Moral relativism/universalism

[cdrumm4448]

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.

 

Lying and stealing are never admirable, in my opinion. Lying is still lying and stealing is still stealing, even if your intent or the end result is "good".

[cdrumm4448]

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.

 

I meant to convey that we love others because of our love for God, not just His love for us. It's like falling in love. You love the person so much, you want to do right by them. That's the kind of love toward God I was referencing. A love that encompasses people, too.

 

A real, living, loving relationship with God is never as legalistic as "I show you compassion because of my deity."

[cdrumm4448]

Do you consider me irrational for not believing in a god?

 

No.

 

Do you think I just don't "get it"?

 

No.

 

Do you think the fact you believe in it and in moral absolutes means they must be true?

 

Yes.

 

These are rhetorical questions (and I'm not trying to start an argument, just genuinely curious).

 

You said the ten commandments can't be viewed subjectively. That argument doesn't make sense to a person who doesn't believe in a god. I also look at certain lines, such as, "thou shall not kill" and know full well plenty of devoutly religious people make exceptions for killing in self defense and (most surprising to me) war.

 

I am not religious. Religion is a man-made construct. I have a relationship with God. People can have a relationship with God with or without religion. Killing is wrong. If a man molested my daughter and I killed him, most people would be OK with that. But, I would still be wrong.

[Ritsumei]

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.

 

It makes perfect sense to me that PS shouldn't teach ethics, right/wrong whatever you want to call it. Whose would they teach? What reasons would they give for teaching one thing and ignoring the other? It makes a difference.

 

For instance, I am probably an absolutist, and as an example, I believe that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is morally wrong in every case. The fact that the culture I live in (the US) disagrees strongly in many instances doesn't change my belief in the least; the reasons for it are firmly grounded in the faith that I devoutly embrace. I find the prevailing "they're going to have sex anyway, so let's teach teens to do it 'safely'" attitude that was the norm among the adults in my high school to be completely repulsive. The fact that I place top-tier importance on self-determination means that I don't try to enforce this belief in other people. But it makes your run of the mill PS sex ed unit sadly incomplete at best, basically no more than a plumbing lesson of the insert tab-A into slot-B is how it's done variety, or offensively counter to my family's values if it's much more than that at all.

 

The PS cannot possibly hope to teach sex ed in a way that satisfies both me and those that believe that sex between consenting adults is OK in many, perhaps most situations. They are mutually exclusive beliefs.

 

The only solution that I can see for this situation and other similar instances is for parents to be the teachers of morals. Parents, not the "village" are responsible for this sort of teaching. Morals and ethics are inseparable from religion, and seeing my children properly taught in the faith of our family, with its moral code, is one of my reasons for homeschooling - in the same way that an athiest probably would not send their kids to a Catholic school, I choose not to send my kids to the PS system and its secular humanist/athiest moral code.

[JenniferB]

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.

 

I only read up to this post so far. I really enjoyed reading what you had to say. Thanks.

[In2why]

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.

 

 

I am not sure. But I can see in history and life most things can be justified by culture. For example;

 

Murder- Killing people isn't always considered wrong

War

Death Penalty

Human Sacrifices to the Gods

 

Rape- Rape isn't always considered wrong

Husband and Wife

Bibilical examples

 

Incest-

Brothers and Sisters used to marry cousins still can

 

Sex with children-

Until recently and in some countries the normal age is 12 or even younger depending on when a girl has her cycle

 

Torture-

Happens all the time in war by all countries to one degree or another

 

Genoide- History is filled with genocide, still happens and we say that we would never let the Holocaust happen again, yet it is happening right now and more powerful nations do nothing

 

The list can go on and on.....there are very few things that are wrong simply because they are evil. They are wrong because society decides they are wrong and if society changes then they might be right again.

[Spy Car]

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

 

Many people—including Southern slaveholders—believe(d) that slavery is biblical. Ask Doug Wilson.

 

Bill

[LaxMom]

I guess I, too, would be an absolutist, which is a little shocking to me.

 

I believe killing is wrong, 100% of the time. I also know without a doubt, that I would kill to defend my children. Why? Because I would be making the choice between two wrongs and I would choose in favor of the innocent.

 

I think we would all agree that rape and slavery are absolute wrongs. I also think that what constitutes rape or slavery is cultural and/or contextual: in North American culture, the line is drawn at the willingness of both parties. In cultures where wives (or even female staff) are expected to be physically available to their husband (employer/master) is the violation the same? Or does that only apply in situations where there is a cultural expectation of absolute right over one's own body. (Which, of course, we don't really have here, but I think we have a higher expectation.)

