Why do so many Christians confuse Morality being Relative for "Moral Relativism"?

[SiderealExalt]

Well, the thread name pretty much says it all. Why do you think so many mostly conservative Christians confuse the two ideas?

 

[lawtonfogle]

I dare say most people confuse the two.

 

[MarcusHill]

Because "Moral Relativism" is widely viewed in a negative light, and they want to associate the idea that morality didn't come from some deity with this. It's just basic PR, really, like equating acceptance of evolution with atheism.

 

[TeddyKGB]

The terms in the OP are not very clear to me either. If I understand what you are trying to say, I suggest "moral subjectivism" as an alternative to "morality being relative."

 

[cantata]

Well, the thread name pretty much says it all. Why do you think so many mostly conservative Christians confuse the two ideas?

Do you mean they confuse Moral Relativism with the notion that it is more important to give people Personal Freedom than it is to force them to do the (Objectively) Moral Thing?

(So, for example, I might hold the belief that eating meat is deeply immoral, but also the belief that people have a right to personal freedom. Since I regard the right to personal freedom as more important than animals' right not to be eaten, I don't try to impose my opposition to eating meat on other people, even though it means that lots of them eat meat.)

Or do you mean they confuse Moral Relativism with the notion that different people have different moralities, or that their moralities are shaped by their culture?

Incidentally, I dodge the whole problem by not believing in any sort of morality - objective, relative, or otherwise.

 

[quatona]

Well, the thread name pretty much says it all. Why do you think so many mostly conservative Christians confuse the two ideas?

I´m not sure I have a clear idea of the difference in the meaning of those two wordings.
I´d love to learn it.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I think part of the problem is that some right wing demagogs have used moral relativism as a whipping boy and in doing so purposefully misrepresented it.

It might be better for all to refer to situational ethics rather than relative morality. Situational ethics acknowledges the fact that what is and what is not moral behavior changes based on the situation the individual finds him/herself in where rule based morality ignore this and end up forcing people into situations where they must break the externally imposed moral rule to act in a moral way.
For example rule based morality indicates that it is wrong to lie…period. However consider living in Nazi occupied Europe in the early 1940’s. you are aware that your neighbor is hiding a Jewish family in their cellar. Law enforcement form the Nazi state comes calling and asks if you know of and Jews being hidden. Telling the truth (which rule based morality calls for) would lead to the deaths of said Jewish family and likely your neighbors as well. However lying about what you know would be a sin.
Situational ethics indicate that it is always good to act in the legitimate best interests of others, in the above case it is moral in situation ethics to lie to the Nazi officers and claim to know about no hiding Jews.

A similar case can be made about killing another person.
rule based morality indicates it is wrong to kill another person (aside form the long the bible provides of people it is perfectly acceptable to murder including: rape victims, homosexuals, small children, people of different religions, slaves and so on and so on and so on) But situational ethics indicate that SOMETIMES (and in only rare occurrences) killing another may well be the ethical thing to do. To save the life of an innocent for example.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Very well put BigBad.

I´m not sure I have a clear idea of the difference in the meaning of those two wordings.
I´d love to learn it.

No problem.

Both BigBad and Cantata touched on it in their posts, particularly this part of Cantata's post.

"Or do you mean they confuse Moral Relativism with the notion that different people have different moralities, or that their moralities are shaped by their culture?"

We have all kinds of interconnected and interacting moral structures in society. From personal moral structures of a single person, to family units, to subcultures,and so on and so forth. On the first part part of my thread name I meant the variance that exists within those separate moral structures. We tend to have a lot of moral axioms naturally, because human existence is pretty much the same in a very general sense. We understand pain, get hungry, have wants,etc and so forth. Of course upbringings, life experiences, cultures of course change all those basics. But I don't want to get into too many specifics.

