Relativism

[TheOliverOrder88]

How do you combat a thorough belief in relativism?

For instance, one of my friends stated "For you, there is a difference between divorce and nuptial agreement. For me there is not." Tis but a "small" example, but if you ever get to know me this goes beyond pet peeve. I entirely hate relativism, in nearly all of its forms.

I've noticed this is the biggest dichtomy between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives (or orthodox or whatever you may call them) believe in an objective reality with smaller subjective truths. Liberals on the other hand (many of whom have infected the religion department at my school) believe in subjective reality with smaller objective truths. This has gotten ahold of my friends by the neck and have strangled them to death. They look on me with disdain because I honestly believe in objective reality, they tell me I'm "intolerant". The whole problem with them is that there is no proof for objective reality....

Any thoughts?

[Era Might]

What is nuptial agreement?

[TheOliverOrder88]

Oh those things that discredit a marriage from being valid. I forget what they're actually called.

....

....

I guess I actually have to know what I'm talking about in order to engage in a serious conversation.

[Hirsap]

To make truth 'relative' is self-refuting. If I say "We don't really know anything, all truth is relative" I thereby make a statement that self-destructs. For, if all truth is relative, how can I state that fact to be true, without assuming the reality of objective truth? The alternative to such nonsense is to simply accept the reality of objective truth?

On the field of intolerance, they are in fact being intolerant to you for holding an objective moral order.

Here's a sort of gold mine on the subject: [url="http://www.scottmsullivan.com/courses/relativism.pdf"]http://www.scottmsullivan.com/courses/relativism.pdf[/url]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='TheOliverOrder88' post='1255288' date='Apr 24 2007, 01:31 PM']Oh those things that discredit a marriage from being valid. I forget what they're actually called.

....

....

I guess I actually have to know what I'm talking about in order to engage in a serious conversation.[/quote]
Annulment.

By definition, divorce is different from annulment. It doesn't matter what a person thinks.

Calling you "intolerant" is an appeal to emotion, and therefore a fallacy. There are objective truths. Just because there are many who do not abide by them does not mean that you are intolerant for saying they are objectively true. If they don't believe in objective truth, then they shouldn't even care what you think, because it would only be insulting to them if they believed that it was objectively true that there are no objective truths. If they truly believe that there is only subjective "truth," then they shouldn't be insulted...they'd just consider your statements as an equally valid opinion. In fact, since they do not value it as an equally valid opinion, they are self-defeating, because if subjectivity were true, then it would be equally valid. The fact that they look down on you proves that they don't really believe what they say they do, or at least that they don't believe it perfectly, since if they did believe it, they wouldn't look down on you for your beliefs. Finally, because they believe that subjectivism is objective reality, they are intolerant to you, because they are refusing to make room for your "subjectivism" in their worldview.

If you're right, then your "intolerance" can't be blamed on you, but on your worldview. If they're right, then their intolerance can be blamed on them in spite of their worldview.

God bless,

Micah

[Akalyte]

Relativism and Subjectivism, arent they part of "immanentism"...That right there is notorious for destroying Faith.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='TheOliverOrder88' post='1255039' date='Apr 24 2007, 12:29 PM']How do you combat a thorough belief in relativism?

For instance, one of my friends stated "For you, there is a difference between divorce and nuptial agreement. For me there is not." Tis but a "small" example, but if you ever get to know me this goes beyond pet peeve. I entirely hate relativism, in nearly all of its forms.

I've noticed this is the biggest dichtomy between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives (or orthodox or whatever you may call them) believe in an objective reality with smaller subjective truths. Liberals on the other hand (many of whom have infected the religion department at my school) believe in subjective reality with smaller objective truths. This has gotten ahold of my friends by the neck and have strangled them to death. They look on me with disdain because I honestly believe in objective reality, they tell me I'm "intolerant". The whole problem with them is that there is no proof for objective reality....

Any thoughts?[/quote]

I've gotta say, you should read Peter Kreeft's [i]A Refutation of Moral Relativism[/i]. It's pretty awesome. It's in a form of dialogue, which consists of an absolutist and a relativist. It is quite amusing stuff. One of the refutations to "intolerance" is amazing. Kreeft basically explains that relativists are intolerant because their truth can shift. Absolutists can be tolerant because they give exception to the rules. Rules cannot be intolerant, only fuzzy or complete. Anywho it goes something along those lines. Just take a look at the book. Good read. Check out Kreeft's site for some audio talks on the subject [url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio.htm"]http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio.htm[/url].
On another note, I know that relativists can argue like they're defending something absolute .

[Domine ut Videam]

Something that i've noticed is that everyone's a relativist until someone steals their wallet or their watch.

[Church Punk]

Subjective truth is exactly what the word imply, is the taking truth and making it subjective to your very own moral/ theological/ philosophic view of life, while at the same time denying that a greater truth exists. Excuse me God you are in my seat. Its roots is in the very first temptation of man. You will be like God.

