Moral relativism/universalism

[Heidi]

Just curious. There is no "other" option. What would BEST describe your personal beliefs concerning right and wrong?

 

Moral relativism (Meta-ethical):

Meta-ethical relativists believe not only that people disagree about moral issues, but that terms such as "good," "bad," "right" and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all. Rather, they describe societal conventions and personal preference. Meta-ethical relativists are, firstly, descriptive relativists: they believe that, given the same set of facts, some societies or individuals will have a fundamental disagreement about what one ought to do (based on societal or individual norms). What's more, they argue that one cannot adjudicate these disagreements using some independent standard of evaluation — the standard will always be societal or personal.

 

Moral universalism: Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to relativism), but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism). IOWs, even though people disagree, and some may even be unpersuadable (e.g. someone who is closed-minded), there is still a meaningful sense in which an action may be more 'moral' than another. That is, they believe there are objective standards of evaluation that seem worth calling 'moral facts' - regardless of whether they are universally accepted.

 

*both definitions come from wiki

Edited October 29, 2011 by hmsmith

[Mrs Mungo]

Yes. Sometimes there is a right or wrong, black or white answer. Sometimes it is situational, cultural or relative.

 

I did not answer the poll.

[Heidi]

The reason I ask is because I heard somewhere that around 75% of teachers in the US believe in moral relativism. Or maybe they just teach it. ? I'm not sure. I suppose that moral relativism is implied since God is effectively ommitted from curriculum at ps.

Anyway, it just made me wonder what the Hive's percentage was.

[chiguirre]

The reason I ask is because I heard somewhere that around 75% of teachers in the US believe in moral relativism. Or maybe they just teach it. ? I'm not sure. I suppose that moral relativism is implied since God is effectively ommitted from curriculum at ps.

Anyway, it just made me wonder what the Hive's percentage was.

 

I think that ps teachers have to deal with all kinds of people in all kinds of situations. They have to walk a mile in someone else's shoes much more often than most of us.

[Heidi]

I think that ps teachers have to deal with all kinds of people in all kinds of situations. They have to walk a mile in someone else's shoes much more often than most of us.

Right, I agree. In a PS setting they really don't have the right to tell or teach someone else what is right and wrong.

[twoforjoy]

FWIW, I'm on sure how useful the poll will be, because many people are moral absolutists, who will probably be collapsed into the "moral universalist" position in the poll.

 

For me, it depends.

 

I was reading an essay a while back which presented the following scenario: You have promised a good friend that you would be the best man at their wedding. You have the rings. But, at the train station, you lose your ticket and don't have money to buy another one. You see a man who you have good reason to believe is very wealthy get up and leave his ticket on his seat. What do you do? Do you not take the ticket and not fulfill your obligation to your friend? Or do you steal the ticket and fulfill your obligation to your friend?

 

Almost all Western people say that you absolutely do NOT steal the ticket; that would be morally wrong, while missing the wedding would be understandable/acceptable. Nearly all Eastern people say that you absolutely do NOT miss the wedding; disrupting the relational ties would be morally wrong.

 

I'm not willing to say that the Western view on this is the right one.

 

On the other hand, genocide is always wrong.

 

But, in general, I don't really think it matters or makes much difference whether people believe morality is absolute, universal, or relative. For one thing, it doesn't seem to make any difference in behavior. The vast majority of people are not raping, pillaging, and murdering, no matter what their view of morality. And, the vast majority of people do tell white lies and break the speed limit. One's view of morality seems only to matter in terms of how they judge others, and not in terms of their own moral code.

 

For another, in practice morality is always contextual. We make moral decisions (or judge moral decisions) in contexts. Abstract discussions of morality may be interesting, but morality always plays out in situations.

 

When you get down to it, it doesn't matter what your view of somebody else's actions is, or how moral or immoral you judge them to be; what matters is your own actions. And, quite frankly, most of the moral relativists I know have personal moral codes that are just as strict if not stricter than the moral absolutists I know. So, I really think it's a non-issue. It only affects how we judge the morality of others, and I don't think we really need to be in the business of doing that, anyway. My personal experience has been that moral relativists are people who hold themselves to higher standards, morally, than they hold others; moral absolutists/universalists tend to have lofty ideals that they hold others to but, in the context of their own life, allow themselves a lot more leeway. So, I don't find it even a tiny bit troubling if most people describe themselves as moral relativists.

