Morality Is Relative

[Brimshack]

The Bible condones it? The Bible is the Christian Book: the Old Testemant+the New but, if you'd read your Bible, you'd find that the new REPLACES the Old. So all of those things in the Old Testemant don't really count so much anymore unless you can find some relevance in the new.

My take on it? Well... It's all still there, but Jesus is the new way. What was wrong is still wrong - but Jesus is the new way of approaching it. Instead of stoning a homosexual to death, you've gotta teach him and love him. Hate the sin, not the sinner. That's Jesus - that's the Christian way.

Actually, the notion that it was okay back then, but not now is textbook relativism.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Actually, the notion that it was okay back then, but not now is textbook relativism.

Well there weren't any Christians until the New Testemant, and there wasn't a Bible until the New Testemant. So the Bible doesn't condone these acts.

 

[Brimshack]

If that's really your argument, then I am done disussing this with you.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

If that's really your argument, then I am done disussing this with you.

Cool.

To anyone who isn't so quickly turned away, Jesus is the basis of Christianity and Jesus said to love thy neighbor as thyself. Jesus said to hate the sin and not the sinner. Jesus is the new way. He was cruxified because he challenged the old way. The old way is not the Christian way. If it was then we would not be Christians

 

[quatona]

Morality is relative.

I agree.

That is why I'm going to slowly cook my cat in boiling water.

I personally don´t see that as a necessary consequence, but if that gives you joy, happiness and satisfaction, I would merely have the option of giving you arguments why I think that it is not a good idea.
Another option would be to remind you of the moral agreements in your society. Then again, I would have a hard time justifying them as plausible, since they allow to kill animals slowly, too.

In China, it is a delight to torture cats for their flesh-

Yes, that´s because morals are relative - we already agreed on that.

I shall do the same.

For me personally, the fact that something is done somewhere in this world is not yet sufficient reason to do it myself. I don´t even do everything that is allowed in my own society.

I interpret the Chinese view of relative morality as my view.

I can´t help assuming, that you do not really know anything about the "Chinese view of morality".

I have been thinking of the Watu-Watu view of morality(i.e. cannibalism), so I may eat my brother.

You may want to get a bit more familiar with the Watu-Watu view of morality before jumping to conclusions. Some surprise might wait for you.

This is my interpretation of morality.

That´s very few points. I hope they help you get through your life well.

 

[SimplyMe]

Morality is relative.

That is why I'm going to slowly cook my cat in boiling water. In China, it is a delight to torture cats for their flesh-I shall do the same.

I interpret the Chinese view of relative morality as my view. I have been thinking of the Watu-Watu view of morality(i.e. cannibalism), so I may eat my brother.

This is my interpretation of morality.

What is the difference between boiling a cat alive and boiling a lobster, other than we see cats as pets? Seems like morally they should be one and the same.

As for cannibalism, what gives you the right to eat your brother rather than his having the right to eat you?

 

[b4uris]

That's probably a reasonable construction of the argument (though, I can imagine a few others).

I was just saying what I got from his post.

But of course, that would assume both that all social preferences are arbiters of right and wrong (which is not necessarily entailed by "relativism")

True. It still applies if morality is entirely subjectivist or if moral judgments are thought to be nothing more than emotional expressions though.

...Could be, depending on the principles that moral judgements are supposedly relative to. But of course, this isn't a very precise description of relatvism. If the point is that sloppy pop-relativists are inconistent, then so be it. If one is happy bashing the weakest thinkers among one's adversaries, then so be it.

No need to be so defensive. My comment wasn’t addressed to you specifically; I was trying to point out that it’s not uncommon of moral relativists to hold such view. If you want to set forth good arguments in favor of relativism, then so be it.

 

[Brimshack]

I was just saying what I got from his post.

My point is that you didn't actually get that from his post. To get to your conclusion requires additional assumptions which the OP does not commit too.

True. It still applies if morality is entirely subjectivist or if moral judgments are thought to be nothing more than emotional expressions though.

Yes, it does apply in that instance. Subjectivism and the equasion of moral judgements with emotion are not equivalent to relativism.

No need to be so defensive. My comment wasn’t addressed to you specifically; I was trying to point out that it’s not uncommon of moral relativists to hold such view. If you want to set forth good arguments in favor of relativism, then so be it.

