Balancing Truth And Tolerance

[Sky]

I came across an interesting article by Elder Dallin H. Oaks from this month's Ensign, from an address he gave at a Church Educational System broadcast on September 11, 2011.

Moral relativism seems to be a common theme that the Brethren are concerned about these days.

Some nuggets (among many):

The existence and nature of truth is one of the fundamental questions of mortal life. Jesus told the Roman governor Pilate that He came into the world to “bear witness unto the truth.” That unbeliever responded, “What is truth?” (John 18:37–38). Earlier the Savior had declared, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). In modern revelation, He declared, “Truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come” (D&C 93:24).

 We believe in absolute truth, including the existence of God and the right and wrong established by His commandments. We know that the existence of God and the existence of absolute truth are fundamental to life on this earth, whether they are believed in or not. We also know that evil exists and that some things are simply, seriously, and everlastingly wrong.

The philosophy of moral relativism, which holds that each person is free to choose for him or herself what is right and wrong, is becoming the unofficial creed for many in the United States and other Western nations. At the extreme level, evil acts that used to be localized and covered up like a boil are now legalized and paraded like a banner. Persuaded by this philosophy, many of the rising generation are caught up in self-serving pleasures, pornography, dishonesty, foul language, revealing attire, pagan painting and piercing of body parts, and degrading sexual indulgence.

While we must practice tolerance and respect for others and their beliefs, including their right to explain and advocate their positions, we are not required to respect and tolerate wrong behavior. Our duty to truth requires us to seek relief from behavior that is wrong. This is easy with extreme behaviors that most believers and nonbelievers recognize as wrong or unacceptable.

President Boyd K. Packer, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has said: “The word tolerance does not stand alone. It requires an object and a response to qualify it as a virtue. … Tolerance is often demanded but seldom returned. Beware of the word tolerance. It is a very unstable virtue.”

This inspired caution reminds us that for persons who believe in absolute truth, tolerance for behavior is like a two-sided coin. Tolerance or respect is on one side of the coin, but truth is always on the other. You cannot possess or use the coin of tolerance without being conscious of both sides.

Our Savior applied this principle. When He faced the woman taken in adultery, Jesus spoke the comforting words of tolerance: “Neither do I condemn thee.” Then, as He sent her away, He spoke the commanding words of truth: “Go, and sin no more” (John 8:11). We should all be edified and strengthened by this example of speaking both tolerance and truth: kindness in the communication but firmness in the truth.

Thoughts?

[CV75]

Moral relativism seems to be a common theme that the Brethren are concerned about these days.

I've brought this article up in threads more than one in the last week alone, if that's any indication of the need.

Edited February 10, 2013 by CV75

[changed]

For some reason I keep seeing this talk too.

"What's true, is what's true for you."

the above Scientology add aired during the Superbowl.

[Five Solas]

For some reason I keep seeing this talk too.

"What's true, is what's true for you."

My parents have a variation on this. In response to my becoming a Christian in 2005, they expressed their happiness I'd found something that "works for me." Not important what works for God--what matters is what works for me. Needless to say, I don't feel very comfortable with that expression, their love & sincerity notwithstanding.

--Erik

[Alvino]

I came across an interesting article by Elder Dallin H. Oaks from this month's Ensign, from an address he gave at a Church Educational System broadcast on September 11, 2011.

Moral relativism seems to be a common theme that the Brethren are concerned about these days.

It's important to know first what Moral relativism is.

From what you quoted from the article:

The existence and nature of truth is one of the fundamental questions of mortal life. Jesus told the Roman governor Pilate that He came into the world to “bear witness unto the truth.” That unbeliever responded, “What is truth?” (John 18:37–38). Earlier the Savior had declared, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).

One distinction is relevant here: the nature of truth and what is true. Elder Oaks starts by saying the nature of truth is important yet little is said about it and more about what propositions are true. That Jesus is "the truth" is clearly symbolic and His answer doesn't answer what is true in the epistemological sense of the word. It would make no sense to think the answer (the true answer) to the question "What is truth?" is "Jesus".

In modern revelation, He declared, “Truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come” (D&C 93:24).