[regentrude]

I did not answer the poll because there was no "other".

Some values, I believe, are universal and some things are just right or wrong, no matter what. But then there are some are based on societal norms, culture, situation and the good/bad decision is not black and white.

I fit into neither category.

[Heidi]

FWIW, I'm on sure how useful the poll will be, because many people are moral absolutists, who will probably be collapsed into the "moral universalist" position in the poll.

 

For me, it depends.

 

I was reading an essay a while back which presented the following scenario: You have promised a good friend that you would be the best man at their wedding. You have the rings. But, at the train station, you lose your ticket and don't have money to buy another one. You see a man who you have good reason to believe is very wealthy get up and leave his ticket on his seat. What do you do? Do you not take the ticket and not fulfill your obligation to your friend? Or do you steal the ticket and fulfill your obligation to your friend?

 

Almost all Western people say that you absolutely do NOT steal the ticket; that would be morally wrong, while missing the wedding would be understandable/acceptable. Nearly all Eastern people say that you absolutely do NOT miss the wedding; disrupting the relational ties would be morally wrong.

 

I'm not willing to say that the Western view on this is the right one.

 

On the other hand, genocide is always wrong.

 

But, in general, I don't really think it matters or makes much difference whether people believe morality is absolute, universal, or relative. For one thing, it doesn't seem to make any difference in behavior. The vast majority of people are not raping, pillaging, and murdering, no matter what their view of morality. And, the vast majority of people do tell white lies and break the speed limit. One's view of morality seems only to matter in terms of how they judge others, and not in terms of their own moral code.

 

For another, in practice morality is always contextual. We make moral decisions (or judge moral decisions) in contexts. Abstract discussions of morality may be interesting, but morality always plays out in situations.

 

When you get down to it, it doesn't matter what your view of somebody else's actions is, or how moral or immoral you judge them to be; what matters is your own actions. And, quite frankly, most of the moral relativists I know have personal moral codes that are just as strict if not stricter than the moral absolutists I know. So, I really think it's a non-issue. It only affects how we judge the morality of others, and I don't think we really need to be in the business of doing that, anyway. My personal experience has been that moral relativists are people who hold themselves to higher standards, morally, than they hold others; moral absolutists/universalists tend to have lofty ideals that they hold others to but, in the context of their own life, allow themselves a lot more leeway. So, I don't find it even a tiny bit troubling if most people describe themselves as moral relativists.

 

I actually don't think there would be very many moral absolutists here, which is why I used the universalist. Absolutism is a very narrow view. According to wiki's def:

 

"Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. Thus stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good."

[Mrs Mungo]

The reason I ask is because I heard somewhere that around 75% of teachers in the US believe in moral relativism. Or maybe they just teach it. ? I'm not sure. I suppose that moral relativism is implied since God is effectively ommitted from curriculum at ps.

Anyway, it just made me wonder what the Hive's percentage was.

 

I don't fit neatly into either category. Most people do not.

 

Slavery is always wrong. "Modesty" is a cultural construct.

[Heidi]

I did not answer the poll because there was no "other".

Some values, I believe, are universal and some things are just right or wrong, no matter what. But then there are some are based on societal norms, culture, situation and the good/bad decision is not black and white.

I fit into neither category.

 

Which values do you consider universal? And if there was a culture that did not hold those particular values, would you judge them to be wrong or within context of their culture?

[cdrumm4448]

I actually don't think there would be very many moral absolutists here, which is why I used the universalist. Absolutism is a very narrow view. According to wiki's def:

 

"Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. Thus stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good."

 

Then I guess I'm an absolutist as I believe stealing is wrong in every context.

Edited October 29, 2011 by cdrumm4448

[Heidi]

I don't fit neatly into either category. Most people do not.

 

Slavery is always wrong. "Modesty" is a cultural construct.

 

I suppose that unless you believe that standards are ALWAYS personal, you would fall into the Universalist category.

