Is gray gray or is it light black now? Or to other people a mis-understood white? I just watched a certain ;-) speech and wanted feedback on how people think relativism has affected this nation to the good or bad?|||I do not see moral relativism as a good thing for a society. In the case of the US, it will mean tougher law enforcement.
What people who want moral relativism fail to appreciate, is that morals establish boundaries which keep people at peace. I see them say, %26quot;Anything goes if it doesn%26#039;t harm another.%26quot; The problem with that, in my opinion, is that they think they get to decide what harms me.
ADDED: The middle ground is the US. We need to uphold our US Constitutional rights and teach the responsibility side, as well. Personal responsibility has gone the way of the dinosaurs, and that is really our biggest problem. But I am also a Christian, and I would never choose Arabia. When religion controls the law, we have totalitarianism. Christ freed us, why would we choose to be enslaved?|||Relativism is not new and which nation might you be referring to?|||Moral Relativism is more easily understood in comparison to Moral Absolutism. Absolutism claims that morality relies on universal principles (natural law, conscience . . . the Golden rule if you will). Christian absolutists believe that God is the ultimate source of our common morality, and that it is therefore as unchanging as He. Moral Relativism asserts that morality is not based on any absolute standard. Rather, ethical %26quot;truths%26quot; depend on the situation, culture, one%26#039;s feelings, etc.
There are several arguments for relativism depending on the type one asserts, however several things can be said of them all which demonstrate their dubious nature. First, while many of the arguments used in the attempt to support these various claims might sound good at first, there is a logical contradiction inherent in all of them because they all propose the right moral scheme – the one we all ought to follow. But this is absolutism. Second, even so-called relativists reject relativism in most cases – they would not say that a murderer or rapist is free from guilt so long as they did not violate their own standards. Third, the very fact that we have words such as %26quot;right,%26quot; %26quot;wrong,%26quot; %26quot;ought,%26quot; “better,” etc. show that these things exist. If morality were truly relative, these words would have no meaning - we would say, %26quot;That feels bad to me,%26quot; not, %26quot;That is wrong.%26quot;
Relativists may argue that different values among different cultures show that morals are relative to different people. But this argument confuses the actions of individuals (what they do) with absolute standards (whether they should do it). If culture determines right and wrong, how could we have judged the Nazis? They were following their culture%26#039;s morality after all. Only if murder is universally wrong were the Nazis wrong. The fact that they had “their morality” does not change that. Further, although many people have different out workings of morality, they still share a common morality. For instance, abortionists and anti-abortionists agree that murder is wrong, but they disagree on whether abortion is murder. So even here absolute universal morality is shown to be true.
Some claim that changing situations make for changing morality - in different situations different acts are called for that might not be right in other situations. But there are three things by which we must judge an act: the situation, the act, and the intention. For example, we can convict someone of attempted murder (intent) even if they fail (act). So situations are part of the moral decision, for they set the context for choosing the specific moral act (the application of universal principles).
The main argument relativists appeal to is that of tolerance. They claim that telling someone that their morality is wrong is intolerant, and relativism tolerates all views. But this is simply misleading. First of all, evil should never be tolerated. Should we tolerate a rapist%26#039;s view that women are objects of gratification to be abused? Second, it is self-defeating because relativists do not tolerate intolerance or absolutism. Third, relativism cannot explain why anyone should be tolerant in the first place. The very fact that we should tolerate people (even when we disagree) is based on the absolute moral rule that we should always treat people fairly – but that is absolutism again! In fact, without universal moral principles there can be no goodness.
The fact is that all people are all born with a conscience and we all instinctively know when we have been wronged or when we have wronged others. We act as though we expect others to recognize this as well. Even as children we knew the difference between %26quot;fair%26quot; and %26quot;unfair.%26quot; It takes bad philosophy to convince us that we are wrong.|||With God there is black and white (not in a racial sense!!!). There is no %26quot;okay%26quot; or %26quot;iffy%26quot;..... only right and wrong.|||Secularism is in one sense tolerant since it respects multiple faiths, but at the same time it is inefficient since it can not united an entire peoples. It%26#039;s best to let people govern themselves and when they mistake either try and either prevent it or make people aware of their crime. This way people won%26#039;t be duped in the future.|||Epistemological relativism is the worst. That%26#039;s when people think they can just believe whatever they want without regard for objective standards of truth, such as those practiced by science.
Next comes moral relativism, which is contradictory and stagnant.
Cultural relativism is probably the least harmful, and in fact, is probably a good thing. Frankly, I%26#039;m not interested in conflicts over what kind of clothes people wear or what they eat, so long as it isn%26#039;t hurting anyone.|||relativism is the ONLY way to go. Really. If you doubt me, read the bible. One of the commandments said, thou shalt not kill. yet god killed like it was going out of style, plus he told his followers to kill on many occasions example, abraham and isaac, the destruction of all living things except noah and his animals, the wars and killing of enemies of god. So even your god must have seent he value of relativism. Here%26#039;s another one: slavery. Is god against it or for it? He commanded it on several occasions. How about suppression of females. Why was it ok then and not now? The world is NOT black and white. There ARE shades of gray. refusing to see it is YOUR problem, not the world%26#039;s. My guess is you will eventually see it when it favors you|||I do see that as a problem as well. It will lead to the masses being led by the elite, which will lead to authoritarian rule more than democratic rule.
This was predicted in the 70%26#039;s by Dr. Francis Schaeffer and is coming true before our eyes now and in the near future.|||Daisy%26#039;s convoluted answer confuses cultural relativism with moral relativism. They are not the same thing. Her response nicely avoids the problem of which Absolutist stance is right and how two absolutist stances are to deal with one another. Of course, people (such as Daisy) are going to think theirs is the correct one and all others are wrong. Well then, what is to be done. Should we be forced to believe what you believe?
Isn%26#039;t some sort of tolerance and understanding of difference necessary for a compassionate society?
