Moral Relativism: Do you agree with this?

Moral relativism is the belief that there are no moral absolutes; That morality is relative to something (i.e. individual or society).

Agree or disagree?

Parang subjective kuya Fred. Morality as what we Christians embrace is relative to what we believe in the Bible. How about the non-believers? Others say it depends on the present situation of the society. The fact also is, some nonbelievers embrace the morality of Christians wherein if the latter is not available, then this could be a society of misery. Ok, may golden rule pala silang alibi.

Agree. To me, morality is relative. Morality is dependent on what society decides as what morality is. There are principles that society adopts to guide it by, such as the humanistic principles and utilitarian principle. Humanism refers to respect to individual human beings as the highest moral imperative. Utilitarianism refers to the greatest good for the most people as the highest moral imperative.
The Golden Rule, for example, is classified as a humanistic principle, while democracy and "majority rules" are utilitarian.

Morality changes over time. The perfect example is the change from OT to NT. Despite Christian belief that their morality is absolute, it does in fact changes over time. Incest and polygamy were morally acceptable in the OT. So are child abuse (Isaac), genocide (tribes in the plain) and slavery. The NT discarded all those and declared them as Jewish tribal practices as the NT sought for more universal moral codes such as respect for all (Good Samaritan). But even within NT, morality changes through the centuries. What were acceptable during the Middle Ages are not acceptable in current Christianity anymore including such practices as slavery, women discrimination, etc.

But even within current Christian society, there are differences in morality based on what people think is the ultimate moral good. The American society believes in individual rights as the highest good, so divorce, abortion and gay rights are seen as respectful of individuals. Japan, on the other hand is strongly utilitarian and believes that the society's welfare is the ultimate good. Conformance to Japanese culture and nationalism are ultimate moral codes in Japan. The Arab culture is similar in that respect. The Philippines is in the middle. We put the family welfare as the ultimate good. Parental authority and sacrifice in behalf of family members are our highest moral imperative.

With the many examples above, I hope I was able to clarify that morality is very subjective.

MarcCatholic wrote:...Others say it depends on the present situation of the society. The fact also is, some nonbelievers embrace the morality of Christians wherein if the latter is not available, then this could be a society of misery. Ok, may golden rule pala silang alibi.

It's all about 'making' or 'honing' the situation to a humanly acceptable one where causes for stress and inconveniences are eliminated in due time. It's merely 'improving' on current social situations for the better.

It just so happens that the Bible, Qur'an and some other sacred writings have hit upon this aspect in bits and pieces, so it's only logical we adapt these as well.

fredms3 wrote:Moral relativism is the belief that there are no moral absolutes; That morality is relative to something (i.e. individual or society).

Agree or disagree?

I agree. Because objective morality points to a being who isn't there.

And, of course, today the evolution of morality continues as society keeps on adjusting what it thinks as moral. Most of the major moral codes now are definitely non-Christian. Human Rights, one of the most important moral principle nowadays, allows gays and women to acquire rights equal to men -- something that the Bible would not have allowed. Democracy, another dominant moral principle today, demands that leaders are elected. Our unelected bishops are increasingly vulnerable in this democratic times.

Children have acquired rights too. It is now immoral and illegal to maltreat them even under parental authority, which used to be paramount in the Bible. Respect for diversity is now a popular principle at work and in society. It certainly demands that we respect other religions and cultures and forced us to greet each other with the generic "Happy Holidays" rather than the more Christian "Merry Christmas". The same diversity principle removed prayers in American classrooms and stripped Muslim women of their face covering in Europe.

So, our new morality has gone beyond Christian principles and has started to acquire very atheistic flavor that is now clashing with traditional religious morality.

Ok.

What about our other friends here.

Ateo wrote:
Children have acquired rights too.

Thank goodness!

The bible promotes child abuse!

Prov.13 [24] He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

Prov.23 [13] Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. [14] Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

Prov.29:15] The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

Sir.30 [1] He that loveth his son causeth him oft to feel the rod, that he may have joy of him in the end.