 

I recently listened to a local radio show about a local farm. In one segment, the farmer talked about having letters that were sent to his grandfather by Japanese POWs after their return home. Now, on the face of it, these men were not free, sent to labor on this farm, presumably without pay. That would fit the definition of slavery. But the letters were updates on their families (they had no idea about the safety of their families during the war), and expressions of gratitude for being given something productive to do during their captivity. So, then, it's not slavery, right?

 

So, yeah, I think there are things that are absolutely right or wrong, but I think culture and context shape how any act is defined.

[Ipsey]

It makes perfect sense to me that PS shouldn't teach ethics, right/wrong whatever you want to call it. Whose would they teach? What reasons would they give for teaching one thing and ignoring the other? It makes a difference.

 

For instance, I am probably an absolutist, and as an example, I believe that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is morally wrong in every case. The fact that the culture I live in (the US) disagrees strongly in many instances doesn't change my belief in the least; the reasons for it are firmly grounded in the faith that I devoutly embrace. I find the prevailing "they're going to have sex anyway, so let's teach teens to do it 'safely'" attitude that was the norm among the adults in my high school to be completely repulsive. The fact that I place top-tier importance on self-determination means that I don't try to enforce this belief in other people. But it makes your run of the mill PS sex ed unit sadly incomplete at best, basically no more than a plumbing lesson of the insert tab-A into slot-B is how it's done variety, or offensively counter to my family's values if it's much more than that at all.

 

The PS cannot possibly hope to teach sex ed in a way that satisfies both me and those that believe that sex between consenting adults is OK in many, perhaps most situations. They are mutually exclusive beliefs.

 

The only solution that I can see for this situation and other similar instances is for parents to be the teachers of morals. Parents, not the "village" are responsible for this sort of teaching. Morals and ethics are inseparable from religion, and seeing my children properly taught in the faith of our family, with its moral code, is one of my reasons for homeschooling - in the same way that an athiest probably would not send their kids to a Catholic school, I choose not to send my kids to the PS system and its secular humanist/athiest moral code.

 

To say that public school teachers can't teach that cheating is wrong, or lying, or hitting is wrong because belief gods is not taught is complete nonsense. Humanists/secularists would be all for teaching basic principles of humanity and compassion. It's completely bizarre to say that teachers can't teach morals. They can; they just can't teach certain acts because gods say so. They can't encourage the stoning of rebellious children for example. This is something gods encourage, not something humanism encourages. Humanism is based mostly on a shared compassion. We may disagree on some of the particulars, but . . . there's quite a bit of room to share.

 

I think we were understanding the OPs statement from two different angles.

 

I definitely prefer a secular moral code and I think it's best that children be taught basic common kindness and compassion as the baseline to morality. If religious parents wish to teach moral codes that say things such as slavery, rape, murder, etc. are bad--except when their gods say so (such as the OP has now said--at least in regards to killing), then I think those are ideas that should remain in homes and religious institutions, and that the general population should be spared.

 

Again, "God/gods" does not equal moral. And that's what the OP was insinuating by saying that teachers couldn't teach morality because a god (presumably hers) was not taught in school.

[Spy Car]

Is it OK for women to wear pants?

 

Is it OK for women to speak in church?

 

If you answer yes to either you may be a moral relativist.

 

Bill

[twoforjoy]

Is it OK for women to wear pants?

 

Is it OK for women to speak in church?

 

If you answer yes to either you may be a moral relativist.

 

Bill

 

Or a universalist who thinks that it is always okay for women to wear pants and speak in church. ;)

[Ritsumei]

-- 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.

 

:iagree:There is some marvelous food for thought here.

[cdrumm4448]

Or a universalist who thinks that it is always okay for women to wear pants and speak in church. ;)

 

:001_smile:

[regentrude]

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,

 

:confused:

The commandment "Though shalt not kill does" not come with a disclaimer "but it's OK if...".

[JenniferB]

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.

 

:iagree: Yes, who or what says what He means?

 

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.

 

:iagree: I've heard several sermons lately at church where the pastor was encouraging everyone to do xyz because it was our Christian duty. Why not just do it because you want to? If I go out and do xyz because my pastor said it was my Christian duty, what am I saying to the person I'm being nice to? It seems like that approach is saying, "I don't really want to do this, and I don't really like you or care about you, but I know it's my Christian duty so I'll do it, humph."

 

Is it OK for women to wear pants?

 

Is it OK for women to speak in church?

 

If you answer yes to either you may be a moral relativist.

 

Bill

 

Really? Yes, I am blond, please explain.