[Heidi]

Then I guess I'm an absolutist as I believe stealing wrong in every context.

 

Oh! Well then I guess I should have included it. Sorry!

[Daisy]

My husband is a teacher. He isn't morally relativistic.

 

I think he'd say that school curriculum is morally relativistic. It claims to be neutral, but he'd state that a neutral education IS a morally relativistic education.

 

I voted that we are moral universalists. We believe there are actions that are clearly right (moral) and actions that are clearly wrong (immoral) independent of anyone's personal thoughts about them or a culture's embracing of them. We believe there are moral absolutes.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Daisy

[regentrude]

Which values do you consider universal? And if there was a culture that did not hold those particular values, would you judge them to be wrong or within context of their culture?

 

I think there is close to universal consensus that torturing a person for pleasure is just.wrong. No relativism about that. Or murder - not to kill is pretty universal, too (although even THERE we have famous ethical dilemmas and different societal norms in different places; the US is a rare exception of a country that considers the death penalty ethical, while most others do not).

 

An example for morals that are extremely closely linked to culture are, for instance, all rules judging the behavior of women. There are historical components (even in this country, the idea what women are allowed to do has shifted over the years) and religious components (ranging from modesty rules to denying a women the right to leave the house without a male or to drive a car). I personally think it is wrong to treat a woman as a lesser human being, but most Saudi men would think my attitude sinful and would insist that it is immoral for a woman to drive or be in public unchaperoned.

 

I don't have time to think of more examples right now, but I think this illustrates what I mean.

[silliness7]

Is it true to say that if you hold just ONE idea to be moral/immoral across the board, like genocide or slavery that you would fall into the moral universalism camp?

 

Moral universalism doesn't actually give a list of the things that should be moral/immoral across cultures. Just that some things *are*. What those things are is still up to debate. Right? Or not?

[In2why]

Is it true to say that if you hold just ONE idea to be moral/immoral across the board, like genocide or slavery that you would fall into the moral universalism camp?

 

Moral universalism doesn't actually give a list of the things that should be moral/immoral across cultures. Just that some things *are*. What those things are is still up to debate. Right? Or not?

 

 

I answered the poll based on what I think the majority of the time. I am without a doubt a moral relativistic in the majority of my thinking, but of course there will always be some things that every culture would see as evil, even if individual people in the culture justified it.

[Veritaserum]

Yes. Sometimes there is a right or wrong, black or white answer. Sometimes it is situational, cultural or relative.

 

I did not answer the poll.

 

:iagree: Some things are universal (cold-blooded murder, for example). Others are dependent on culture (what is or isn't modest, for example).

[Violet Crown]

Put me down as another vote for "moral absolutism," at least as far as I see it being described here.

 

There are universal moral laws. Half of morality is knowledge of these laws. The other half is relating particular situations to what those laws require. The difficulty in doing either of these is not an argument for relativism, any more than the difficulty of doing astronomy is an argument for picking geocentrism instead of heliocentrism, depending on one's own personal conscience or culture.

[DawnM]

I didn't answer either, and I am a former public school teacher.

 

There are a LOT of things that are ALWAYS wrong. Yes, I realize this is my personal opinion, but I don't think you will find too many saying that murder, rape, stealing, cheating or abuse are ever ok. If they do, they are most likely mentally ill.

 

Dawn

[silliness7]

I answered the poll based on what I think the majority of the time. I am without a doubt a moral relativistic in the majority of my thinking, but of course there will always be some things that every culture would see as evil, even if individual people in the culture justified it.

 

Is that moral universalism? That there are things that *every* culture sees as evil. Or is moral universalism the idea that every culture *should* see some things as evil, even if they don't.

[Heidi]

Is that moral universalism? That there are things that *every* culture sees as evil. Or is moral universalism the idea that every culture *should* see some things as evil, even if they don't.[/QUOTE]

 

I think moral universalism refers to the bolded. I also think you hit on what I'm trying to get to. It's not what is universally held across cultures, it's what you think should be considered right/wrong across cultures.

Edited October 29, 2011 by hmsmith

[silliness7]

I didn't answer either, and I am a former public school teacher.