We preferably don't want to include "knowing that P" (where P is a proposition) as part of the definition of truth because we want to include as part of "knowing" that what we know is true. Knowledge is roughly defined as "true justified belief" so defining truth is terms of "true justified belief" is rather pointless.

We believe in absolute truth, including the existence of God and the right and wrong established by His commandments.

It's important to keep that in mind that saying one believes in truth is obviously different from saying one believes that "God exists" is true, or that "His commandments point to what's right and to what's wrong" is true.

The philosophy of moral relativism, which holds that each person is free to choose for him or herself what is right and wrong,

Keep in mind that there are forms of moral relativism that don't imply each person is free to choose what is right or wrong. Cultural relativism with regards to morals, for example, says it is up to cultures, not individuals.

is becoming the unofficial creed for many in the United States and other Western nations.

Wonder if there are any studies on that, but I doubt it.

At the extreme level, evil acts that used to be localized and covered up like a boil are now legalized and paraded like a banner.

But that clearly isn't because people think today those were evil acts before but now are morally acceptable. They think those acts (say, homosexual activity between adults) was always morally permissible but we didn't recognize it before and now we do.

The fact that very few people would say that it was in fact OK to slave people before (because they thought it was) but now it is not OK should make us very skeptical of Elder Oaks declarations here.

While we must practice tolerance and respect for others and their beliefs, including their right to explain and advocate their positions, we are not required to respect and tolerate wrong behavior.

Well, you are required to tolerate some wrong behavior if toleration means to let them do it. If two adults want to have consensual sexual relations, they can and ought to be free to do so, even if you believe they ought not, even if they really ought not.

Saying one ought to tolerate wrong behavior doesn't mean you ought to try to stop them by the forces of your own strength or of that of the laws.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Alvino

[Alvino]

For some reason I keep seeing this talk too.

"What's true, is what's true for you."

[media=]

the above Scientology add aired during the Superbowl.

I thought this one was a little bit better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGcPjAH2iHQ

[Robert F. Smith]

It's important to know first what Moral relativism is.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

This article you cite from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is very helpful and relevant on several levels (even briefly discussing polygyny, and showing the influence of anthropology), but I think you miss the main points Oaks was actually speaking to -- perhaps primarily because he was speaking as an Apostle of the Lord, and acting in his formal capacity as a witness of Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, not as a philosopher. To address his statements as some form of philosophy is thus a category mistake.

Apostle Oaks is addressing intolerance (to which Mormons have long been unfairly subjected) as a two-edged danger. On the one hand, those living in a very heterogeneous America and world desire freedom to participate in the free marketplace of ideas (religious and other ideas), but likewise desire that demands for tolerance not become pressure to conform to someone else's notion of "correct" behavior.

It is one thing to hear the insistence that "if it feels good, do it," or "different strokes for different folks," without feeling obligated to assent to virtually any act which breaches our conscience. One need not, for example, agree with the demand by The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) that pedophilia be tolerated.

Yesterday, I was waiting to be served in a Oriental buffet in Provo, when the man in front of me let loose with a stream of horrific profanity directed at his children. As an ex-Marine I was not offended for myself, but for the three small children whose faces of fear and shock said it all. They will be suffering the scars of his verbal abuse for years to come. When I was young, such things did not take place in public. Now it is quite normal. Apostle Oaks is, I think, concerned with the consequences of such coarsening of society via acceptance of anything under the rubric of moral or cultural relativism.

Keep in mind that there are forms of moral relativism that don't imply each person is free to choose what is right or wrong. Cultural relativism with regards to morals, for example, says it is up to cultures, not individuals.

Quite.

But that clearly isn't because people think today those were evil acts before but now are morally acceptable. They think those acts (say, homosexual activity between adults) was always morally permissible but we didn't recognize it before and now we do.

Morally or legally permissible?

The fact that very few people would say that it was in fact OK to slave people before (because they thought it was) but now it is not OK should make us very skeptical of Elder Oaks declarations here.

I don't agree at all.

Well, you are required to tolerate some wrong behavior if toleration means to let them do it. If two adults want to have consensual sexual relations, they can and ought to be free to do so, even if you believe they ought not, even if they really ought not.