Ateo wrote:And, of course, today the evolution of morality continues as society keeps on adjusting what it thinks as moral. Most of the major moral codes now are definitely non-Christian. Human Rights, one of the most important moral principle nowadays, allows gays and women to acquire rights equal to men -- something that the Bible would not have allowed. Democracy, another dominant moral principle today, demands that leaders are elected. Our unelected bishops are increasingly vulnerable in this democratic times.

Children have acquired rights too. It is now immoral and illegal to maltreat them even under parental authority, which used to be paramount in the Bible. Respect for diversity is now a popular principle at work and in society. It certainly demands that we respect other religions and cultures and forced us to greet each other with the generic "Happy Holidays" rather than the more Christian "Merry Christmas". The same diversity principle removed prayers in American classrooms and stripped Muslim women of their face covering in Europe.

So, our new morality has gone beyond Christian principles and has started to acquire very atheistic flavor that is now clashing with traditional religious morality.

Ateo,

May i ask you, where does morality originates?

element_115x wrote:

It's all about 'making' or 'honing' the situation to a humanly acceptable one where causes for stress and inconveniences are eliminated in due time. It's merely 'improving' on current social situations for the better.

It just so happens that the Bible, Qur'an and some other sacred writings have hit upon this aspect in bits and pieces, so it's only logical we adapt these as well.

Or it could be that the Bible, Qur'an, etc shed light the morality we experience now for if not, I wonder what will be the system of the world now if non-believers set the morals of the society. Yes, I am really doubtful if you were the first to set them and we Christians are like the atheists of your religion. Frankly, di ako bilib sa sinabi mong it just so happens kasi kung baka nga kayo nauna, ibang-iba ang kwento ni moralidad. Biruin mo ok lang pala ang pornograpiya, abortion, etc.

MarcCatholic wrote:

Or it could be that the Bible, Qur'an, etc shed light the morality we experience now for if not, I wonder what will be the system of the world now if non-believers set the morals of the society. Yes, I am really doubtful if you were the first to set them and we Christians are like the atheists of your religion. Frankly, di ako bilib sa sinabi mong it just so happens kasi kung baka nga kayo nauna, ibang-iba ang kwento ni moralidad. Biruin mo ok lang pala ang pornograpiya, abortion, etc.

Marc, don't blame pornography and abortion to atheists. They are legislated by Catholic countries. Take Italy, for example, the seat of Catholicism. Elective abortion on social or economic grounds is legal in Italy, even in Rome itself. Moreover, it is free! Alll hospitals are required to do it, even those right at the gate of Vatican. So, don't blame the atheists, I don't think Italy is atheist. Take another example -- Spain. Mother Spain is the source of Philippine Catholicism. Today, it is legal in Spain to have gay marriage. Moreover, the government encourages adoption of babies by gay couples. And, of course, pornography is legal and commonly available in both countries.

I can go on and on and on with other Catholic countries -- France, Poland, Mexico, Argentina, if you want me to. Bottomline, abortion, pornography and gay marriage are legal, moral and common in Catholic countries. And the ATHEISTS should not be blamed for that.

MarcCatholic wrote:


Or it could be that the Bible, Qur'an, etc shed light the morality we experience now for if not, I wonder what will be the system of the world now if non-believers set the morals of the society. Yes, I am really doubtful if you were the first to set them and we Christians are like the atheists of your religion. Frankly, di ako bilib sa sinabi mong it just so happens kasi kung baka nga kayo nauna, ibang-iba ang kwento ni moralidad. Biruin mo ok lang pala ang pornograpiya, abortion, etc.

We'd probably be more peaceful, accepting of others, and honest. The kind of thing that you see in the actual world where irreligious countries are ranked as being more peaceful, more tolerant of other people, and have more honest governments.

The lives of people might even be better since you don't have to deal with people who condemn you for saving the life of a dying mother by aborting the child that is killing them both.