Morality relativism however is generally a, "I'm ok, you're ok." sort of thing. Where people say well since our morals are relatives you go ahead and do what you want. A lot of times certain people prop up, as has been nicely mentioned by some posters here, as straw man argument against someone. Saying that since they are unwilling to take a moral stance on something that such a person is morally bankrupt. Often times such people confuse some one saying that morals vary as that person saying they practice moral relativism.

To be honest, what got my started about all this was some posts I saw in parts of the forums I'm not allowed to post in, and some stuff I saw on some other separate forums from this.

 

[feral]

Unless I'm mistaken, the Christian understanding of morality is that it is absolute and inflexible. Morality is laid out by God in the Bible and is to be taken exactly like that at face value. There is no room for personal interpretation or making a judgment call based upon the situation, like situational morality. In the view of those who believe morality is relative, morals are consistent but can be interpreted based on the situation, the person, etc. The Christian moral code says stealing is wrong. It doesn't say stealing is only wrong if you're caught, or if you really needed what was stolen, or if the person you're stealing from owes you, etc. It's wrong. To someone like, say, me, stealing is wrong...unless you are in desperate need, and then it's ok to take what you need. The Bible doesn't appear to allow for that and many Christians I've known, especially the fundamentalist ones, don't accept that either.

Then, moral relativism is saying everybody's system of morality is okay, live and let live, etc. But Christians believe they have the only truth, are the only ones in touch with the only God, etc. To them, their morals are right and all others are wrong. They don't view all moral systems as acceptable, just their own. I don't think Christians confuse the two, I think they are just opposed to both.

I *think* that's what you wanted to know, am I right?

 

[Beanieboy]

To begin, I think a lot of people are asking, "um, what is moral relativism?"

However, I think the question that you are asking is (correct me if I am wrong): Why do Christians think there is an Absolute Morality, when it is usually Situation specific (ie, stealing your watch is different than a mother stealing soup to feed her kids at home.)

I believe that the reason is that it is scary to think that Morality or Truth is relative, or that they may not fully understand The Truth, or what God expects.

Someone posted something about asking if it was loving to ignore sin and the Gospel.
I proposed that Jesus NEVER focused on this or that sin, but rather, what one SHOULD do. The Goats and the Sheep were separated by their actions or inactions of loving kindness towards other people. Christ showed mercy to the tax collect who humbled himself before God while being a taxcollector, but did not justify the Pharisee, who obeyed the laws, did not cheat people out of money, nor was like the prostitute, but saw himself above others - in a word, without sin. So, the message of the bible, then, is not about sin, but about loving your neighbor as yourself, and in doing so, you love God. Jesus said to give more than you are asked, to walk 3 miles if asked to walk 1. Whatever you give will come back to you 3 fold, so don't worry about it. Buddhists call it karma. The only people that Christ really chided were those in the Church, the Pharisees, that enjoyed their status among men, who looked down upon others, who thought themselves better in God's eyes. Christ threatened that, and they hated him for it, so yes, it is sad that churches have turned to law and sin, like the Pharisees, rather than focusing on living in loving kindness, for being known for their love, generosity, humility, compassion, and mercy. That is a crime.

That is threatening to someone, like the Pharisees, who prefer to go to church, then look down on their neighbor, and think, "thank you, God, that I am not like THOSE people". It is threatening to realize that your understanding of what God wants may be completely off base. It is threatening to your own sense of superiority. It is threatening to your own map of reality, which Christ turned upside down, honoring the adultress, the prostitute, the tax collector, and the Samaritan, and humbling the Sadducee, the Pharisee, the Priest, and the Levite.

To someone who must "hold" the truth, it is threatening to think that they don't have it. However, there is a great Buddhist saying, "If someone says that he is seeking the Truth, listen to him eagerly. If someone claims to hold the truth, run far away."

Why? Because one who believes they hold the truth will refuse to be corrected, even if they are mistaken. No matter how much you show them a Jesus of mercy, they will give you a God of wrath. To change their idea of God, they must examine why they enjoy a God of Wrath, and that is usually because they feel condemnation for others, no mercy for others, and to quote Depeche Mode: Everybody's waiting for The Judgement Day, so they can go, "Told you so!"

