Overcoming moral relativism

[TomUK]

I just re-read the Pope's initial sermon which in part deals with the increasing problem of moral relativism and it has got me concerned. Admittedly i'm a unviersity student and relativism is famously common view among students, but i do think it's a view of the world which is becoming increasingly popular. The concerning thing about relativism is how difficult it is to overcome when talking to non-Christian friends who i'm trying to encourage to come to church with me, and it is probably the biggest barrier in my opinion to the evangelistic mission of the church. Does anyone have any ideas how as individuals and as a church when counter the growing rejection of moral absolutes?

[Fish and Bread]

I've had this problem myself in talking with people. If you get folks with a deeply ingrained sense that everything is relative morally speaking, it's hard to overcome that. One of the things I've tried is asking if murders and rapes can be good if they're culturally mandated by someone's relativistic moral code or if they're *absolutely* wrong in some greater sense. Once one acknowledges that there are some things that are wrong in an absolute sense, moral relativism flies right out the window. I don't know if I actually persuaded the person in question, but she did quickly change the subject. ;-)

John

[rogsr]

At the heart of Moral Relativism is the belief that there are no universal precepts, no laws. So, in my journey as a student, I use extreme examples to show that certain actions can be argued well to be universally wrong/unlawful/evil. Is it wrong for a man to kidnap, rape, torture, and murder a woman? Can it ever be acceptable? They have to answer by saying yes to the first question and then no to the second because it is the only answer. Who will say, "yes it is right sometimes to rape and murder women." Some things are customary and somethings are wrong, in america it is customary to give someone a wedding gift if you attend their wedding, but in some other countries it is customary not to bring a gift. So who is right and who is wrong? Niether of them is right or wrong because the thing we are talking about is simply a cultural custom. Take a Philosophy class in ethics, you will cover these issues and find that only fools and extreme cynics are moral relativists.

[julian the apostate]

it is a concept that has its roots in christianity , actually
the concept is not 100% wrong,




1Welcome with open arms fellow believers who don't see things the way you do. And don't jump all over them every time they do or say something you don't agree with--even when it seems that they are strong on opinions but weak in the faith department. Remember, they have their own history to deal with. Treat them gently.


2For instance, a person who has been around for a while might well be convinced that he can eat anything on the table, while another, with a different background, might assume all Christians should be vegetarians and eat accordingly. 3But since both are guests at Christ's table, wouldn't it be terribly rude if they fell to criticizing what the other ate or didn't eat? God, after all, invited them both to the table. 4Do you have any business crossing people off the guest list or interfering with God's welcome? If there are corrections to be made or manners to be learned, God can handle that without your help.

5Or, say, one person thinks that some days should be set aside as holy and another thinks that each day is pretty much like any other. There are good reasons either way. So, each person is free to follow the convictions of conscience. 6What's important in all this is that if you keep a holy day, keep it for God's sake; if you eat meat, eat it to the glory of God and thank God for prime rib; if you're a vegetarian, eat vegetables to the glory of God and thank God for broccoli. 7None of us are permitted to insist on our own way in these matters. 8It's God we are answerable to--all the way from life to death and everything in between--not each other. 9That's why Jesus lived and died and then lived again: so that he could be our Master across the entire range of life and death, and free us from the petty tyrannies of each other.

[Simon_Templar]

Moral relativism is a view that almost no one holds consistantly. Its a view that is logicaly self destructive and also is incapable of sustaining orderly society when applied to its logical extent.

Most people's version of moral relativism is simply a fall back defense against external authority which they don't like. It is very dishonestly held by most people, in that they use it when it serves them, but then when it comes to how they are treated they demand absolutism. If you are talking about obedience to God then its all relative and who are you to tell me what to do.. but when it comes to how you treat them, you had better be fair and good, and moral (all of course according to the accepted absolute definitions of those words).

Relativism is really the fruit of the garden of eden. The core of reletivist philosophy is that each man sets his own standard of morality and there is no higher outside authority which can dictate morality to mankind. This is the same thing that the seprent tempted adam and eve with. You will know right and wrong for yourselves and you'll be as gods, no longer needing God to dictate terms to you.

Sadly an entrenched reletivist view point is nearly impossible to get around, or even hold a reasonable philosophical conversation with. There are a number of ways you can attack and defeat moral relativism logicaly, but they all depend on how logical and reasonable your counterpart in the discussion is willing to be.. and logic isn't relativism's strong point.

Actually the book I would recomend to read with regard to relativism is Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. He has some great stuff in there regarding the universal moral code etc.

[Colabomb]

it is a concept that has its roots in christianity , actually
the concept is not 100% wrong,




1Welcome with open arms fellow believers who don't see things the way you do. And don't jump all over them every time they do or say something you don't agree with--even when it seems that they are strong on opinions but weak in the faith department. Remember, they have their own history to deal with. Treat them gently.


2For instance, a person who has been around for a while might well be convinced that he can eat anything on the table, while another, with a different background, might assume all Christians should be vegetarians and eat accordingly. 3But since both are guests at Christ's table, wouldn't it be terribly rude if they fell to criticizing what the other ate or didn't eat? God, after all, invited them both to the table. 4Do you have any business crossing people off the guest list or interfering with God's welcome? If there are corrections to be made or manners to be learned, God can handle that without your help.

