Balancing Truth And Tolerance

[Alvino]

@Ahab:

You said:

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

"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."

Do you not see how these two ideas of moral relativism are different? The first one just says MR is when you get a moral judgment wrong. The second one (the one Oaks, me, and philosophers talk about) says that you really can't be wrong about moral judgments because, however you judge an act, it is.

[thesometimesaint]

The road to hell is paved by those that thought they were doing God(s) work in punishing the sinner.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

-snip

I am curious how this squares against Joseph Smith saying that "That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." This seems to be moral relativism at its core. One of the chief apologetic defenses is that leaders are a product of their time. That Brigham Young's racist sentiments must be read into the the context of history. Isn't this a form of moral relativism? Either racism is inherently evil or it isn't* (*unless its a product of your upbringing). Marrying a 14 year old today will get you excommunicated (this actually happened on my mission). Joseph Smith marrying a 14 year old was okay because he lived in a different time and people were different then. Isn't that moral relativism?

Personally these issues (Brigham Young's racism, and Joseph Smith's young brides) don't bother me. What I don't understand is how we say that morals aren't relative to the situation we are in? Help me understand this.

Edited February 12, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Questing Beast]

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

There's nothing inherently mistaken about "if it works for you". Time will tell if "it works for you". Everyone can discover success and failure. This forum is filling in with people pointing out how Mormonism isn't working for them, at least how they expected it to work in their lives. Judgmental opinions abound.

If "it works for me", then isn't that the same as working for "God"? Because if "God" blesses my life and my gratitude increases "toward the perfect day", how is what I am doing somehow wrong?

Dallin Oaks' talk sees sexual impropriety as the main focus, just look at his quick list of ills, "...self-serving pleasures, pornography, dishonesty, foul language, revealing attire, pagan painting and piercing of body parts, and degrading sexual indulgence." Other than dishonesty and foul language, all of them are sexual/sexuality related. Yet "dishonesty" is the root cause of all sinful actions. Rather than focus on the results it seems to me that one ought to focus on the cause, which is fundamental dishonesty, "lying to myself", the "original sin" if there ever was one. Instead, "PORNOGRAPHY" gets in there yet again as if it were the reason why people fall away from the Church. So-called "pagan painting and piercing" is a symptom of what is radically in vogue at the moment, not a sin per se. To list them as some kind of list of sins is not helpful in making the point that, in order to be right with "God" one must be honest to oneself. Nothing else matters if one is not honest with oneself. If that is the fundamental prime requisite for life then all else that is good and "absolute truth" will follow. The rest - which if any religion you adhere to, your sexual relationships, your daily walk among the children of men - will become a life that is just. There is one absolute truth that transcends all outward variations, and that is the definition of Justice, which if honored perfectly rewards with perfect Joy....

Edited February 12, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Ahab]

@Ahab:

You said:

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

"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."

Do you not see how these two ideas of moral relativism are different? The first one just says MR is when you get a moral judgment wrong. The second one (the one Oaks, me, and philosophers talk about) says that you really can't be wrong about moral judgments because, however you judge an act, it is.

The ideas are a little different but they are in harmony. I'm just looking at it from 2 different perspectives.

And No, the second one isn't about how you can't be wrong when making moral judgments, and that's not what Elder Oaks was saying. A person can be wrong when making a moral judgment, either by thinking something is wrong when it really isn't, or by thinking something is good when it isn't. Something is either right or wrong, regardless of how we feel about it, so we're either right or wrong depending on whether or not we know what it is.

[Ahab]

I am curious how this squares against Joseph Smith saying that "That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." This seems to be moral relativism at its core.

It may seem to be moral relativism, to you, but that isn't what he was talking about. Joseph was talking about how the circumstances can make a difference, rather than how in moral relativism it's whether or not someone thinks something is not what it is.

