Absloute morality vs relative morality

[Rooster7]

"Absolute morality" is just another way of saying "Whatever I and the people like me believe and do is right and moral, and the rest of you people are therefore immoral."

 

In reality, this is of course, the exact opposite of absolute morality. A group of people cannot dictate absolute morality. Absolute morality is God's laws. Actually, the above statement is an example of relative moralityas society changes, a group of people dictate the laws that should change with it.

 

From a practical standpoint, if we want to govern society by God's laws (i.e., absolute morality), a group of people must determine what are God's laws. This is where the debate comes in, because humanity is prone to corrupt the interpretation of God's laws. This is also NJ's source of contention because "who is to say what faith has it right?" Recognizing the fact that we are a democracy (or rather a representative Republic), I realize that he has a legitimate point. That is to say, in essence, we live under majority rule. It is possible that the majority will get it wrong (and not follow God's laws). Still, as long as this country maintains a Christian majority, there is nothing wrong with Christians voting for representatives that represent their view of morality. Those who complain that our morality is rooted in our faith, are only complaining because they are not the majority. It should not matter one iota, whether my morality is rooted in the bible or "my personal opinion", my vote counts as much as any other. This is not the establishment of a religion; it's a viewpoint of right and wrong. As a citizen, my viewpoint is not open for integration anymore than the non-Christian. One can, and should apply his/her viewpoints on morality when one votes. The government, outside of established law, does not have the right to examine and/or pass judgment on the moral viewpoints of its citizens. In short, Christians have a right to a moral viewpoint without it being made suspect or negated because they believe in God's laws.

 

Now, along comes Rooster and says that the commandments that Christians do NOT follow were wiped away by Jesus Christ and are not moral laws, but rituals.

 

The Ten Commandments are NOT examples of ritualistic law. I never said that they were...I never implied it. I gave specific examples of ritualistic law (i.e., animal sacrifices, what one eats, what one wears, etc.). Moral laws are those laws, which dictate how one should treat/respect/love others and God (i.e., the Ten Commandments). Christ did not make these laws obsolete. Christ did not abolish these laws, but he did free us (his followers) from judgment.

[packsaddle]

Maybe it's time to bring another one back from the dead, heh, heh.

Anyway, here's the original thread, at least I think it's the original one. It didn't get very far back in 2002 but maybe it is time to revisit the question if anyone is interested.

 

For me, it was nice to see some old familiar names again. Some of them are still around (OGE - you still out there?) and some have evidently left the forums. In that case I miss them, even you Rooster7, if you're still lurking.

[OldGreyEagle]

Gee Pack, I am here and I reread the posts and have to say that I am not sure I feel the same way about the topic as I did 5 years ago. Does that make me bad? A Relative Moralist?

 

If as time goes on, my view/opinion on a topic changes, is that good? bad? of no consequence?

 

When Bill Clinton was first elected president, I voted for him, he soon lost his lustre, when George W Bush won, I was happy. I liked him after 9/11 even more. I was and am for the military action in the Mid-East but the handling of post-invasion Iraq is lacking. Then again, I know from personal experience that destruction is much easier and more quickly accomplished then construction. When I was a youth I was with John Lennon when he sang "All we are saying is give peace a chance", then again, I have since thought "how do you make peace with someone who wants you dead?"

 

I understand the ten commandments are as valuable today as they ever were, but generally what we talk about are not found specifically in the 10 commandments.

[packsaddle]

Bad? Heck no, not in my book! Nothing wrong with moral relativism as far as I'm concerned. It allows us to adapt to new challenges.

As a matter of fact I can remember (maybe you too) at least twice when I spoke of you in superlative terms (I'd have to search for the exact words but they were something along the lines of "ideal" or "perfect").

My view is that because change is inevitable, we might as well view change as good - and if we change our minds in response then, hey, that just makes good sense. Moreover it allows us to feel good, even if it might be an illusion.

 

Fact is, with the things we've learned in science and the applications in technology today, we can't expect the Bible to be as relevant as it once was. Once it was established back in 325CE or so, it was a rigid document open only to differences of interpretation. No one could have foreseen the changes that have occurred since that time or the conditions that exist today. Hence, it becomes more and more metaphorical and the interpretations proliferate endlessly.

Perhaps at some time, the fifteen - oops - ten commandments might become merely a quaint symbol that Merlyn and I would not object to in government buildings...as an ornament rather than a religious icon. As a moral relativist in relativistic times and society, I see this as happening quite easily.

[Trevorum]

I notice that Rooster's account is closed and his 2000 posts have been reset to zero. Guess he's not lurking. Too bad, he was so entertaining!

[packsaddle]

Trevorum, I'm thinking that perhaps one of those mini-raptures might have snagged ol' Rooster7 after all, heh, heh. And the rest of us were just left behind.

