A critique of moral relativism

Numbers 15: Verses 32-36

quote:

---

32And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.

​

33And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.

​

34And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.

​

35And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

​

36And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.

---

I thought this example might help you understand moral relativism.If you were to stone someone to death for collecting firewood on a Sunday in the modern U.S.A., you would receive either a life sentence or a death sentence for murder.On a Saturday, a few thousand years ago in a semi-barbaric culture in the middle-east, it might be considered that you had done the right thing, and that the firewood collector had committed a henious crime.Different moralities for different cultures.Only a superstitious fool would try and apply the rules directly from this ancient culture to a modern western one.Some fools do try and do it, of course. In reference to homosexuality, for example. Edited by bluegenes, : typo!

No, I didn't. Meaning "is murder wrong."It's relative. Check your dictionary for the definition of murder, and you'll see what I mean. Unlawful killing would, obviously, depend on the laws.

quote:

---

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

​

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time -John 8:3-9

---

Tell me, is this example of your God's behaviour, combined with the example that I gave further up the thread, supposed to illustrate the consistency that your preacher friend (Ravi?) is talking about in the audio you linked to in your first post? Is this the kind of stuff you draw your moral absolutism from? I referred to a specific ancient Middle-Eastern culture as being barbaric. By their law, it wasn't murder. By my personal values, your God, as portrayed here, is a sick and evil entity. Don't you agree? Well, they're following one of the great prophets of your religion, which presumably is the basis for your moral absolutism, so why don't you tell us if their behaviour is eternally right, or eternally wrong?Edited by bluegenes, : missing quote boxEdited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

Saying that the God of the O.T. is evil by my personal values is a statement of fact, not a claim to some objective view, and therefore not moral absolutism. Please read carefully.I'm attempting to demonstrate to someone who is a moral absolutist, and wants to base his moral absolutism on his religion, that the values in the religious texts he presumably wants to use as a base for his absolute morality are inconsistent and outdated.I don't think it likely that in the forseeable future western society will decide that stoning people to death for gathering firewood on any day of the week is morally or legally sound behaviour. Of course. Relativism has no moral code. By definition Of course, that's why we recognise relativism as the base of human morality and law, not absolutism. Perhaps act is the key word here. So long as we know we're acting, that's fine. I'd put it in a slightly different way, and say that we improvise. We have to, because moral absolutism cannot work. That's what I was demonstrating with my Moses example. Some more than others. My "by my personal values" phrase when describing as evil a God who demands behaviour that modern society would condemn out of hand, indicates a fairly high level of recognition of subjectivity, I think. It was the God I described as evil, and are Gods supposed to change in time and their moral values in the same way that we both agree that human societies do?

Better for me. Actually, I could almost claim self-interested objectivity there, as I have no desire to be stoned to death, and I expect that if we examined the Bible texts, pretty much everyone alive today would be due for a painful death of some sort or another. I don't think we're becoming more moral at base. That's biological, and homo sapiens is homo sapiens. I do think that increased knowledge is leading us slowly towards better treatment of one another. Whether you value that or not is where the relativism comes in. Some might want to bring back slavery in western countries, but personally, I don't want to be a slave or a slave owner, so I'm glad that, like stoning people, it seems to be a thing of the past.Looking at the rest of your post, I don't think you should confuse your own or anyone elses improvised personal code with moral absolutism. Absolutism involves moral laws or rules that must always apply. Try saying "thou shalt not kill" is an unbreakable moral law, and people will easily be able to think of situations where there are strong arguments that exceptions should be made.Incidentally, I was hoping you might have a shot at answering my question about whether Gods, like human cultures, should be expected to change their moral values over time. (I don't know how I'd answer it if I believed in a God, to be honest. It's a tough one, I think).

Nator's given you some possible scenarios in modern culture.In other cultures, she could've been doing something wrong. She could have been worshipping idols, for example.Here's your God in action again:Ezekiel 9: 5-8

quote:

---

5 As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. 6 Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were in front of the temple.

​

7 Then he said to them, "Defile the temple and fill the courts with the slain. Go!" So they went out and began killing throughout the city. 8 While they were killing and I was left alone, I fell facedown, crying out, "Ah, Sovereign LORD! Are you going to destroy the entire remnant of Israel in this outpouring of your wrath on Jerusalem?"

---

Edited by bluegenes, : typo!

[Post removed as ground has already been covered by others saying the same things as I was writing!]Edited by bluegenes, : wipe post!