Moral relativism
m (→See also) |
|||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
*[[Conservapedia:Conservapedian relativity|Conservapedian relativity]] | *[[Conservapedia:Conservapedian relativity|Conservapedian relativity]] | ||
| − | |||
==Footnotes== | ==Footnotes== | ||
Revision as of 02:08, 4 November 2011
| Deep thinking |
| Major disciplines |
| Philosophy articles |
| Common applications |
Moral relativism is a term for the philosophical perspective that morality is not absolute, based on the observation that moral codes vary greatly between groups and individuals. This is directly opposed to "universal morality" belief systems such as Christianity, which assert that "what I say is the Good TruthTM, and is the Good TruthTM for everyone, everywhere and everywhen".
Theists, specifically American Christian Fundamentalists, generally decry moral relativism, because it asserts that 1) they, and not a single God, created the laws they live by; 2) they do not have an inherent, basic right to tell others how to live; and 3) there is no justification for declaring gay activities, premarital sex, abortion, and eating nachos on Thursday universally "wrong", since such proscriptions are found only in select religions.
Contents |
Religious moral relativism
It is interesting to note that religious values change with time and culture as well. Consider the question of slavery. Both the Old and New Testaments have specific instructions for both slaves and slave-holders, and never condemn the practice. Christian leaders used to have no qualms about using the Bible to support such positions. Nowadays, however, only Christian dominionists would dare voice such an attitude.
Other criticism
Another criticism of moral relativism is that its promoters do not actually believe it, and by asking an inconvenient question one could get such a promoter to reveal that he believes in some absolute morals. For example, if you were to approach a moral relativist and suggest that Jews have no inherent, basic right to live, you should probably get out of his reach as speedily as convenient, for, beyond doubt, he would endeavor to knock you down.[1]
Indeed, moral relativism in its purest form is an example of proving too much; the principle that "all morals are relative" being itself an absolute moral principle.
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ Apologies to Edgar Allan Poe. And Garland.