Saying one ought to tolerate wrong behavior doesn't mean you ought to try to stop them by the forces of your own strength or of that of the laws.

Who are you taking issue with here? Reads like a non sequitur. Nonsense.

[volgadon]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

This article you cite from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is very helpful and relevant on several levels (even briefly discussing polygyny, and showing the influence of anthropology), but I think you miss the main points Oaks was actually speaking to -- perhaps primarily because he was speaking as an Apostle of the Lord, and acting in his formal capacity as a witness of Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, not as a philosopher. To address his statements as some form of philosophy is thus a category mistake.

Apostle Oaks is addressing intolerance (to which Mormons have long been unfairly subjected) as a two-edged danger. On the one hand, those living in a very heterogeneous America and world desire freedom to participate in the free marketplace of ideas (religious and other ideas), but likewise desire that demands for tolerance not become pressure to conform to someone else's notion of "correct" behavior.

It is one thing to hear the insistence that "if it feels good, do it," or "different strokes for different folks," without feeling obligated to assent to virtually any act which breaches our conscience. One need not, for example, agree with the demand by The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) that pedophilia be tolerated.

Yesterday, I was waiting to be served in a Oriental buffet in Provo, when the man in front of me let loose with a stream of horrific profanity directed at his children. As an ex-Marine I was not offended for myself, but for the three small children whose faces of fear and shock said it all. They will be suffering the scars of his verbal abuse for years to come. When I was young, such things did not take place in public. Now it is quite normal. Apostle Oaks is, I think, concerned with the consequences of such coarsening of society via acceptance of anything under the rubric of moral or cultural relativism.

Quite.

Morally or legally permissible?

I don't agree at all.

Who are you taking issue with here? Reads like a non sequitur. Nonsense.

Bravo, what else can I say.

[Calm]

Bravo, what else can I say.

What a sycophant! (me too, lol) Edited February 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[Alvino]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

This article you cite from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is very helpful and relevant on several levels (even briefly discussing polygyny, and showing the influence of anthropology), but I think you miss the main points Oaks was actually speaking to -- perhaps primarily because he was speaking as an Apostle of the Lord, and acting in his formal capacity as a witness of Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, not as a philosopher. To address his statements as some form of philosophy is thus a category mistake.

It wasn't uncalled for, you would agree (and I'm not a philosopher, either): "The philosophy of moral relativism, which holds that each person is free to choose for him or herself what is right and wrong", seems to get in that territory, doesn't it?

Apostle Oaks is addressing intolerance (to which Mormons have long been unfairly subjected) as a two-edged danger. On the one hand, those living in a very heterogeneous America and world desire freedom to participate in the free marketplace of ideas (religious and other ideas), but likewise desire that demands for tolerance not become pressure to conform to someone else's notion of "correct" behavior.

Right, but the other ideas he uses to make his point are weak. You could even see what I'm doing here as my attempt to sharpen Elder Oaks's words since I definitely don't disagree that what you just described here is a good think. I certainly want more people to have more freedom and reduce the pressure to conform to someone else's notion of rights and wrongs. We agree, man!

It is one thing to hear the insistence that "if it feels good, do it," or "different strokes for different folks," without feeling obligated to assent to virtually any act which breaches our conscience. One need not, for example, agree with the demand by The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) that pedophilia be tolerated.

We agree. I'm also very annoyed when people suddenly wear their quasi-relativistic or semi-post-modern coats when faced with challenges.

Yesterday, I was waiting to be served in a Oriental buffet in Provo, when the man in front of me let loose with a stream of horrific profanity directed at his children. As an ex-Marine I was not offended for myself, but for the three small children whose faces of fear and shock said it all. They will be suffering the scars of his verbal abuse for years to come. When I was young, such things did not take place in public. Now it is quite normal. Apostle Oaks is, I think, concerned with the consequences of such coarsening of society via acceptance of anything under the rubric of moral or cultural relativism.

We are together against that sort of behavior, no doubt. I didn't even have things like that in mind, to tell you the truth. What I take issue with is this idea that people accept that. You say this is more normal but I don't get what you mean. People think it's OK to spout profanities at children? Or, people think it's OK to do it publicly? Or just that people do it more often than before? It may be just the circle of people I surround myself with, but no one I know would think that is not immoral nor would they say that's good or acceptable

Morally or legally permissible?

