Moral Relativism

[CV75]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The problem here is the ambiguity.

***

I agree with what E.O is bemoaning, I just think it is not phrased well.   It is never right to choose abortion, supposedly, yet the church itself has guidelines that justify it in certain circumstances.  I cannot imagine that Elder O. meant to condemn that.

Yes, it’s an old problem, “the placing of our words”; Moroni had it; the brother of Jared not so much (Ether 11: 24, 25). So we discuss what is meant in good faith, which helps the stumbling (1 Nephi 13:34) but not the mocking (Ether 12:26). For example, from what you said, “choice” means different things in different contexts; we can make any moral choice within our power (we can commit murder) and ability to execute, but that choice expands or contracts our ability to choose (murder doesn’t expand our agency).

I don’t think situational ethics is any more an example of relativism than is the principle in Abraham 3:16-19, since being “more intelligent than they all” is absolute and the Lord has the last word in Nephi-Laban story (and Nephi was “constrained” –  a pretty absolute condition to choose! And 1 Nephi 4:1 does provide the overarching, “absolute” basis for the action).

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Because God keeps changing his mind?

That is a lousy example of a maieutic, especially since it does not address why people are duped to equate circumstance and context with relativism.

Edited July 21, 2016 by CV75

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

There was nothing in the letter as quoted by John C. Bennett telling her to destroy it. I would imagine that Joseph did ask her to keep his proposal secret, which she evidently did not do. However, she probably shared the letter with her boyfriend, Chauncey Higbee, who forwarded it to Bennett. There was nothing earth shattering in that letter, i.e. about polygamy, plural wives, or whatever.

However, the letter is not about "moral relativism" as such, as I noted, but you are still doing some good lawyering. 

Glenn

On the contrary, the letter is a great example of LDS moral relativism:. Our definition of what is right and wrong is often dictated by what we believe God wants us to do at that time. 

I'm not sure how to reconcile polygamy, for example, with the Oaks quote in the OP. 

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

On the contrary, the letter is a great example of LDS moral relativism:. Our definition of what is right and wrong is often dictated by what we believe God wants us to do at that time. 

I'm not sure how to reconcile polygamy, for example, with the Oaks quote in the OP. 

Not to mention Blacks and the priesthood.

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Indeed. A few years ago, I asked an LDS acquaintance if he could think of any actions that are always morally wrong, with no exceptions. The only thing he came up with was that same-sex intercourse is always wrong.

Well that's all relative of course.  Maybe it's not the only thing that's wrong.  I thought abusing children is always wrong, why didn't he come up with that? 

[consiglieri]

13 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

 

However, the letter is not about "moral relativism" as such, as I noted, but you are still doing some good lawyering. 

 

I tend to disagree.  Moral relativism is also referred to as "situational ethics."

The idea is that it is the situation that determines what is ethical, as opposed to an absolute code of ethics that must be followed regardless of the situation.

Joseph Smith's statement seems to fit the idea of situational ethics pretty squarely.

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another.

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Great Lawyering here Consiglieri. Just the bit you wish the jury to hear and hope the lawyer on the other side of the aisle does not cross examine on that point. But, if the opposition were to ask for the original source, what would it be? Has there been an original letter supposedly dictated to Willard Richards been found? I don't think so. This was a letter supposedly written to Nancy Rigdon after she had refused his offer of plural marriage. It was part of one of John C. Bennett's communications to the Sangamo Journal attacking Joseph Smith after Bennett had been cut off from the church after details of his "spiritual wifery" affairs had been unearthed.

The provenance of that letter is uncertain, but parts of it have been included in the Manuscript History of the Church, so there are some who feel it is legitimate. So, let's just take it at face value, but let's add a bit more of that quote for context.

"That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another. God said thou shalt not kill,—at another time he said, thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire."

Does not that change or rather clarify what the author actually meant. It is not moral relativism after all, but based upon what God requires us to do. Examples are given, to be sure. Although a specific example, Laban fits the mold, n'est ce pas?

Another example would be an abortion which is wrong under some circumstances and not wrong under others. 

Edited to add: Moral relativism is used by "society." What is moral changes as society changes.

Glenn

This gets more interesting.  Is it always best to do what God wants us to do?  So what we do depends on what another wants us to do, no matter the moral law we may keep?  it was good for Eve to partake of the fruit, as she explained. 

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The problem here is the ambiguity.

Of course each of us has to choose if Elder Oaks view of morality is right or wrong, so we are therefore all free to choose right and wrong for ourselves, or we could not follow Elder Oaks advice.

