moral relativism

[mysterio]

I didn't know where to post this, so I'm sure it will probably get moved. I just wanted a Christian perspective on this.

A friend of mine I work with is a moral relativist. I see that this philosophy pretty much defeats itself. But I don't really know how to respond to some of his comments.For example, I obviously believe some things are just wrong. He doesn't.
So a conversation might go something like this:
If a man was in a swimming pool and left his shoes outside the pool, and another man came and stole his shoes, I see that as wrong.
He sees it as "well, it's relative.It's bad for the one whose shoes got stolen, but it's good for the thief because he got a new pair of shoes."

How can I respond to this?

[hedrick]

First, I should note that this argument isn't very similar to what most Christians who are accused of relativism believe. So the answer to this question is not going to be a general response to "moral relativism."

There are two answers here. The first would apply only to Christians, but I have a sense that this won't help you with your friend. The answer that's relevant to Christians is that Christians are bound by Jesus' teaching, and to some extent (details being somewhat controversial) to the Law. And these say that theft is wrong.

This can get complex, because Christians aren't legalists. There are situations where multiple teachings and values conflict, and we have to look at what matters most. And I'm sure you know the history of arguments over applying Biblical standards. However I don't think the situation you describe is likely to fall into one of a categories where Christians disagree over how literally we would apply Scriptural standards.

An answer that applies to everyone would be that there are more issues than the short-term interests of the two parties. There is the long-term interests of everyone. We need to look not just at whether one man gains by getting an extra pair of shoes but at the long-term consequences of allowing that kind of behavior. If you can't trust people, no one can go into a pool without putting a guard on all of their possessions, and no one can make a commitment to anyone, because commitments wouldn't mean anything. Again, there may be specific situations in which you could argue for exceptions to rules against theft. But to say that anyone should be able to do whatever they want is to create a society where no one can depend upon anything. I would really like to stay as far away from such a society as possible.

[RBerman]

I didn't know where to post this, so I'm sure it will probably get moved. I just wanted a Christian perspective on this.

A friend of mine I work with is a moral relativist. I see that this philosophy pretty much defeats itself. But I don't really know how to respond to some of his comments.For example, I obviously believe some things are just wrong. He doesn't.
So a conversation might go something like this:
If a man was in a swimming pool and left his shoes outside the pool, and another man came and stole his shoes, I see that as wrong.
He sees it as "well, it's relative.It's bad for the one whose shoes got stolen, but it's good for the thief because he got a new pair of shoes."

How can I respond to this?

He's talking about a different sense of "good" than you are. He means "helpful." Certainly certain outcomes can be helpful for one person but not another. However, when we talk about things being "wrong" we're not talking primarily about outcomes. Does he believe it would be wrong for you to punch him until he's unconscious and then steal his wallet? Or perhaps better yet, you should kill him and hide the body so that he doesn't call the police. Is his definition of "good" really limited to "anything that helps you that you can get away with"? Seems like a dangerous person.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

A friend of mine I work with is a moral relativist.
He doesn't [believe some things are just wrong.
So a conversation might go something like this:
If a man was in a swimming pool and left his shoes outside the pool,
and another man came and stole his shoes, I see that as wrong.
He sees it as "well, it's relative.
It's bad for the one whose shoes got stolen,
but it's good for the thief because he got a new pair of shoes."

How can I respond to this?

Simply take something from him that he wants and is his, and walk away...
Say, for instance, the keys to his car...
When he complains, just tell him that
even though losing the keys is bad for him
teaching him in reality his error
is good for you
AND
for him...

Then throw the keys in the swimming pool...
And tell him to ask the guy whose shoes he stole
To dive down and get them for him...

Then buy him a beer...
And give him his keys back...

And tell him that the Way of God
Is NOT the way of the world...

Then pray for him...

Arsenios

Who has a lot of fun with this kind of thing...

[Theologian78]

We can divide "Good" into two kinds: Practical and Moral.

Practical good is merely that which brings about a desired result: i.e. Pleasure, the cessation of pain.
Moral good is that which conforms to God's own Character. A thing is Good because it is like God.

It is clear that we can have a Practical Good without having a moral good:

I'm in pain, so I betray my family to make the pain stop.
I desire a woman who does not desire me, so I take her anyway.

These bring about "Practical Goods" in the sense that they bring pleasure or stop pain. This is something like your shoe example.

However, we would argue that neither of these bring about Moral Good. Neither conforms to the Character of God as revealed in Jesus Christ.

Thus, if your friend is only concerned about Practical Good, and nothing for Moral good, then he or she must admit:

1. While Rape brings about a practical bad, it also brings about the practical good of the rapist's pleasure, and thus is in the same situation as the shoe.
2. The same might be said for genocide or torture.

If he/she has the guts to hold this position, then you might simply ask him/her:

"If you are only concerned with the practical good, but not the moral good, then I know that you would lie to me with no scruples about anything at all if it brought about your practical good. How then can I trust you about anything?"

The reality is, however, most people can be moral relativists about shoes, but child molestation and gang rapes are off the table. If they admit that they are bad, then they have admitted to a real universal morality. The most a real moral relativist can say of them is "I don't like them."

[RockRaider]

I didn't know where to post this, so I'm sure it will probably get moved. I just wanted a Christian perspective on this.

A friend of mine I work with is a moral relativist. I see that this philosophy pretty much defeats itself. But I don't really know how to respond to some of his comments.For example, I obviously believe some things are just wrong. He doesn't.
So a conversation might go something like this:
If a man was in a swimming pool and left his shoes outside the pool, and another man came and stole his shoes, I see that as wrong.
He sees it as "well, it's relative.It's bad for the one whose shoes got stolen, but it's good for the thief because he got a new pair of shoes."

How can I respond to this?

One solution is to simply take something of his. It would be bad for him, but good for you by his rules. You should be expected to do good right? Probably the easiest would be to wait for him to declare something is bad. When that happens, question how it could be viewed not as bad but instead as a good, all a matter of perspective right?

But in another since, he is admitting that there is a good and a bad, the question is how does one even determine what a good is, and conversely what a bad is? By his framework, these two terms cannot even really exist.

[RockRaider]

Ask him if you think one should strive to do good, as he defines it. If he agrees, then pick out something of his that you really like, then just take it. If you are expected to do good, then he really should expect that you would do that, right. It is good for you, you cannot really be concerned with what is good for him, since you are not him, how could you ever get to his point and see it as bad?

[sheharazod]

does this person ever get angry if so this person does not truly believe in relativity because if so he would not take it personaly.

[sheharazod]

self centeredness is the root of all evil

[Da Blonde]

Every moral pronouncement is relativistic, especially those which claim not to be.

[apophenia]

I'm confused. I thought Christians outright denied moral relativism. Is the question of whether or not good and evil exist independent
of how we determine what that is (legalist or antinomian) ? Do not Christians believe that there are moral absolutes?

[Aposphet]

So if you were to have your car keys on your desk, what's stopping him from taking them since it would be in his favor? Does he realize the logical conclusion on holding moral relativism if it applied to everyone in society?

[Xru]

If a man was in a swimming pool and left his shoes outside the pool, and another man came and stole his shoes, I see that as wrong. He sees it as "well, it's relative.It's bad for the one whose shoes got stolen, but it's good for the thief because he got a new pair of shoes." How can I respond to this?

Ask him if he would object if someone stole his shoes. If he does, which he will, then he is not really a moral relativist.
Try this link: http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_...nscription.htm