For an example of how the circumstances make a difference in whether or not something is right or wrong, consider how at one time you were forbidden by our Lord to have sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex, because you were not married. And then you got married, which made it okay or good to have sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex. You still aren't and never will be allowed by our Lord to have sexual relations with someone fo the same sex as you are, though. That is wrong now and it always will be wrong, regardless of how anyone else feels about it.

[Alvino]

And No, the second one isn't about how you can't be wrong when making moral judgments, and that's not what Elder Oaks was saying.

Ahab, he was talking about the belief that the moral status of actions depend on what one thinks of them (moral relativism) and that this belief is widespread in our culture.

A person can be wrong when making a moral judgment, either by thinking something is wrong when it really isn't, or by thinking something is good when it isn't. Something is either right or wrong, regardless of how we feel about it, so we're either right or wrong depending on whether or not we know what it is.

I agree, but believing that they are dependent on what we judge is what moral relativism is.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Alvino

[Ahab]

I agree, but believing that they are dependent on what we judge is what moral relativism is.

Exactly! Now we finally seem to understand each other.

If someone thinks something is good or okay, but it isn't, their thinking doesn't make it good or okay. It isn't good or okay, regardless of how they feel about it. It isn't relative to have they feel about it. It is either right or wrong, and thinking something is good when it's really bad doesn't make into something that's good. Even if something bad becomes legal, it's still bad. The law doesn't determine whether it is good or evil. It is good or evil based on what it actually is.

[Alvino]

Exactly! Now we finally seem to understand each other.

If someone thinks something is good or okay, but it isn't, their thinking doesn't make it good or okay. It isn't good or okay, regardless of how they feel about it. It isn't relative to have they feel about it. It is either right or wrong, and thinking something is good when it's really bad doesn't make into something that's good. Even if something bad becomes legal, it's still bad. The law doesn't determine whether it is good or evil. It is good or evil based on what it actually is.

Agreed.

But, again, that is one of the things that seem wrong from Elder Oaks's article.

Moral relativism implies (if correct) that one can't be wrong about moral judgments but always right. I think it's clearly not the case that people believe that and the examples you and others here have provided do not show that people believe Moral Relativism is correct. Bringing examples that show people getting moral judgments wrong does not show people accept that Moral Relativism is true.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Alvino

[Ahab]

Agreed.

But, again, that is one of the things that seem wrong from Elder Oaks's article.

Moral relativism implies (if correct) that one can't be wrong about moral judgments but always right.

Do you understand why it would work out that way, if people thought that way? It's because things would be (according to them) whatever they thought they were, instead of what they actually were. if they thought something bad was good, then it would be good (according to moral relativism). Things would be either good or bad depending on whatever they thought it was.

I think it's clearly not the case that people believe that and the examples you and others here have provided do not show that people believe Moral Relativism is correct.

Yes they do. You apparently just don't understand how it works, when people think that way.

Take any issue, any issue at all, and then tell me whether it is actually good or bad. I'll then let you know if I agree with you about whether or not that is good or bad. It could be that you think it's good or bad, when in reality it's the opposite of what you think it is.

Bringing examples that show people getting moral judgments wrong does not show people accept that Moral Relativism is true.

Yes it does, even if only temporarily. If you do something which is bad because you think it is good, it could be that you did it only because you didn't know it was bad while you thought it was good, but it was still bad even though you thought it was good. If you found out later that it was bad, after all, then you may stop doing it, or you may do it anyway just because you like it and because you like it you may still want to think it is good, but it's still just as bad as it ever was. How you feel about it doesn't make any difference at all as far as what it actually is.

[Alvino]

Take any issue, any issue at all, and then tell me whether it is actually good or bad. I'll then let you know if I agree with you about whether or not that is good or bad. It could be that you think it's good or bad, when in reality it's the opposite of what you think it is.

I give up.

[Ahab]

I give up.

I never will.

[RobertAC]

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?

Some do. People are ignorant and foolish to different levels of degrees.