So that is a poor definition of "moral relativism", and is the cause of the confusion.  Choosing the "right" morality is STILL a decision on our part to choose right or wrong for ourselves.

On the other hand, we are not free to choose if murder is right or wrong.

So the phrasing, pardon me Elder O, is ambiguous and causes confusion, and applies to anyone who condemns "moral relativism" without thinking things through.

Then we have situational ethics.  Killing is wrong, but yet is shooting terrorists who are about to chop off someone's head wrong?   It's the old Nephi and Laban story.  So is THAT "moral relativism"?  Honestly the problem here appears to be sloppy use of language leading to muddled thinking.

I agree with what E.O is bemoaning, I just think it is not phrased well.   It is never right to choose abortion, supposedly, yet the church itself has guidelines that justify it in certain circumstances.  I cannot imagine that Elder O. meant to condemn that.

I agree.

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

This gets more interesting.  Is it always best to do what God wants us to do?  So what we do depends on what another wants us to do, no matter the moral law we may keep?  it was good for Eve to partake of the fruit, as she explained. 

Good point.

In LDS theology, Adam and Eve disobey God for good.

Eve made the moral choice forbidden by God.

Yes, it does get more interesting!

 

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Good point.

In LDS theology, Adam and Eve disobey God for good.

Eve made the moral choice forbidden by God.

Yes, it does get more interesting!

 

Mormon doctrine abounds with examples of moral relativism.

[CV75]

50 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I tend to disagree.  Moral relativism is also referred to as "situational ethics."

The idea is that it is the situation that determines what is ethical, as opposed to an absolute code of ethics that must be followed regardless of the situation.

Joseph Smith's statement seems to fit the idea of situational ethics pretty squarely.

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another.

No, "situational ethics" are referred to as ethical relativism (and ethics are not revealed, they are man-made). The relativism is in the approach, opposing legalistic approaches (also man-made) that enjoin words such as "never", "complete" or "perfect. Joseph's ideas are not an example of either moral or ethical relativism.

Edited July 21, 2016 by CV75
correct the placing of my words

[CV75]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

On the contrary, the letter is a great example of LDS moral relativism:. Our definition of what is right and wrong is often dictated by what we believe God wants us to do at that time. 

I'm not sure how to reconcile polygamy, for example, with the Oaks quote in the OP. 

If our definition of what is right and wrong is often dictated by what we believe God wants us to do at that time, then that is not moral relativism. Moral relativism is not equating that which is good with what God wants to do at any given time. According to Elder Oaks, it is rather the opposite: “a belief that there is no absolute right and wrong, that all authority and all rules of behavior are man-made choices that can prevail over the commandments of God [or eternal law].” Eternal law is absolute, according to Abraham 3:18-19, D&C 88:13 and most explicitly, 3 Nephi 15:9.

[jkwilliams]

45 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I tend to disagree.  Moral relativism is also referred to as "situational ethics."

The idea is that it is the situation that determines what is ethical, as opposed to an absolute code of ethics that must be followed regardless of the situation.

Joseph Smith's statement seems to fit the idea of situational ethics pretty squarely.

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another.

Yep, that statement from Joseph is a pretty textbook definition of situational ethics: " the doctrine of flexibility in the application of moral laws according to circumstances "

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Good point.

In LDS theology, Adam and Eve disobey God for good.

Eve made the moral choice forbidden by God.

Yes, it does get more interesting!

 

Moral agency is not moral relativism, either! Because God is absolute (whether one wants to say He is in alignment with or the personification of eternal law), and as such gave Adam and Eve their moral agency, of course He would have ensured that anything they did would have eventually turned out good within the design of His plan. That does not make the system relativistic, but absolute!

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Moral agency is not moral relativism, either! Because God is absolute (whether one wants to say He is in alignment with or the personification of eternal law), and as such gave Adam and Eve their moral agency, of course He would have ensured that anything they did would have eventually turned out good within the design of His plan. That does not make the system relativistic, but absolute!

No wonder MfBukowski suggested on the first page that the two terms are meaningless.  though opposites in a sense, they are treated as meaning anything. 

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Well that's all relative of course.  Maybe it's not the only thing that's wrong.  I thought abusing children is always wrong, why didn't he come up with that? 

I don't know, maybe it was that God has sometimes caused children to suffer, so it's not outside the realm of possibility. As my acquaintance noted, there is no record of God ever causing or approving of homosexual intercourse.

[CV75]

Just now, stemelbow said:

No wonder MfBukowski suggested on the first page that the two terms are meaningless.  though opposites in a sense, they are treated as meaning anything. 