 

There are a LOT of things that are ALWAYS wrong. Yes, I realize this is my personal opinion, but I don't think you will find too many saying that murder, rape, stealing, cheating or abuse are ever ok. If they do, they are most likely mentally ill.

 

Dawn

 

I watched End of the Spear not too long ago. I can't remember the name of the native tribe that the missionaries were living with. But they are an example of a culture in modern day that thought murder, rape, stealing, cheating and abuse were perfectly fine. Might makes right.

[Violet Crown]

I watched End of the Spear not too long ago. I can't remember the name of the native tribe that the missionaries were living with. But they are an example of a culture in modern day that thought murder, rape, stealing, cheating and abuse were perfectly fine. Might makes right.

 

Which is why doing ethics by counting raised hands turns out not to work so well.

[Ipsey]

Right, I agree. In a PS setting they really don't have the right to tell or teach someone else what is right and wrong.

 

Uh, really?!

 

I find this completely bizarre.

 

But it comes from believing that there is no good without gods (a God).

 

I can't think of a single non-religious person I know who would say such a thing.

 

This is either an intentional straw-man, or you don't really understand the opposition point-of-view on this argument.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Ipsey

[Ipsey]

Yes. Sometimes there is a right or wrong, black or white answer. Sometimes it is situational, cultural or relative.

 

I did not answer the poll.

 

Same here. Impossible to answer this given the restrictions.

 

With regard to the OPs original comment, I for one, am glad that "God is effectively omitted from curriculum at ps."

There are too many differing opinions on what God and various gods want. I would find some God-/god-centered teachings very disturbing and irrational. (God doesn't want us to drink hot beverages. No, God doesn't care. To much more dangerous topics.)

 

I find that people who don't believe in gods can be just as moral or more moral than religious people. I'd very much like to see morality based on non-religious principles for that reason. People can be moral, humane and kind without god, just as people can be complete psychopaths with God, and based on the teachings OF a God/god.

 

Much better to teach how to be good/kind/moral and not tie it in with irrationality and superstition.

 

Tell a child, "Be kind to Jose. When you take his thing that hurts him. Do you see how that hurts?" teach compassion. It's better than teaching, "God doesn't like that."

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Some things that religious people think of as "absolutely wrong" were not always regarded as "absolutely wrong" earlier in their religion. Abortion was defended in earlier days by church leaders. (See book "The Moral Imagination") Slavery was defended by the Bible, as well.

 

What we think of as absolutely right/wrong within xianity NOW was not always so, in that context it DOES seem cultural.

 

Yes, public schools have a right to teach kids right/wrong. In their world it is wrong to cheat on tests, push other kids down, etc. Straw man.

 

The usual arguments about the fact that you do not need a deity to have morality apply here.

[twoforjoy]

I watched End of the Spear not too long ago. I can't remember the name of the native tribe that the missionaries were living with. But they are an example of a culture in modern day that thought murder, rape, stealing, cheating and abuse were perfectly fine. Might makes right.

 

Did they think they were perfectly acceptable, or perfectly acceptable under some circumstances?

 

Because, historically, many cultures--including the culture in which many parts of the OT were written--believed that raping, murdering, and stealing from "the other" was okay. No, you weren't to do those things to people within your in-group, but it was okay to do to those outside of it. And, to a large extent we still believe this. The same people railing against "moral relativism," IME, are the ones most likely to be in favor of torturing, bombing, and claiming the resources of "outsiders."

 

I'm very curious, honestly, how those who think that the Bible is the place where we find absolute morals reconcile that with the fact that in the OT God is presenting as condoning and sometimes even commanding the pillaging, rape, and murder of people groups. If it was okay--even right--to perpetrate the genocide of the Canaanite people, then how can you say that genocide is absolutely wrong?

[Ipsey]

:iagree: You can't be neutral when it comes to morals. If you try to be neutral, you get into somehow figuring out your own moral code for yourself in any situation, and, as a Christian, that's not something I agree with for me.

 

Here's a question for you, then.

 

In Saudi Arabia women who are believed to be "impure" can be put to death--and some are. They are executed for not being virgins before marriage. This, they believe, is what their deity commands.