I'm not being defensive at all, nor did I imagine you were attacking me. My point is simply that you are attacking the weakest constructions of relativism. Your initial post does not merely suggest that such views are common in relativist circles, but that relativism is equivalent to such views. It's not quite a Straw Man argument, but it is definitely in violation of the Principle of Charity.

 

[tcampen]

Here we go again. Someone else trying to utilize the Bible against Christianity and what our morals should be.

1) Jesus fulfilled the Law. We are to obey the law of the Ten Commandments and to adhere to Christ's teachings as passed down to his apostles and their succesors.

2) We know what is moral and immoral in the eyes of the Lord. If we want to remind people, then we should. However, if one chooses to not change their ways it's on them and that's their soul they're playing with.

While this sounds good, the practical application is that Christians who hold the above to be true differ dramatically in their interpretation of morality and ethics according to the bible. Whether it be abortion, capital punishment, enviromentalism, or national border enforcement - you name it - there is no real consensus that would establish any kind of objective morality.

These differences, among those who hold to the above quote, points to relative morality among those who claim to reject such a thing.

That is not to say there is no morality at all. The best example is the morality contained in our civil and criminal laws. But this morality is based on reason, not strictly on biblical interpretation. Reason can establish what is good and right - bad and wrong, in an objective way, even in light of the relative morality all humans employ (whether they admit it or not). This is the basis of modern civilization.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

whats next, situational ethics?

 

[fregas]

That's why Christians don't sell and own slaves anymore. That's why Christians don't stone homosexuals to death anymore, etc. The Bible condones those things, however.

If a biblical "ideal morality" was observed in the Church, what would it look like? No one can decide! No one can decide because it is relative to the person during the time they read it. The "ideal" or "perfect" biblical morality doesn't exist. On the contrary, biblical "morality" is often savage, cruel, and abusive: (Joshua 6:21, 8:24-26, 10:28-29, 10:32-33, 10:35, 10:37, 10:38, 10:40, 11:8, 11:11, 11:12, 11:14, 11:21)

Morality was, is, and WILL ALWAYS be relative to the individual or group. Change is contant. More: http://realityspoken.com/evil

I don't know if anyone has said this, but just because the bible contradicts itself, does not mean that MORALITY or ETHICS itself is relative.

I tend to take a somewhat utilitarian approach to ethics and morality, regardless of whether or not there is a God who cares about such matters. To me something is moral if it increases the most happiness and prevents the most suffering in human beings. Most of us have a pretty good understanding of what happiness and suffering is, so there isn't much room for relativist claims such as "the nazi's were moral" at least by this definition.

We may have an imperfect knowledge of what is MOST moral or MOST evil, but I think most people instintually recognize this utilitarian principle, even if they claim otherwise. For example, you will rarely hear even fundamentalist christians claim "pre-marital sex is wrong because god says so." Rather they usually try to justify it by reaons of not spreading disease, emotional and societal stability etc. And few moral relativists condone the holocaust.

Many of us disagree on how to bring about this happiness and prevent suffering (follow the bible, support the environment, don't be gay, vote democrat) but there are few moralists out there proselytizing that we should all be thieves or murderers. We all have the basics down, its the more complicated details that we are still working out. However, there is nothing morally relative about this. There is every reason to assume that one law or rule might bring about more happiness than other, we just don't always know which is which.

I would also suggest that some things that look "morally relative" are actually morally neutral. Prefering green beans over spinach falls into this category, and in my OPINION so does being homosexual or owning a gun. Its a choice, but that choice isn't right or wrong until you infringe on someone else's happiness.

Of course, if you absolutely do not care about your own happiness and suffering, and you absolutely do not care about the happiness or suffering of others, this argument is unlikely to move you. However we're probably not going to have much to talk about anyway and I'll avoid meeting you in dark alleys...

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

The problem w/ relative morality is that if all morality is relative, then that means there is no set rt. and wrong. If that is the case, then what is the standard of rt. and wrong? Does it change constantly? If so, how do you know it is the rt. thing to do? If it is just rt. for indv. people, then why not go ahead and injure someone, I mean it was rt. for the person causing the injury and it was rt. for the person who may have saw it not to do/say anything and let the person possibly kill the other person......

