Balancing Truth And Tolerance

[cinepro]

To me, moral relativism is about thinking something is moral because we think it is moral.

Good grief. Setting aside the circular nature of that statement, the only people who think like that are sociopaths.

Find anyone whom you would classify a "moral relativist" and ask them why they hold any "moral" position, and I suspect they'll have several reasons, and none of them will be "because I think so".

[Ahab]

Good grief. Setting aside the circular nature of that statement, the only people who think like that are sociopaths.

Find anyone whom you would classify a "moral relativist" and ask them why they hold any "moral" position, and I suspect they'll have several reasons, and none of them will be "because I think so".

I already have and that was always the reason they gave, however they phrased it.

Here, watch this:

Hey cinepro: Why is _____________ (fill in the blank) good, or moral?

Edited February 13, 2013 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

Let's use your first point as an example:

There is not universal agreement on this point even among believers in God. For example, there have been religious groups that do not view war as a moral exception to the commandment not to "kill".

Since there is disagreement on this point among religions, are we saying that religions themselves can be "moral relativists"? And if religions can get their "morality" on certain issues wrong, it then falls to each of us to discern where they are right, and where they are wrong, and we've found ourselves in the same position as all the other "moral relativists".

We each decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, some using religions as a big influence (among many others), some not so big, and others almost none at all. The only difference is that apparently some have a better understanding of how the system actually works.

You don't even have to go outside Mormonism to see this point. Can you name a single social/moral issue upon which all faithful, active LDS agree? Even on basic issues, you can find a variety of moral beliefs in almost any ward. Are the people that have personal beliefs that contradict LDS policy or common assumptive LDS positions somehow less "LDS" and more "relative" than those who always toe the line?

And since LDS moral practices and interpretations can change over time, how do we know whether someone is on the road to apostasy, or just ahead of their time?

I wasn't even responding to you, and I am well aware of what "moral relativism" is and how people have different beliefs.

I think the Kantian Categorical Imperative gets as close as you can get for purposes of this discussion if you want to get all philosophical on me.

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.^[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

If not the Golden Rule will do. I think all people of good will subscribe to that and it is universally true. Incidentally I am not trying to justify moral relativism and you seem you think I am.

I am not. My only point is that there are ways of seeing certain moral principles as always true even in a Pragmatic sense. There are things which work best for humanity because for humanity to survive, we all have common interests. You can see those as "absolute truths" or "Pragmatic truths" because they are indeed both.

Now if you are talking about guys thinking that molesting little boys is ok because it is "love" that is clear moral relativism, AND it is against what works best for humanity in my opinion. Even if a culture believed such was OK I would disagree.