I do not believe in moral relativism. Having said that, I don't think anyone knows (or necessarily can know) what the moral absolutes actually are. We all must muddle through as best we can. It's up to you to decide if you think your morality is the right one, and if it should be imposed on others.
Still reading through but had to respond to this post. That's not evolution. In most animals the females choose who to mate with and this has to do with females determing the males with the fittest genes. In the case of many social animals the strongest male has a harem and prevents lesser males from mating but what this does is ensure that the genes for strength and dominance get passed on. Among humans we've developed societal restrictions about things like rape yet human societies have been rife with practices that restrict a women's right to sexual freedom. In many societies forcing his wife to have sex isn't rape and this was the case in our society not that long ago. These things though aren't evolution unless you consider Social Darwinism to be evolution.
Interesting debate. I believe in moral relativism because morality itself is a relative term. One can say that God is a moral absolute and in the name of that absolute break every single moral code that one can think of. For instance Islam forbids suicide and the killing of innocents yet we see fanatical Muslims, or those who consider themselves Muslims, kill innocents and themselves. If you were to talk to a suicide bomber they would say that far from being immoral and defying the tenets of Islam they are acting in the name of an absolute morality. Who is moral? Is the suicide bomber moral or is the Muslim that tells him that Qu'ran forbids such things? Depending on the perspective you take both could be and the more you approach the absolutist view of a higher morality the suicide bomber's position becomes moral. Whether there is an absolute morality isn't something that we humans can experience as our whole experience is always relative from our point of view.
I agree mostly with ymc's pragmatism. "Who is the judge and enforcer" follows "who is moral". If, in the future, the Y chromosome begins to unravel, then would it be wrong for the female majority to round men up and subject them to fertility experiments? If those women respected everyone's feelings, then the human race could be doomed. From our perspective, we could argue that humanity is already doomed. Yet maybe their ancestors (assuming the Y chromosome is restored) would say that it was a necessary for survival at that moment. I guess it's something only God or a Higher Power could know for sure, but that doesn't answer whether we have the right or responsibility to intervene. We should react with what we know at hand because it's our responsibility to correct our wrongs. That responsibility also entails a willingness to understand their culture. If our intervention would threaten their culture's survival, then we might have to live and let live until that culture threatens our well being. If only the world was that simple...
To those people and in those times, it WAS moral. We now view that as a "morally corrupt society," but that again is the very definition of moral relativism. At the time, that was normal for those cultures and nobody saw it as wrong. However, today we see how wrong those practices are and any of those situations would be morally wrong.
I'm not sure that case can be made. The German "society" knew nothing about killing Jews and as such, it is likely that the societal morality would have been against what their leaders were doing.
God is moral. And ones point of view cannot change God's morals. God's morals are absolutes- truths A moral choice is not right or wrong based upon the relative point of view. That entertains opinion, prejudice, deception and injustice. Depending on the circumstances or relative to the situation are just easy ways to say that a choice is made without regard to absolute moral implications. murder is murder, lies are lies, theft if theft at the moral level these things do not translate to a point of view but to a choice made judged praise-worthy or blame-worthy; innocence and guilt; right or wrong. Any justification that ignores a moral absolute can be rationalized by a point of view or a personal prejudice, but that never leaves the moral truth rendered relative to a particular circumstance. The 9-11 bombings were relative to different points of view, but not relative to the moral implication of loss of innocent lives. Men are always trying to make relative self-determination = moral relativity Man's own prejudices, fears, self ambition, greed and lies promote moral relativism. In the final judgment of man's motives, actions and words the moral absolutes will not be vague or with variation or relativity. In the final analysis all true justice that is impartial and disinterested will be according to truth and absolute moral purity. Nobody wants an unjust trial, an unjust judge or a partial jury when they are innocent-lady justice should be blind. Why muddy moral excellence with human failure? Let God be absolutely moral and let man fall short of His Divine perfection. That is realistic and logical.
IMHO, it's up to you to decide if you think your morality is the right one for you, but you have absolutely no business imposing it on others. And I pity you if you try to impose it on me.
