|
Post by Naptaq on Apr 16, 2008 10:17:56 GMT -5
Moral Relativism By Brad Macdonald Moral Relativism is the belief that defining right and wrong is an individual and personal choice. Denying the presence of absolute law, this ideology teaches that every decision is a matter of personal feeling. Moral Relativism means that adultery, for example, is not objectively wrong. While I may believe that adultery is wrong and it destroys marriages, you are entitled to believe it is right and strengthens a marriage. The same reasoning applies for murder, stealing, pedophilia and every other facet of human life. With this ideology, there is no absolute definition of right and wrong –only what you perceive to be right and wrong. This distorted principle has made great inroads into our universities. Created by secularists, moral relativism is a by-product of the evolutionist theory, which itself permeates university culture, especially the sciences. By denying the existence of God, the theory of evolution sowed the seeds of moral relativism. If there is no God, secularists reason, then there is no absolute law. Using moral relativism as their weapon, liberal secularists can destroy any absolute law they desire. Even the laws that govern society can be destroyed. Most people recognize that American law, ideology and morals are essentially governed by Judeo-Christian belief in the Ten Commandments. Since there is no God, according to secularists, then all we have are ten Suggestions; there is no law. With no absolute laws, defining right and wrong is a strictly personal matter. This is why Ward Churchill, Harris Mirkin and other secularist faculty members can espouse such ideologies as anti-Americanism and pedophilia. If a person doesn’t believe in absolute law, then he or she is not required to believe that pedophilia is wrong. Moral relativism destroys the law that defines right and wrong, moral and immoral. These are a few examples of immorality and moral relativism that pervade our universities. That idea that it is the individual’s responsibility to decide right and wrong is firmly entrenched in the minds of today’s university students. The Philadelphia Trumpet July 2005
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Apr 16, 2008 10:23:25 GMT -5
I posted this article because I felt it's useful, given that the Pope is in the USA at the time I'm writing this. He calls it: "dictatorship of relativism"
|
|
|
Post by skyhint on Apr 16, 2008 12:07:03 GMT -5
This article is a little ... misleading/ incomplete IMO
I know they are not saying that stealing, murder, and pedophilia strengthen marriage but what are the arguements in favour of such things?
I'm certain that evolution says nothing on the subject of morals and mentions nothing of the existance of god.
only about half of the 10 commandments are similar to US laws.
Those are some flaws in it that I found.
I also wonder what happens when a person encounters a moral dilemna that is not mentioned in religious books.
Was this here just as an interest piece or is this a ...debate topic?
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Apr 16, 2008 12:27:01 GMT -5
I know they are not saying that stealing, murder, and pedophilia strengthen marriage but what are the arguements in favour of such things? Ask the people who do it... Situational ethics, maybe The way I see it, relativism is destructive. Interesting piece, indeed. Ten Commandments are not debatable. They're absolute. lol
|
|
|
Post by phoenixferret on Apr 16, 2008 12:31:40 GMT -5
Skyhint is off to a good start, but let's see if we can't pick this apart further... Moral Relativism is the belief that defining right and wrong is an individual and personal choice. Denying the presence of absolute law, this ideology teaches that every decision is a matter of personal feeling. Moral relativism doesn't deny the presence of actual, on the books, the-feds-will-mess-you-up-if-you-try-it laws. People have always been entitled to believe whatever they want in the privacy of their own thoughts. What are you going to do, scan their minds for thought crimes and burn them at the stake if they disagree? You're entitled to believe murder is always good, and no one can or will do anything about it until you actually go out and kill someone. People are entitled to believe adultery is good; and the rest of us are entitled to think those people are probably assholes, and to tell those people's spouses what they said about adultery. Oh noes, secularists and evolution! Skyhint addressed the bit about "evolution" supporting moral relativism--it certainly does not, and it's very strange to see "evolution" held up as the downfall of human morality. I've been reading a lot of Atheist websites through StumbleUpon lately, and this is one of many "secularists'" favorite arguments to refute. 'Cause see, the thing is, Judeo-Christians are not getting morality from god--unless, that is, you are truly only refraining from committing adultery and murder and child abuse because you fear His displeasure. Are you? I doubt it. More than likely, you have a conscience that tells you right from wrong. So do "secularists." And where is it that God tells you that pedophilia is wrong? I'm pretty sure it's not one of the ten commandments, and I'm also pretty sure, but don't hold me to this, that in Bible times, it wasn't uncommon for girls to be married off at the age of thirteen or younger. Heck, this was still going on during the Renaissance, wasn't it..? So the prohibition against pedophilia--or whatever else isn't mentioned, or is permitted, in the bible, but which we regard as morally wrong--must have come from somewhere else. No? Skyhint already addressed the part about the ten commandments--and I just want to add that it's totally ludicrous to claim that something like "thou shalt not kill" is an original Judeo-Christian construct. Are Hindus going around killing each other? Nope. In fact, a huge percentage of Hindus are so against killing that they are religiously vegetarian. So the ten commandments stuff is bull. How is there no law? How are "secularists" destroying government laws? Many people are against victimless crimes, but if you're talking about tearing down all laws, that's "anarchy," not "secularism." Pedophilia is not a victimless crime. And whether you "believe" morally that pedophilia is right, or you're a sociopath with no conscience or moral distinction between right and wrong, the law's not going anywhere. Break it, and pay the consequences. Yeah, university students are always just brimming with dangerous ideologies, aren't they? (GAAHH I've edited this so many times, but I was trying to get this out before my food came, lol. XP)
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Apr 16, 2008 12:43:28 GMT -5
acceptance of 'absolute law' has never prevented murder, pedophilia, adultery and whatever else is/was commonly considered wrong. So in my opinion it is irrelevant.