I'm not sure what you are asking here but if it is what I think it is then it doesn't matter. The point is just that people who support legalizing those supposed "evil acts" don't do so because they think it is now morally permissible to make them legal but that before it was not morally permissible to make them legal. They believe it was always wrong to have laws against consensual same-sex sex but now we more fully realize that and we can apply that to our laws. In other words, they don't accept moral relativism there.

I don't agree at all.

Come on, Robert, I at least attempt to provide some reasons. How about doing that?

Who are you taking issue with here? Reads like a non sequitur. Nonsense.

Elder Oaks talks about laws, brother. Why else would I mention laws and "allow people to.."?

Edited February 11, 2013 by Alvino

[The Nehor]

My parents have a variation on this. In response to my becoming a Christian in 2005, they expressed their happiness I'd found something that "works for me."

I like what C.S. Lewis said about this kind of thinking. He said that once we stop looking for truth and/or the facts we have become something less then human. He also said that one of the worst ways to discover reality is to decide whatever is easiest for us and helps us the most must be true.

[thesometimesaint]

There is always a bit of dynamic tension between Agency and Law. The lack of either one produces unacceptable results.

Without Agency we are merely pawns to whatever God(s) or Devils want. Without law there is anarchy.

Sure we could make a law against anything/everything we don't like. However there is nothing stopping someone else from turning the tables, when in power, on us by making anything/everything they don't like a matter of law.

[BCSpace]

Moral relativism is when the search for nonconformity itself becomes conformist; diversity for it's own sake, etc.

[Ahab]

Thoughts?

Reminds me of how our Lord was said to be filled with grace and truth.

Whether you call it tolerance or grace, both are about being nice to people and sharing the truth with them.

[The Nehor]

The question of whether truth or grace saves us is an old one and can only be understood by.......wait, I am in the wrong thread.

[Alvino]

I would like to know who from here believes moral relativism - at least the version Elder Oaks talks about in here - is a belief people accept as widely as he makes it sound.

Do you guys really think people today largely believe it is morally permissible to abuse children, for example, if you believe it is morally permissible? Do people today think that it is OK for you to cheat on your spouse if he doesn't notice because you believe it is OK?

That just seems outrageous and clearly false to me. I've probably never even met one individual who thought this.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Alvino

[The Nehor]

Do you guys really think people today largely believe it is morally permissible to abuse children, for example, if you believe it is morally permissible? Do people today think that it is OK for you to cheat on your spouse if he doesn't notice because you believe it is OK?

Not largely but yes, there are some. See NAMBLA, people who make the KKK seem like valuable community-minded citizens. As for cheating there are whole websites now designed for exactly that and I have heard it iterated that as long as you spare their feelings by not letting them find out it is perfectly okay.

[Ahab]

I would like to know who from here believes moral relativism - at least the version Elder Oaks talks about in here - is a belief people accept as widely as he makes it sound.

Do you guys really think people today largely believe it is morally permissible to abuse children, for example, if you believe it is morally permissible? Do people today think that it is OK for you to cheat on your spouse if he doesn't notice because you believe it is OK?

That just seems outrageous and clearly false to me. I've probably never even met one individual who thought this.

Your examples are outrageous. People don't usually carry it to that level.

Consider a couple who believes in an open relationship, where both of them think it's okay for both of them to have sexual relations with people other than each other. There are people who do think that way.

Or consider a couple who are both of the same sex who think it's okay for both of them to have sexual relations with each other, even though they're both of the same sex. There are people who do think that way.

Some people think something is good or okay as long as they like it, as if whether or not they like it makes it good or okay.

Good and evil aren't subjective, though. Something is either good or evil, and that's that.

It doesn't matter if people like what is evil, as if that makes it okay.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Ahab

[Alvino]

Not largely but yes, there are some. See NAMBLA, people who make the KKK seem like valuable community-minded citizens. As for cheating there are whole websites now designed for exactly that and I have heard it iterated that as long as you spare their feelings by not letting them find out it is perfectly okay.