It's also what I said about "Yes" and "No." That is why it is good, when trying to find meaning in the talk, to accept the definition and the context laid out in the talk (at the very least for working purposes) rather than insist they don't mean what he said they mean for the purposes of his talk! How crazy is that?

 

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yep, that statement from Joseph is a pretty textbook definition of situational ethics: " the doctrine of flexibility in the application of moral laws according to circumstances "

Actually, it is another good example that Joseph wasn’t teaching situational ethics. Look closely:

“That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another.” There is no flexibility in the moral application of the act of killing as either murder or honorable execution; they each have their own absolute law. Rather, the circumstances allow for the flexible application of the separate laws, each absolute in its own sphere and rightly or wrongly applied in the circumstance.

Edited July 21, 2016 by CV75

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Actually, it is another good example that Joseph wasn’t teaching situational ethics. Look closely:

“That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another.” There is no flexibility in the moral application of the act of killing as either murder or honorable execution; they each have their own absolute law. Rather, the circumstances allow for the application of the separate laws, each absolute in its own sphere and rightly or wrongly applied in the circumstance.

Again, it's almost an exact restatement of the dictionary definition: moral laws (which may or may not be absolute) being applied with flexibility depending on circumstances.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Actually, it is another good example that Joseph wasn’t teaching situational ethics. Look closely:

“That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another.” There is no flexibility in the moral application of the act of killing as either murder or honorable execution; they each have their own absolute law. Rather, the circumstances allow for the flexible application of the separate laws, each absolute in its own sphere and rightly or wrongly applied in the circumstance.

I think this is well stated in regards to the talk under discussion:

Quote

The problem here is the ambiguity.

Of course each of us has to choose if Elder Oaks view of morality is right or wrong, so we are therefore all free to choose right and wrong for ourselves, or we could not follow Elder Oaks advice.

So that is a poor definition of "moral relativism", and is the cause of the confusion.  Choosing the "right" morality is STILL a decision on our part to choose right or wrong for ourselves.

On the other hand, we are not free to choose if murder is right or wrong.

So the phrasing, pardon me Elder O, is ambiguous and causes confusion, and applies to anyone who condemns "moral relativism" without thinking things through.

Then we have situational ethics.  Killing is wrong, but yet is shooting terrorists who are about to chop off someone's head wrong?   It's the old Nephi and Laban story.  So is THAT "moral relativism"?  Honestly the problem here appears to be sloppy use of language leading to muddled thinking.

I agree with what E.O is bemoaning, I just think it is not phrased well.   It is never right to choose abortion, supposedly, yet the church itself has guidelines that justify it in certain circumstances.  I cannot imagine that Elder O. meant to condemn that.

 

Found on page two of this thread, authored by mfbukowski.

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, it's almost an exact restatement of the dictionary definition: moral laws (which may or may not be absolute) being applied with flexibility depending on circumstances.

I don't think you understand the definition (or what Joseph is saying)! You need to look at both pretty closely.

There is a fundamental difference between flexibility in the application of laws (which are absolute) vs. flexibility in the laws themselves.

For example: Murder is breaking the moral law for killing; honorable execution is keeping that same law.

Nephi’s kept the law in slaying Laban. Nehor broke it in slaying Gideon.

Edited July 21, 2016 by CV75

[jkwilliams]

Just now, CV75 said:

I don't think you understand the definition (or what Joseph is saying)! You need to look at both pretty closely.

I do, and I have. 

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think this is well stated in regards to the talk under discussion:

Found on page two of this thread, authored by mfbukowski.

And I agree. I think I gave him a rep point for it, and I think we're saying much the same thing. I expanded on the problems associated with ambiguity and how they may be resolved (if not ambiguity itself) by looking at Moroni's experience, the difference between stumbling and mocking in the face of ambiguity, and taking someone's explanation and context at face value and examining the meaning from there.

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

And I agree. I think I gave him a rep point for it, and I think we're saying much the same thing. I expanded on the problems associated with ambiguity and how they may be resolved (if not ambiguity itself) by looking at Moroni's experience, the difference between stumbling and mocking in the face of ambiguity, and taking someone's explanation and context at face value and examining the meaning from there.

I don't get what you're saying in almost all of your posts.  It feels like contradiction from sentence to sentence.  I mean no offense by this.  I'd agree with JkWilliams that Joseph's statement is pretty much a restatement of the dictionary definition of moral relativism. 

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Yep, that statement from Joseph is a pretty textbook definition of situational ethics: " the doctrine of flexibility in the application of moral laws according to circumstances "

Is it always wrong to kill?

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Is it always wrong to kill?

Some are in favor of capital punishment, some aren't.  I guess it depends on who you ask, huh?