The big claim here from the religious/spiritual POV is that it makes people better. However this is not a fact by any means.
as far as moral relativism destroying law - thats just nonsense. How about some proof?
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Apr 16, 2008 17:06:13 GMT -5
i'm gonna move this thread to the debate forum.
|
|
gaia
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by gaia on Apr 16, 2008 18:08:53 GMT -5
I like the idea - it's very liberal and in theory sounds nice. However, in reality I think it would cause chaos.
Some people simply cannot be trusted and to give them this sort of freedom could be dangerous. You need some form of punishment for people that deliberately cause harm to others.
That's where the (absolute?) law is useful... while it doesn't stop people from breaking it - it does mean people can be punished and hopefully prevented from doing something "wrong" again.
|
|
|
Post by Astroruss on Apr 16, 2008 23:29:11 GMT -5
If there is no absolute law or God, then libral relitivism itself has no meaning. The very laws that these 'liberals' propose and pass have no meaning, so what difference does it make? Their own laws can be broken and done away with at will. I see very few 'liberals' out there who claim that their own laws have no meaning.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Apr 17, 2008 10:02:39 GMT -5
nonsense - it has very real meaning
anything people do, any action they take makes a difference if i kill someone or I don't kill someone there will be a huge difference - here in this life in this time the only difference your absolute pov makes is that you will be judged after you die in your perspective afterlife - it doesn't have any consequences in real life though
besides as I said, the "absolute" laws can be broken and done away with at will also for example if we need to go to war for oil, the absolute law takes a hike
people in general don't do things just because they can we do things in self interest and all the laws stem from that
there is no law - relative or absolute saying I can't smash my computer to pieces right now - yet I don't do it
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Apr 17, 2008 10:19:07 GMT -5
people already have this kind of freedom - there is no difference whether punishment comes from absolute or relative law the difference is the 'supposed' punishment in the afterlife - and how much is that of a deterrent over people's natural desire to act in self interest here in this life - we don't really know.
in this case absolute law is not different from relative law in either case someone is punished and hopefully prevented from doing it again
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Apr 17, 2008 11:27:41 GMT -5
I have great respect for Hinduism, especialy their classic Yogas (Bhakti, Karma, Jnana and Raja Yoga). It doesn't really matter what religion you are. It's been said that "there's 10.000 ways to God" and, I think, that is a fact. It doesn't matter if you call it God, God the Father, The Creator, The Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, Ruler of the Universe, Maker of All Things Visible and Invinsible, Allah, Shiva, The Supreme, Brahma, Vishnu, Durga, Isvara, Rama, Self, Atman, Purusha .. it's all the same God. It's been said that God is Love, therefore, I reject a vengeful god that basicly has human qualities and an ego. These are all human notions. Heaven, Hell, Karma.. It's accountability. I am accountable for everything I do. On my death bed, I don't want to go "Oops!" lol But hey, if there's nothing after death, then, oh well, I lived a good and honest life, for nothing. Nobody gets away with anything, even if they didn't get cought by police, wife/housband .. or whatever the case may be. Ten Commandments are basicly a guide, and one is free to choose. All major religions have, in some way or another 'The Golden Rule', which then precludes pedophilia. If you look at the core truths of major religions, there's no disagreement. Whether one is striving for Salvation, Sainthood, Unconditional Love or Enlightment is, in the big scheme of things, irrelevant. They're all climbing the same ladder.
|
|
gaia
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by gaia on Apr 17, 2008 15:33:16 GMT -5
people already have this kind of freedom - there is no difference whether punishment comes from absolute or relative law the difference is the 'supposed' punishment in the afterlife - and how much is that of a deterrent over people's natural desire to act in self interest here in this life - we don't really know. You're right, they do have this kind of freedom already... But I meant to make "moral relativism" offical could be potentially more dangerous. And in spite of how much I believe in Karma/"afterlife", to some individuals it's clearly not a deterrent at all. I have great respect for Hinduism, especialy their classic Yogas (Bhakti, Karma, Jnana and Raja Yoga)... Haha.. I just had to highlight this. ;D
|
|
|
Post by deadendphilosopher on Apr 17, 2008 20:08:41 GMT -5
I think moral relativism presents a problem if it "teaches that every decision is a matter of personal feeling" if this doesn't cause one to stretch outside of one's self and see things logically, holistically, and from other perspectives, and to question one's motives.
One thing that makes me uncomfortable is when people take moral relativism to such an extreme that it becomes taboo to confront and question others about their moral values. I think it's fine for everyone to determine their own values, but I don't like the idea of someone saying, "This is what I believe, and you can disagree with me, but don't try to change me or confront me about it, because it's my personal choice." I think this kind of attitude inhibits growth, because none of us have all the answers, and I think we should be open to learning as much as we can from each other. I think this attitude is very selfish and self centered. I think we should argue/debate about values with each other as much as we want without having people hide behind the discussion quashing "this is just what I believe" line.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Apr 17, 2008 21:02:18 GMT -5
but isn't it the other way around? the 'absolute' law is absolute and not under discussion - as opposed to relativism where questioning is actually allowed as far as not trying to change someone or confront them - moral relativism does not set up any rules - its just says there is no absolute - and we are free to establish any laws we want - including laws to confront people about their beliefs
just because there is no absolute law does not mean people can't confront you about your beliefs if you think murder and pedophilia is good and act on it have fun living in a jail cell
|
|