 

Do you think this is wrong? Is executing women for pre-marital sex right or wrong?

Edited October 29, 2011 by Ipsey

[twoforjoy]

You can't be neutral when it comes to morals. If you try to be neutral, you get into somehow figuring out your own moral code for yourself in any situation, and, as a Christian, that's not something I agree with for me.

 

But is it the job of public schools to teach a certain type of morality? Obviously schools promote the types of morality that are necessary for the schools to function: don't cheat, don't lie, don't steal, don't get into fights, don't be mean to others, etc. But, do we want schools to be making absolute pronouncements on other moral issues that are not relevant to the orderly running of a school?

[cdrumm4448]

Much better to teach how to be good/kind/moral and not tie it in with irrationality and superstition.

 

Tell a child, "Be kind to Jose. When you take his thing that hurts him. Do you see how that hurts?" teach compassion. It's better than teaching, "God doesn't like that."

 

I find it interesting that you equate religion/God with irrationality and superstitution.

 

We encourage showing compassion toward others because we love God for His compassion toward us. It isn't because,"God doesn't like that."

[Hope in God]

Laws are a difficult thing. They often fail to get to the heart of the matter. Jesus said that the commandment that sums up all of the laws is simply to love your neighbour as you love yourself.

[Kertie]

I actually don't think there would be very many moral absolutists here, which is why I used the universalist. Absolutism is a very narrow view. According to wiki's def:

 

"Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. Thus stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good."

 

Hmm. Well, I believe it's an absolute :tongue_smilie: fallacy to think that that the end result of something changes the nature of the act that effected the result.

 

Stealing is wrong. Might it be excused, forgiven, or deemed understandable in a given situation? Of course--but that doesn't suddenly make stealing "right."

 

ETA: I didn't answer the poll.

[serendipitous journey]

I am nearer to being a secular humanist than anything else, and I polled as a universalist. I think that many religious persons believe that secular persons have no real morals: no sense of absolute right and wrong, or else they would be religious. There is a great deal more to any particular religion than a conviction that moral truth exists, however.

 

The treatment of women in different cultures has come up several times, and seems to me a fine example of why relativism is dangerous. If slavery is absolutely wrong, as many here have posted, than the subjugation of women should surely be absolutely wrong too. This seems clear to me in the case of denying women access to education. Stunting, or constraining, a person's intellectual development and sophistication stunts her moral and ethical development and counts as an evil. As does a culture which forces women into early marriages and family rearing: anyone on this board knows how having children can limit one's other ambitions! and having children you are not ready for or do not want makes it so much harder to mother with grace and to grow spiritually through your mothering. -- female genital mutilation is generally considered evil these days, on a par with footbinding in old China, but was once considered culturally relative. Women's equal status before the law, and right to vote, may be considered more nuanced; but it seems that, practically speaking, constraining women in these ways does them harm.

 

So I disagree strongly with those who hold constraints on women's freedoms to be their cultural prerogative; so do many women:). Of course: intelligent people of good will shall disagree, and I may not be right ...

 

There is also plenty for a Saudi or any other outsider to morally condemn in America. Two examples that come fresh to mind are the sexualized photographs of children on display at American supermarket checkout counters -- think Elle, Vogue, etc. -- which reflect and exacerbate some of our own corruptions; and (heavy on my heart) the state of the Californian prison system and the abuses of the prisoners, this being something for which I as a Californian bear accountability.

 

-- thank you to the OP for this discussion, and to the other posters for giving me lots to think about and some things to question in my own beliefs.

Edited October 29, 2011 by serendipitous journey
accuracy.

[Heather in Neverland]

I am definitely an absolutist and God is my measuring stick. If He says it is wrong then it is wrong and "culture" or time period pays no part in it for me. Stealing is always wrong. Lying is always wrong. Etc.

 

Just because a lot of people in a particular culture decide that it is ok to do something doesn't mean it is. That is statistical morality and it can be dangerous. That is why God and only God is my standard for morality.

[silliness7]

Did they think they were perfectly acceptable, or perfectly acceptable under some circumstances?

