I have read (yet again) an article by a christian believer, who accused liberal democracy of moral relativism.
The reason for this accusation was, that liberals are not adamant or “static” if you want in their stances regarding morals, and that tolerating something, that you personally perceive as immoral makes you a moral relativist.
- Its a coercive strategy to convince others to be less tolerant.
- When making statement that holy catholic church isnt morally relativistic, i can give few examples, that it surely is.
a) Cardinal Law of Boston.
Now I am not going to speak about his exile in Vatican, i am about to speak about his work in Boston. Even when he was being “wanted” by secular laws as a witness and/or accomplice, the point of moral relativism isnt that he was escaping prosecution. Remember, he abides to canonic/vatican law, and by protecting other priests, he just followed rules of “fraternal love” among the clergy.
Point is that his fraternal love was professed towards clergymen who sinned against one of the seven deadly sins. His work as a cardinal provided an absolution towards those sinners, and financial compensation towards the victims.
Moral relativism is that sinful-immoral behavior was tolerated…
b) An elderly nun was hosting a celebration in italy with jews who survived a holocaust.
Because she was 90+ she asked one of the guests, whether they are the jews they were hiding during war, or germans they were hiding after the war.
Now… From christian point of view, its still helping to those who need it. But, its a moral relativisn … its a big difference to hide innocent people, and people who are wanted war criminals…
FYI, hope you don’t mind I correct your English, “morale" is about enthusiasm. “Moral relativism" is correct, but you meant “regarding morals".
You’re definitely correct about the lack of morals from the church. Quite the hypocrites.
This talk on Secular Morality helped make Matt a lot more famous Matt Dillahunty: The Superiority of Secular Morality - YouTube
I am not speaking about lack of morality in church, but I am referring to the hypocrisy for sure, but little bit different.
Acting in a same way, towards jews during second world war and german officers is a form of moral relativism.
Covering crimes of a priest because of “fraternal love” is also form of moral relativism
(Fixing the error. I meant Morals/morality)
In second case cardinal Law might (he died in december 2017 btw) argue that priests were prevented to sin further (not true) or that they were punished according canonic law. So the argument would be that its not moral relativism, because they were punished, and not allowed to commit sinful behavior.
In first case they would argue its not moral relativism because in both cases they were helping people in need. I see a difference between helping a supressed minority, and helping a wanted criminal.
Christians always accuse us of moral relativism because it’s an easy accusation to make. In reality, it’s hard to imagine anyone being a true moral relativist, because that would mean that your own moral code (what you regard as the “right” thing to do in any given situation) don’t matter at all. Who could possibly believe that, apart from someone who has no moral code at all?
Most of the time what we mean is that what you regard as “wrong” may be relative, given the situation. That’s not the same thing as saying your moral code itself is relative.
“moral relativism”
How about a society that goes nuts because they sustained a terrorist attack on home soil.
All that indignation and grieving for those innocent lives snuffed out.
Then this same society unites all factions to go after a country that had nothing to do with that terrorist attack.
With adolescent excitement and vengeance lust, We The People and its leaders standby watching the Shock’n Awe fireworks display, never shedding a thought for all the innocent neighborhoods and innocent children and innocent women and men’s live irrevocably destroyed. Nor, a thought for the blossoming of terrorists, thanks to their actions.
Never a thought.
What kind of moral relativism allows that?
I look at it a little differently. Any religion whose book about morality allows intrepretations that are exact opposites is morally relative. Any religion whose practitioners can “get out of jail” so to speak by invoking a prayer, going to church, etc. is morally relative. Simple as that.
I look at it a little differently. Any religion whose book about morality allows intrepretations that are exact opposites is morally relative. Any religion whose practitioners can "get out of jail" so to speak by invoking a prayer, going to church, etc. is morally relative. Simple as that.
I have to look upon it (as i am not familiar with any religious texts), but i am clearly aware that Bible gets interpreted in a different ways, which of course apply to interpretations of the moral stories. Then yes, its moral relativism as well.
Now the hard part would be to explain that there is not just a single interpretation.
I look at it a little differently. Any religion whose book about morality allows intrepretations that are exact opposites is morally relative. Any religion whose practitioners can "get out of jail" so to speak by invoking a prayer, going to church, etc. is morally relative. Simple as that.
I have to look upon it (as i am not familiar with any religious texts), but i am clearly aware that Bible gets interpreted in a different ways, which of course apply to interpretations of the moral stories. Then yes, its moral relativism as well.
Now the hard part would be to explain that there is not just a single interpretation.That's easy. Just point to them, especially televangelists. Or better yet look in the US where you have some xtians who think the bible tells them life is precious so they kill abortion clinic doctors. Then other xtians who are completely pro-choice. Or from history where many a nazi thought god was on their side, and others who fought them who thought god was on THEIR side. Can't have it both ways.
We dont have televangelists in our country. Partially because of still strong influence of catholic church…
They usually backpedalled to “oh well, then its not an interpretation of our church”. So i have to point out the dissoncances in the interpretations within same church.