Candidly, I have read the bible a couple of times, and I'm not impressed by the level of morality expressed within it. Ancient Isreaelites are told to abandon their pagan spouses and children and to take up with themselves. I believe this is mentioned in Hosea.

Similarly, Abraham does not remain faithful to Sarah or Hagar. He has sex with Hagar, and then sends she and her child out into the desert.

And of course, if God was a man, he would be viewed as a callous serial killer.

Yet, notwithstanding the way morality is reflected in the bible, there are moral rules that people should abide by, regardless of their faith or lack thereof, and these morals should be taught repeatedly and often to children and adults.

[cinepro]

Can someone explain to me how LDS in 2013 are not "moral relativists" compared to the LDS of 1865, 1920, and 1955?

Look at what we wear, the movies and entertainment we seek, the music we listen to. Look at the behaviors we are accepting of before and after marriage. Look at our attitudes on social issues.

Sure, compared to society at large we may still be "conservative", but if we look at time as a variable within our own community, we are very, very "relative".

I would even go so far as to predict that when it comes to some of the specific things Elder Oaks mentioned:

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.

...future generations of LDS will probably have drastically more liberal attitudes compared to ours (and Elder Oaks').

Heck, when it comes to "piercing of body parts", how is it not "moral relativism" to accept one pair of earrings for women while condemning anything else? How could anything be more arbitrary and "relative" than that?

Edited February 12, 2013 by cinepro

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It may seem to be moral relativism, to you, but that isn't what he was talking about. Joseph was talking about how the circumstances can make a difference, rather than how in moral relativism it's whether or not someone thinks something is not what it is.

For an example of how the circumstances make a difference in whether or not something is right or wrong, consider how at one time you were forbidden by our Lord to have sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex, because you were not married. And then you got married, which made it okay or good to have sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex. You still aren't and never will be allowed by our Lord to have sexual relations with someone fo the same sex as you are, though. That is wrong now and it always will be wrong, regardless of how anyone else feels about it.

A more apt example would be the one that Joseph uses in the next line. God says thou shalt not kill and in another instance thou shalt utterly destroy. Take Nephi and Laban or mountain meadows.

Circumstances change all the time. One could argue that premarital sex was immoral in the 1800's because it resulted in a child most of the time. One could then argue that since effective contraceptives are now available it is no longer immoral. (The immoral act being bringing a child into the world into an unstable circumstance).

It seems to me that moral relativism means to most people "morals that I disagree with"

[Ahab]

Can someone explain to me how LDS in 2013 are not "moral relativists" compared to the LDS of 1865, 1920, and 1955?

Some of us are, but rather than point the finger I'd rather just show how any person uses moral relativism, when they do.

Look at what we wear, the movies and entertainment we seek, the music we listen to. Look at the behaviors we are accepting of before and after marriage. Look at our attitudes on social issues.

Sure, compared to society at large we may still be "conservative", but if we look at time as a variable within our own community, we are very, very "relative".

I would even go so far as to predict that when it comes to some of the specific things Elder Oaks mentioned:

...future generations of LDS will probably have drastically more liberal attitudes compared to ours (and Elder Oaks').

Heck, when it comes to "piercing of body parts", how is it not "moral relativism" to accept one pair of earrings for women while condemning anything else? How could anything be more arbitrary and "relative" than that?

What do you think it is that makes wearing earrings either moral or immoral? Generally speaking, is wearing earrings good, or is it evil? If it's good or evil generally, are there some circumstances when it would be anything other than the good or evil you would say it is, generally speaking?

The issue here isn't whether or not something is relative in any way. The issue is whether or not it is morally relative. What morals are involved? What is it that makes something either good or evil? Do you know and understand that much, enough to explain it to someone like me?

Off the cuff I'd say it may have something to do with the moral issue of modesty, or treating or body as a sacred vessel for our spirit, but other than that I can't imagine anything (else) that would make wearing earings a moral issue. And even then it's only a question of how many earrings we should wear if we're going to be modest or to treat or bodies as we should treat them.

