensus as to the answer of the original question.
The question is: Is moral relativism a valid view? Moral relativism is being defined as "There exists no source of moral absolutes."
Here is a question I would like ya'll to answer, then I will try to go on from there to try to illustrate my anwer to the question of moral relativism.
Here is the question: are the moralities of some people better than the moralities of other people? (Think groups of poeple like tribes, nations, etc)
{Shortened long line of "_", to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-05-2004 03:47 PM
If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?
™ Version 4.2