Oh boy. Here I go again.

First I would like to point out that nobody has brought up the difference between moral relativity and cultural relativity. I wish somebody else had because I'm not really qualified to explain it properly. But here I go, feel free to correct my explanation:

Cultural Relativity is simply that some things are good and proper in some cultures and not in others. Certain actions done here in the US would be highly offensive in other countries. The reverse is also true. I would provide examples, but I am sure you can come up with your own. As I understand it (through second hand knowledge) nearly all ethicists agree that cultural relativity is a real and true thing.

Moral Relativity is the idea that this relativity extends to all actions. Again through second hand knowledge it is my understanding that most ethicists believe this to be unfounded and just plain wrong. One of the simplest arguments against it being: "If all morality is relative then it cannot be immoral for me to believe that my personal morality is absolute." (Of course it can't be immoral either for you to tell me that it is wrong.) The reason that we are repulsed at the idea of it being ok to rape and murder 5 year olds is because it is wrong.

The problem whenever you bring religion into this is that most religions combine their culture with their morality. This unfortunately muddies the real question and sends people off on frivolous arguments on both sides. The question of eating pork or covering women's faces is a cultural one (or perhaps a nutritional one.) The question of murdering someone is not. Of course that some cultures (or religions) differ on when it is ok to kill someone is somewhat irrelevant. This would be something that should be able to be arguably determined is ok in certain cases and is not in others (I am by no means the man to do this arguing.)

I think another thing confusing this conversation is that the moral relativists seem to think that we are saying people can't have morals different from ours. They can. We are saying that there is only one [u]true[/u] moral code. (We aren’t even really insisting that it is ours.) We are referring to something outside the system. In a sense, we are saying that if nobody existed, if nobody ever existed, it would still be wrong for a person to kill another person in cold blood. That the moral code would be frivolous is irrelevant to its existence. Maybe I'm being too confusing with this paragraph, so if you don't understand it don't worry about it too much. It's probably me.

With what was said above I mainly wanted to introduce the particular distinction into the conversation. I'm sorry I can't back up my "Cultural Relativity=Good, Moral Relativity=Bad" argument with more, but I haven't the time, energy, or knowledge to do more. As I said, I am not the ideal person to put forth the ideas that I just did, hopefully someone better qualified will add to them. Below I will address some specific points that have been discussed.

By Jeff (FerretBoy):

My views really are just too different for you to understand.

By Bitt (wfaulk):

I think it's rather the former.

I agree that part of the problem with us having a profitable discussion on this is simply that our differing viewpoints are so foreign to each other. I see that you have many misunderstandings about what we believe and that we also are not getting a clear picture of what you believe. I also feel as Jeff (FerretBoy) does in that, if there is no higher being (I use "God" as you do, for simplicity's sake) then life is utterly meaningless and nothing I do can really matter. I think the difference might be that we define something as having meaning when it has meaning eternally whereas you define meaning in the here and now. Can you at least agree to this difference in viewpoint and concede that something that matters in the here and now may not matter eternally?

I think the second thing obscuring our communication is what we mean by happiness. I believe happiness to be relative to the individual and irrelevant to morality. I believe that no firm morality can be based on "what makes people happy" because what makes people happy differs from person to person. Therefore if morality is fixed then it should be based on something irrelevant to people's happiness. It would be nice if it made people happy, but it can't be required to.

I'd much rather humanity truly learn where it came from, or at least aspire to, than accept simple stories as truth.

And I couldn't agree more. If I were to let my mouth run about how I really feel about the things some "religious folk" say and do you would think I hated them more than the coldest hard-boiled atheist. Honestly I sometimes feel I spend more time correcting misconceptions about what I believe than I do actually explaining what I believe. And with good reason, for I intensely love the very thing they are defacing with their slander.

Let me say this: if a person is only believing stories then they have very little knowledge of what they believe and you are right to question them. On the other hand, just because stories are written about something does not make the stories untrue.

Do you take it on faith that you're looking at a computer right now?

Without drawing us out on another tangent, I would just like to mention that according to some philosophers, yes, it does.

The things we can't prove are just theories. They could well be wrong.

Would you understand me better if I said that I subscribe to the theory of God? Because honestly, it is something like that. If I ever KNEW the "theory" to be wrong I'm fairly sure I would abandon it. But the fact of the matter is I have seen too much for it to be a theory anymore. There is something out there, outside of all this. Admittedly it is a personal revelation, something I can tell you about but not show you so that you would believe it. But that doesn't change it for me because I have experienced it. Nothing can take that away from me. I am a Christian because it matches up best with all of my reasoning and experiences. The bits and pieces that don't match up I largely ignore because they are irrelevant to my core beliefs.

(w/regards to forgiveness):

I'm aware of this Christian concept

I don't think you sufficiently understand it however. Grace places us above the law. Before we were disconnected with God and His will was communicated to us through laws written on tablets of stone. Jesus died to restore the connection between man and Himself. Now God speaks to us personally and so the law is unnecessary, we know right from wrong. (For a better understanding please read the book of Romans, paying special attention to chapters 5 and 6.)

The idea that your existence is ruled by another is as offensive as slavery, even if it is a chosen slavery.

Slavery is wrong irrespective of the quality of the master. It may be inviting, but its wrong.

Actually I think your original distinction was the correct one. Everything hinges on the fact that it must be freely given. If you willfully chose to do something, how can you be a slave to it? This idea is the same as the one presented in the "go the extra mile, give him your cloak too, turn the other cheek" parable. I think perhaps the misunderstanding here is the difference in what we mean by "slavery". I can't really address this more until I better understand what you mean by slavery.


OK, I think that is all for now. Sorry that that was so directed at you Bitt, I hope you understand it is your ideas that I am referring to and not you personally. I really just thought there was a lot of miscommunication going on and I hope I have at least cleared up some of it without making things worse. Please understand that in all other regards I really do think pretty highly of you, you just don't seem to "get it" on this one thing.

Also I realize this was an incredibly long post and I'll be pleased just to know that you bothered reading all of it.