 

I guess I need to make this relevant though so I brought back this old thread to respond to another one...Beavah said in the other thread,

"Seems like most of da heroes and saints were pretty absolute in their views of right and wrong, eh?

Moral relativism, like Marxist-Leninism, rabid Fundamentalism, Fascism, etc. is just another dumb idea. It may have left the station, but it's runnin' off the rails just like the rest of the dumb ideas."

 

Interesting...how do your distinguish "rabid fundamentalism" from some other kind, I wonder? Seems to me that many "fundamentalists" are true believers of 'moral absolutism'. And I think that the fascists and marxists probably felt fairly absolute in their moral codes as well. Was that statement supposed to make sense?

 

But to respond: Nah, moral absolutism is only something that exists in your own perception and mind. It might feel good to you but you can't put even a few of your moral absolutes to critical examination and have them stand up to real situations.

[Gold Winger]

I really like the old rules that we no longer follow like if you child is disobedient, have him put to death. "Junior, mow the lawn." "Don't wanna" "Okay, let's go see the Sheriff!"

 

Right and wrong are continually evolving.

[LongHaul]

Do you actually think right and wrong change or is it just our reaction to the action. Was slavery ever actually right? It was legal, it was common practice but was it ever right.

LH

[Gold Winger]

"Do you actually think right and wrong change or is it just our reaction to the action."

 

Right and wrong are only our reactions to something. Right and wrong are really human constructs, a lion doesn't ask if it is right before he eats the eland.

 

[Beavah]

Fact is, with the things we've learned in science and the applications in technology today, we can't expect the Bible to be as relevant as it once was. Once it was established back in 325CE or so, it was a rigid document open only to differences of interpretation.

 

Now we got packsaddle da Biblical Scholar? This is just hysterical, eh?

 

Biblical Fundamentalism was a sideways offshoot of da Reformation. Our modern notion of Biblical Fundamentalism is largely a product of some branches of the North American Baptist tradition. Judeo-Christian understandin' has in general never been static nor da bible "rigid." Like science it is growin' toward a fuller understandin' of underlying Truth.

 

And yeh scientists have done well with electrons and molecules, eh? But yeh are no better than barbers with leeches when it comes to psychology, sociology, (ethical) education, economics, governance, etc. So I'm just not seein' any real effect on how science has made religion less relevant, other than how being fat and well-off has made any person or group of people self-important and stupid throughout history.

 

So keep your science. I'll teach kids to Love God with all their heart, and their neighbor as themselves. While I'm grateful for a better refrigerator and annoyed by the better bombs or bioweapons yeh scientists make, I'd rather live with folks who have so much love that they would lay down their life for a friend.

 

Those types make The Best Kind of Citizens.

 

Happy Thanksgivin'!

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

And Happy Thanksgiving to all of you guys as well...even Rooster7, wherever you are, and especially littlebillie whom I do very much miss from these forums.

 

Biblical scholar? Bite your tongue! Nah, I just keep learning things from my Biblical-scholar-wannabe forum friends. Your description of a thoroughly relativistic Biblical history and theology was nice, though.

I'm afraid that I don't have the multiple lifetimes needed to penetrate most of those mysteries so I WILL stick to science (which is taking most of this lifetime as it is).

I note that economics is referred to as the 'dismal science' and I often hear the others mentioned as 'pseudo-science', all of which mean, 'not ready for prime time yet', heh, heh. (I'll probably catch some comments for those characterizations )

 

But, heh, heh, these days we use viruses instead of leeches (as current headlines note) and we're crossing the boundaries between those electrons and human life with increasingly great success. But I fail to see how this is inconsistent with your last comment. I agree with your characterization of human interactions and how it ought to be. I just think that science is another way to get there as well.

 

So have a safe, warm, happy Thanksgiving.

And I mean this sincerely and warmly:

Enjoy your genetically-modified food, produced with pesticides and chemical fertilizers, processed and packaged, cooled, and transported with energy subsidized with fossil fuels, and prepared using directed electromagnetic radiation using synthetic polymers and composite materials. And briefly thank God for the bountiful harvest that He allowed science to bring to your lives, which you can then forget about to enjoy a day of feast and an evening of indigestion. Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[Gold Winger]

"But yeh are no better than barbers with leeches"

 

Barbers aren't using leeches any more but doctors still do.

 

 

[LongHaul]

So GW oh lord I can't do that..... So Gold Winger you don't see certain actions as right or wrong in and of themselves? Murder, rape,stuff like that.

LH

[evmori]

Right & wrong don't change. Peoples perception of right & wrong do.

 

Happy Thanksgiving.

[Gold Winger]

" So Gold Winger you don't see certain actions as right or wrong in and of themselves? Murder, rape,stuff like that."

 

Nope. We decided that they were bad long, long ago and most go along with it. Obviously some don't agree or the police wouldn't have so much work.