Moral relativism

From PhiloWiki

Without good and evil, are we left with moral relativism?

Christian views

Nothing more separates Judeo-Christian values from secular values than the question of whether morality -- what is good or evil -- is absolute or relative. In other words, is there an objective right or wrong, or is right or wrong a matter of personal opinion?

In the Judeo-Christian value system, God is the source of moral values and therefore what is moral and immoral transcends personal or societal opinion. Without God, each society or individual makes up its or his/her moral standards. But once individuals or societies become the source of right and wrong, right and wrong, good and evil, are merely adjectives describing one's preferences. This is known as moral relativism, and it is the dominant attitude toward morality in modern secular society.

Moral relativism means that murder, for example, is not objectively wrong; you may feel it's wrong, but it is no more objectively wrong than your feeling that some music is awful renders that music objectively awful. It's all a matter of personal feeling. That is why in secular society people are far more prone to regard moral judgments as merely feelings. Children are increasingly raised to ask the question, "How do you feel about it?" rather than, "Is it right or wrong?"

Only if God, the transcendent source of morality, says murder is wrong, is it wrong, and not merely one man's or one society's opinion.

Moral absolutes: Judeo-Christian values: Part XI from TownHall.com  Dennis Prager

"Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. We can all decide what is right for ourselves. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it."...

Moral relativism has steadily been accepted as the primary moral philosophy of modern society, a culture that was previously governed by a "Judeo-christian" view of morality. While these "Judeo-christian" standards continue to be the foundation for civil law, most people hold to the concept that right or wrong are not absolutes, but can be determined by each individual. Morals and ethics can be altered from one situation, person, or circumstance to the next. Essentially, moral relativism says that anything goes, because life is ultimately without meaning. Words like "ought" and "should" are rendered meaningless. In this way, moral relativism makes the claim that it is morally neutral...

Moral Relativism is a worldview. To determine for yourself which position to hold where morality is concerned, you must first determine what you believe about the origin of life. Do you believe life evolved or do you believe life was created? Evolution and moral relativism go hand-in-hand, for evolution teaches that life is accidental, without meaning or purpose. Therefore, anything you do is OK, because it ultimately doesn't matter. If you believe we are created, however, moral relativism cannot work. Creation implies a Creator. All things created are subject to a set of laws, whether natural or divine. Moral relativism says anything goes …but does it? Is it better to torture a child, or to hug that child?...

William McGuffey, author of the McGuffey's Readers, which were the mainstay of America's public school system from 1836 till the 1920's, wrote: "Erase all thought and fear of God from a community, and selfishness and sensuality would absorb the whole man." Where do you think the world is heading today?"

Moral Relativism - All About Philosophy from

Secular views

The second and more this-worldly approach to the metaphysical status of morality follows in the skeptical philosophical tradition, such as that articulated by Greek philosopher Sextus Empiricus, and denies the objective status of moral values. Technically skeptics did not reject moral values themselves, but only denied that values exist as spirit-like objects, or as divine commands in the mind of God. Moral values, they argued, are strictly human inventions, a position that has since been called moral relativism. There are two distinct forms of moral relativism. The first is individual relativism, which holds that individual people create their own moral standards. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, argued that the superhuman creates his or her morality distinct from and in reaction to the slave-like value system of the masses. The second is cultural relativism which maintains that morality is grounded in the approval of one’s society – and not simply in the preferences of individual people. This view was advocated by Sextus, and in more recent centuries by Michel Montaigne and William Graham Sumner. In addition to espousing skepticism and relativism, “this-worldly” approaches to the metaphysical status of morality deny the absolute and universal nature of morality and hold instead that moral values in fact change from society to society throughout time and throughout the world. They frequently attempt to defend their position by citing examples of values that differ dramatically from one culture to another, such as attitudes about polygamy, homosexuality and human sacrifice.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy from

I also know that life is very complicated and making the right moral decision is not always clear-cut or simple.

Which brings me to moral relativism, and the elevation of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to Pope Benedict XVI.

The new pope has been widely quoted as saying that moral relativism is to blame for some of the more destructive "isms" of the last century — fascism, communism, Nazism, terrorism, even social liberalism...

As I understand it, Pope Benedict is talking about the bending of moral values to accommodate social concerns. He, of course, is speaking as a moral absolutist, which is fine. He is upholding a tradition — and these are my observations as a non-Catholic — that goes back a couple of millennia and it's one that has bent little in that time.

To a moral absolutist, the bending of moral rules can lead to Joseph Stalin ordering the execution of millions of his own people. Or to abortion. Or the acceptance of homosexuality...

The new pope can be expected to make his fight against moral relativism part of his papacy and as a reason why his authority should not be questioned.

Those of us who don't live as moral absolutists will go on as we've done in the past — asking questions, considering the facts and trying to come to a proper conclusion. When we're done, we hope we're right.

Daring to think about moral relativism  from The Star  Tom Houlihan