mikokiko
posted on Aug 03, 2007 - 07:11 AM
Well, all I know is that moral relativism is really an illusion. Nothing like this should be dentrimental to Christians. But Christian people are hurt by ideologies like this all the time of course. It must hurt in someway.
The most famous early 20th century Catholic philosopher G.K. Chesterton once said: "Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable."
Morality itself is the belief in right conduct, or in that which ought to be done. To believe in this is to suggest a universality of Moral Truths. First, if morality is something that is merely a social convention, then there is no use in calling it a good, because what is good in practicing something that would be considered evil in another society. To even claim that Moral relativism (As opposed to Moral Absolutism) is true is to suggest an absolute. Is to suggest that you believe this is right. To believe in something will always apply to things universal, and our whole way of thinking depends on this there is no way we can pretend to suspend this thinking for a moment and claim even what we are saying is relative (moral relativism). Let me give you an example:
Tom: Moral Relativism, what a great ideology!
Lisa: What's Moral Relativism?
Tom: Moral Relativism is the belief that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.
Lisa: What about Moral Absolutism, is that false?
Tom: Of course it is. Don't you see, why do you think in Muslim societies men can have up to four wives, while in Western societies men are allowed to only have one.
Lisa: Well, I do not say what is practiced in Muslim societies is right, but I believe here in the West we are closer to the moral truth in that respect.
Tom: So how do you know that they are wrong?
Lisa: Well, I do not say that they are absolutely wrong about that. Of course it is more moral for a man with one wife to show all his eros love for her, than a man who shows it to four. You see I still can't find one culture that allows men to have as many women as they would like. I mean I do say there are different cultures closer to that moral truth. I mean can you say that Nazi morality is just as morally valid as American morality today for example as C.S. Lewis expounds on?
Tom: Well, I'm not saying that exactly...
Lisa: Well, you are. You are pretty much saying there is no such thing as morality. But still you seem to protest to the fact that millions of Jews were brutally murdered in World War II. To say that morality is simply relative to social circumstances then gives you no right to object to Nazi practices.
Tom: But you see that's only because, we feel so because we are compelled to agree with our societies' norms right now. We feel that it is wrong, but there were even cultures when people sacrificed their children is that natural?
Lisa: I do not say what some people did within a society was natural or morally ethical, but what I am saying is that not everyone did that. It is very possible to disobey these moral truths, but when you do there must have been some sense of guilt in these people.
Tom: You don't know what you are talking about. Guilt is another one of those feelings which we are genetically inclined to feel. You fail to see that all these moral beliefs that you have are the byproduct of millions and millions of years of evolution. We may feel guilty, but that is because we are wired that way.
Lisa: You are forgetting that any suggestion of a moral truth or any kind of truth at that is a suggestion of something that is beyond men. We claim things like 'people should never steal from one another' because we are saying something that we believe in. It may not hurt us in any way. But we claim it to be universal not relative. It seems to suggest a divine origin. Are you catching my drift?
Tom: Not with the religion crap again...you are seriously lost is all I can say!
Lisa: You with your ad hominem again!
Tom: Sorry, sorry. But really, do you really believe that what you say applies to all humans?
Lisa: Tom, what you're doing is believing in a universal truth. You are claiming that there is such thing as moral relativism. You are claiming it to be, in fact, an absolute without realizing it. You are saying that all cultures are in fact morally relative.
Tom: Yes, but I could be wrong.
Lisa: But that's different. That's called not having full confidence in what you're saying. You're still believing in an absolute. So, let me ask you this. You claim that you believe in moral relativism. Is someone who lives in another society and claims to believe in moral absolutism (since you must believe in this, if there is to be any claim of value in doing good) just as right (again I am suggesting a universal truth here) as you are?
Tom: Well...not really...I'm not sure...moral relativism is only the claim that morality itself is relative not everything else also.
Lisa: Just think about what you're saying: Every single thing we do in this life is in one way or another related to moraliy. You are claiming it is right to believe in moral relativism because it is true. To you, it's wrong to believe in moral absolutism, because its false. Perhaps you should think about it. You can't claim moral relativism is a truth without sayings its universal, otherwise the moment you say it is not the more obvious it is that it is a false ideology. Either way its wrong. You claim moral relativism to be true, but you say it as a universal truth, bt you can't say that it is relative for example. Or that it only applies to us. It can't. By the very nature of what you're saying you're talking about the universe...
Tom: I guess I will think about it...
Sorry for the long post. Feel free to talk about it or any flaws you see in my conversation it does get a bit long and repetative as, I would argue, does any philosophical argument. I will note some biases though:
1. Tom, the moral relativist, does not agree with religion, which certainly does not have to be true with moral relativists, but is very likely.
2. Tom does not elaborate as much in his argument. But that is because I personally do not see much truth at all in the ideology so I argued as much as I could with that. Also, when you are writing a defense of something you can only write so much for the opposite view held.
3. Tom uses ad hominem to attack Lisa. I guess I sort of portrayed him as a more sinister character than Lisa.
Regards
Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1001