 

Because, historically, many cultures--including the culture in which many parts of the OT were written--believed that raping, murdering, and stealing from "the other" was okay. No, you weren't to do those things to people within your in-group, but it was okay to do to those outside of it. And, to a large extent we still believe this. The same people railing against "moral relativism," IME, are the ones most likely to be in favor of torturing, bombing, and claiming the resources of "outsiders."

 

I'm very curious, honestly, how those who think that the Bible is the place where we find absolute morals reconcile that with the fact that in the OT God is presenting as condoning and sometimes even commanding the pillaging, rape, and murder of people groups. If it was okay--even right--to perpetrate the genocide of the Canaanite people, then how can you say that genocide is absolutely wrong?

 

I am not going to attempt to take a stab at your question. It does not have a simple, easy to explain answer and even if it did I'm sure I couldn't do anywhere near an adequate job. Here's one Christian's attempt to take a stab at it. So when you get a chance to indulge your curiosity on the point, you'll have something to read. :001_smile:

[twoforjoy]

Stealing is always wrong. Lying is always wrong. Etc.

 

What about the situation of a family, in Nazi Germany, hiding Jews? If they lied--either by omission or comission--about whether they had Jews in their house, were they wrong? And, if they were wrong, was it okay to be wrong in that situation because the alternative was even more wrong? Does it matter whether we judge a person's decision to steal medicine to save their dying child to be right or wrong, if in the end it was the least wrong of the alternatives?

 

I guess I'm just wondering what the usefulness of absolutes is, in practice, given that we always make moral decisions in contexts. Unfortunately, it seems to me that in many cases absolutes are only really used to judge the actions of others.

 

That is why God and only God is my standard for morality.

 

But how do you, or anybody who says that God is the standard, figure out what that means? It still involves interpretation, evaluation, and subjective decision making.

[silliness7]

I actually don't think there would be very many moral absolutists here, which is why I used the universalist. Absolutism is a very narrow view. According to wiki's def:

 

"Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. Thus stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good."

 

I voted moral universalism but I'm reading the people's posts in defense of moral absolutism and they make sense to me. But I'm thinking of the OT provision that God gave to people who accidentally killed their neighbor. Taking innocent life is still wrong but the punishment was different if it was an accident. Is there room in moral absolutism for that? Is moral absolutism simply about what is right .period and what is wrong. period. It's not necessarily about dealing with offenders and meting out consequences, etc. It seems that context and intention *do* matter when it comes to consequences. Am I confusing two issues?

[twoforjoy]

I am not going to attempt to take a stab at your question. It does not have a simple, easy to explain answer and even if it did I'm sure I couldn't do anywhere near an adequate job. Here's one Christian's attempt to take a stab at it. So when you get a chance to indulge your curiosity on the point, you'll have something to read. :001_smile:

 

Thank you. I'll have to read that. The general explanation I've heard is along the lines of "The Canaanites were terrible people doing terrible things, so they had to be wiped out and it was merciful to do so," but I don't think that helps things, because it still allows that genocide might be okay if the people it's being perpetrated against are really, really bad.

[cdrumm4448]

But how do you, or anybody who says that God is the standard, figure out what that means? It still involves interpretation, evaluation, and subjective decision making.

 

There isn't much subjective decision making in the 10 Commandments.

[serendipitous journey]

There isn't much subjective decision making in the 10 Commandments.

... well, there the command not to bear false witness, which many folks agree implied not bearing false witness in a legal case, is often broadened to lying generally; and not to murder, often to not killing; also there are two lists of the commandments, which differ slightly. Also most of us are working from English translations of a text copied from another text, etc ... but certainly there's a strong nugget there...

[silliness7]

twoforjoy's question about hiding Jews from the Nazi's got me thinking about Rahab. I think these kinds of discussions are just fascinating. I'm not good at answering the hard questions but I appreciate those who aren't afraid to ask them. And in this age of internet it makes it kind of fun and easy to hunt down people who have attempted an answer. Yes, I am lazy. :001_smile:

 

I enjoyed this blogger's take on it.