Where as objective truth is based upon facts, objects which we can analyse, seeing the affects of the truth in play in our world. Look at all cultures of the world there is a distinguised moral truth that is unwritten, as Lewis writes in Mere Christianity, the I was here first, that’s my seat notion. There seems to be some kind of natural law of order by which all humans are subject to. Trouble only arises when we disobey this law.

It is funny as Domine et Videam put it: the moral relativist always preach about how there is mulitple versions of the truth. Different strokes for different folks. However when this philosophy is applied to them and they are the victim they are always the first to demand justice. How can there be any justice if there is no moral truth?

Lastly we have revealed truth. That is the Devine truth. As Christians we know that truth is a man, Jesus Christ. Its the same question Pilate asked what is truth and he crucified truth. Thus all subjective truth and objective truth are both subject to the Ulitimate truth, Jesus. Thus as Augustine brilliantly wrote, or hearts are restless untill they lay in thee.

[-I---Love]

OO88 - Let me know when you figure out how to combat it...but I'm willing to bet it bothers me as much as you do - I've got to say that some ppl at my catholic college have definitely been poisioned w/ relativism as well...I'm hoping I'm never poisoned w/ it!

[jeffpugh]

Yeah, relativism is poisonous... the antidote is a thwack/punch in the face. As soon as they demand justice, you have them! hahaha
Btw That is what a seminarian from Quebec joked with me about... ahh good times

Edited May 6, 2007 by Sacred Music Man

[TheOliverOrder88]

Most of the time, relativists (or the ones I deal with) are completely self-absorbed. Anything you say to them, criticising their flawed logic will be seen as an attack. Usually they end up going rollie pollie and anything you say will only cause them to grow more and more into themselves.

Like for instance, I sent that very first link to one of my friends. He sent me back defending Eastern religions. Honestly, I don't know where he got the whole Eastern religion tirade, but he came out more confused than before.

I tried reasoning, but I lost terribly.

Btw I like the punch-in-the-face method, I think I might use that.

[Nathan]

There seems to be some confusion in this thread regarding what the positions of Relativism and Subjectivism truly are. As I always say, know thy enemy well. On that note...

In Ethics, or moral philosophy, Relativism is the theory that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong; that there exists different moralities, and what is moral and immoral is relative to different groups of people. When the North American or European says that stealing is wrong, the proponent of Relativism would say that stealing is wrong for North Americans and Europeans but not necessarily for those of other cultures -- stealing in the jungles of Brazil, for instance, could be a moral virtue. (Note that Relativism does not assert that morality does not exist, but that [i]different[/i] moralities exist. The view that no morality exists is called [i]Nihilism[/i].)

Subjectivism, on the other hand, is the meta-ethical theory that expressions of moral approval or disapproval are merely expressions of feeling, and hence cannot be said to be true or false. Subjectivism is not concerned with the moral rightness or wrongness of actions, but with [i]semantics[/i] -- the meaning of moral statements or language. Moral statements merely express feelings, not facts; when John says "Abortion is wrong" and Susan says "Abortion is OK," neither person is stating facts but their personal feelings on the matter.

Very few philosophers are Relativists (it has many obvious holes), but many are Subjectivists.

[b]An effective philosophical argument against Relativism:[/b]

1. There is no way to determine what constitutes a "people" or "society" within Relativism.

Therefore,

2. If Relativism is true, then whatever any individual human beings thinks is morally right is right for him or her.

3. If whatever any individual human being thinks is morally right for him or her, then it is meaningless for anyone to say that one individual's moral beliefs are superior to another's, for example, that Martin Luther King's moral beliefs were superior to the beliefs of the leader of the KKK.

4. It is not meaningless for anyone to say that one individual's moral beliefs are superior to another's.

Therefore,

5. Relativism is not true.

[b]Two effective philosophical arguments against Subjectivism:[/b]

[b](A)[/b]

1. Expressions of moral approval or disapproval stand in logical relation to one another and to statements of other kinds.

2. Mere expressions of feeling do not stand in logical relation to one another and to statements of other kinds.

Therefore,

3. Expressions of moral approval and disapproval are not mere expressions of feeling (Subjectivism is not true).

[b](B)[/b]

1. Expressions of moral approval and disapproval purport to guide conduct on the basis of reason.

2. Mere expressions of feeling do not purport to guide conduct on the basis of reason.

Therefore,

3. Expressions of moral approval and disapproval are not mere expressions of feeling (Subjectivism is not true).

Edited May 12, 2007 by Nathan

[Aloysius]

[quote name='-I---Love' post='1265801' date='May 6 2007, 09:12 AM']OO88 - Let me know when you figure out how to combat it...but I'm willing to bet it bothers me as much as you do - I've got to say that some ppl at my catholic college have definitely been poisioned w/ relativism as well...I'm hoping I'm never poisoned w/ it![/quote]
don't worry, I've never let that happen before. haha, just come to me if you're feeling particularly relativist, and I'll smack it out of ya.

when you coming back from germany for the summer? drop me a line.