Quote:I have heard this expression, that there is no universal truth, it is only a matter of perspective, for a while now on this site. I understand the logic behind it, and how this comes from personal experience of the mind and our own beliefs.
However, this leads to what Pope Benedict called a "moral relativism," which justifies many forms of action under the heading of a relativistic truth (as opposed to one "real" universal truth).
I have thought long and hard on this point and have come to the conclusion that saying the truth is always relative is a loaded statement, and ultimately wrong. I am going to elaborate on an old thread about moral relativism, as I think it is a crucial topic.
Matthew
Hello, Matthew. If you could locate the original (and ancient) thread we had this discussion on, and either continue the discussion there, or at least link to it (in a new thread that you might create), that might be helpful for any others who might be interested in this discussion.
In a nutshell, both "absolute morality" as well as "(absolute) moral relativism" are equally oversimplifications on the matter. The (relative... of course) truth, interestingly, is perhaps a little more a *simultaneity* of both (oversimplified) concepts, rather than say, "50% of each".
At it's highest level. "absolute morality" might be interpreted as (a much more helpful way of seeing it) CosmoEthics.
As an example, while two individuals/nations/religions/perspectives (eg. 'Bush' vs 'Islam') who might be engaged against each other adverserially, and from each party's perspective, they are each 'right' or 'the good guy', and the other is 'wrong' or 'the bad guy'.
Does such a situation necessarily make either (and exactly) one party 'right' and the other 'wrong', or both 'right' or both 'wrong'? The answer, depending on your perspective, could be any of the above. But from the perspective of 'God', or the "Essence, Totality and Simultaneity of Each and All Beings in the Cosmos", neither one is 'right' or 'wrong', but the actions of one side would be understood as being more CosmoEthical than the other (again this would include and would even vary with individual aspects of the war/situation/individuals involved. That is, cosmoethicality might weigh in favour of one side in a specific aspect, and yet weigh in favour of the other, in another aspect).
CosmoEthics (as an ideal, as a concept, as a theorem) is simultaneously "absolute" and "relative", but neither "absolutely relative" nor "relatively absolute". As an ideal/concept/theorem, It takes into consideration *all* possible factors and *all* possible perspectives on the matter).
"Doesn't this make CosmoEthics = Absolute Morality?".
No, morality is a judgement. CosmoEthics is a motivation, an understanding, an expression of love, not a judgement. In CosmoEthics, there is no 'right' or 'wrong', but there are (of course) varying degrees of CosmoEthicality for every action. And furthermore, it is not 'absolute' because CosmoEthics (or to be precise, the specific conclusions of cosmoethicality for any particular situation) depends and is the conclusion of the perspectives of all beings involved, taking into consideration the level of evolution (which is again, relative) of the beings whose perspectives are used.
Therefore, CosmoEthics itself (capitalized, as a ideal/concept/theorem) could be regarded as nearing Absolute (mathematically infinity, rather than 'absolute all'), while the specific cosmoethicality of any situation, must be (healthily) regarded as Relative, in the spirit of "to the best of our understanding of the matter, including our consultation with (ie. taking into consideration the perspectives of the) guides & helpers of many levels, beings much higher evolved (and hence are able to better/more clearly/more intelligently/more extensively analyze the karma, complexity, possibilities and overall cosmoethics of the situation) as high as we are able to be in contact with)".
"Doesn't this make CosmoEthics = Absolute Moral Relativism?".
No, in the (equally flawed or naive) idea of 'absolute moral relativisim', the individuals involved might say since there is no 'absolute moral authority', and there is no 'right' or 'wrong', then their actions are 'right' and justified (see the hypocrisy or fallacy?).
In CosmoEthics, there is certainly no 'right' or 'wrong', which means one's actions cannot be 'right' just as it cannot be 'wrong'. Rather, the individual who adopts such a system (it's not a 'belief system' as such, but a philosophy that being relative, is ever-open to improvement and evolution of one's perspectives... CosmoEthics is like the 'enlightenment which says there's *NO* ultimate enlightenment'... enlightenment or 'adding more light to oneself' is a relative and never-ending process... evolution and existence is a never-ending process), such an individual would adopt a more humble and keen-to-learn attitude of :
"Let us think, analyze, discuss, to the best of our ability, our understanding, our intentions; and taking into consideration the input of all beings involved, including the perspectives and advice of beings who are more highly evolved than ourselves, our guides & helpers and *their* guides & helpers; what can we say about the CosmoEthics or cosmoethicality of this particular given situation?
Our conclusion is such-and-such, but we are not so presumptious or self-righteous to say that our understanding of the cosmoethics here, is the ultimate-absolute-end-all conclusion or judgement. As with everything, we understand it is relative, and a yet higher evolved being may see something we don't, or a yet undiscovered piece of data may be uncovered later that may have additional input into our understanding of the cosmoethics here. But it is the best we can come up with for now, and for the benefit of all beings involved (as best as all beings (including adverserial parties) at our level is able to see, the collective conclusion of cosmoethics here is such-and-such."
Home
Pages: 