 

[fregas]

The problem w/ relative morality is that if all morality is relative, then that means there is no set rt. and wrong. If that is the case, then what is the standard of rt. and wrong? Does it change constantly? If so, how do you know it is the rt. thing to do? If it is just rt. for indv. people, then why not go ahead and injure someone, I mean it was rt. for the person causing the injury and it was rt. for the person who may have saw it not to do/say anything and let the person possibly kill the other person......

The answer to all your questions is:

"It just depends on the situation..."

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

The answer to all your questions is:

"It just depends on the situation..."

Yes, but how do you know what is rt. and wrong in any given situation? Also, is there anything that is just wrong across the board...because I know several things that are wrong no matter what.

 

[fregas]

Yes, but how do you know what is rt. and wrong in any given situation? Also, is there anything that is just wrong across the board...because I know several things that are wrong no matter what.

I was just being facetious. I don't actually believe that...

See my above post.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Yes, but how do you know what is rt. and wrong in any given situation?

You don't. It's all up to what you feel.

Also, is there anything that is just wrong across the board...because I know several things that are wrong no matter what.

You know several things taht YOU FEEL are wrong no matter what. That doesn't make them absolutely wrong.

 

[quatona]

The problem w/ relative morality is that if all morality is relative, then that means there is no set rt. and wrong.

Yeah, I understand how you may see that as a problem.
Another problem of that sort: Today I would have liked to go to the swimming pool, swim, read, and get a suntan. But it was snowing.

If that is the case, then what is the standard of rt. and wrong?

There is no universally agreed upon standard.

Does it change constantly?

Apart from the fact that different societies and groups hold different ideas of right and wrong, yes, these ideas also change constantly within each of the groups.

If so, how do you know it is the rt. thing to do?

I don´t know it.

If it is just rt. for indv. people, then why not go ahead and injure someone,

Because I don´t care whether it´s right for other people. I personally don´t feel it´s a good idea. I don´t see how a need an objective morality for that.
Besides, if assuming that an absolute morality exists, it is somewhat surprising that people murder each other nonetheless. So I do not really see what this assumed objective morality does for your argumentation. People kill each other because they feel it´s the right thing to do, that´s a given, completely independently of the question whether absolute morality exists or not.
The requirement for a morality that helps with getting rid of diverging ideas of right/wrong would be that it is universally agreed upon, not that it is absolute/objective.

I mean it was rt. for the person causing the injury and it was rt. for the person who may have saw it not to do/say anything and let the person possibly kill the other person......

No. If talking about a situation without objective right/wrong, it is meaningless to say "it was right", unless you refer to a particular moral system.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

You don't. It's all up to what you feel.


You know several things taht YOU FEEL are wrong no matter what. That doesn't make them absolutely wrong.

What if you feel that killing someone innocent, lets say a 8 month old infant, is the rt. thing?

No, that God has said is wrong.....but that's another debate...

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Yeah, I understand how you may see that as a problem.
Another problem of that sort: Today I would have liked to go to the swimming pool, swim, read, and get a suntan. But it was snowing.


There is no universally agreed upon standard.


Apart from the fact that different society and groups hold different ideas of right and wrong, yes, these ideas also change constantly within each of the groups.


I don´t know it.

Because I don´t care whether it´s right for other people. I personally don´t feel it´s a good idea. I don´t see how a need an objective morality for that.
Besides, if assuming that an absolute morality exists, it is somewhat surprising that people murder each other nonetheless. So I do not really see what this assumed objective morality does for your argumentation.

No. If talking about a situation without objective right/wrong, it is meaningless to say "it was right", unless you refer to a particular moral system.

People go against rt. and wrong all the time, even w/ the assumption of absolute morality. That's just how people are, but there needs to be some standard as to what is rt. and what isn't or there can be chaos.

But it wouldn't be wrong, so should they both or the person causing the inury get punished as criminals do today?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

What if you feel that killing someone innocent, lets say a 8 month old infant, is the rt. thing?

What if you do? Lots of people throughout history HAVE felt that killing innocents is the right thing.

No, that God has said is wrong.....but that's another debate...

Yes, it is. I'll just say that at the most, what YOU BELIEVE some god has said is wrong.