5Or, say, one person thinks that some days should be set aside as holy and another thinks that each day is pretty much like any other. There are good reasons either way. So, each person is free to follow the convictions of conscience. 6What's important in all this is that if you keep a holy day, keep it for God's sake; if you eat meat, eat it to the glory of God and thank God for prime rib; if you're a vegetarian, eat vegetables to the glory of God and thank God for broccoli. 7None of us are permitted to insist on our own way in these matters. 8It's God we are answerable to--all the way from life to death and everything in between--not each other. 9That's why Jesus lived and died and then lived again: so that he could be our Master across the entire range of life and death, and free us from the petty tyrannies of each other.
That's the point though. God is master. Whether or not WE recognize what is Right and wrong, He sets the standards.

An example would be the vegetarian thing. One person says "Only Eat Vegatables" Others say "Meat is fine". The point is, one of them is Right/wrong dependant on what God says.

[julian the apostate]

The point is, one of them is Right/wrong dependant on what God says.

actually the point was , that neither is wrong

[Colabomb]

The point is, one of them is Right/wrong dependant on what God says.

actually the point was , that neither is wrong
Either the vegetarian is by saying that all Christians should be vegetarian, or the meat eater is by saying that meat is acceptable.

I am not saying one of them is sinning, I am simply saying that one of them is incorrect.

[Fish and Bread]

Some things are the laws of the universe, other things are a matter of individual preference. That seems to me to be the gist of the New Testament's view on this subject. The trick is figuring out which are which and that's where a lot of folks get confused.

John

[Inside Edge]

Does anyone have any ideas how as individuals and as a church when counter the growing rejection of moral absolutes?
Well, as Simon_Templar has pointed out, arguing with them can be completely fruitless. Even using those "extreme" will amount to nothing more than a cheap debate tactic which can easily be diffused if the person is inclined to argue with you rather than learn why you're of the opposite opinion.

My experience (throughout university and afterwards) is that you'll never get them "over it," it's something that they will face, discuss, and struggle with after they have begun a walk of faith for other reasons. Only when one is willing to put their own philosophy to the test is there a chance for revision (let alone a turnaround).

As has been said, the biggest problem is figuring out which of the "lesser things" are right or wrong, or if they are even within the bounds of morality at all. So what if someone considers murder absolutely wrong, but not theft? They can well admit that certain extreme things are absolute and consider an entire tier of other actions as up for judgement on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, by engaging someone in the whole "extreme case" scenario gets you in a bind really fast: an astute person will point out that God has commanded extreme things in the past which we would now consider absolutely immoral; and so, if no deed is morally sacred (untouchable, absolute) to God, then there isn't much to our ever-so-loved "moral absolutism."

[TomUK]

Thanks for your posts guys. Much of my problem with the Church of England / Anlgican church when i was younger was that it couldn't provide the absolute answers that i really needed when i was 16/17 (eg. look at our recent discussions on the eucharist!) I think i need to refocus my conversations not on whether there are moral absolutes, but on the ultimate absolute of God and his love for us. It won't be easy though!

[julian the apostate]

colabomb<<I am not saying one of them is sinning, I am simply saying that one of them is incorrect.

i think one of the best things about christianity is that you dont have to be right to be right

ps, colabomb, are you really 17? or do i just not know how to use cf

if so, do you realize you are a seriously one of a kind kid?

God bless you and keep you pretty much the way you are (with minor allowances for age and experience and so on)

sorry for the aside

[Colabomb]

colabomb<<I am not saying one of them is sinning, I am simply saying that one of them is incorrect.

i think one of the best things about christianity is that you dont have to be right to be right

ps, colabomb, are you really 17? or do i just not know how to use cf

if so, do you realize you are a seriously one of a kind kid?

God bless you and keep you pretty much the way you are (with minor allowances for age and experience and so on)

sorry for the aside
Yes, I am 17, thank you for the compliment. :)

[Fish and Bread]

Furthermore, by engaging someone in the whole "extreme case" scenario gets you in a bind really fast: an astute person will point out that God has commanded extreme things in the past which we would now consider absolutely immoral; and so, if no deed is morally sacred (untouchable, absolute) to God, then there isn't much to our ever-so-loved "moral absolutism."

I think they'd have a good point. However, since I think right is right and wrong is wrong and God is always right, I have to consider the Old Testament to be a collection of parables mixed with historical tales rather than straight historical tales. It makes it a lot easier to understand morally and a lot easier to reconcile with real history and science that way. It's also makes since that a God who's Incarnation (Jesus) spoke in parables would also lay out his Word in parables to some extent. So, it's in character for God and brings the whole picture of religion, science, and history together for me.

John

[Inside Edge]

So, it's in character for God and brings the whole picture of religion, science, and history together for me.
And I'd agree with you. And your take on things here would do a lot to diffuse the dislike, distrust, or fear of moral relativism in most people which the OP refers to. I've found that it's most often not moral absolutes people are actually entrenched against and afraid of; rather, it's the extreme efforts to apply literal absolutes to any and every aspect of life by so many religious folk.

As a result, the faithful often get painted with a broad "absolutist" brush, which makes it easy for those without faith to simply write-off. It's been my experience that most people I run into who absolutely refuse to go to church - any church, even once - often have one or two "hangups" which they whip out as a "good" reason for not trying. And in 90% of those cases, I've found that I can safely respond to them, "well, my church isn't like that..." or, "my church doesn't teach that."

I'm not saying any conversions are acheived this way, but I certainly could get guests to try my church out simply by diffusing their primary hangup in this manner.