The Dictatorship of Relativism

The problem is this absolute code has never been completely defined in such a way that two parties will always apply it consistently.Most Christians will read the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" as "Thou shalt not murder".People will then start asking more complex questions such as, "is it ok if innocent people die while trying to get at the guy that has it coming? When is it acceptable and when is it not?"One party might believe it is a morally acceptable proposition that innocent civilians will perish in the course of getting at those who wish to do us harm. Another other party will conclude it is not morally acceptable.Who is right and who is wrong? Different strokes for different folks - situational ethics."Thou shalt not steal" - Is it morally acceptable to steal food if one is starving and has no recourse to any other option?So, we can see that the absolute moral code may be universal, but not always binding? It is no longer absolute.The problem with a divine moral code such as the Ten Commandments is not its content or universality, as anyone can proclaim any arbitrary universal moral code. The problem is such a code will never include a specific universal blueprint detailing how it should be applied in various situations. We are never given any information as to what conditions, if any, will negate its absolute context and make it morally(?) acceptable for the code to be broken.In this sense, I would not consider the code to be absolute, as it is applied differently by different people and is relative to the situations and circumstances.This is what your are seeing here between Bush and Benedict. I would call it situational ethics disguised as a universal absolute, as is the case with all universal codes of 'divine' origins.A more accurate wording for the Fifth Commadnment would thus be:"Taking innocent life is wrong, but it is sometimes OK to kill people as long as they have it coming, or if they are in the way of the guy that has it coming. I will let you be the judge on this. Try to do your best and its not your fault if you make the wrong choice."

I try to remain somewhat objective and am open to debate. In Iran, yes, In the US, no. Then it would never be morally acceptable to steal food, even when the option would be starvation and death? When dealing with absolutes, either stealing is always wrong or it is always right. If it is conditional, then it is not absolute.

We need to make a distinction between civil, religious, and moral law. The differences between these vary wildly across societies regardless of whether or not they share things in common in any one of these categories. For most societies, how we should behave and govern ourselves is not only based on an appeal to morals, but also to practical and utilitarian considerations. Should we live in a Democracy or Monarchy? Should the Government stay out of the business of regulating religion and morals? Should people be able to publicly profess views that might anger or incite others(see the story in France about Bridget Bardot being prosecuted for defaming Islam in her new book)?When looking at the differences in specific positions between Bush and Benedict, it is easy to view these differences as a battle of these all-encompassed world-views rather than a battle over the absolute nature of morality. It is 'American Capitalist Christians Values' vs 'Papal Socialist Christian Values'.The absolute moral code is kind of nebulous and hidden somewhere in the background of these amalgamations. It will be brought out as the trump card if, for instance, an American Democratic Agnostic/Atheist proposes something or runs for office. When pressed for details of this code we will be given the usual list- respect for life, equality, etc. As stated earlier, an instructional kit detailing the proper application of the code is never included inside the box - it is kind of just thrown at us.In a way, we are all absolutist in the sense that we believe there is one way man should go about his business - whether that entails the freedom to live encumbered by any appeal to universal morality or the belief that there is one universal code that man should be subject to. As with the Pope and Bush, we often contradict ourselves in the process. These are pretty complex issues that will always be around and philosophers have been debating them for millennia. It comes with the territory of living in a pluralistic society.I would agree that adherence to a religiously mandated universal code does lead to discrimination and social ostracization in many situations for individuals whose lives fall outside the realm of this code(for example -- homosexuals, single mothers, atheists, agnostics, and even those not considered part of the majority religion). The majority consensus rules in the political arena and these views are often taken into the voting booth. Personally, I see the term 'Moral Relativism' as something that has become more of a political catch-phrase than anything else. It is used primarily as a tool to demonize the opposition by insinuating that moral relativism=moral free zone.So in a sense, yes, I would aggree the American-Christian-Absolutist position holds somewhat of a dictatorship in the voting booths by the reason of majority. It is also inherently discriminatory in its view of people of differing faiths and world views. That is the nature of the system, however, and as it is their right to believe as they wish, there is not much the minority can do about it accept let their vote be heard and, through example and dialogue, show the majority that relatvists are not savage, depraved beasts who lack morals or ethics. I don't think anyobdy out there is is asking for a society without values, morals, or laws.

The political pundits have done a very good job of trying to convince the majority that the goal of the relativist is to create a society free of moral values.

That pretty much sums it up.I would also add that most religions have inferred the existence of a universal moral code from the specific social and civic prohibitions supplied by divine revelation.The Ten Commandments are basically an instructional booklet on how to conduct oneself. It also should be noted that many of these commandments are found in any society in existence, regardless of their religious and political affiliations. Any society that wishes to stay afloat for long certainly must have prohibitions and consequences for acts such as stealing, murder, etcThe line becomes blurred and conflict usually arises when dealing with other aspects of human and social existence, such as sexuality and the role of religion in the political arena. What does the universal moral code have to offer in these areas? Again, the code will be inferred from specific prohibitions contained in religious literature.The absolute moral code is never revealed verbatim, just the specific prohibitions. My opinion, already supplied, is that one can never infer there is an absolute right and wrong from the prohibitions, since the application and interpretation of these may vary in different situations and under different conditions. Is it always morally wrong to steal? Is it always morally wrong to take life?Related to the OP, the conflict in society comes about when one affiliation wishes to dictate to the entire society what is absolutely right and what is absolutely wrong.The absolutist holds that somewhere behind the scenes of the specific prohibitions there actually exists an absolute moral code that does not vary in any situation and is not open to interpretation. The absolutist will then take a stab at what this code is and it becomes dogma. The absolutist will then attempt to apply this dogmatic code to all people, all places, and all situations.The Relativist is not calling for an end to moral values, nor is the relativist calling for an end to those laws which are necessary for a society to function. The goal is also not to dictate to others how they should form their conscience and morals. The relativist is simply stating their belief that those areas that are nebulous and thus open to interpretation are relative to a culture and society and are often very personal. One should not attempt to try to impose any universal code or dictate to each individual or society how they should conduct themselves in these matters.