I don't agree with the below. Say a little girl is forced to be a prostitute. I don't care what culture or galaxy a person comes from, it is a very negative thing when a little girl is forced to be a prostitute. The same is true with a lot of things such as when a husband beats his wife. It is not relative.
Sometimes people get into this moral relativism business because they want to be more loving and therefore non-judgmental. It is fine to be non-judgmental, but another very significant part of love is compassion. When we listen to our hearts intellect based moral relativism gets thrown out the window. It is quite easy to see whether the action that is taking place is good or bad. If somebody such as a little girl is harmed, and we listen to our heart and consider her welfare, there is no way we can deny that something bad is happening to her.
Last night I watched "The Pianist." The movie is based on a true story. What happened to the Jewish people in the "true" story the movie was based on was horrible. It is okay for our souls to recognize when something unjust is done.
Some people might wonder why I speak against somebody such as Neale Donald Walsch. One of the reasons is that he makes God sound like a dimwit who doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong. I don't mean that God is judgmental, but certainly God understands when the evil actions of some cause others to suffer. Certainly God cares about when people are harmed, just as any loving person or being would care. I believe Walsch is poisoning people's mind with his moral relativistic BS.
heisenberg69 wrote on Jan 30th, 2012 at 5:31am:I believe 'evil' is a relative term i.e evil compared to what ? I have met people who I would cross the street to avoid and assuming that people's personality survives death and does'nt change much on the transition then logically these people become spirits we may wish to avoid.I think we have the choice whether we focus on them or on a more evolved, loving source.
no one is saying we don't make judgements - we make them all the time, its just that they are always embedded in a particular perspective.Its certainly true that the majority of modern western people (including me) believe that the examples you give are inherently wrong.But I can tell you that there are historical examples where those choices would have been considered the best ones in the situation e.g where prostitution was considered preferable to family starvation or a Victorian society where a respectable gentleman retained firm discipline in his home.The problem with moral absolutism is that there is the temptation to believe that the current worldview is the absolute correct moral one.I can guarantee you that in 100 years time some of our current moral choices will be seen as bordering on the wicked/evil, just as we would say that about sending small boys up chimneys 150 years ago or burning Protestants at the stake 500 years ago (interestingly the Catholics often believed that the flames 'cleansed' the heretics and may even save them from hell doing them a favour !).There is no reason to believe that we are at any absolute moral endpoint, but hopefully we are moving in a more PUL directed one ...
Home
Pages: 