 

She said, “Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they had come from.â€

Rahab lied. She knew these men where Israelites. Her conversations with them later on shows that. The Ten Commandments contain the instruction “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.†(Exodus 20: 16) So was it wrong for Rahab to lie?

If she told the truth, then men would have died. Clearly she was doing the right thing by telling a lie, but I would have struggled to do what she did and still have a pure conscience. It makes we wonder, can I obey God and not worry about the consequences, or am I so worried about doing the right thing, that I end up doing the wrong thing?

In Christ we have freedom, not bondage. Paul had to deal with a similar issue regarding food. He was asked if it was right to eat food offered as a sacrifice to other Gods. His reply, “If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, ‘This has been offered in sacrifice,’ then do not eat it…†(1 Corinthians 10: 27-28).

 

The bolding here is mine. I just wanted to say that it sounds like here is a situation where it could be wrong or it could be fine to eat meat sacrificed to idols. (not really something most of us deal with in our day) It depends on your own heart. You must act in accord with your heart or conscience. Which almost sounds like do it if it "feels" good. But I know that it doesn't mean that.

 

I think the same thing applies to lying. If we are sure we are acting in the best interest of another person then it may be acceptable. After all “No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.†(1 Corinthians 10: 25), and if we are operating in love (true love), then we are free to do whatever we needs to be done.

Am I saying that the ends justified the means? Not at all! What I am saying is that there might be times in your life when you have to choose the lesser of two evils. In Rahab’s case it was tell a lie, or be responsible for the death of one of God’s people. We should not be so bound by rules and regulations that we loose sight of the big picture.

Jesus dealt with the same problem when it came to healing on the Sabbath. His conclusion was “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.†(Mark 2: 27). The rules are there for our guidelines, not as our masters. What matters first and foremost is that in everything we do we “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’…‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.†(Matthew 22: 37-40)

So what does this love look like? “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters… Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth. This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God†(1 John 16,18-21)

So whether we feel condemned or not, any act of sacrifice that involves putting our lives on the line for others, as Rahab did here, is what obedience to the law is ultimately all about.

[Joanne]

I can't rectify anything *but* relativism with the Bible. I can't imagine being both a literalist and an absolutist. I'm reading Hosea for a final and, sorry, if you believe it literally, it certainly supports a means to an end justification of amoral behavior.

[Farrar]

I think there's a baseline absolute of right and wrong, but I think there's a heck of a lot more gray. That poll is way too absolute - black and white - for me to answer.

[Heidi]

I voted moral universalism but I'm reading the people's posts in defense of moral absolutism and they make sense to me. But I'm thinking of the OT provision that God gave to people who accidentally killed their neighbor. Taking innocent life is still wrong but the punishment was different if it was an accident. Is there room in moral absolutism for that? Is moral absolutism simply about what is right .period and what is wrong. period. It's not necessarily about dealing with offenders and meting out consequences, etc. It seems that context and intention *do* matter when it comes to consequences. Am I confusing two issues?

 

From what I understand, absolutism is regardless of consequences while universalism considers consequences & situations but still maintains that there are universal moral truths that apply across cultures.

I don't agree with absolutism. It would be right to lie & steal in certain situations. Like those that smuggled people who were being persecuted out of dangerous territory. In situations like that lying and stealing is admirable even.

However I do believe that honesty is a universal moral standard when the intent of the standard, rather than the letter, is met. That is universalism,I believe.

relativism would claim no universal application by either intent or law. It would vary from culture to culture whether honesty were upheld as a virtue or not.

[Ipsey]

I find it interesting that you equate religion/God with irrationality and superstitution.

 

We encourage showing compassion toward others because we love God for His compassion toward us. It isn't because,"God doesn't like that."

 

I don't know that it's all that unusual. Religious people may often view other religions to be superstitious/irrational/ or demonic (When I was an Evangelical, living both in the US and abroad, this was certainly the way we were taught to believe.) It's not at all unreasonable for a non-religious person to view all religious beliefs that way (minus the demonic).

 

I take your point, however. Strike "God doesn't like that" and insert "We should love other people because God loves us."

 

I don't think that's particularly wonderful either.

