July 29, 2003
The Root of Moral Relativism
First of all, Jay thank you for brnging up the problem of moral relativism. It is a disease that plagues our society as well as the world at large.
The first question we must ask is, "Why does our society (and the secular world in general) believe that moral relativism is necessary?" I believe the answer is obvious...justification. Objective morality is a burden only to those who do not wish to abide by it. So as a result of this, a predominantly Christian nation is willing to allow morality be defined by the decadent portion of our society. What is the root of decadency? Pride and lust. Therefore, ultimately, the root of moral relativism is pride and lust. Think about... What have been the circumstances that have necessitated the appeal to moral relativism? The prevention of life through contraception, the "freedom" to murder an unborn child, and the latest rage (but an ancient evil), homosexuality. How do any of these bring about good?
Morality can be defined as what we should do. "To be fully moral is to be good all the time"..."Morality is composed of universal imperatives. The strongest and most specific are negative. Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not lie. We understand these prohibitions simply by being human and reflecting on what that means. We know immediately that life, bodily integrity, and the desire to know the truth are good and should not be violated, whether the case concerns ourselves or others." (The One-Minute Philosopher, Montague Brown). None of the decisions made by the Supreme Court, where moral relativism has been the basis of the decision, have contributed to the "good" of our society.
With this latest decision by our Supreme Court, moral relativism, once again, takes our great nation one step closer toward self-destruction. Like Rome centuries ago, we have become our own worst enemy driven, not by truth and justice, but rather by pride and lust. And while we triumph on the battlefields far away, we continue to lose the most important battle of all right here at home, the battle for Truth. The fires have been lit...Rome is burning again.
Posted by Joe at July 29, 2003 12:41 PM | TrackBack |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Great comparison between Rome and us - perhaps something we should explore further.
A tongue-in-cheek question: when does it get so bad that we move to another country? Or do we stay and attempt to effect society from within? May depend on whether you have children or not.
Another question arises: Is there an existing country in which life is more skewed toward natural theology?
Just questions.
Jay
I think the answer to your question about whether to stay or to leave this country is that we stay. Rome, ultimately, was converted to Christianity only after the martyrdom of thousands of Catholics (men, women, and children). What faith! What wonderful examples of how we are to imitate Christ. I would even suggest that in our country right now we are experiencing a "dry martyrdom" of sorts. We are persecuted for what we believe, considered outcasts because we attempt to defend the unborn and claim that marital life must be both unifying and procreative (and the two cannot be separated), and we say that homosexuality is not morally right, and, more importantly, a contradiction to natural law. But what else are we to expect, for Christ said, "I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world" (John 17:14). So carry on brethren for our prize is eternal communion with the Holy Trinity and all the faithful who have gone before us.
Posted by: Joe at July 30, 2003 02:52 PMMy feeling to your question would be don't move because who do you know in another country? You would be starting from ground zero. However, I feel it is a question we all have to answer for ourselves after much prayer and discernment. The evil we experience in our nation is worldwide for heaven on earth doesn't exist. Granted some countries are not as bad. However, I think we all have our own walks and you have to walk where you feel God is leading you and He may be leading you to another country.
Posted by: Maria at October 26, 2003 12:00 AM"What is the root of decadency? Pride and lust. Therefore, ultimately, the root of moral relativism is pride and lust."
What an an interesting, though indefensible statement. It attempts to declare that the concept of moral relativism is the same thing as being amoral, not caring about right and wrong. Most if not all societies do care about right and wrong, it is just what is considered right and what is considered wrong that can vary based on the society in question. That is the actual root of moral relativism, that moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.
Morality in this context is defined as, a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct. Being moral is the act of conforming to this system of right and wrong conduct.
Having revised the somewhat skewed definitions given of morality and moral relativism in the article, does undo the arguement as presented. It may be best to update it accordingly.
Posted by: Adam at December 1, 2003 02:43 PMAdam,
Moral relativism is a problem with immorality. Moral relativism is defining morality based on the situation or culture. This cannot be done. I've already responded to your first post, see it here, so I don't want to simply repeat. However, there are moral absolutes - the Ten Commandments. Morality is conforming to this system of right and wrong conduct. It's that simple.
Moral relativism crops up when people do not want to conform to this system. They decide that in their case immoral behavior is okay because of some excuse. This is the definition of immorality. I'm not sure how much clearer this can be presented. Either you do conform and you are moral, or you do not conform, make excuses, and you are immoral.
Keep in mind, the system wasn't defined by man, but by God. He has the right to determine morality. Read the other post, too.
Jay
Posted by: Jay at December 2, 2003 10:55 AMTo whom it may concern,
You all make good points and obviously if it's all relative, then in theory anything can be defined as moral. The funny thing is that we create "a priori" moral ideas that are really dependent something that is beyond us. Almost everyone would agree that murder in a non-defensive, cold-blooded manner is bad. It's very interesting to hear an explanation not based on "a priori" morality as to why murder is bad. Also, murder is bad only until the life infringes on my convenience. Blah blah blah... I could realitstically go on for an hour.
I guess the only thing I really wanted to say was that you all need to make sure that you specify what you mean by the evils of homosexuality. The Church does not teach that homosexuality is intrinsically evil, rather, the feeding of lustful thoughts as well as the pursuit of sex outside of the context of marriage between man and woman are evil. Just want the specification because if a homosexual reads through these BLOGS I wouldn't be suprised if they would feel like the Church doesn't want them. In theory, a chaste homosexual is on equal ground with a chaste heterosexual according to the teachings of the Church.