Heck, we might even have less sexual crimes, as seen in countries where loosening restrictions on the access to pornography corresponded to a decrease in sex related offenses.

Atheists may not have risen earlier than theism, and secular laws may not have originated before religious laws, but morality was never a unified system even before atheism or secularism. Each religion from each community from different points in time had their own moral code. So your statement:

kasi kung baka nga kayo nauna, ibang-iba ang kwento ni moralidad

is simply a false assertion from the start. Morality has never been a unified system. The only moral code that is universal is the ethic of reciprocity:

Do not do to others what you don't want others to do to you.

fredms3 wrote:Were the murder of six million jews morally right?

Anyone who can answer from those who agree with moral relativism...

No, the murder of Jews by Hitler is not moral.

Nor the murder of the Midianites and the residents of the other cities in the plain by Jonathan.

What was your point, Fred?

Ateo wrote:No, the murder of Jews by Hitler is not moral.

Nor the murder of the Midianites and the residents of the other cities in the plain by Jonathan.

What was your point, Fred?

What is your basis Ateo to say that said killing of Jews is not moral? My point is the double standard of moral relativism.

Killing a human being is always immoral, Fred, except for acceptable exemption; i.e., self defense. This is the basis for saying that killing the Jews is immoral.

How did you reach the erroneous conclusion that moral relativists don't consider murder as immoral?

MarcCatholic wrote:Or it could be that the Bible, Qur'an, etc shed light the morality we experience now for if not, I wonder what will be the system of the world now if non-believers set the morals of the society. Yes, I am really doubtful if you were the first to set them and we Christians are like the atheists of your religion. Frankly, di ako bilib sa sinabi mong it just so happens kasi kung baka nga kayo nauna, ibang-iba ang kwento ni moralidad. Biruin mo ok lang pala ang pornograpiya, abortion, etc.

Well, you don't have to 'wonder' anymore as Korrill and Ateo pointed out. As added pointers, you only need to browse the Bible and (i'm not so sure with) the Qur'an to find inhumane situations that resulted from God's whims and commandments. Furthermore, the improvements for the 'betterment' of the secular world we're seeing right now in our societies can be attributed to people themselves figuring things out for themselves.

Ateo wrote:Killing a human being is always immoral, Fred, except for acceptable exemption; i.e., self defense. This is the basis for saying that killing the Jews is immoral.

How did you reach the erroneous conclusion that moral relativists don't consider murder as immoral?

I agree that killing a human is always immoral but is that the case with Hitler?

I don't understand the Hitler example in your argument, Fred. I am not pro-Hitler.

Ateo wrote:I don't understand the Hitler example in your argument, Fred. I am not pro-Hitler.

Well, i'm talking about the holocaust. Did Hitler believe that killing is immoral as you we believed it?

I don't know what Hitler believed in. They were trying to hide the Holocaust from the eyes of the world, so they must have known that what they were doing was not approved by the world.

But I still don't know why we use Hitler as an example in this discussion.

Ateo, we're discussing that morality is relative to something (i.e. individual or society) right?

Now, relate that what Hitler had done in the holocaust.

Fred, my memory gap ako dito kasi di ko talaga ma-getz ang ibig mong sabihin. Habaan mo kaya ng konti ang iyong explanation kung paano nasama ni Hitler sa usapin at bakit ako ang mag-explain tungkol sa kanya. Di ko siya feel eh.

Yeah kuya Fred di ko din masyado gets. Pwede kasing maiba ang pamantayan ng isang tao kesa sa society. Ending, mali pala ang paniniwala ng taong yon na kala natin e pasok sa banga ng moral relativism. Sabi nga the end does not justify the mean. So it's always immoral to kill a person. Sa nakikita ko po kasi parang itinitirada nyo sa mga atheists na naniniwala sa MR ang case ni Hitler para mapabulaanan ito. Nakita ko si Ateo he's clear with his stand against killing kaya parang hindi po nagkadugtong ang iyong pag-uusap. Parang namali ang generalization. Thanks.