[Spy Car]

 

Really? Yes, I am blond, please explain.

 

Biblically proscribed.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

:confused:

The commandment "Though shalt not kill does" not come with a disclaimer "but it's OK if...".

 

There must be some disclaimers, because if one reads the book of Joshua one can see how God (according to the story) orders the Hebrews to commit mass-murder. Even the extermination of innocent children.

 

Bill

[Ritsumei]

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.

 

You are right, and nearly all of the Christians that I have spoken to are painfully aware of that. The more devout they are, the more they wrestle within themselves to try to make sure that they are living their moral code. And because everyone is flawed, they all fall short in some way or another, and worry about that too.

 

In my mind, it's completely possible to believe in absolutism and still be an ordinary mortal with flaws, foibles, and inconsistencies.

 

 

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?

 

I don't know the answer, from a philosophical what-wiki-says standpoint, but I know how my own Christian faith deals with this question.

 

I believe that wrong is wrong, and right is right. The accident vs. premeditated murder is a great example, though. In the one case, perhaps the actual "crime" was carelessness - but carelessness with terrible consequences, whereas the other was actually murder with intent to take innocent life. I believe that God, and God's justice, make a distinction between the two, a significant distinction. Both people are in need of the Lord's forgiveness, but for markedly different crimes. I believe that he will judge us based on not only our actions, but the intent of our hearts, the thoughts we have, the things we desire, and that the grace and mercy of the Lord will cover the multitude of sins and shortcomings of the person who is sincere in his attempt to live the good, moral life, regardless of the creed under which they do it. To me, many of the very thought-provoking questions being asked here (what's with the genocide of the Canaanites being an excellent example) are questions that need to be answered with God's plan in mind - and this life is but a single act of His production, so to speak.

[Violet Crown]

Biblically proscribed.

 

Bill

 

... if one understands the Bible and its relation to morality in the same way that Bill does. ;)

 

- Sharon the pants-wearing, church-talking absolutist

[Spy Car]

... if one understands the Bible and its relation to morality in the same way that Bill does. ;)

 

- Sharon the pants-wearing, church-talking absolutist

 

Do you speak in Church too? ;) :D

 

Bill

[Violet Crown]

Do you speak in Church too? ;) :D

 

Bill

I do. In Latin, yet.

[Ester Maria]

There must be some disclaimers, because if one reads the book of Joshua one can see how God (according to the story) orders the Hebrews to commit mass-murder. Even the extermination of innocent children.

 

Bill

Ssssshh... :D

 

And the commandment - positive commandment - to WIPE OUT and UTTERLY DESTROY Amalek?

What about Samuel who GETS UPSET with Saul for having SPARED some innocent souls and - cattle? :lol: I always wondered how do more religious people explain that when they teach the Book of Samuel to children? Simply the mores of their times? But how, if it is a divine commandment and the whole fall of Saul as a king has MUCH to do with that?

[OrganicAnn]

I can't answer the poll. I think if you really went into an honest discussion on each position with an individual, that you will find they they would fit into both - but on different issues.

[Ritsumei]

- Sharon the pants-wearing, church-talking absolutist

:lol::lol::lol:

[Hope in God]

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.

 

 

The Rahab arguement is interesting because she is such a hero of the faith as recorded in Hebrews 11. What she did was not about law but about faith. Rahab was not a Jew. She was not bound by the 10 commandments and it is questionable if she even knew that the Israelites had a code of moral conduct called the 10 commandments. When God gave these commandments to the Jews they all agreed together to obey the laws in the book and to choose life but Rahab did not make this commitment. In this context we see that Rahab did not have the moral dilema that we suppose that she had and thus did not break any law or commandment that she knew in hiding the spies.

 

I know I believe in absolute truth- but law. Well, I guess moral universalism is important because by it we have the knowledge that we have all fallen short and that is the foundation of the gospel.

[Just Robyn]

 

Incest-

Brothers and Sisters used to marry cousins still can

 

 

 

I was just reading about this incest related Balinese belief/custom today in The Know-It-All.

[moki4]

Just having this discussion with DH.

Is good/evil universal to human-kind or cultural?

I know what I believe, but was shocked to hear DH say something else.

I know this is an old thread...but...

I want to know the MORAL choice of good vs evil...is this universal?

[Veritaserum]

Moral universalism, BUT only in a very restricted set of essentials (taking a life, lying/cheating, abuse, etc.). Things like modesty or food are entirely dependent on one's culture.

[spaceman]

I voted moral-relativism.

 

I believe most ethical questions are relative, but a few are universal.