I think one big part of the "amended" moral relativist stance is missing here and partially that is what is causing the extreme relativist perspective. Clearly, the case where a man rapes a woman because it is ok in his culture seems to make no sense as a moral standard. Amended, moral relativism can mean that it holds until it impedes on another's standards. Now you may ask, what's from stopping Person A from saying Person B can't practice belief B because it's against A's beliefs. The problem is, belief A already inherently impedes on belief B system. So you can't rape a woman unless she's willing (then it isn't rape I guess ) and so on and so forth. Religiously, this is what I find narrow about certain practices that try to convert others or make claims about where you're going to end up whereas certain religions do not make claims about others.
the Ten Commandments and the Laws were written by God for the people. The two complement each other, there is no contradiction. The Commandemtn says, don't murder. a murder is an unlawful slaying of someone. Leviticus clears allows for the lawful slaying of someone as a form of punishment for breaking a law. even universal truths could get twisted by a relativist if they tried hard enough. I am wearing a blue shirt, but my boss, who is color blind, sees it as a purple shirt and has no clue what blue looks like.
you rail on religion? nah =P it's all good. it's very hard having a discussion on relativism IMO, like I said in prior post almost everything can be twisted one way or another by a relativist.
I kind of see it differently. In Romans it talks about how one person might eat meat, and another one doesn't. How one person keeps one certain day holy, while other people keep another day holy. It goes on to say to him who doesn't eat meat, it is a sin to eat meat, but to the person who believes it is ok to eat everything, it isn't a sin. It mentions other examples as well. It mentions very specifically that some things can be a sin for one person, and not another. It goes on to say that for him who's religious views allows him to eat meat that he shouldn't put a stumbling block in front of the one who isn't allowed to. So it actually argues against trying to change what the other person sees as sin. Then it gets to the heart of the message, saying that it should all be done in accordance to people's belief of what God wants, and that in the end each person will have to answer whether or not they lived up to those beliefs. None of it advocates people doing whatever feels good at the moment, and doing anything they want. It presumes forthought, prayer, serious reflection and a system of beliefs that should be followed. It just goes on to say that those beliefs don't have to be the same for everyone.
Good post and I agree with part of your analysis. We should keep in mind that Paul is talking about different ways to worship God (not Allah, not the alien that the Mormons worship, or whatever other versions people have set forth). I believe it was directed at the Jewish Christians who had insisted that the Gentile Christians follow Jewish laws (a problem that a lot of Gentiles faced). I do not believe he is talking about absolute morals which I think rhester is referring to.
But to the Jews of that day, those were absolutes. You absolutely had to be circumcised. Gentiles were absolutely unclean. Those were absolutes.
hmm good point. Jesus did step on a lot of toes didnt he? lol I think the word I'm looking for is "semantics". To argue over whether one has to eat meat or not, or has to be circumcised or not in order to be saved is semantics. I see the point though. EDIT: they might have thought those were absolute morals, but God told them otherwise through Paul.
I agree with you but the choices discussed in Romans has to do with choices of conscience, not moral law. When there is no moral law ie. murder, adultery, theft, idolatry etc.- then the conscience becomes ones guide and there are definately no sins of conscience that could be imposed universally. If I doubt that it pleases God to make a certain choice or I believe it please God to make another choice and there is no moral law to give direction- then you must be true to good conscience and not expect anyone else to be bound by your personal choice. The basic law of love says to Love God with all your heart mind soul and strength and your neighbor with the same love you have for yourself. This sums up the moral laws ie. the Ten Commandments. If you keep the basic law of love, then you will make choices that uphold moral law. But if you believe it is right to keep a 'holy' day and someone else finds he can love God regardless then this becomes a matter of keeping a clear conscience before God. It is not right or wrong to own a gun. There is no moral choice involved there. It is not right or wrong to go to church bulding on Sunday. There is no moral law or basis for that action. It is not right or wrong to eat pork, fish, beef or watch the Super Bowl on Sunday afternoon. You can walk the dog on the Sabbath and you can visit a Buddist Temple, a Mosque and a Church without violating conscience. The absolutes are definately moral (right-wrong) and are clearly seen in the basic law of love and practically understood in the Ten Commandments. Jesus gave us one new commandment, that we should love one another. This moral law cuts to the core intentions of the heart and really determine our moral responsibilities. Loving one another would affect us causing our brothers to stumble in faith, but it would not affect our conscience towards the meats we eat or the days we celebrate. sorry for the sermonizing, wish I had more time to answer in clear way.
That's good stuff, I'm going to have to keep that quote handy because I know I'm going to need to explain it to someone else in the future.