I'm not asking if people think it is OK to cheat if you don't get caught; that is not moral relativism. Moral relativism is that you can cheat on your spouse, and it's OK morally, or abuse children BECAUSE and IF you think it is OK to do so.

Do people believe that?

Edited February 11, 2013 by Alvino

[The Nehor]

I'm not asking if people think it is OK to cheat if you don't get caught; that is not moral relativism. Moral relativism is that you can cheat on your spouse, and it's OK morally, or abuse children BECAUSE and IF you think it is OK to do so.

Do people believe that?

Yes.

[Alvino]

Your examples are outrageous. People don't usually carry it to that level.

They are but I wrote them to help people here see what moral relativism is and its consequences. Some here seem to confuse it with just being wrong about a particular moral position when it isn't.

Consider a couple who believes in an open relationship, where both of them think it's okay for both of them to have sexual relations with people other than each other. There are people who do think that way.

That's not moral relativism.

Or consider a couple who are both of the same sex who think it's okay for both of them to have sexual relations with each other, even though they're both of the same sex. There are people who do think that way.

Neither is this moral relativism.

Some people think something is good or okay as long as they like it, as if whether or not they like it makes it good or okay.

People think it is not immoral to engage in such activities in the first place and you may engage in them if you want to or not if you don't. IOW, it's clear to me they believe it is morally permissible to do those things you mention, not immoral if you think it is or moral if you think it is..

[Alvino]

Yes.

Well, I'm sure some believe it but the issue is that perhaps it is a widespread modern cultural phenomenon. Would you agree with that? If you do, would you please provide me with some examples just to make sure we are on the same page.

[Ahab]

They are but I wrote them to help people here see what moral relativism is and its consequences. Some here seem to confuse it with just being wrong about a particular moral position when it isn't.

Moral relativism refers to when people think something is good or okay when it's really not good or okay.

That's not moral relativism.

Yes it is.

Neither is this moral relativism.

Yes it is. Both are examples of people considering something to be good or okay when in reality it isn't good or okay.

People think it is not immoral to engage in such activities in the first place and you may engage in them if you want to or not if you don't.

Some people think those things are good or okay, but some other people think those things are evil or immoral.

Thus there is some discrepancy between what all people, collectively, consider to be moral or immoral. That's moral relativism.

IOW, it's clear to me they believe it is morally permissible to do those things you mention, not immoral if you think it is or moral if you think it is..

The fact that they think those things are morally permissable doesn't mean those things are actually good or okay, though.

[Alvino]

Ahab said: "Moral relativism refers to when people think something is good or okay when it's really not good or okay." and, "Thus there is some discrepancy between what all people, collectively, consider to be moral or immoral. That's moral relativism."

-- Then we are all moral relativists since we all agree there is moral disagreement, correct?

One thing is to agree people disagree about moral judgments - that's obviously the case, even Elder Oaks would say - and another one is to agree people can decide what is moral or immoral. The second one is the moral relativism Oaks talks about.

[Ahab]

Ahab said: "Moral relativism refers to when people think something is good or okay when it's really not good or okay." and, "Thus there is some discrepancy between what all people, collectively, consider to be moral or immoral. That's moral relativism."

-- Then we are all moral relativists since we all agree there is moral disagreement, correct?

It's not that there is a disagreement that matters.

Moral relativists think something is good or okay when they think it is good or okay. It's not evil or bad unless they think it is evil or bad.

And then there are people like me who believe good and evil are not subjective. That something is either good or bad, regardless of how I feel about it. I can think something is good or okay but that doesn't make it good or okay, if it is evil. It's not relative to how I feel about it. It is what it is, regardless of how I feel about it.

One thing is to agree people disagree about moral judgments - that's obviously the case, even Elder Oaks would say - and another one is to agree people can decide what is moral or immoral. The second one is the moral relativism Oaks talks about.

To some extent, yes. It's not the fact that people are deciding that somethign is moral or immoral that makes it moral or immoral, though. If something is immoral we can't just decide that it is moral, after all. It is immoral, if it is immoral, regardless of how anyone feels about it, just as something is good, if it is good, regardless of how anyone feels about that.