It is also a threat to think about what Jesus or the Bible means.
For example: I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me.
I was explained that only people who have Jesus as their Saviour come to the Father.
Muslim? Going to hell. Hindus? Where am I going and why am I in this handbasket?

However, Jesus said this when he was alive. It wasn't (*pending my upcoming crucifiction, and resurrection, and then your repenting of sins, asking me into your heart, being baptized. Void where restricted.)

"The Father" is everywhere, is a part of us (Buddhists call it "Buddha").
However, I believe that Jesus' "way" is to act Christ-like. Have mercy on others. Be kind to others. Humble yourself before everyone, whether they are homeless, a criminal, or on Jerry Springer. That is The Truth, and in that, creates the Life with God, being in congruence with God, who has always been in your heart even in the womb.

My neice said that she was at a U2 concert, where they chanted, "Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, All is good, All is true."
She said, "I'm sorry, but I just can't chant that."
I understand, but what was U2 Chanting it for? To seek God in the way that you can, and not kill other people that seek God in a different way.

It's unsettling to see people killing each other over "God". That must sadden God beyond words. Rather, if one humbles themself, humbles themself to the idea that maybe, just maybe, they are the one that is wrong, or that they believe in the same religion as their parents, even the same denomination, so it only makes sense that a Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist would do they same, they could live in coexistence and peace. isn't that what God wants, rather than, "I'm right, you're wrong?" Does he want us simply flexing our ego? Or does he rather want us to live our religion, rather than preach it? If God could become man, and wash our feet, can't we at least wash the feet of our fellow man?

Namaste (I bow to the divinity within you)

 

[cantata]

Beanieboy, I don't think the question was so much about what Christians believe about morality themselves, but what many Christians seem to think other people believe. Many of us non-Christians get accused of "moral relativism". when in fact we're just acknowledging that sometimes moral choices are situational, or that different people have different ideas about ethics.

By the way, this is not specifically addressed at Beanieboy, but is a more general remark: moral relativism is being misrepresented. It's more complicated than just "do what you like".

Moral relativism is the belief that moral truths are defined by cultural or personal circumstance. For example, in a culture where polygamy is considered wrong, the moral relativist can say that it is literally wrong in places that are part of that culture, simply by virtue of people believing it to be so. In another culture, meanwhile, where polygamy is believed to be right, polygamy is literally right in places that are part of that culture, because in that culture people believe it to be right.

In other words, moral relativists believe that the only standard of right and wrong that we have is a culturally (or personally) defined one. That's actually not such a crazy thing to say. It's essentially a descriptive position about human society. And it works just fine if you believe something like Mackie's error theory, which basically says that we're fooled into believing in objective morality, but actually the only morality we have is culturally defined (i.e. it's in the realm of ideas alone and there is no objective standard). You can then get down to the business of rejecting the notion of morality wholesale.

If you don't reject the notion of morality, but you stick with moral relativism, the problem is that you end up with a situation in which no one can make moral claims about other cultures. You don't like wife-burning? Fair enough, but over there in another culture, wife-burning is literally morally right. Most people find that upsetting. Some people maintain that it is true, but I find it to be a contrived position.

Of course, the other problem is attempting to derive some actual ethics from moral relativism leads you into a bit of a mess. It seems to make revolution always morally wrong, for a start. Also, perhaps, as a moral relativist, you think you can conclude that it's right to treat other people's moral positions with respect, or something of that sort. Well, that's fine, but you have no way of inforcing even that position outside your own culture. That other culture is literally right to completely ignore your nice "respect" idea and send in the troops (or the missionaries).

So, to conclude: moral relativists make a valid point, that the only source of morality we have is culturally constructed. The correct conclusion to draw from this is not, however, a weird relativistic ethics, but that the belief in moral facts is an interesting illusion, a common error.