Archive for the ‘ethical relativism’ Category

Elton John has made a Jesus to his own liking

June 30, 2014

The church hierarchy, the traditionalists, might be up in arms about (gay marriage) but times have changed. If Jesus Christ was alive today, I cannot see him, as the Christian person that he was and the great person that he was, saying this could not happen. He was all about love and compassion and forgiveness and trying to bring people together and that is what the church should be about.

Elton John

Not that Jesus was even a Christian…but He certainly affirmed the teaching of the Jewish Scriptures and that did include Leviticus 18:22 etc. By reaffirming Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19 Jesus makes heterosexual, exclusive, monogamous unions the God ordained norm. Elton John may not like that but saying what he does belies ignorance of the historical Jesus.

The Poison of Subjectivism

June 12, 2013

If “good” means only the local ideology, how can those who invent the local ideology be guided by any idea of good themselves? The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike. Subjectivism about values is eternally incompatible with democracy. We and our rulers are of one kind only so long as we are subject to one law. But if there is no Law of Nature, the ethos of any society is the creation of its rulers, educators and conditioners; and every creator stands above and outside his creation.

Unless we return to the crude and nursery-like belief in objective values, we perish. If we do, we may live, and such a return might have one minor advantage. If we believed in the absolute reality of elementary moral platitudes, we should value those who solicit our votes by other standards than have recently been in fashion. While we believe that good is something to be invented, we demand of our rulers such qualities as “vision,” “dynamism,” “creativity,” and the like. If we returned to the objective view we should demand qualities much rarer, and much more beneficial – virtue, knowledge, diligence and skill.

The Poison of Subjectivism, C.S. Lewis

Where relativism tends

October 16, 2012

Just months before he died, Jimmy Savile boasted that he “hadn’t got a conscience” and joked about being brought before a judge.

In one of his final interviews, given to a tiny Highlands radio station, the disgraced DJ revealed that he lived his life by the credo “What I feel is right is right”.

Savile — accused of sexually abusing girls across Britain — boasted that every day was Christmas for a “professional single fella” like him.

Times

What he felt was right was actually wrong. But whilst many are quick to castigate his actions, his creed is widely held.

He said of the Catholic church:

“I don’t listen to the church. I listen to myself.”

 

He repeated this creed in his apparent defence of Gary Glitter:

“Whether it (Glitter having idecent images on his computer hard drive) was right or wrong is, of course, it’s up to him as a person”

‘Of course’ it isn’t.

September 5, 2011

Multiculturalism rests on the supposition—or better, the dishonest pretense—that all cultures are equal and that no fundamental conflict can arise between the customs, mores, and philosophical outlooks of two different cultures. The multiculturalist preaches that, in an age of mass migration, society can (and should) be a kind of salad bowl, a receptacle for wonderful exotic ingredients from around the world, the more the better, each bringing its special flavor to the cultural mix. For the salad to be delicious, no ingredient should predominate and impose its flavor on the others.

Even as a culinary metaphor, this view is wrong: every cook knows that not every ingredient blends with every other. But the spread and influence of an idea is by no means necessarily proportional to its intrinsic worth, including (perhaps especially) among those who gain their living by playing with ideas, the intelligentsia.

Theodore Dalrymple

This attitude is borne of relativism.

Whatever in any city is regarded as just and admirable is just and admirable in that city for as long as it is thought to be so

November 24, 2009

Whatever in any city is regarded as just and admirable is just and admirable in that city for as long as it is thought to be so.

Man is the measure of all things.

PROTAGORAS, 480-411 BC
Attributed in Plato’s Theatetus, 196C, Quoted in E Hussey, the Pre-Socratics, p.109

So when the Nazis considered it just and admirable to kill the Jews, it was just and admirable – for their whole reign anyway. The very moment the Americans arrived it became unjust and unadmirable. Which makes it implausible to say the least.

There can be no source for …moral judgments except the scientist himself

October 11, 2009

The scientist can now play God in his role as wonder-worker, but can he – and should he – also play God as moral arbiter?…F. In traditional religion, morality was held to derive from God, but God was only credited with the authority to establish and enforce moral laws because He was also credited with supernatural powers of creation and destruction. Those powers have now been usurped by man, and he must take on the moral responsibility that goes with them.

Edmund Leach, “We Scientists Have the Right to Play God,” The Saturday Evening Post, November 16, 1968, p. 16

I don’t think in goods or bads, just is’s

September 29, 2009

I don’t think in goods or bads, just is’s, What it is. Not what I was, want or hope. Whatever life is, it is, and bad and good got nothing to do with it. A snake eats the baby squirrel. Mamma squirrel may say that’s bad, but snakes got to eat. The life cycles are and only humans got the order f*****d up.

Charles Manson

Manson believed he was Jesus Christ reincarnated and even had himself strapped to a cross whilst his followers threw abuse at him or wailed in torment at his crucifixion. Manson orchestrated the murder of Roman Polanski’s wife, the actress Sharon Tate, who was heavily pregnant at the time. Others were killed that night including a couple called LaBianca. In the attack on Tate and others, they inflicted 102 stab wounds. Tex Watson, one of the lead perpetrators said, ‘I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil’s business’.

Good and bad aren’t absolutes – absolutely!

September 29, 2009

(in Buddhism)…no solid, unchanging “good” or “bad” can be established. Good and bad aren’t absolutes. They are beliefs, judgments, ideas based on limited knowledge as well as on the inclinations of our minds.

Steve Hagen (Zen Buddhist), Buddhism, 1998, p.42

So the holocaust might be ‘bad’ – but then again, that might just be my ‘limited knowledge’. Oh, and er, ‘Good and bad aren’t absolutes’ – that’s absolutely true I guess – solid, established and unchangingly true? Or is this statement just ‘limited knowledge’.

The assertion that there are objective values is false

September 26, 2009

There are no objective values…The assertion that there are objective values or intrinsically prescriptive entities or features of some kind …. is, I hold, not meaningless but false.

MACKIE, J L, Ethics (1977) pp.15, 40

He knows, objectively, that there are no objective values. How would he know that?

Would you be willing to approve the reintroduction of human sacrifice if the Aztec religion is revived?

September 26, 2009

If you believe that ‘truth’ is true only within a given society and that each society makes its own laws and has its own system of ethics that cannot be judged to be wrong by an outsider, let me ask this:

Would you be willing to approve the reintroduction of human sacrifice if the Aztec religion is revived? Would you be stand idly by if a Hindu lady jumped onto the fire consuming her husband’s body? Would you have offered no help to an elderly Eskimo left to starve since it was their ‘tradition’ that the old be no drain on scarce resources? What of female circumcision, polygamy,slavery or the chopping off of hands for theft? These all find their ‘validity’ within the context of some culture’s worldview.

If some of these practices are no longer practiced, why would it be immoral to reintroduce them? If they are currently practiced, why is it immoral to call for their abolition?

The relativist has no reason to disapprove of any ‘cultural’ practice, however barbaric.