His post didn't really have anything to do with my point. Max - I agree with your agreement of my position (the shock!). Thanks for the NT Wright link. I know him well but cannot remember if I have read that specific piece. Not sure if I mentioned it to you before but if you like him you should check out The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright in Dialogue - a respectful debate between two NT scholars and "believers" over their very different views about Jesus. I have a copy if you want to borrow it (assuming you treat books well).
maybe the crutch of the humble . Jerry Falwell may think he is moral by not drinking, or committing adultery. Christians in other parts of the world would be shocked to see his wife with uncovered hair in a church sservice. She might as well wear a thong. The 10 commandments are literally translated as "commandments of love". Obviously, it is possible for me to keep the 10 commandments and not walk in love. Morality cant be absolute. Truth is.
then maybe i misread your post. you sounded like you wanted to talk about how we can reconcile the fact that there are so many sects of Christianity with absolute moralism. rhester's post seemed to address that IMO. He made a point as to how and why Christians have different views on certain things but that it doesn't necessarily mean that there are no absolute morals.
If you like you can reword that quote to read, “we know that we will not always be right.” We are human. We are not perfect. We know that we will not always be right, ergo, we know in advance that we will sometimes be wrong. I believe that there is an absolute truth but that mankind cannot understand it perfectly. I would further say that as Christians we learn to understand it better and better throughout our lives, but we will never achieve full understanding or anything close to it. (See 1 Cor 13: 8-12) We do need to make laws, however, to provide order and safety for our communities, but laws made by man should not be confused with God’s laws. At one point it was legal for a man to kill his slave. This was not considered murder, but it surely would be today, and owning a slave would be illegal as well. God’s laws have not changed, but thankfully man’s have, and the process that leads to change, and generally moving closer to God’s laws, imo, is often one that involves social justice movements in society that rase the awareness of common citizens about the wrongs being committed, and eventually enough momentum is generated and the government is forced to change the law. I’m not entirely sure I’ve caught the point you were trying to make but I hope this helps clarify what I was trying to say.
Good point but would you agree that morality itself is a relative term? While there may be one only one sun our individual experience of that one sun is relative to our veiwpoint of that sun. While we can agree that there is one sun up in the sky if I'm watching it from Singapore and you from Chicago the experience of it will be different and how we react to it will be different. In January in Chicago you might welcome the sun and want to get as much solar exposure as you can where as I in Singapore am very hot and want to seek shelter. To morality you might say there is an absolute Platonic morality but how does that apply to any application of morality? I don't have dictionary with me but my understanding of the definition of "Moral" is knowing doing what is right. While one might argue they have an absolute knowledge of right or wrong what that knowledge is and particularly how someone acts with regard to their perception of right is relative. For instance using your Sun example. We can all agree there is a giant hot orb in the sky to what degree though does that giant hot orb affect our behavior is relative to our viewpoint. So while we might all say that murder is wrong one's POV might define murder differently. Lets say we all agree that murder is intentionally killing an innocent person. A Japanese might say dropping the A-Bomb was murder since it killed several innocent non-combatants and that the bomb was dropped with that knowledge. An American might say no since that was war and in war it is necessary to kill the enemy even when it means non-combatants are involved. U sing another example to take the distinction further the terrorists of 9/11 are widely considered murders since they killed non-combatants and did so under an unrecognized state of war. They and those who support them would say they are not since there had been a fatwa issued by radical clerics sanctioning that action so in their eyes it was a legally recognized action and not murder but an act of war. That the US or the UN doesn't recognize that legality Al Qaeda would lay that on the US and not on themselves. So in Al Qaeda's eyes their actions are moral. No one else might think so but that is why morality is relative.
I think you're hitting upon a very important point here. If you were to poll every single person regarding what is moral and immoral you are probably going to find some people that consider rape and murder to be fine. Given enough extenuating circumstances you can probably find many people who consider actions like those to even be moral. Morality is a human construct and more is determined in a society based upon a majority view. The idea that there is a universal moral regarding murder has more to do with that a vast majority of humans believe it so. There are certainly humans who have no problems with murdering or raping people.
But couldn't most of that be due to the fear of being caught rather than an innate morality? Most people speed without any twinge of guilt when they don't see an officer present. When they see an officer present its generally not guilt making them uneasy but fear. For that matter conscience is heavily influenced by culture also. If I'm an orthodox Jew and I'm hungry and someone has some bacon frying I might feel guilty about enjoying the smell of frying bacon or if hungry enough eating some bacon.
Sorry for the whole block of posts here. I think one problem regarding this discussion is that relativism is considered as a negative. I would disagree and given the complex nature of human society is actually a good thing. I think Grizzled has made an excellent point that there may, or may not, be an absolute morality but as humans we can't perceive it and more importantly can't act on it. I will go farther to say morality itself is a purely human construct and a right or wrong of the God, the Universe, Giant Spaghetti Monster, etc.. is beyond human understanding. A lot of this debate has been dealing with Christian thought so pardon me while I inject some Buddhist thought to this. In Buddhism there are absolutes. There is the absolute that nothing is permanent and there is the absolute that causes have affects. Buddhism mentions "right" and "wrong" quite a bit but in general is short on what is right or wrong and that changes depending on what text or sect you might follow. These concepts are themselves mutable and change depending on the circumstance. Given that all actions have a reaction then the nature of any action is bound to create a related reaction of similar nature so if one acts right then the counter reaction will be right. Basically the Golden Rule but more encompassing. Since rightness is itself ever changing the context is all important so that rightness is relative and the determination of rightness is relative to the context. Thus one can say it is wrong to kill yet see killing in self-defense as right. One can say that suicide is wrong yet there may be a context where suicide is right. The obvious argument to this is that there is an overarching morality that would dictate that in a context it might be right to kill. In regards to Buddhism rather than an overarching morality two things are considered. One is the Middle Way that states that the middle course between extremes is the best. Its possible that a situation might be so extreme that only another extreme might bring balance. The second is Karma and the consideration of how an action might reflect on yourself. So in a situation of extreme peace one might say that to bring balance I need to kill someone but at then that would also mean that that reaction will come back to me in the future.
Those posts are classic! I enjoy the humor (rimrocker)... and the good discussion in here (rhester, MadMax, etc.)!
the fear of being caught is guilt and it is innate. If your conscience does not know right and wrong, then I suggest it has been abused in this area. As far as the smell of bacon... love it and it makes me hungry thinking about it. (thanks now I'm going to IHOP)
i'd love to read it. i'm trying to finish up some books to make sure i'm "clear" when Rob Bell's new book comes out in March. next time we grab lunch or something, bring it along, if you think of it. i promise not to mark it up!
i havent read any of this thread except for the first part, so sorry if its already been said, but moral relativism is just a way for people who have no balls to justify anything and not stand up for what is right.
By the way, I think technology also plays a big role in moral relativism. For example, in my rape example, the tribesmen have to rape because they don't know of any better way to reproduce. However, in the age of test tube babies, this can no longer be used as the justification. I would say many modern moral ideas actually are made possible by technology.
Fear of being punished is innate because no one likes to be punished. Is that an innate moral conscience? I don't think so since you people do all sorts of things that most people would consider immoral because they were afraid of what would happen if they didn't. Those who ran the concentration camps claimed to be following orders and that if they didn't they would find themselves and their families in them. Is that fear of punishment innate morality on their part?