 

I think encouraging compassion and empathy for its own sake and for the sake of our fellow human beings is vastly more important that "I show you compassion because of my deity," for whatever reason.

[Ipsey]

Thank you. I'll have to read that. The general explanation I've heard is along the lines of "The Canaanites were terrible people doing terrible things, so they had to be wiped out and it was merciful to do so," but I don't think that helps things, because it still allows that genocide might be okay if the people it's being perpetrated against are really, really bad.

 

Exactly.

 

This is something I could never justify when I was a believer. I tried for a long time.

"Some things are always wrong (genocide). Except when they're not (genocide commanded by my deity for important reasons)."

 

In some ways I think I'm a more moral person as an atheist than I was as a believer. I no longer need to justify evils I see because my deity says they're good.

 

I read the first page of the page that was linked. I find it frustrating. There's one section that is basically couching the question as, (paraphrase) "Yes, genocide is bad, but everyone is going to die anyway. And plus, what about deaths by malnourishment, and disease, and neglect? Genocide is just a drop in the bucket compared with these, and all death is brought about by our sinfulness anyway. What's it matter if God command some people to kill others or just lets them die in other horrible ways." I'm not quite sure what sort of weird rationale that's supposed to be, but . . .sheesh. It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to get close enough for someone to insert their faith and complete the circuit.

[Heidi]

I don't know that it's all that unusual. Religious people may often view other religions to be superstitious/irrational/ or demonic (When I was an Evangelical, living both in the US and abroad, this was certainly the way we were taught to believe.) It's not at all unreasonable for a non-religious person to view all religious beliefs that way (minus the demonic).

 

I take your point, however. Strike "God doesn't like that" and insert "We should love other people because God loves us."

 

I don't think that's particularly wonderful either.

 

I think encouraging compassion and empathy for its own sake and for the sake of our fellow human beings is vastly more important that "I show you compassion because of my deity," for whatever reason.

 

This is a good point. Does God command us to be honest because honesty is good? Or is honesty good because God approves of honesty?

I am very religious. I don't believe that God creates moral principles by His will. Instead I believe God recognizes moral principles.

I strive to love others not because God commands it, but because I recognize love as a moral principle that God also recognizes. I also believe that God is love. He is all moral principles; He is the unseen Law of the universe.

 

ETA: then again, there are some things that I do rely soley on what Gods commands just because He commands it. Killing is bad unless in defense of our families or freedom, or unless God specifically commands it, for instance.

Edited October 29, 2011 by hmsmith

[Heidi]

Uh, really?!

 

I find this completely bizarre.

 

But it comes from believing that there is no good without gods (a God).

 

I can't think of a single non-religious person I know who would say such a thing.

 

This is either an intentional straw-man, or you don't really understand the opposition point-of-view on this argument.

 

I can't figure out what you mean. I know I have a difficult time seeing others points of view, but I try!

you had quoted me saying that ps teachers don't have a right to teach right and wrong. To clarify what I meant was that they cannot say it is right or wrong to have an abortion, be gay, have premarital s*x... all the gray areas that are more individualized these days; they should be taught by parents. I guess when i think of moral relativism, i think of these hot topics bc they were once black and white topics by the majority in the west, right? And now they have shifted from being wrong to being generally acceptable.

Of course teachers have a right to say it is bad to kill, cheat, steal, lie, ect. And I don't at all believe nonreligous people cannot recognize those principles w/o God. Thts the point. They are universal principles.

[Violet Crown]

From what I understand, absolutism is regardless of consequences while universalism considers consequences & situations but still maintains that there are universal moral truths that apply across cultures.

I don't agree with absolutism. It would be right to lie & steal in certain situations.

Taking stealing as an example, it sounds like you're not actually in disagreement (necessarily) with absolutism. If "steal" means "take or use the property of another in a way contrary to the particular civil law," then of course there will be situations in which "stealing" is the morally necessary thing to do, such as helping a slave to escape, or taking a loaf of bread to feed one's starving family. But if you define "steal" as something more like "take or use the property of another in a way contrary to the reasonable will of that person," then those situations would not constitute stealing, and you might agree (I don't want to speak for you) that this could be a moral absolute.