[Ahab]

It seems to me that moral relativism means to most people "morals that I disagree with"

I agree, but it can also be used to support a sense of morals that they do agree with, like when thinking something is good makes it good, even though it really isn't.

[cinepro]

Off the cuff I'd say it may have something to do with the moral issue of modesty, or treating or body as a sacred vessel for our spirit, but other than that I can't imagine anything (else) that would make wearing earings a moral issue. And even then it's only a question of how many earrings we should wear if we're going to be modest or to treat or bodies as we should treat them.

That's fine, but if the definition of "modesty" is changing over time in relation to the culture and fashions of the larger community, then "modesty" is a relative term, not an absolute one.

Ultimately, the Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and the Amish are probably the only groups that can claim to not be moral relativists. The rest of us are just fooling ourselves.

[mfbukowski]

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.

In your opinion. There are others.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Thanks. Nailed it as usual.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Move to LA.

[Ahab]

That's fine, but if the definition of "modesty" is changing over time in relation to the culture and fashions of the larger community, then "modesty" is a relative term, not an absolute one.

No, because modesty means to be appropriately restrained in our appearance, so while people's views can change regarding how much their appearance should be appropriately restrained they're always either restraining their appearance appropriately, or they are not. For example, even if someday everybody on Earth thought it was good or okay to walk around totally naked, they would still not be restrained appropriately in their appearance, or modest, even if they thought they were.

Ultimately, the Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and the Amish are probably the only groups that can claim to not be moral relativists. The rest of us are just fooling ourselves.

Those people aren't the only people who restrain their appearance appropriately, and some of them may even be going overboard to the extreme in the other direction than most of us are.

[mfbukowski]

There are certain propositions about morality which are always true, because they always work for mankind, and I think Kant's Categorical Imperative comes very close to such a proposition, but to keep it simple we can talk about the Golden Rule.

I believe that such ideas are God given and have the force of what can be called "natural law". They are always correct or "true".

But notice that such ideas are not necessarily Platonic "Absolute Truths" out there floating around in the Realm of Forms.

So there is the "moral relativism" being discussed here- people making up their own morality- I would argue that that does not "work" for all humanity because they have not generalized their moral principles to all of mankind.

Take for example homosexuality- I would argue that such is not "moral" because if all humanity was homosexual, humanity could not survive. It is also a violation of God's natural laws. But the natural laws we have "just happen" to also be the best moral code we can have for humanity.

Incidentally this is also compatible with an evolutionary perspective, if one cares about that. One explanation for these "natural laws" of morality is that they evolved- that the society which for example promotes what we call "family values" indeed allows peaceful and productive reproduction of the species, and imbues children raised with these values to live their lives similarly.

One need only to look at the birth rate among Mormons and others who hold to family values to see evidence that indeed such values promote the reproduction of the species better than other value systems.

So all truths lead to the same place. If you see these as "moral absolutes" which are God-given, or philosophically correct in a Kantian sense, or simply as having "evolved" over time, you still get the same Pragmatic results.

So in this area of morality, all these sets of views are perfectly compatible and not even necessarily theistic.

Edited February 12, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Alvino]

Move to LA.

Even the hippiest hippies I've met are not moral relativists. Their "permissible" category is very broad or they might be moral nihilists, but definitely not relativists. Might care to provide some examples?

Edited February 12, 2013 by Alvino

[cinepro]

No, because modesty means to be appropriately restrained in our appearance, so while people's views can change regarding how much their appearance should be appropriately restrained they're always either restraining their appearance appropriately, or they are not. For example, even if someday everybody on Earth thought it was good or okay to walk around totally naked, they would still not be restrained appropriately in their appearance, or modest, even if they thought they were.

Elder Oaks didn't say "modesty", he said that "moral relativism" leads to "piercing of body parts".

If things like "piercings" are appropriate variables in the principle of modesty, then they are really bad examples to bring up in a discussion of moral relativity, because LDS believe these things are relative.